No true Christian can support the death penalty

RebuttalFirst let me deal with the what is murder question. My opponent says “Murder is not as you defined. Murder is commonly defined as unlawfully killing someone” my opponent usesunlawfully I used deliberately. If this is important please explain further, I would think the killing part is more important as killing actually refers to the death of someone.An assertion. This isn't intrinsically true and you have not proved anything here.Your second paragraph is nonsensical. Killing =/= murder, let me clarify this; Killing is the act of taking a life. Murder is the act of unlawfully taking a life. The difference is that one is permitted, the former. For example, whenever a soldier kills somebody in a warzone, he not arrested in his country of origin. He is permitted to do so, therefore taking the definition of murder, which according to the Crown Prosecution Service as including[1]: "unlawfully kills (i.e. not self-defence or other justified killing)" It is why self-defence isn't legally redarded as murder, but you have still taken a life. The point in regards to this debate was that Exodus 20:3, is that whether you agree with this or not, Hebrews thought the same thing, and had the same idea. The word for killing, as I said beforehand is "ratsakh" with "mut" for murder[2]. Clearly, whether you are in agreement does not matter. What does is that Hebrew has this idea, and in Exodus 20:3, it explicitly translates to "thou shalt not commit murder". The KJV translation is incorrect. The original Hebrew does translate to "murder", not "kill". They are different things, as one is done outside of the law and consists of war, self-defence, etc. The other is unlawful, malevolent, and outlawed by God.Or, if they were the same, this is a point you did not adress, then God would be infallible. God has caused deaths, therefore he has killed. You have asserted that because thou shalt not kill, killing is wrong. Therefore, God has wronged. But if God is omnipotent, then he cannot, therefore the only reasonable explanation was that God somehow took a life without going against is morality.And your arguments to not fit into this, whereas what I have argued thoroughly does. God did not commit the act of "mut", the Hebrew for murder, but rather "ratsakh", killing. Because he took a life lawfully, and all the men he made kill others did it lawfully too. Therefore, if it is in accordance with God's law, which only argues against murder, then one is able to kill lawfully, under the right circumstane At this point lets return to my example of Jesus not casting the first stone. If we follow my opponents logic we see that we do not reach the same conclusion that God is perfect if Jesus is equal to God. Jesus would not cast the stone. However, if Jesus is equal to God then he would have followed the laws of the old testament. As God is Jesus then God made a mistake and my opponents arguments is defeated. This is a large assertion, which is a direct challenge on the status quo. This is a bold statement, in short. Firstly, you just asserted what God and Jesus would do, as your premises, without syllogistic proof. John 8:58, states:"Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am." John 10:30-31:"I and my Father are one. Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him."John 1-:38-39:"The Father is in me, and I in him. Therefore they sought again to take him." 1 Timothy 3:16:"God was made manifest in the flesh." As I said earlier, you just challenged the status quo. There is biblical evidence that God=/=Jesus. Your BOP if you wan to withhold this, is to disprove the Bible, and that you are right. After all, you did just assert what God and Jesus would do. To say Jesus wouldn't cast stones, but imply God would, and to say God is flawed is also a challenge of the status quo. God's omnipotence is something that is obviously in the status quo, and biblical proof will be given if you do request it, so to say he is not once again is challenging what is commonly accepted. Your BOP is to prove that God would stone her, God is flawed, Jesus is higher than God and Jesus is not God. Until you meet this BOP, we can only accept what is in the status quo and your arguments are automatically negated.Jesus not actually casting stones does not mean anything. I can just now say, let he who is 14 kill iamanatheistandthisiswhy, and because I wouldn't, it doesn't mean I am not 14.Jesus, as he commonly did, used this as a metaphor for the idea of judgdement. You inferred this in your first round. To now say he actually meant this not only generates a burden for you to prove this statement, but how it does not contradict what was already written.Frankly, it is ludicrous to make any conclusions because Jesus didn't throw the stone. Maybe he didn't want to, maybe it was a metaphor, maybe he didn't include himself, but any conclusions need to be sourced and if not any conclusion once again is a naive assertion.You then go on to state that because God made a contradiction he is flawed. Once again, you have to realise that an omnipotent God is nto bound by the laws of logic. Without going into the omnipotence paradox see it simply as that a God who is truly transcendent an omnipotent can contradict himself and it is still viable. He can both be and not be, and do and not do synchronosly. To challenge this, you need to prove that omnipotence does not mean that he can break the laws of logic. Which is impossible, as by definition it does. God is omnipotent in the status quo, and you have to prove that he is not or else he cannot be at a flaw.I do not need to do much. My arguments and rebuttal based on the killing/murder dispute is on my side, therefore as it was not disputed, I hold the victory here. Therefore, if it is not illegal, it can theoretically be done. The issue with God/Jesus was not a fulfilled BOP by iamanatheist and therefore needs to be met or else the status quo, as happens in formal debate, must stand. iamanatheist has relied on assertion, upon asserion, upon assumption, upon assertion about the nature of God, Jesus, omnipotence, murder and killing and I urge the floor to vote on the side of the opposition.Thank you.Sources: [1] http://www.cps.gov.uk...[2] http://www.levitt.com...