Debater's Choice

"You advance the notion "" punishments is to enhance a metaphysical quantization of peace, happiness and well-being of humanity"" but fail to meet the burden of proof thus making the argument redundant." I fail to see the redundancy. Simply stating that I have not fulfilled my burden of proof tells me nothing. It is an incredibly vague statement that leaves me confused about what I supposedly did not cover. Please clarify in a more exacting statement. If you would like to know how I arrive at this notion, then I will provide the theorem, but you will have to bear with me. First, let us look at capital punishment this way: Why do we have capital punishment? This is the first link in the logical theorem. I am simply questioning capital punishment's basis of necessity. What makes capital punishment necessary? As you, my opponent, has forwarded, the advantage of capital punishment is: "Numerous studies have been conducted showing a direct correlation between homicide rates and death penalty enforcement. The studies clearly show that when the death penalty is removed the murder rate goes up." Let me sum up this section of your passage for you: Capital Punishment is justified because it, along with the system of law and punishment, detracts from the total number of crimes (murder specifically). Thus, it's basis of necessity is that it provides safety for the societal unit that practices it. Let me further this logical chain by looking at the necessity of providing for the safety of society and its units (humanity). This is a tricky element and I think this is where my opponent becomes lost and labels my entire round an 'unfulfilled burden of proof'. Putting it another way, this chain in the theorem formulates the following question: How is the safety/survival of humanity an obligatory necessity? What reason is there for humanity to exist? I would like my opponent to seriously consider these questions. In light of an inability to provide proper objective justifications, I will now return to the original notion (I will list this in a logical chain): 1. Punishments is to enhance a metaphysical quantization of peace, happiness and well-being of humanity. 2. There is no proper objective reasoning for this peace, happiness and well-being. 3. There are no objective reasons to implement capital punishment, whose ultimate goal is, as established earlier, Number 2 in this chain. This is logic and its up to you to point to substantial logical fallacies. It also means that each chain in the logical theorem stands as proof within itself. It's up to the opposition to provide compelling detriments to the statements within. Speaking of lack of justification..: "Numerous studies have been conducted showing a direct correlation between homicide rates and death penalty enforcement." I would like to know exactly which studies are you talking about and who conducted said studies. Simply giving me 1965 UK without proper sources allows me to nullify this statement as potentially fabricated and false. ALWAYS provide sources when making such statements. Here is a good link you may use for later debates on this topic to prove this point: http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org... In sum, I believe my opponent to have misconstrued the entirety of my third round. Nonetheless, I hope this misinterpretation has been clarified. My opponent still has yet to provide compelling objective reason(s) for humanity's existence. This is the ultimate final factor in the theorem which, when fulfilled, will, according to the theorem, prove the necessity of capital punishment. The following statements stand: 1. There should be no penalties at all due to a lack of proper justification(s) 2. There should be no death penalty.