NEWBIE TOURNEY: Executing Criminals is Justified. (Death Penalty Debate)

Overview of the Debate"As you stated, you will need to negate all my following arguments regarding this debate"My opponent misrepresents what I stated in round 1. I argued that it impossible for me to refute theories of justice which are not presented in the round, thus the burden of proof is on the Pro. If negating one Pro argument causes the rest of his case to collapse, it is sufficient to negate. Also remember that any argument stemming out of the Con case that is won by myself at the end of the round serves as an independent reason to negate. My opponent conceded that he is okay with this strategy by refusing to refute it, which I explicitly brought to his attention when deploying this tactic in round 1. CaseI'm kicking contentions 1-5. My opponent conceded that he was okay with this strategy. Because part of this concession includes that these contentions are no longer considered when writing your RFDs, my opponent is unable to link offense into any of the theories of justice I have listed. He also should have done that in round 2 if he was going to at all, as no new arguments are allowed in round 3. Contention 6: Epistemic SkepticismWe do not know that we know anything. There is a possibility that life is all within our imagination, or that we live within a hyperreality. We only think we know what we believe we know because we have held these ideas as true out entire lives. Critical Rationalism holds that all theories should be criticized until proven true. The argument that something is true because it has not been disproven does not stand under Critical Rationalism because there is also another alternative: that we do not have enough information to either prove or disprove it. That is to say, we cannot accept that we know anything until it is proven true, and all other alternatives are proven false. My opponent has to prove that not only are we real in a world which allows for justice to exist, but that we can know that to be true. If he fails to do that, then even if all of his arguments stand, we cannot truly know if they are right or if they even apply, thus you must negate. RebuttalOverview of the ACMy opponent tries to argue whether or not the death penalty is justified throughout this debate. Please note that he never provides us with a framework for how to evaluate justice. What is justice? We have the definition of justified stating that the action must be just or right, but he does not make claim to what is just, what is right. Because he has not done this, he has failed to meet his burden of proof. This is true because if we do not know what justice is, we cannot know whether or not an action is justified. The closest link we have is when he states that "It is moral in a way. " However, there is no bridge constructed between justice and morality, nor is there a conception of morality presented. If we are unable to determine if actions are justified then it logically follows that it is impossible for any of my opponents contentions to justify the death penalty. Thus, they are rendered irrelevant. Do not let me opponent introduce a theory of justice in the final round as he designated rounds 1 and 2 for making arguments, not 3. Round 3 is simply the final rebuttals/crystallization of the round.