A just society ought not use the death penalty as a form of punishment.

Ok first of all I would like to address a few issues. Just because my opponent is new to this debate don't favor a certain side due to the fact he's new. I would first like to provide a brief road map before we start, I will be first going over my opponent's case then on to defending my case. The first argument he brings up in his case is that the death penalty should not be an acceptable form of punishment as it does not give a person what he/she deserves. Even though his argument might be written nicely in a such a format, don't let that fool your judgment as I'm about to show you why this argument is flawed. First, he provides you with a clarification that a just society would not give a punishment that is excessive or non excessive since we are debating hypothetically with a just society. From that point, you can already vote for me because he is completely contradicting himself by bringing up this argument. Under his own logic he said the way the just society's system is setup won't give out punishments to criminals that are not rendering each their due. So from this point you can already vote for me and drop his argument, but even if you don't buy this point let's also see a second point why is argument doesn't stand. Second, he gives you these fancy analogies that seem to be true, but let's actually look at the validity of these analogies. Are they even topical to today's resolution. If we put ourselves inside my opponent's shoe, then under his own logic we can never punish anyone since we cannot measure out a proportionate punishment without violating the criminal's right. So from that point, does it mean we should never punish a criminal since we might violate their right? Obviously, not since as I have stated in my case that they forfeited their right and conceded to these punishments because they can rationalize. Now, let's move on to the arguments my opponent makes toward my case My opponent makes a ton of fancy arguments against my case, but do not let him get away with this as I have provided you the most crucial piece of analysis in today's round. I clearly specified in my case that Consent is an important factor in determining whether something is just or not as I have brought up with my surgery analogy. This was completely dropped and left silent, which means my opponent doesn't know how to answer to this argument since it is a true argument. So don't let him get up in his next speech and make new arguments toward this as he would be completely contradictory. Then, he drops my first and second contention which supports the value criterion of consent. I clearly stated that the reason it is ok to use the death penalty on these criminals since they have consent to these rules by living in the society. Even if you don't buy that, if you don't think this is true, I mean if you don't like the rules of a society, you have the right to leave. Even then, we can rationalize which differentiates us from inanimate objects so we do understand the consequences for committing a crime such as killing. Now, my opponent makes his only and final piece of offense on my case which is we can never measure out the proportionality of a punishment. He gives you this very good example of a baby touching a stove yet not knowing the consequences. This might be true, but he fails to realize what the resolution and I am to present is that the people who commits the crime are at a level with the ability to rationalize. I doubt a baby of a age of 5 would have the capability of killing someone intentionally and even if they do, we have specialized juvenile trials for criminals under the age of 18. Later, he tries to also turn one of my argument against me when I say I wouldn't assign the death penalty to someone who is mentally ill, this is completely not contradictory as the a mentally ill person who committed crime has no control or whatsoever over his own actions. Which then shows you my case totally achieves justice since we won't be punishing innocents with the death penalty. My opponent completely misunderstands my whole case so don't let his fancy writing confused your judgment in today's debate. Lastly, theres no reason why his offense will stand because he is the one who is being contradictory since he started his own case off with a piece of analysis how a just society would do something that is just such as giving proportionate punishments or else they wouldn't be a just society. Since my opponent agrees to that , there is no sufficient reason that his argument should stand at all. Even if you don't buy that he still has his last piece of argument left on my case which is that my third contention is not true since we can never know what the criminal thinks. Based off this evidence he gives you which is soley his own opinion, but in the contrary I give you three piece of EVIDENCE from well known novels, magazines and professor analysis at well known university to support my third contention. Who would you believe then a person who is just sits and play computer all day or where as a professor in a well known university doing stastical research. Base on that, you can already buy my arguments. As a result, my 3 arguments in my whole case still stands as 2 were left unanswered and I also showed you that my opponent only piece of analysis fails since he contradicts himself with the clarification on a just society. Therefore, you must vote for me!