October beginner's tournament: The USA should get rid of the death penalty

It turns out I could use it as well. I also want to thank YYW for being my mentor during this tournament. In this round I'm going to defend against pro’s rebuttals and show why the USA should have the death penalty in all states. 1) The death penalty prevents murderers Pro points out three things in his rebuttal. He first addresses that there are more than 14.000 murders every year even though I said it was 12.000. The source I used listed the amount of murders per state. The total of them all was roughly 12.000. It's strange the total is different from what the source of my opponent says. Since the opponent of pro is more reliable I believe his source is correct. However, the 12.000 VS 14.000 murders discussion isn't important. It was used to give more context; putting a cherry on top of my argument. Pro damaged the cherry, but the argument itself still stands. In his second point pro addresses my argument by attacking this quote: “Our results suggest that capital punishment has a strong deterrent effect; each execution results, on average, in 18 fewer murders - with a margin of error of plus or minus 10. ” (round 2, con, source 3) Pro claims this quote doesn't provide evidence to back up my case. However, this is an empty attack. If the death penalty has a deterrent effect we can punish killers with the death penalty. The deterrent effect makes sure that murderers in the future are prevented. Since murders are bad, preventing murders is good. Therefore the death penalty is good. Pro also claims my source says the death penalty deterred at least 8 murders with a 95% confidence level. It looks like pro made a mistake with statistics, which is understandable, because statistics is complicated. The source is saying the deterrent effect of one death penalty is between the 8 and 28 fewer murders with a 95% certainty. Pro forgot the top limit of 28. Then pro refers back to his arguments in round 2. Over there he claimed the death penalty is expensive and ineffective. I already addressed the costs in round 3, but since the effectiveness is more a rebuttal than an argument I didn't address it in round 3. I’ll defend the effectiveness in this round. Pro presents three reasons why the death penalty is ineffective. First of all he points out that Amnesty USA believes the research that’s done so far to figure out if the death penalty has a deterrent effect is flawed. But just because past research is flawed doesn't mean there is no deterrent effect. The second reason is that 88% of the criminologists believe the death penalty doesn't have a deterrent effect. However, this is an argument from authority and it isn't empirical evidence. Arguments from authority are not the most powerful, because the authorities can make mistakes. The third reason pro presents is a graph that shows that states with the death penalty have, on average, more murders per 100.000. But because correlation isn't causation it’s dangerous to draw conclusions from this. The third attempt pro makes to refute my argument is showing that the time between sentencing and execution has increased through the years. However, this won't influence the deterrent effect a lot. After all, the news mainly reports about the punishment killers get and the execution. The time in between isn't mentioned a lot. Therefore it won't influence the deterrent effect a lot. 2) The death penalty is a tool to help police in investigations Pro starts by pointing out that this debate is about the USA and not ‘many countries’. He's right about that, but since the USA is included in the ‘many countries’ his rebuttal isn't rebutting much. He then continues by admitting that using the death penalty as a threat is in some cases an effective way to save time in investigations. However, pro thinks it's unethical. But ethics is very complicated. Many people disagree about what is and isn't moral. Pro and I also disagree. I think using the death penalty in negotiations is ethical, because this saves the cops time. This saved time can in turn be used for other tasks (eg: patrolling). These other tasks can prevent crime. Since crimes cause suffering and suffering is bad, preventing crime is good. So the death penalty is moral, because it can indirectly prevent suffering. But this ignores pro’s version of morality. Because pro didn't show why his version of morality is more important than mine, it can be swept aside easily. The third point pro tries to make is that my argument isn't connected to the resolution. This is another empty attack. I already pointed out above how the death penalty indirectly prevents suffering, which is a moral thing to do. 3) The death penalty provides relief for victims Pro is under the impression I favor the death penalty, because I want vengeance for the families of the victims. But the thing is I never used the word vengeance. So the majority of the rebuttal pro made isn't rebutting what I said. But it's probably required to elaborate why I'm not advocating for vengeance. Vengeance is about looking back. Somebody harmed you in the past and to make things even you want to harm the killer. The death penalty is a tool to move forward. It's a very traumatizing experience if somebody who is close to you gets murdered. Things like that will drag you down. It's hard to move forward when you know the killer is still breathing air. But once the killer is executed you can close the book and let most of the burdens go. Now you will know for certain the killer will never hurt somebody else again. But that's not everything pro argued. He also argued imprisonment is better than the death penalty with this sentence: . .. and instead make sure that their killers are locked up in prisons for the rest of their lives, closed off from the outside world, and unable to do harm to anyone or anything else. This is not much of an argument against the death penalty and in favor of locking up the killer for the rest of his life. With the death penalty the killer is also locked up in prison for the rest of his life, closed off from the outside world, and unable to do harm to anyone or anything else. Some time later pro said: Knowing that the enactor of harm and violence is completely closed off from the outside world and unable to do any more harm is closure enough for those grieving. Pro doesn't have the authority to determine what is and isn't enough closure for those grieving. Neither do I. Only the people who are grieving can tell what is and isn't enough closure. People like Ann Pace, the woman from the story I told in the second round. According to her the death penalty helps her get peace. A bit further pro says: . .. (The death penalty) is essentially the government killing off criminals for revenge. This isn't true. If the government wanted revenge they would want to give as many killers the death penalty. However, in my second argument I mentioned that the police can drop the death penalty in exchange for information. This is evidence that the government allows killers to avoid the death penalty, which in turn means the government doesn't want to take revenge. The last quote in this paragraph I'm going to defend against is this: Violent murders resulting in sentencing of capital punishment is often decided with feelings, because those in the jury cannot help but think about if their loved ones or friends had been the victims of these crimes. This is where unfairness and inequality come into play in regards to capital punishment, because it is hard not to take the emotional route and subjectively prefer the case of the victim. Pro believes the decisions judges make are heavily influenced by emotions and that this will be less without the death penalty. However, judges are only allowed to determine if the defendant is guilty or not. The punishment isn't relevant. Therefore getting rid of the death penalty isn't going to change a thing over here. 4) Overview Pro end with this overview: Throughout his arguments, my opponent provides arguments devoid of both logical reasoning and morality… These arguments provide little to no substance in regards to the resolution… This overview isn't very polite. Pro claims my arguments neither have logical reasoning nor morality. They are both there. This is therefore an empty argument. The second claim about how my arguments don't link to the resolution is just as empty. Conclusion: A lot has happened in this debate and pro has proved to be a great opponent even though some of his rebuttals weren’t the strongest. But there can be only one winner, so I'll summarize the debate from my point of view to point out why the voters should vote for me. My arguments: - The death penalty has a deterrent effect. This point was fiercely attacked, so the judges are allowed to determine what to do with this argument- The police can use the death penalty as a tool in negotiations. This saves time, which in turn can get used to prevent other crimes- The death penalty helps the grieving to find peace and move forward Pro’s arguments: - The death penalty is expensive. This was refused by pointing out the costs aren't way higher in all states and by showing the extra costs are used to make the case more just and free from errors- Innocent people get executed. This was not only tried, but even turned by pointing out the alternative is that the innocent people get thrown in prison and that the extra safeguards caused by the higher costs minimize the amount of innocent people getting punished I hope the voters had fun reading the debate so far and I'll now hand the debate over to pro so he can write the last part.