American Society Has No Moral Authority to Punish Murder

I would like to begin with several observations before getting into the meat of this debate. You could buy every single one of Pro's arguments and still vote Con. Pro has failed to do two key things that must be accomplished before Pro can even think about meeting the BOP: 1) Rebut a single portion of my case, and 2) Prove that immoral actions lead to a revocation of any moral agency. Pro has not done the former, and cannot do the latter. Philosophical Grounding, Constitutionality, and the Horror of the AlternativeHere I am grouping together all of my constructive material, which you can extend through. The government has a moral obligation to punish those who break the social contract by nature of what being a state means. The US government, in particular, has a Constitutional obligation to punish offenders. The alternative to state punishment is exponentially worse and promotes massive rights violations and disutility (making it immoral). I win the debate with this constructive material alone, without having to even discuss Pro's off-topic constructive. Rebuttal: Pro's Underlying AssumptionPro claims that, at some point, he has warranted in any way why some modicum of hypocrisy results in a complete and total loss of moral agency. However, he simply begged the question without justification. In order to even consider winning this round, Pro has to prove that such immoral actions (if they are even immoral) mean that the state lacks authority to punish. Let me illustrate the problem in Pro's logic with an example. I have lied many times in my life. However, I still have the right to be upset with and excoriate a friend who has lied to me. I still retain my moral agency, despite some immoral actions at some point in my past. My moral authority to be upset comes from a betrayal of trust, which is akin to a rights violation. Murder is a rights violation all the same. The government derives this ability to punish based on a protection of rights, and it retains this ability as long as the government itself remains legitimate. Pro has never substantiated the key component of his argument. AbortionBefore really getting into the issue, I will again take issue with Pro's source material. Pro claims that biased material can still be accurate, and uses Fox News to justify this. Well, besides the fact that Fox News is often grossly innacurate [1] one must find at least some impartial facts and evidence to justify a position. I could not possibly justify climate change by citing Al Gore's literary catalogue alone. The key question of this part of the debate is, simply, whether a fetus is a human being. I do apologize for repeatedly stating 3 weeks, as that was a typo. However, Pro has failed to dispute my mechanism for personhood, which is cognitive abilities in the brain, as witnessed through sentience. Note that, as argued earlier, lack of these, as seen in braindead people who have many neurons, are grounds for acceptable termination. No abortion advocate will ever claim that a fetus is not, in some way, alive. However, where the debate really hinges is whether it is a HUMAN life. I have provided both a clear standard and dictionary definitions to prove it is not. Pro claims that the amount of motor neurons is the key to rights claims. While he is correct, that brain development is the standard, the fetus does not meet the requirements. Pro more or less concedes this. If a fetus cannot meet the bar for personhood, which it does not until the point of viability (or some time close by), then it is not murder to abort, just as killing an animal, even a dolphin, is not murder under the legal definition. Pro, then, moves to appeals to emotion that have no bearing in this debate. In fact, Pro should note the reasoning behind Roe v. Wade, because it is the similar to the reasoning I have presented here. A fetus cannot objectively be qualified as a human; just like a dolphin, it lacks cognition and sentience. DronesNote that I accept that, sometimes, drones hit civilian targets. However, Pro has left undisputed the idea that drone strikes save more lives than they take [2]. Provided this is the case, the action can still be seen as moral under a utilitarian calculus, and such killing is clearly not intentional, as the definition of murder would require. At worst, the government is guilty of justifiable homicide; that is, involuntary manslaughter. At best, the government is behaving in a moral way to save lives worldwide. Either way, Pro's resolution is negated.Pro still has not shown why arguments regarding abortion and drones should change the innate compostion of a state, and has yet to respond to any of my constructive. As such, Pro cannot win this debate. Sources1. http://www.theguardian.com...2. http://www.nytimes.com...