Resolved: The United States of America should abolish the Death Penalty

My opponent starts off his last round asserting that I never explained how the death penalty could be cheaper. This is just not true. Last round I provided a link that showed why the death penalty is so expensive (. https://www.themarshallproject.org...) and then I explained that it would be way cheaper to merely "have two lawyers, have a judge, get an unbiased jury, and have a good quick trial. If we won't know who did it, we set the person convicted free. It should never be millions of dollars. And for crying out loud, we need to stop paying people for doing things for their country. It use to be seen as a responsibility to get involve in the government. People don't deserve to get paid all that money for these cases. " Instead of responding to what I said, my opponent ignored it and pretended like I never said anything about how to lower the costs of the death penalty. Later, my opponent asserts (without evidence) "that the number of innocents who were killed were much higher than they were back then. " I don't even know how to respond to that statement considering it makes little sense. My opponent then goes on to explain that a gun costs more than .25 cents and that these prices have not been adjusted for inflation. What a bizarre response. This new cost I have come up with is way less expensive than life in prison and is way less expensive than the current system of the death penalty costs. My solution still stands. It was then stated that "Con seems to believe that a judicial process is very cheap, but I don't understand why he thinks that. In the debate, he provided no source that shows that the death penalty was cheaper in the past, and simply is assuming many things. " The fact is that I have not assumed nothing. It is common sense that killing someone can be done with a .25 cent bullet. I don't need a source to prove that. And I never once claimed that the judicial process is cheap in its current state. I was merely stating that it does not cost much to kill people. The key to keeping things cheap is to get less people involved, and to have a quick trial. Then he says that "Con seems to want to sacrafice the judicial procress, just to minimize costs. I'd like to remind Con that excecuting an innocent person is a direction violation of the Constitution. Life Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. " I never once said to get rid of the judicial process. .. but I am for a quick trail life the constitution says to have (. https://en.wikipedia.org...). Things are much cheaper when the trail is not drawn out for several years. And allow me to remind Pro that the death penalty is constitution. That reason only should be reason enough to keep it. But my opponent never actually responded to this point I made at the end of round two. And of course I would agree that killing innocent people would be unconstitutional. But the quick trial would only execute the person if they were sure they did the crime. Pro claims that "Con says I forfeited morality, but i did not. I argued that the argument has no impact since both sides are justified. Regardless, there is no place in this debate, that Con showed that morality is more important than cost. " The fact is that he did forfeit morality when he said that "I still believe the DP is morally correct. " But if Pro want to forfeit morality. .. then I guess all his arguments about innocent lives can be dropped if morality has no place in this debate. Lastly, my opponent says "he is arguing based on semantics and fails to provide realistic and civilized solutions to address the situation. " The truth is that my opponent was hoping for a quick win in this debate. Proof of this is that he tried to change what the debate was about earlier in the debate. Again, I hope the voters can see this. I gave plenty of evidence and other examples to make my points. Vote for Con because Con. .. a. Gave constitutional/moral arguments for the death penalty while Pro only gave arguments against the flaws within the system and didn't argue against the system itself. b. Had two great arguments for the death penalty which were ignored by Pro.