Punishments over crimes

Well, I'm not exactly sure how to start this out... So... Hi? Firstly, I would like to lay out the road map for this round. After this, I will present new definitions, then will refute my opponent's arguments, then introduce my own arguments. My own arguments are not coming in too late since my opponent still has a round to refute them. Definitions: Murder: the killing of another human being under conditions specifically covered in law. [1] Serious: of grave or somber disposition, character, or manner. [1] Serious Murder: the killing of another human being under condition specifically covered in law of grave or somber disposition, character, or manner. [1] Crime: any offense, serious wrongdoing, or sin. [1] Punishment: Punishment: a penalty inflicted for an offense, fault, etc. [1] Refutations: 1. Bad/Late Definition. My opponent has stated a definition in his second round argument. Firstly, this said definition is extremely late. It does not work, and is not appropriate to bring up this definition late in the debate without staying it in his first round to support his arguments. Secondly, this is not a correct definition and has no source attached; it is an opinionated definition that should not be accepted in this debate. He even stated "my definition of". I have stated the correct definition above that has a source attached and should be accepted into this debate. 2. Revolving around a false definition. My opponent's entire argument revolves around his incorrect definition of a serious murder and should therefore be discounted. 3. Misquote. My opponent has provided a misquote/misinterpretation of my argument. He brought up that the death penalty is not unconstitutional in response to one of my first round refutations. However, this response is irrelevant due to the fact that I was talking about how it is unconstitutional to "publicly humiliate, rape, cleanse, then rape again" and to "go medieval on their a$$ and put them on brazen bull or the rack". Therefore, I believe my opponents weak refutation is invalid and completely irrelevant to my argument. 4. Accident. My opponent has stated that my "accident" argument is invalid and used his false definition to support it, therefore this refutation is invalid due to false/no evidence. 5. More incorrect mumbo jumbo. My opponent stated the following: "That example is extremly you presented unlikely and this person definitely wouldn't be put in jail for life and wouldn't apply to be apart of the torture methods." I disagree since this is a highly relevant example that applies to many people, more than my opponents pea brain can think of. Also, they would be put in jail because they killed somebody and they broke the law. I even stated in my example that they did go to jail! And, how does he know that that person wouldn't apply to his torture methods? He hasn't properly specified the people it applies to, only "sick people" or "people who commit serious murders". Main Arguments: 1. This is unconstitutional. We have a constitution and laws to prevent against sick people like my opponent who believe this. There are laws regarding the punishments, and going this far would be breaking these laws and going against the constitution that our country, the USA, was founded on. 2. Put yourself in their shoes. I would like to ask my opponent to follow this, and imaging everything I am saying. Imagine that a burglar broke into your house into the middle of the night. You have your handy gun on your night stand as protection. The burglar comes into your room, and you get scared. You grab your gun, pull the trigger, and next thing you know, you killed a man. But it wasn't a burglar, it was your father. The cops come and arrest you. Now, you're in jail. You're in court, and you plead innocent, and your lawyer tries the case and to give you a fair chance. But, with your idea, opponent, you, the innocent man who did not mean to kill his father, will be "raped, cleansed then raped again then murdered." I'm sure you wouldn't want this to happen to you. Furthermore, I would like to point out that my opponent has not replied to my question, which was as follows: "Why should we unjustly treat criminals? He hasn't stated a reason why." Thank you for reading, and please vote for my side of this debate. Citations: [1] http://www.dictionary.com...