The one who passes the sentence should swing the sword

FrameworkCon has been attempting to pass off his misunderstanding of my position as a misunderstanding on "both sides." This is disingenuous. The resolution asks that the man who passes the sentence should perform the execution. I've added additional rules in Round 1 (which Con has accepted) clearly delineating that the risk of "pleasure" for the executioner is outside the scope of the resolution. We're talking about a limited scenario where no one will take "pleasure" from killing but rather focus the debate on whether the one who passes the sentence should be forced to perform the unpleasant task of execution. Contrary to Con's assertions, I have not argued that judges will take no pleasure from executing people. I've explained in Round 1 that this is outside the scope of the resolution.I've further clearly stated in Round 1 that this isn't a debate about the practicality of the situation. This is a debate essentially on morality. Should the responsibility of killing be placed on the shoulders of the decision-maker, the one who decides that killing ought to take place. We're not discussing job prospects in the legal field and whether more or less judges will apply for jobs. These are non-topical distractions. By accepting this debate without challenging its rules in the comments, Con automatically accepts Round 1 terms. This leads to nearly his entire argument (save the rebuttal to Desensitization) being rendered irrelevant.C1) Desensitizationa) This is really the only impact in this debate. Con claims I dropped it when this is the only point I emphasized upon in Round 3. The status quo allows a certain distance between the judge and jury as well as the accused. The judge or jury need not go to the execution room and personally execute the prisoner. They make this decision with no consequences and thus don't appreciate the full reality of what they are doing. Con has also dropped my analogy with the fat person who will be more likely to get healthy if he is shown the reality of his situation. Whether someone is performing an action or watchig makes absolutely no difference to the thrust of my argument. I've also refuted Con's analogy that performing executions is like a drug. People don't get pleasure from executing (this is not contestable because it is in the rules), it is an unpleasant task that must be done as part of the job. Drugs stimulate the brain's pleasure receptors and thus people will want more drugs to get their fix. b) Con claims that if I'm right, this will make judges hesitate in sending someone to execution if they rightfully deserve it. But no one "rightfully deserves" execution. Capital punishment ought to be abolished. I said this towards the end of Round 2. Con never denies this or argues against this. He implicitly accepts that the death penalty is bad. He can't now argue for the DP since it is the last round and I have no chance to respond. But extend my round 1 argument that abolishing the DP is good. It saves innocent lives from wrongful convictions and inhumane executions, and denies the state power over a human being's life. When weighing this debate, all voters *must* weigh it from a perspective that the DP ought to be abolished. If you support the DP, you need to temporarily suspend your belief in order to judge this debate. So leniency is good. c) I never argued that judges must experience rape or murder before being able to judge the moral implications of it. This is a ridiculous assertion that Con pulled out of thin air. I've only argued that if a judge were to sentence a person to death, they should figuratively "swing the sword" themselves and experience the unpleasantness caused by their decision and not be able to pass this on to a paid executioner. And when they realize how gruesome and terrible death is, they will be educated to the reality of the decisions they are making and more carefully consider it before sentencing someone to death. d) Con argues that people who don't want to execute criminals will be put off of pursuing a career as judges. But this is GOOD. My entire argument is that people shouldn't sentence others to death when they are unwilling to carry out the execution. The only people who will be deterred from becoming a judge in my world are people who intend to sentence convicts to death with the assumption that somebody else will do the dirty work for them. What Con claims will happen (judges will be put off from judging) is a wonderful thing and new judges who can take responsibility for their decisions will be judges. The only impact Con can get from this is the practicality which is non-topical anyways. Weighing mechanism- Weigh this debate from the perspective that capital punishment ought to be abolished. Con implicitly accepted this paradigm when he didn't rebut it in Round 2. He can't bring up new arguments in Round 4 because I can't respond. I'd have happily done a debate on the DP if Con pushed in that direction early on. Leniency from judges is good.- Follow the rules outlined in Round 1. This means desensitization is the sole impact in this debate as the rest of Con's arguments are non-topical. In particular points (a) through (c) outline the main points.