The death penalty should be abolished

==>Summary of each argunment<== C1: Deterrence A. Experts My opponents arguing here is a clear appeal to authority fallacy, instead of conceding the minor point he attempts to argue it. But, as stated, all argunments in the form my opponent presented are fallacy type in nature {1}. And even if the experts are indeed experts it is still a fallacy in nature if there is other evidence to come by. In other words this is a last resort scenario. B. States My opponent, likely attempting to get an eye for an eye (ironic, he is against the DP) argued that I committed a fallacy with John Lott and Wesley Lowe. But I was not saying X said Y therefore Y is true. I quoted Lott who, himself, was citing statistics. If this is a fallacy then the point of citing sources is obsolete. In other words this is illogical. And Wesley Lowe also cited evidence. He showed, with facts proven by other authors {2}, that comparing states does not lead to any particular conclusion as it excludes too many factors (population, socio economic etc.) Also note, as I stated in round 3 and 2, the southern states HAVE ALWAYS had higher crime rates, even during the moratorium of the DP in the 70s. In other words the DP has no effect. As also stated, most states had a drop in crime in the 80-90s. States that chose the DP had faster declines in homicides. As we can see from this summary my opponents position is bogus. C. Conflicting studies This is the only legitament argunment my opponent gave, but I showed based on the sheer number of studies there is no question: the DP saves lives. As John Lott said in round two, 9/12 studies show a deterrent effect. C2: Unjust A. Race I argued racism here would likely role over to LWOP, which only seems logical. The rest of the objections/stats are therefore irrelevant. Though for those who forgot I destroyed his argunments, most of which criticized lawyers not the DP system. And again, wouldn't these problems exist in a LWOP system? It's not like it would vanish. This point is a moot, abolishing the DP would not fix thd problem , assuming it exists. B. Lawyers Rolls over too LWOP cases too. C3: cost I showed it A) through plea bargains (cost = 0) it would make the DP, averaging a cases together, trial cost as much as LWOP B) other costs (housing, food, medical care) would make LWOP cost more. Therefore the plea bargain makes the LWOP 1 million dollars more expensive then the DP overall. Plea bargins make trial costs overall even {3}, and the other factors make it cost even more (3 million dollars more). --> my case C1: Deterence My opponent focused on sources not content. One I already said was old, and used it as backroubd info not my case (I explained that). Therefore the detterence effect remains. The second source he criticized was an odd move, as the theory it argues is still considered valid today {4}. C2: retribution Claims LWOP means no escape. The con shows dozens of documented cases of escape leading to murder, or murderers still getting parole and continuing their passion -- killing. ==>the forfeit<== This does not warrant loss of debate, rather loss of conduct. Con (me) should receive conduct. Conclusion: My opponents argunments are false/illogical or a fallacy. Von deserves conduct, for forfeit, and argunments for reasons above. Sources: {1} http://www.fallacyfiles.org... {2} http://old.nationalreview.com... {3} [study] http://www.cjlf.org... {4} A) legal Deterence: http://en.wikipedia.org...(legal) B) psychology: http://en.m.wikipedia.org...(psychology)