Life without parole is more ethical option than capital punishment.

I will attack my opponent's arguments in round 3. "It is the destruction of human life and is a form of cruel and unusual punishment" Cruel - causing pain or suffering. [1] The death penalty clearly does the opposite of what is, by the Merriam-Webster dictionary, "cruel." The original forms of the death penalty were either being hung or being electrocuted through the electric chair. The new form is by lethal injection, which lasts only a few seconds. Causing pain or suffering would be sending the criminals to jail without any hope of ever getting out. By definition, life without parole would be cruel. "One hundred countries have abolished the death penalty" Throughout my opponent's first paragraph, Pro fails to say why the capital punishment is unethical. He states statistics showing that many countries and states have refrained from using it, but has not shown why life without parole is more ethical. "The death penalty is merely killing for revenge" " It is clear that capital punishment is in place merely for revenge." My opponent has failed to consider the fact that not only does it take revenge, but it erases all possibilities of that criminal endangering society once more. Not only that, but the motivation that goes along with it is petrifying. If my opponent is right, he stated that life is much more than that. Criminals would understand this and therefore would not want to cause any action that would take their life away. Criminals would not forget about the extreme likelihood of getting caught because by knowing the severe consequences that go along with it, they would not want to pursue the specific action. "First off, for so called 'extreme' crimes. " Pro failed to continue the sentence, and by stating "first off," he has to continue with the object of the sentence which is "extreme crimes" but he does not continue the sentence, so therefore he has a grammatical error. "We will be a more unified and powerful country." Although my opponent has stated very minor economic benefits against the death penalty, he fails to state how it would create a unified and powerful country. "It is capital punishment and punishment is stated word for word" My opponent has once again failed to follow directions, because stated in Round 1 of this debate, if he would like to change any definitions of clarification, he would have to state them in the comments. Therefore "the legally authorized killing of someone as punishment for a crime" still stands as the capital punishment. "While this [escape of criminals from jail] is true throughout history is has only happened a mere five times." My opponent continues to not consider that people have escaped much more than "a mere five times." In 2000-2013 alone, 7 escapes occurred mostly of more than one person. Overall, the amount of people just from 2000-2013 is near 1,500 criminals roaming free today. "Your example of the escape of in Benghazi, Libya is negligent because the United States has a much more stable government and security force." Although I am getting repetitive here, my opponent once again fails to thoroughly read the resolution, which does not say anything about just the United States. "Life without parole is more ethical option than capital punishment." The resolution is about if the death penalty is more ethical, not specifying in what country. "this event has resulted in escapes, it has never resulted in a murder." As stated in my round 2 argument, the escaped criminals endanger society. They have the potential to begin their crimes again. Although most refuse to, knowing the consequences, the community overall is still in danger of them. I will extend my arguments in round 4, because the character limit is only 4,000, and I do not have enough characters to continue. [1] http://www.merriam-webster.com...