Being in favor of abortion and against the death penalty is hypocritical and typically liberal.

I will start by addressing your points from the last round: "I also have a Definition for you Hypocrite: 1. a person who pretends to have virtues, moral or religious beliefs, principles, etc., that he or she does not actually possess, esp. a person whose actions belie stated beliefs. http://dictionary.reference.com...... which is exactly my point." Hypocrisy is saying one thing and doing another. People who hold these views only say that they support a woman's right to choose and that the death penalty is unjust for the various reasons I have previously stated. That's not hypocritical. It would be hypocritical for them to bomb and abortion clinic or call for the execution of a murderer, but saying what they believe is not hypocrisy. "At conception life begins, that is a fact." True, an embryo may be alive, but that doesn't make it a person. You can only "murder" sentient beings. A house plant is alive, but if I cut it down that doesn't make me a murderer. You haven't addressed my argument that an embryo is not a sentient being until a certain point, and therefore it is not hypocritical to deny it the same rights as one would give to an actual living, breathing, thinking, sentient human being. "You also state: "Many studies have shown that the death penalty is no more effective as a deterrent to murder than life without parole." This is complete bull." How? I provided two studies, one from the Yale Law Journal, another from Crime and Delinquency Journal, both of which are peer-reviewed sources knowledgable to the subject. Nice try. "Saying that 127 people could have been wrongfully executed isn't a reflection of the death penalty in any way. You could make that argument about life sentences, we should abolish those sentences too?" The thing about life sentences is that they are reversible, you can release them from prison and pay them retributions for their false imprisonment. Can you un-kill someone? Until you can, then your argument doesn't hold water. "As far as the death penalty being a deterrent, we don't use it enough to be a deterrent!" The only countries that execute more people than the USA are China, Pakistan, Iran, Iraq, and the Sudan (1). That should give you some insight into your twisted logic. Are these really the countries you want us to emulate as far as domestic policy goes? "China executes around 1400 people a year and they have a low violent crime rate." This is completely laughable. China's government has one of the worst human rights records in the world. The reason China executes so many people is because there are a total of 68 offenses punishable by death, including theft, embezzlement, tax fraud, and numerous other non-violent crimes (2). For those of you voting, I implore you to consider the implications of my opponent's suggestions. "Well, when you consider that Blacks make up 47.6% of all murderers, and only about 10% of the population, that is about right." You seem to have misinterpreted my statistic here. I'm not just saying that more blacks get the death penalty, I'm saying they are MORE LIKELY to get it. If a black man kills person X, he is 38% more likely to get the death penalty than if a person of another race were to kill person X. Understand? "it is typically liberal is to accuse everything they don't agree with as being racist" Not sure what your point is here, but I have provided facts and statistics to show that the application of the death penalty that is racially biased. You didn't refute those statistics in any way. "The death penalty is a PENALTY, it isn't a random thing, they don't pull people off the street and execute them on a whim. Some times death is necessary to support life. http://www.benbest.com...; This is my favorite part of your argument. I have chastised you for not providing any evidence to support your arguments and you finally do...and it supports MY argument! Here is a quote from the page you cited: "On average, two countries per year have abolished the death penalty since 1976, the year it was abolished in Canada. Since then the Canadian murder rate has dropped from about 3 to about 2, undermining the argument that capital punishment is a deterrent." Wow. Awesome. Thank you for that. "Think about what your saying! You want to kill children and protect killers! That is the bottom line. That is evil." This is what those in the debate community like to call a straw man. You can't refute any of my arguments, so you misrepresent them and then call them evil. I don't want to kill children, I wish there weren't any need for abortion, but I'm not going to tell a woman what to do with her body. As far as protecting killers goes, I think life in prison is a pretty bad way to live out your years and I think people who actually commit murder deserve harsh punishment. "If we had a standard for the death penalty, like any type of murder results in the death penalty which is to be carried out within a year or after their first and only appeal. The murder rate would decline. If abortion were made illegal, the number of people using protection while having sex would increase, making people safer. The world would just be a better place." Once again you fail to support your arguments with anything but your own opinions. I can say that if we outlaw violent video games, murder rates will drop, but that doesn't make it true. Your entire argument is opinion-based, and you simply aren't qualified to be making the statements you're making. There are people out there who have actually dedicated their lives to researching these topics, and they know a whole lot more about them than either of us. That's why I cite their studies and research. You might want to consider that in the future. I have shown that 1: Hypocrisy is to profess to believe something that you don't actually believe or practice, this is not a characteristic of the people my opponent is intent on villifying. 2: There are logical reasons to believe in both positions, and doing so does not make one evil, immoral, or hypocritical. 3: My opponent's arguments are not based in fact, they are based on opinion. 4: In the process of making his arguments, my opponent has praised such oppressive entities as the Chinese government for killing more of its own citizens than the rest of the world combined. This is morally questionable at best. What else is there to say? Vote con. 1. http://www.amnestyusa.org... 2. http://news.bbc.co.uk...