the death penalty is justified.

"if punishments dont prove the crime is wrong then why do we have punishments?" We have punishments because we KNOW the crime is wrong. We then use an appropriate punishment FOR the crime. Your way of thinking is reversed. The crime comes first, a crime that we already KNOW to be wrong. Afterwards, we apply a penalty towards it. If you were right, then I could make up a penalty, let's say, Slapping you across the face with a rubber chicken tied to a number 2 pencil, and accuse you of dropping an "e" from the word "true" in your name. Although this is not in and of itself illegal, by your logic, the fact that a punishment exists, PROVES that the crime is wrong. Therefore, it is just for me to slap you across the face with a rubber chicken tied to a number 2 pencil for dropping an "e" from the word "true" in your name. "if we look at the majority then we will see that the death penalty doesnt deter as much as we think. thus its pointless to continue to have something that doesnt work compared to other things." Argumentum Ad Populum fallacy. The popularity of a belief does not make it logically valid or the argument sound. It is a fact that the death penalty does not deter as well as we think, but that is not to say that another method is MORE of a deterrent. Even if you have studies that prove another method is a better deterrent, I doubt it would fulfill the other needs for a punishment (Proper punishment, Proper vengeance) better than the death penalty. "if you are not dealing with what people may want or would want then why are you so concerned about the family of the victim? isnt that dealing with what people may want or would want?" I am not. I simply offered that as a counterpoint to your argument about what the criminal's family may want. I am concerned about what people are owed, what they are due, what they deserve, in accordance to justice, ethics, and morality. "and yes i do believe it is ethical for the murderer to get bargaining rights. all the other crimes in america get the same thing so its equality. its justice. and most murders are the result of someone being wronged. while the murderer may not have been thinking about the correct way to address the problem he was still wronged as well." If the murderer was wronged, then there will be a separate trial for that, and he will be the victim while the other person will be put on trial. However, if the one who wronged the murderer was the murderer's victim, then justice no longer needs to apply because the murderer acted as judge, jury, and executioner alone. All the other crimes in America don't end in irreparable damage. Like you said, nothing can bring the dead back. If a person is convicted of murder and sentenced to death, what right would he have to say "please lessen the sentence to life imprisonment on the basis that my family doesn't want to see me die?" I do not believe there is any basis. "the united states just had to borrow money from china for oil and you are saying that money shouldnt be an issue??? if we dont have money then how else will we punish the other people who commit crimes?" This is another debate for another time, but I will answer your question. There are many, MANY ways for the country to make money. Unless you can argue that banning the death penalty is the only way of making money, your point is useless. "if this person feels no guilt perhaps it is because he or she is unstable in the mind. in which case they shouldnt be getting the death penalty anyways." I find this to be a very convincing argument. There's unstable in the "He's a cold blooded killer, a despicable fiend, how can he do that?" way, and there's unstable in the "He eats crayons and sniffs used tampons" way. Neither feel guilt, but only the latter is excused from typical capital punishment in preference of a mental institution. "this person eventually loses their life too. just not in the brutal way the death penalty is associated with. thus life imprisonment can make up for the loss of a life." I just wonder. Wouldn't the victim, the dead person, just absolutely LOVE to be imprisoned for life rather than murdered? I doubt any reasonable person will answer "no", which means the two are absolutely NOT equal. AT ALL. My opponent has spent a lot of time arguing on the part of the murderer, hoping that justice in some way, shape, or form would shine a light down on them. Justice is not about mercy. Justice is about fairness. A punishment must: 1. Punish the criminal 2. Avenge the accused 3. Deter the population The death penalty does all three. My opponent argues, however, that life imprisonment may be a better substitution, but has not given any solid argument as to why. 1. Punish the criminal Life imprisonment and Death are completely different and not a fair trade at all. Since the victim's life was stolen from him at an instant, for no justifiable reason, we cannot in good conscience substitute life imprisonment for death FOR NO GOOD REASON. Of course, there are always exceptions, but in the event that there is no exception, there must be no substitution because the punishments are not equal. 2. Avenge the victim Setting aside the fact that the killer lives, probably a good 30-40 more years while the victim does not, this is also unfair to the victim's family. Think of how traumatic it would be for the relatives of the deceased to know that somewhere in the world, the killer is still alive. The fact that the killer is imprisoned does not completely remove the possibility that the killer is enjoying his life, an activity he has deprived another being of doing. 3. Deter the population. The fact that the death penalty is a deterrent cannot be argued. The fact that life imprisonment is a deterrent cannot be argued. However, there has been no evidence provided saying that life imprisonment is a better deterrent than the death penalty. In this case, there is also no reason for substitution.