A just society ought not use the death penalty as a form of punishment.

This will be my final speech so I would like to clarify several mis confusions in today's round. First, If we analyze my opponents previous speech, his only focus now is on the just society definitions and how it contradicts my case. Aside, from that he completely drops and agrees to all the arguments I made on my previous speech, solely from this you can vote for me already. Even if you don't buy that let's see what he actually says in his previous speech. Once again, don't let his fancy analogies and writing confuse your judgment in today's round. The first argument he tries to make is I am trying to bring up hypothetical examples to apply it to real world situation. First, Where in my case or my speech am I trying to link my case to real world situations, None. Second, Obviously I am focusing on a hypothetical society that was defined by both of us since it's a just society. Lastly, there is no restriction on why we can't debate on a just society since this is a debate and the point of a debating this topic is to learn and motivate our critical thinking skills. This just society might not exist, but we create one to set it as a criterion or example for us to follow or achieve it in the best of our abilities. Since these are true, you can disregard all the arguments he makes up a real world society since I never focused at all in my speech on real world situations or arguments, so don't let him twist my speech around to win today's debate. Now he then talks about how a just society can still be flawed as he brings up an analogy such as purchasing groceries at a supermarket. This analogy is totally irrelevant as we can see the magnitude of justice and purchasing grocery is completely different since once involves a person's life while purchasing grocery places value on an item. Clearly, we can't place a value on human since we are all equal. Which then brings me to my next question is that he still never answered to my main key argument that he is being completely contradictory about how a just society will commit excessive or non-excessive punishments when he states himself a just society won't do so. Obviously, the reason it won't do so is because it is a just society, the people who lives in this society might be bad and commit crimes, but the way the just society is structured and setup will at last render and punish these criminals. Lastly, he tries to persuade you with these fancy arguments about the United States Constitution. You can't buy this at all as the resolution clearly states a "Just Society", my opponent is automatically making the assumption that the United States is a just society. If you buy his case then your saying the United States can be portrayed as a just society, which is completely false. No way United States is a just society when we commmit so many unjust actions such as invading Iraq for oil, imperializing many other nations under the name of creating a democracy and many more actions. So you can't buy his last finishing argument, it might sound nice, but if you think about it. His argument is completely irrelevant as he misunderstands the whole concept of this resolution. In Conclusion, you can already vote for me now, there shouldn't be any reason for you to read his next speech as he first drops my consent argument so we can then agree that he does not know how to reply to this since it is true. Then he does not answer my key part argument on his case that if his logic is true then "should we not punish every single criminal that commits a crime since we run a chance of violating their right with excessive punishments?" Lastly, I refuted every single key points of his case and show you that just because you can write nicely doesn't mean you can win due to the fact his arguments are unwarranted. From these reasons, you must vote for me, Thank you!