There Should be Gladiator Matches for Prisoners

Before I continue with the rebuttal, I would first like to elucidate on a few points.1) Pro's copied from another debate without changing anything which he admits to in the comments section. http://www.debate.org...As such some of Pro's points are not addressed to my argument and are immediately dropped. For the spirit of debating, I will continue to rebut the argument provided.2) The topic of the debate is whether 'there should be gladiator matches for prisoners'. Prisoners, as defined by the Oxford dictionary, are people legally committed to prison as a punishment for a crime or while awaiting trial. [1] Having said that, Pro's argument that gladiator matches should be held only for death row inmates is irrelevant and is dropped as well.Next, here is a summary of Pro's points.i) Justificationii) Brutalityiii) Costsiv) Cost coveragev) Escape of animals ( A point I never mentioned so this problem brought up by Pro is dropped )vi) Sources and costs of animalsvii) Death row inmates gladiator ( Point completely dropped due to the scope of the topic )viii) Benefit for inmatesRebuttali) JustificationPro stated that murderers deserve the harsh penance of death as they are not needed in society. However, as stated in my argument before, this idea is morally flawed. I will once again repeat my question, "Who are you to determine who dies and who survives?" The punishment for such crimes is controversial and should only be left for the law and judges to decide. This is because of different perspectives, the victims of a murder would want the perpetrator to be dealt with as painfully as possible while some would feel that murderers should be given second chances as they may have been forced to sin in certain circumstances. For instance, should a teenager that murdered his abusive and drunkard father to protect his mother or even siblings be immediately sentenced to death or be given a new lease to life? Admittedly, this is very controversial and my opinion would be worth as much as yours. Hence, we are in no position to decide penalties for other people; it is up to the law.On the other hand, Pro's justification is logically flawed as well. If we were to agree with Pro's reasoning that people who murder deserves death, wouldn't Pro deserve death too as Pro determined that murderers should die and this is akin to taking away other's life and 'murdering' them?Additionally, even if we were to implement gladiator matches for death row inmates as they have no place in society, this would not justify carrying out such matches for other prisoners. Death row inmates account only for the minority of prisoners. And due to the topic, Pro only debated on how death row inmates should partake in matches while completely neglecting or other prisoners. Hence, I believe Pro owes an explanation on why other prisoners deserve death in gladiator matches.ii) BrutalityFirstly, that the violence in gladiator matches isn't always to the death. Pro is contradicting himself here, it was clearly stated that Pro believes for matches to be organised to deliver death to death row inmates and yet Pro is trying to say that gladiator matches are not to the death. Secondly, Pro compared gladiator matches to UFC and football games in terms of physical contact. This is a very poorly made comparison. The clear distinction between the sports mentioned is in the presence of weapons and need to kill. With spears, swords, rabid animals, bears, and high potential for dismemberment and gore, I will let the audience be the judge of gladiator matches' brutality.Lastly, Pro agrees with me that gladiator matches are brutal, which means that even he himself supports my point that this aspect of gladiator matches is detrimental.iii) CostsPro blatantly stated the cost of the arena with no evidence whatsoever. The cost of building an arena should be clarified by Pro, and until then, Pro's point is ambiguous. Besides, Pro stated how buying weapons from blacksmiths shops will help the economy. Unfortunately, this is only one side of the coin, the price of building up an arena would greatly outweigh the economic support that buying spears swords and shields from vendors.In retrospect, Pro has not refuted my argument on how the price of medicine has to be accounted for and that prisoners who are released can contribute to the society if they are actually alive and released instead of being dead in a gladiator match.iv) Cost coveragePro's argument about cost coverage is completely unfeasible. Not only would there be little to no audience for gladiator matches which are comparable to the violent acts committed by terrorists, but even if there were an audience, how much would 5% of all proceedings really amount to. To scale this amount, $100000 earned would only to amount to $5000, a meagre amount that may not even be enough for maintenance.vi) Sources and costs of animalsOnce again, the crux of Pro's argument is fundamentally flawed. It is observed that pets are treated like family by many. Despite this, Pro assumes that pets that suddenly get rabies would be thrown into a savage and relentless fighting pit by their pet owners who adore them very much. I think that the problem of the argument can be easily seen now - there is simply not enough rabid animals to support Pro's gladiator matches as nobody would be willing to sacrifice his or her beloved pets for an easily obtained proper burial.vii) Benefit for inmatesThe benefit that Pro states here is subjective. The idea that Pro is trying to propose is that prisoners with death row can die faster to the death penalty instead of a natural death. The catch, however, is that the prisoner would have to die a diabolical and torturing death. I don't know but if you ask me, I would very much prefer living a life with food, water, and shelter and die to natural causes to being mercilessly ripped apart by others with the sadistic laughs of spectators being the last thing I hear.Moreover, other inmates with no death penalty should definitely not be subjected to such mishappenings. Regardless, Pro has failed to show why these prisoners should be sent to gladiator matches like lambs to the slaughter.With this, I conclude my rebuttal of Pro's argument. I hope Pro would provide his valued viewpoint on the matter and refute my argument. Looking forward to a fresh and enlightening conclusion to this debate. Good luck to Pro.