The Death Penalty should be made illegal in the USA.

Contention 1(a): Value of human life. My opponent states that she is Pro death penalty in extreme cases (e. g. 5-9 people) because it strikes fear into the hearts of criminals. I think it's clear to see that's not the case. If it were, there would be lower crime rates in the states Pro death penalty. Alas, what do we see? We see that states with the death penalty have higher murder rates in every single state! [1] So, why I can't say that it encourages killing from this alone; I can conclude that the death penalty does not discourage murder. [1] As for jails comforts - whether you think that they receive too much is irrelevant; my opponent uses a red herring fallacy. Contention 1(b): The asterisk. I did not mean whether it is written in the Bible, as that would break the "no religious arguments" rule. No, I meant in general. My opponent suggests that it's a moral thing. However, in that case; I would ask my opponent to show where it is written in, say, the law. The US government generally outlaws things that they consider to be immoral - prostitution, murder, thievery etc. .. So where's the moral law confirming our opinions on sacrifice of right to live? There isn't one, so we have no right to kill people on those grounds. (If there is one, I would ask my opponent to provide a source for this). My opponent consents that it is hypocritical and that executing someone does justify getting executed yourself. However, she leads us onto a semi-red herring fallacy about "inner demons"; suggesting that we shouldn't execute them because of these "inner demons". This rounds like a) A religious argument. (Demons outside of religion(s))? b) This suggests that murderers do not actually have any "inner demons"; but I'd contest this. You often see convicts wrestling with thoughts and "demons". Contention 2: Innocent executions. My opponent mis-phrases my argument to come across as something along the lines of: "He's convicted, and the next day, he's executed". I did not suggest this, and I apologise if it came across as such. In this example, I meant that, despite whatever, he's executed. As for the logic, it could well be that, at the time, the evidence suggested that he was guilty (say, if he was framed), but evidence came *years later* to demonstrate otherwise. True, at the time, he was found guilty, but he was still executed. An innocent man executed by the government. My argument remains in tact. On my second scenario, my opponent merely says: ". .. but I'm not all convinced" and the above argument as a counter. As the above argument doesn't work, the remaining argument is merely opinion. Opinion does not equal argument. No need for a refute. Note 1: The US' stance of "do as I say, not as I do. " I'm not comparing murderers and rapists to the US government - not at all. I am merely taking a stance of fact. Do as I say = don't kill people But not as I do = because I kill people (just legally). That's all the note was about, and it's very hypocritical. Contention 3: Encouraging murder. "but it WILL MAKE them think twice before acting" I have two points on this: a) Source one suggests otherwise[1] and b) even if they do think twice, they still commit the murder, more so than in other, less hypocritical, states. [1] My opponent also appears to suggest that being found, caught, convicted, and locked up for life is a victory for the murderer. I fail to see how this is. I would say that we won, s/he lost. Taking the view of "s/he's not dead, therefore, we lose" is a very gladiatorial stance "it's gonna be you or me left alive in this arena". ((You= murderer, me= humanity, and arena=life)). Contention 4: Cost. My opponent states that my point of cost is wrong or invalid, but cites no source nor statistic that would back up this claim. I must dismiss your assertion without evidence. ("What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence") I will cite my source again as source two to help my claim - and reiterate this to my opponent. The cost is higher to kill people than lock them up for life. [2] My opponent leads us onto yet another red herring fallacy about "peace to the family". While this could be a valid claim, I will not address it when it is presented as a fallacy. May I suggest to my opponent to make a contention about it, so that I may address it? Opponent's note 1: Hitler. I fail to see how this is relevant at all, since Hitler was German (Austrian born German, to be specific), and he wouldn't be punished under the American justice system. Whether the American people disagree with the German justice system is different all together, and not at all relevant to this debate. On a side note for my opponent: Can I convince you that the death penalty is wrong, ever? I am not debating to exert my position only; I am here to convince other people of my opinion through debate. Are you beginning to sway? Do you accept any of my points as (even if only minor) reasons against the death penalty? I really hope I can convince you, the voters, and the viewers, of this controversial topic! I thank my opponent, the viewers, and the voters. I await my opponent's response(s)! Sources: [1]. http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org... [2]. http://www.deathpenalty.org...