Gladiator matches for death row inmates

You say not killing anyone counts as doing something for society, but someone who is incarcerated for life will not be able to kill anyone, so by your logic, they are doing something for society. The point of the analogy with people who can't do anything was to show that the value of a human life doesn't change just because that person is unable to help society. For the fact that they can't contribute to society to justify killing them, it would have to make their life have no value at all, because if their life has value, the only thing that could justify destroying it would be saving something of greater value. You haven't shown any ways in which the death penalty does anything to help anyone, so there is nothing of greater value; it takes a life for nothing. You mentioned that a high percentage of criminals didn't change their ways, but even if most still don't realize their mistakes, the point is that they at least get a chance to reflect on their mistakes and get forgiveness. If they die in a gladiator match, even if they realize their mistake in that last moment, they don't have time to forgive themselves and have no chance to ask others for forgiveness before they die. You once again say that people watching the gladiator matches will pay for them, but I already provided an argument in the previous round that shows that this is not true, and you haven't refuted this argument. You then justify it by saying you will boost the economy by buying weapons from blacksmith shops. However, we would buy them from factories, not blacksmiths, because blacksmith shops don't exist anymore. Factories already get lots of business, and buying a few more items from them won't have any effect on the overall economy. You are correct that we will need to use our imagination to figure out the price of a battle arena, and choosing the cheapest possible price of a horse arena is not using our imagination. You chose the price of the smallest possible arena on the website and said that the price of the gladiator arena would be the same, but that is false. You say that the gate will only cost one to five hundred dollars, but the source you cited for this tells us the price of a wooden fence gate, the type you would have in your yard, not the type you would use to make sure no one escapes an arena. The gate we need for the arena must be solid, strong, and at least as tall as a regular door. This will use much more wood and be much more expensive than the gates in the source you cited. As you said, bulletproof glass cost $25-100 per ft^2, but you have miscalculated the total cost of it. Even assuming the cheapest bulletproof glass, $25/ft^2, $1K would only give us 40 square feet of glass. The glass around the arena would have to be at least ten feet tall. This means that in order for the glass to only cost 1000 dollars, the perimeter of the arena would have to be 4ft, so you have made a very large miscalculation here. The bare minimum price of the glass would be $100K, assuming that the arena is a very small 70x130 rectangle like the one you found the cost for. In reality the arena would be much bigger. The seating would be extremely expensive, even if we just used bleachers. The cost of bleachers for just 60 people is already around $4K.* We would need many more than 60 seats for this; most professional sports stadiums have seating capacities of 20-70K,** so the price of bleachers is $1.3-4.7M. Now our most conservative estimate for the cost is $1.5M (by adding the original 80K and 100K for glass to the bleacher cost). This is an extreme underestimate because we have assumed that the arena is very small, and I calculated the price of bleachers, not stadium seating. Stadium seats would be much more expensive; you need to pay for the seats themselves and the large volume of concrete they are on top of. This estimate also isn't even accounting for other parts of the arena, such as the places the animals will be stored, the gate, the parking lot, etc. We also need to continuously pay for more animals, more weapons, guards, janitors, etc, so the total cost is going to be extremely high, many millions of dollars. There is no reason to waste all this money. Even if you only have 12 gladiators in the tournament, 107 weeks is barely more than two years. Since we don't have 27 people being sentenced to death every week, we would not be able to continue the daily gladiator fights for longer than those two years. "Lethal injections take about 2 hours to fully kill the victim." The source you cited says they take 5min to 2hr. Two hours was actually the longest a lethal injection has ever taken to kill a patient, not a normal amount of time. Most lethal injections have the inmate unconscious in seconds and dead in five minutes, according to your own source, and those that don't are due to using the wrong chemicals. "Assuming a major artery is hit with the sword and spear they will bleed out in 2 mins." But you are not justified in making that assumption. In a fight, they are more likely to hit a less important artery, since you need to hit someone in very specific places to get a major artery. The gladiators are therefore more likely to bleed out slowly and have a painful death. It is also likely that there will be injuries in the fight that do not kill a gladiator right away, but take a few days to kill them. This means even the victor could die a few days later from injuries from the battle. "What I am explaining about death of natural causes is a problem is that the death penalty is suppose to be a punishment where they die quickly to show what you did is wrong." This is still a circular argument. This argument relies on the assumption that it is better for the inmate to be killed via the death penalty than to die of natural causes. To agree with that assumption, I would have to already agree that the death penalty is ok. The statistic that your source gave is 4.1 PERCENT of the people, not 4 people total. That means 119 of the people currently on death row are innocent. The estimate was also deliberately conservative, according to your own source, so in reality it is AT LEAST 4.1% and most likely more than that. A 4.1% chance is a huge risk for something as serious as killing an innocent person and not a risk that we should be taking over and over again. As your source states, "If you look at the numbers in our study, at how many errors are made, then you cannot believe that we haven"t executed any innocent person"that would be wishful thinking." You then bring up the statistic involving people in prison, which is highly irrelevant, but you try to compare it to the death row statistics to make prison seem worse. However you do this by comparing the total number of people who are in prison on false charges to the percentage of death row inmates. Let's not compare apples to oranges here and see what the actual comparison is. As you said, 2.5-5% of prisoners are innocent. This is actually slightly smaller than 4.1%. Gladiator matches are not cheaper than other forms of execution because the cost of the death penalty comes from how expensive the trial is, and using gladiator matches would not affect the cost of the trial. "Capital cases burden county budgets with large unexpected costs...Counties manage these high costs by decreasing funding for highways and police and by increasing taxes. The report estimates that between 1982-1997 the extra cost of capital trials was $1.6 billion."*** Another problem with your idea is that the winner of Saturday's tournament is released from prison after 30yr. So we're going to release a criminal back into society after 30yr as a reward for being good enough at killing people to win a gladiator tournament. That doesn't sound like a good idea. *https://www.howmuchisit.org... **https://en.m.wikipedia.org... ***http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org...