NEWBIE TOURNEY: Executing Criminals is Justified. (Death Penalty Debate)

Okay, I had originally written an 8000 word case, knowing that I would have a clear advantage as you would have to respond to that and I would have the ability in the 2nd round to add completely new contentions that require evidence. I decided it would be poor sportsmanship though, and decided to copy it to a word file to be used in round 2. I will instead only use this round to outline my arguments as you did to be fair, even though the only requirement was to not have evidence presented.OpeningThe burden of proof lies entirely with the pro. Something that is unjust is not just. There can be infinite conceptions of why something may be just, therefore it is impossibe to negate all of them. I can only negate what my opponent presents in his arguments and prove the death penalty unjust through conceptions of justice introduced within the round.C1: Justice is egalitarian in nature. The criminal justice system is arbitrary and racist when applying the death penalty. Therefore executing criminals is not justified.C2: Justice is a mechanism to apply morality. Morality doesn't exist, therefore justice doesn't exist. If justice does not exist then actions cannot be just, and therefore cannot be justified.C3: Justice is utilitarian in nature. For an action to be justified it must increase overall utility. The universe is infinite, meaning that there is an infinite amount of utility. Thus, no action can increase utility as infinity + 1 still equals infinity. Therefore no action is justified.C4: Justice is defined by social contract theory. While harming others engaged in the same contract may require you to lose some individual freedoms and go to jail, you can never be removed from the contract by the government.C5: Justice is defined as libertarianism. The death penalty denies individual liberties and thus is not just.C6: Epistemic skepticism. We don't know anything, therefore we cannot know if executing criminals is justified.I understand that my arguments are contradictory. They are designed like that for a reason, as to test the affirmative position. If any of my contentions hold true at the end of the debate, that is a reason why the Pro has not upheld his burden of proof in convincing the judges that the death penalty is justified. In essence, I'm testing all of the alternatives to affirmation. If my opponent challenges my decision to run arguments that are contradictory in nature, I ask him to let me know in round 2 and I will introduce an argument of my own in round 2 that explains why multiple world theory is good for debate.I reserve the right to "kick" or stop defending any argument in my case at any point within this debate. Each of my arguments serve as an independent reason to vote Con. Thus I only need to win 1 contention to win the debate. Also, if my opponent turns a contention, I may stop defending it and it will no longer be considered by the judges. If my opponent is opposed to this strategy he should let me know in round 2 so I can introduce an argument explaining why conditionality is good for debate.I also reserve the right to introduce arguments not listed in this outline in round 2, as it is a round designated for arguments to be presented.