Liberals tournament R1: There Should Be a Death Penalty.

Thank you for your very interesting points and your slightly vehement rebuttals to my previous arguments.Your first point was all about justice. You said that, in a murder case, the victim's loss is infinite and so the perpetrator's loss should be infinite. But the death penalty almost defeats what you're trying to say here. For if you kill the perpetrator, he does not have 'pain, suffering, [and] heartache' for eternity. Why? Well, because he's dead. If you kill him, he does not receive infinite justice. If you look up (especially in US prisons) it'll be much worse a punishment. This is a point I made at the end of my speech and which you picked up on quite severely: 'Next Con argues something surprising. That a life in prison causes more suffering than the death penalty. First, a just punishment isn’t how much we can make a prisoner suffer, that’s the very opposite of a just punishment. Second, this seems contradictory, as Con himself critiqued the death penalty, claiming it was “....not justice, it is cruelty, it is not humane, it is cold-blooded”. Yet now Con is saying a life in prison is more cruel. This means, if Con wishes to be consistent, he is against a life imprisonment and for a death penalty.' Firstly, I never said that life imprisonment is 'more cruel' I simply said that it was a greater success of justice than the death penalty. Secondly, I didn't say I supported life imprisonment, but - in order to make a more balanced debate - it is necessary to include a wide range of different viewpoints and arguments to reach out to many different people. Your rebuttal just seems to be a desperate gasp for more to say and more to criticise._Your second point is entitled 'Deterrence' but, really, the death penalty is often an encouragement. You start your point my saying 'Everyone has the will to survive', only this is far from true. Sandy Hook, murder-SUICIDE. Columbine, murder-SUICIDE. No, my friend, not everyone has the will to live and when people do lose that will and in the process lose their minds there can be grave consequences. The death penalty, for these suicidal idiots, is only a chance for them to be GLORIFIED by their horrific actions. The death penalty encourages these idiots to have their face seen all over the news, all over the world, by everybody. To make them famous, to make them heroic, to make them martyrs would be an incredibly foolish thing to do and I have no doubt that you would see the number of mass-shootings and other murders SOAR._There are obviously times where self-defence is necessary and loss of life is inevitable. But in the case of the death penalty, it isn't necessary to lose that life. It is an unnecessary waste.In your first counter-argument, you also go on about 'they haven't committed an injustice'. Well, guess what? I COULDN'T CARE LESS WHAT THEY'VE DONE. This is a human being, this is one of our own. This is a person to be loved, to be disciplined on their journey through the world. To take that journey from them is the worst thing you can do to human._The right to life and the right to liberty are vital and central human rights. I understand that, by disciplining someone through prison, we are sacrificing their right to liberty. But this sacrifice is for the greater good: to give justice to the family's of the victims of murder, to give justice to the victims of other crimes, to slowly pry out the deathening feeling of guilt in the perpetrator, to reform them, to make them more human. To give them back their liberty so they may treat it as the fragile object it is._And my invisible hippy in the sky God do you like to go on about fallacies. But you're wrong: 'Con also states that “Two wrongs do not make a right”. This commits the fallacy of begging the question. He’s assuming the death penalty is a wrong, to prove it’s wrong.' I wasn't talking of the death penalty as being wrong. I was talking of killing as being wrong - which it is, if unnecessary. Murder is killing. It is widely accepted that murder is wrong. The two wrongs are the same, identical. The two wrongs are: killing._'Guilt by association' - sounds cool but, again, I couldn't care less. I debate, I argue. I MAKE MY POINT AND I MAKE IT STRONG. You can bring up your little fallacies, but it makes your argument no better. You succeed only in belittling yourself. And it's a no brainer that the countries I listed are most barbaric countries that you really would be guilty to associate yourself with, and it's best we distance ourselves as far away from them as is possible. The death penalty is mediaeval, it's old-fashioned, it's silly and it's got to go. _Now you're talking about the fact that 'prison causes suffering to the family too'. Yes, that's correct. But which do you think is worse, Magic? Imprisoned loved-one or DEAD loved-one? Hmm????? As an East Londoner would say: use your loaf._Some discrepency regarding my resources. I have used only bbc.co.uk/ethics to aid me in this debate and all statistics and fact can be found on there.Thank you for another enjoyable round of debate.