Resolved: The United States Ought To Use Capitol Punishment By Lethal Injection

I'll go NC, then AC "Secondly, I agree with my opponent's evaluation of the resolution in that the clash should be over the use of capital punishment. I wish for the debate to be over this, the usage of lethal injection in the resolution was merely for clarification." --> Ok, good. Extend this framework through the debate. --> I concede his observations. [NC Value Structure] --> Both agree with justice as superior value. VC: Morality --> I have 3 responses: First, this is an inadequate VC because it provides us no weighing mechanism for the value of justice. A. He makes no warrants B He makes no link the value C. He makes no impacts to the value D. He never defines what morality is Second, morality is to vague and it is too relativistic. For instance I may find something that is immoral, whiel you find it amoral, and another friend may find it moral. Third, morality and justice are not always interconnected. For instance, I may have to kill in self-defense, which is justified but killing isn't a "moral" act. It can be just, but never moral. Therefore, you cannot weigh justice on the basis of morality. Contention Overview: Since I knocked out his VC, any arguments dealing with the morality of an action can be dropped automatically, since there is no link. C1 - The State Is Not a Sufficient Instrument of Penal Code Through Capital Punishment --> I have 3 responses: First, capital punishment fits into retribution not vengeance. This is true for two reasons: 1. Vengeance implies revenge for personal reason, but retribution is devoid of emotion and is based on notions of reciprocity and proportionality. 2. Vengeance is done by direct action, not by an indirect mutual, legitimate agent. Second, your logic about states not being able to avenge only strengthens my first response. I agree, the state is not an agent of revenge, but retribution for crimes. Third, by simple extension my opponent's point dejustifies all punishment. Why? Because in some manner all punishment would be stopped because it isn't personal, and thus the state cannot take part in it. C2 - The Use of Death As Punishment Is Immoral --> Overview Argument --> I have two responses: First, my opponent is right, life is the greatest gift. Then what about the life of someone murdered on the street. They have worth as well. But they were killed without due cause. Life is important, yes, but its the way someone lives that furthers the inherent worth of life. Second, the innocent killed also does not have a second chance. Does he/she? A. Pain --> My opponent conceded my analysis, thus you can drop this point. Lethal Injection is not where the clash is. [Defense of AC] --> He concedes my whole framework and pre-standard arguments V: justice (Value for the round) VC: Proportionality --> I have 3 responses: First, he concedes my ob. that if I prove the general principal of the death penalty just, I fulfill the "US" framework burden. Second, The bright-line is the idea of right violations. Third, since he never adequately refutes my standard (due to his concession of my observation) you can extend my standard/VC. (This will be the weighing mechanism for the round) C1 - Scale of Justice --> I have 3 responses: First, based on affirmation theory, I need only prove that we OUGHT to use it. My framework of murderers meets that burden of ought. Second, he never responds to the fact of "positive and negative right violations." Since he did not, and this is the bulk of my contention you can extend my point through the flow. Third, the idea of contextualizing the amount of murderers does tn answer any question within my case. But for arguments sake, my point is qualitative, not quantitative. For these reasons you can affirm. <...> = type from opponenet (does not count in total type cap.)