Resolved: The US Federal Government should abolish Capital Punishment

Thanks, will go down the rebuttals is some sort of chronological order. R1: Genesis does not affirm capital punishment My opponent claims that capital punishment is supposedly supported by the Bible. However, he inherently missed the point. While I did say that the bible can bring forth understanding, we do not weigh it in today’s round. I have already shown that a literal and figurative interpretation of the Bible is possible, regardless of what school of thought you are from. Remember, the Bible is an interpretation of an interpretation of god’s word, which is then translated into different languages. This means that taking a literal interpretation of the Bible is misguided due to the differences of context. If this seems inherently “ignorant” then I would like proof as to why I am wrong. My opponent has provided my no sources to prove once and for all that he is right, which disturbs me. R2: Con conceded a point My opponent has conceded a point by being quiet which has decreased his ability to win. He stated the following: “Thus, we should execute people who god says to execute.” However, he has not listed what crimes that should be punished with death. Many people who claim to be a religious claim that sodomy is a “sin” that should be punishable by death. The federal government of the United States has not once executed someone due to their sexuality. Not only this, but the argument you present seems to be contradicting your case as you state that people who disobey God’s law should be killed, which is not what this debate is about. We are debating whether the Federal Government should abolish capital punishment. The entire premise you present, in other words, is meaningless since we are not debating the biblical law, but federal law. R3: New testament affirms old testament My opponent offers the following verses as responses to my previous rebuttal: 17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. 18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. 19 Whosoever, therefore, shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. https://www.biblegateway.com... 3 For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and you will be commended. 4 For the one in authority is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. https://www.biblegateway.com... I shall break down my response into 2 sub-points First verse The first verse I have cited does not prove anything that my opponent has tried to claim. The verse is in reference to the commandments as clearly shown in the bible which I have displayed for you using the verse you wrote in your response. Also, we need to look toward the fallibility of those who wrote the Bible, who are people, of whom the majority probably misinterpreted “God’s will.” B.Second verse The second verse has nothing to do with capital punishment, and my opponent has not explained why these apply to the debate. I would like my opponent to also elaborate on what crimes should be considered worthy of capital punishment. R4: State of the debate My opponent has used the ad hominem logical fallacy which is described as a logical fallacy that involves someone making attacks against someone rather than the contentions, according to Merriam-Webster. http://www.merriam-webster.com... I quote my opponent for the following: “And the OT is contradicted by the NT only in the minds of the ignorant and the reprobate. Which are you?” This is a dangerous habit to fall into. Remember, debate has nothing to do with personal attacks.It is logical and does not involve name-calling, or anger. Secondly, we look toward the fact that my original points are yet to be refuted, simply being pushed aside for arguments that do not pertain to the topic at hand. My opponent, for example, stated this: “Capital punishment should be made mandatory for 19 crimes because God says so, which is to say it is just.” Yet later, he responds as such: “The issue of what 19 crimes God commands mandatory capital punishment for is not relevant. The fact that He commands capital punishment alone is proof that it is just.” This is untrue. ViceRegent, with all due respect, do not simply bring up a point only to say it is not important later. You list no evidence to prove this, meaning you did not carry your burden of proof. You also do not seem to back up your points with support besides your own interpretation of certain passages in the Bible. I have already shown why there are multiple different interpretations of the bible, and why a literal translation is misguided. Thus, you show no evidence. Clearly, one should vote pro. If this post is later than a few hours it is because I did the majority of this at school and had to finish it at home. I await your response.