The United States should retain usage of the Death Penalty

Thanks Con, this has been quite an enjoyable debate. The Resolution:Before I begin my final round, I must point out the Con's C1. B, C2 A & B, and C3 A are 100% ir-relevant. The resolution states that the U.S. should retain the DP, the sentence of death. It does NOT state that the U.S. must retain the DP in its current forms/methodology/protocol ect. Keep that in mind while voting on this round. =Con case=C1.A. If you read Con's source, all of the supposed trauma suffered comes from executioners involved in electrocution. There is a reason that electrocution is being phaed out. Since he has not provided any examples of executioners suffering during a lethal injection, which is essentially the only currently used method, consider this point dropped. Even if I was to concede to this point, can this outweigh all of the innocent lives saved by prevention? Of course not. As for the suicides Con has linked, there is no strong evidence to suggest that the executions were the primary reasons for the suicides. Look at his source four, it states that the man suffered from huntingtons diesease and was 89 years ld when he killed himself. Huntingtons disease causes dementia.[1] That, coupled with old age and the fact that according to Cons source the man had not performed an execution for nearly 30 years before his suicide shows that his occupation was not likely a significant factor. The second one committed suicide after his wife died.[2] This point falls. B. Con again misunderstands the resolution. Because witnesses are not a necessity to perform an execution, and the resolution only mentions keeping the sentence of death, not all protocol, this is non-topical. Even if it was topical, this point is massively outweighed. C. Con misses the point of my objection. While it surely is terrible to have to see a loved one executed, it is also terrible to see a loved one imprisoned. Whether or not an execution is more terrible is ir-relevant. What IS relevant, is that since they both cause damage, using Con's logic we should not allow either of them. Con has not shown why we must take this into account when deciding on a penalty. Again, this point falls and is outweighed. Con seems to believe that a family opposes the DP and their loved ones killer is executed, they will be "an emotional wreck". This makes no sense, the damage comes from a loved one being killed not from the just execution of the killer. Con wants us to believe that those opposed to the DP would suffer severe trauma when a killer is executed. If that were true, they would suffer trauma every time any killer is executed as well, which clearly does not happen. I have also linked over 350 examples of families who were glad to see their loved ones killer executed. Con has provided none in return. 64% of Americans support the DP in cases of murder[3]. Con wants us to do away with the DP because the possbility of extremely unlikely trauma for the 29% that oppose it. This point, like Cons other points, is clearly outweighed. C2.A.Con states my definition of a death qualified jury is meaningless. This is puzzling, because his definition is merely a longer version of mine. Con gives his personal opinion that death-jurors are "inherently biased". By definition, the Death qualified jury is unbiased because they must be willing to consider the DP and life. Con's analysis falls. B.Con again misunderstands my objection. He states that I did not address his analysis of why capital cases have higher conviction rates. Well, if you look at my rebuttal I did address it, I stated that there are likely to be other causes. Con gives his personal opinion, and I gave mine in return. Personally, I think mine is more logical but since evidence on this subject is not something that can be measured (even evidence brought in would just be the opinion of another) I ask the judges to completely drop this point. C3. Con states that because I agreed that life imprisonment is more humane than burning at the stake, he wins. Con tries to compare a prisoner feeling the prick of a needle, to an agonizing burning death. Absurd. Con states that my Supreme Court evidence is invalid for being an appeal to authority. Of course it's an appeal to authority, because SCOTUS has an actual authority in this matter. Con provides only his personal opinion. He also ignores that we are debating the death penalty, I.E. an execution in principle not the methodology. Con falsely states that I did not respond to his opinion on lethal injection. The only example of lethal injection being bad that Con gives is Maryland, which I have already stating is fixing it's problem. Cons "impact" is that a prisoner might have to feel a needle prick his skin on more than one occassion. It goes without saying that this is outwieghed. =My Case=C1.A.Con ignores my source showing how murderers on death row have higher rates of re-offending, and how many commited their crimes while in custody. Extend this evidence. Con believes that since murderers have a lower rate of re-offense than robbers, we should execute robbers. Wrong. I really don't feel the need to explain why this is false, because anyone with even the slightest sense of morality can detect the distinction between brutal murder and robbery, and can understand that the punishments should be accordingly different. Con states that prisoners could still escape from death row. This supports my side, death row has better security than the average prison and since Con concedes that prisoners can escape even from death row, he's also conceded that prisoners can escape and strike again from an ordinary prison. Vote Pro just for this. B. Con states that since the number of executions is relatively small, we cannot draw a conclusion. What an odd objection. A deterrent effect has been observed even with such slight execution numbers! If we want to consider this objection valid, it actually supports more executions so that we can observe if an effect truly exists. Con states that the studies could be biased. I concede that the possibility for bias exists, however if we are to buy this objection than we can never trust any study, ever, because a possibility for bias exists. Until Con shows how they are biased, we should consider these studies sound. One sentence is nowhere near enough to invalidate three entire studies. He also drops the statistical analysis. Con states his personal opinion that criminals do not think about getting caught before they commit their crimes. This is untrue, because many murderers plan on how to dispose of the bodies before hand, how to make it look like an accident, ect. Showing that they DO think about getting caught, and take steps to avoid it before committing their crime. Refer to the phrase premeditated murder when considering this argument, murderers clearly often do think. Con states that many things can contribute to a falling homicide rate. No one is denying that, however the only factor introduced in this round has been the DP. Con has shown no reason why homicide rates have declined. I have. Even if you disagree with my argument, it is valid for the purposes of this debate so vote Pro. Con says that since states w/ the DP have higher murder rates, this disproves my point. That's false. That's like saying: Person A is fatter than person B. Person A diets and loses weight, but person B is still lighter. Therefore person A's diet failed. It is not comparing "apples to apples" so to speak.C2.Con states that the U.S. is a "tough on crime" nation, and life will not go away. Again, he states his personal opinion. I have provided actual evidence. Vote Pro. Con says the moore example is flawed, because he's been denied parole. True, however the McDuff evidence shows that sometimes criminals who have no business being released still get released. Thank you for the debate blackvoid. Sources:1. http://bitURL.net...2. http://bitURL.net...3. http://bitURL.net...