Liberals tournament R1: There Should Be a Death Penalty.

Thanks. There’s a bit of a problem here. My opponent violated the debate format, he defended his arguments when he wasn’t suppose to. The last round was purely for refuting your opponents arguments in round 2. For violating the debate format, this warrants a conduct point against Con. Since Con has another round and the tournament requires 3 rounds of debating, I will have to respond to Con’s objections. Justice Con claims the death penalty is not a just treatment because the murderer dies and thus can’t experience suffering, pain, and heartache. However, this isn’t what justice is. Justice is just behavior or treatment [1]. The point of it isn’t to cause pain or suffering. Con has not attacked the idea that the victim suffers an infinite loss, then how is it that we can deliver justice? This is something Con has yet to answer properly, because imprisonment is only finite. Then Con attacks my rebuttal to his argument. First, it does seem I misspoke when I said Con supported a life imprisonment, he only said “30 years”, sorry please disregard that. Anyway it still seems Con still has a contradictory position. He claims he never stated it was more cruel, but this is just a semantical evasion. The definition of cruel is [2] 1. Willfully causing pain or suffering to others, or feeling no concern about it: 2. Causing pain or suffering Con then tries to suggest imprisonment causes more suffering “If you want this person to suffer as you suffered then you will surely oppose the death penalty. Which is worse: being locked up in a horrible cell with people you hate for 30 years, or being slowly lowered into blissful darkness as you prepare to sleep forever..? Hm? Which sounds like more suffering? Which sounds like more of a punishment?” Yes, he never said the words “It is more cruel”, but he is suggesting it causes more suffering. Previously he argued against the death penalty because it causes suffering. This was my main point, instead of attacking it, Con attacks trivial errors and plays with semantics. My argument remains standing Deterrence Even suicidal people have the instinct to survive. Having the will to survive doesn’t mean you can’t go against it. He brings up that the death penalty would not deter crazy suicidal murders. While this maybe true, it is only true for a certain class of people. It would still help the greater good because not every single murder is suicidal. Furthermore, a murder-suicide would also make imprisonment irrelevant. However, this doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t imprison murderers just because a small minority of murderers commit suicide after. Murderers committing a murder to become famous would be a problem of the news industry, not the death penalty. A widespread report of execution isn’t necessary for a death penalty to exist. Con says he has no doubt that the death penalty will increase murderers, this has not been proven, it’s an ipse dixit. Something Con completely ignored was my exhausting list of studies proving the opposite. The CJIF list demonstrates the death penalty does deter crime [3]. This was my main point, I explained what deterrence was, then give a list of studies proving it works. My central point was undisputed and thus my argument remains standing. Miscellaneous Con agrees sometimes killing is necessary. Thus he concedes that killing isn't always wrong. So now the argument would be if justice by death penalty is necessary, not that killing is wrong. This means Con committed the moving goal post fallacy. Con then goes onto say he doesn’t care what someone has done, they are a human being. This is a strawman fallacy. I was pointing out why Con’s 9/11 analogy is a false analogy. Con concedes that it is reasonable to remove some rights for the greater good. However, the same is true for the death penalty. The CJIF has proven that. Con says I like to go on about fallacies. Yes I do, a fallacy is an error in reasoning [4]. In a debate, you should point out errors in reasoning. Con says he does not commit a question begging fallacy because he’s referring to killing, not the death penalty. This is trivial, since the death penalty involves killing. Anyway the his argument assumes the death penalty is unnecessarily killing, which Con has not shown. He moved the goal post. Next he claims that he couldn’t care less that he committed a guilt by association fallacy. He should care because a fallacy is an error in reasoning. Essentially Con here is claiming that he doesn’t care that he has an error in his reasoning, then says he makes the argument strong. I’m sorry but it doesn’t matter how strong you present your argument, it won’t make it right. This is a debate, fallacies matter. Saying you don’t care that your reasoning has an error, isn’t an argument, isn’t a rebuttal, it’s unjustified denial. He says pointing out fallacies doesn’t help my argument, but in my last round I wasn’t trying to make an argument for the penalty, I was rebutting your arguments against it. It may not help me because that’s not what it’s meant to do, but it hurts your argument. He then asks, which is worse a dead loved one or a imprisoned one. I would say what is the worse is knowing a loved one committed a terrible crime. Anyway, my point isn’t to say a loved one being imprisoned is worse, I’m saying arguing that it causes suffering works both ways. Con has dropped several points like cost effectiveness, the death penalty being too invasive, that murderers should get a second chance, and anaesthetic not being used properly. I’d like to thank Con, Bsh1, and the Judges. Thanks all. Sources _________________________________________________________________ [1] http://www.oxforddictionaries.com... [2] http://www.oxforddictionaries.com... [3] http://www.cjlf.org... [4] http://www.nizkor.org...