Upon admitting guilt, the death penalty is reasonable.

MY OPPONENT: "In my opinion crime is in action something that is committed by breaking a law and that is not expected by the society. Punishment in my opinion is when you know your action was wrong and you know that there will be a consequence in the end. However they are both in the same meaning. Like the author said "an eye for an eye" with out the crime there would be no punishment. So with one eye you wouldn't be able to tell weather the prisoner should receive the punishment for the crime." I see a vast difference between the two. Remember crime isn't just small things like stealing purses. Let's talk murder and rape. If some one commits murder or rape, they have taken someone's whole life away. If we didn't have punishment, that would be like saying, "It's okay that you murdered that person. Oh, don't worry, nothing is going to happen to you because we don't want to kill you and be just like you." That's where there should be a very visible line drawn between revenge and justice. Justice is a people as a whole reprimanding someone for an injustice they have committed upon an innocent human being. Its not just revenge, as my opponent believes. If it was revenge, we would be going after the prisoners family members as well to make them suffer. Punishment is simply teaching a person who has done something bad what is right. When your a child, if you are naughty, your most likely going to be spanked so you can learn from your mistake. But with murder, it's not so simple as to just let the murderer go. They have taken someone's life, they have played god and decided who should and shouldn't live when that is not there duty. That's where punishment in the extreme is nessicary. Letting someone go who has murdered, can probably chance another murder. These are actual human beings who are being murdered. It IS a big deal, and these murderers are a detriment to society. Death helps us with that one. MY OPPONENT: " What happens when the person knows that they are guilty? Shall they still receive the punishment?" Of course. Why not? Just because you have acknowledged that you've done something wrong doesn't mean you have learned from it. And even if you have, there's still punishment for justice. MY OPPONENT: "Justice…what to think when this is heard?..." You talk about justice in this second paragraph, but you don't actually address my points on how it is bad. You ask if one would know what it is like to tell some they are on death row. I say, who cares what it feels like. They deserve it and cannot get off easy with there crime. And again it's not revenge, if it were, we would be trying to make the criminal suffer. Death penalty is quick and painless. So I don't understand how justice in this case is immoral. MY OPPONENT: In October of 2009 I attended Purdue university where the Department of Communication where Amy Patterson Neubert shared her perspectives in TV and how it opens the minds of millions around the world to create criminal actions. "Many people die as a result of being murdered in these types of shows, and we found the heavy TV-crime viewers estimated two and a half times more real-world deaths due to murder than non-viewers," Sarapin a doctoral student in communications says. "People's perceptions also were distorted in regards to a number of other serious crimes. Heavy TV-crime viewers consistently overestimated the frequency of crime in the real world." I lolled. Your silly. I know this is copy and pasted for two reasons. 1. Your in high school, So I know you didn't attend this university. 2. This supports MY CASE rather than yours. I hope you know how this tells us that murder is wrong and has affected alot of people. Exactly what I am saying. Thanks kiddo! MY OPPONENT: "Those that have committed a crime is due to the home environment that they lived in as a child and young adult. They were never given the support or encouragement and their only way out was through violence and maybe hurting others. Do you honestly think that these men/women wake up one day and plan this? The environment that they grow up in has a lot to do with where they are now. Many don't take that in to consideration." So your saying that it's okay for someone who has been abused who grown up in violent childhoods, to go out and kill and rape, and steal, without consequence? Again I'd like to remind you that there are hundreds of famous people who have has bad lives growing, up and they have turned out to be our nations leaders and inspirers. Read these links and tell me that having a bad life is an excuse for crime. http://www.disabled-world.com... http://www.dyslexiaonline.com... http://profiles.incredible-people.com... http://celebrity-gossip.suite101.com... http://www.moneybluebook.com... crohn-colitis.hu/eng/famous-people-with-ibd.php MY OPPONENT: "HEARTBERAK in a child's eye is what you consider to be null? This doesn't have to be null they government has the choice in weather they shall live or not" mmm... What about the heartbreak of the people who the criminals hurt? Family members? Friends? None of that matters though as long as the person who committed the crime has felt it in childhood, though, right? MY OPPONENT: "Now no offense to my opponent, but my cuteness in my speech is not part of this debate." I say that because you say silly things that don't support your case. No offense babe. My OPPONENT: "Now getting back at the real topic jobs that can be involve in the penitentiaries can consist of cooks, maintenance crew. Why shall the government danger other civilians if what they want is to protect themselves and those around them form what they consider to be the bad people of society?" Er, duh, they shouldn't silly one. That's why they don't, and that's why the death penality is okay. Thanks again kiddo :) My OPPONENT: "I still think that they can be changed if they were shown how. If they had just been taught the good from bad. There can be a second chance for them in life as well as their family." Whether they have changed or not is irrelevant. The person whose lives the murderers have taken, will never be able to change their own life again, because of one persons selflessness and the fact that that person believes he can do whatever he wants. MY OPPONENT: "Isn't the job of the government to inform the public of these here dangerous men/women their job? Why haven't actions been taken to better prevent this?" Again, so it is okay for there to be criminals and murders walking around freely in a more or less peaceful society, where they can get their hands on any type of weapons, or things that can be used as weapons, and just let them roam free? Explain this one to me. :) CONCLUSION: I feel I have proved my point well. You should vote for me because, my opponent has failed to prove that justice is wrong, has copied and pasted stuff, and admitted that she did (without quoting sources), and you should vote for me because she copied and pasted stuff that actually supported my case. Also I have proved that responsibility is essential, and excuses for ones lifestyle in growing up are not valid. Vote pro! MY OPPONENT: "(let's try to stay on topic next time philosphical :])" I think has made me laugh hardest of all! How about lets: 1. Use better and proper grammar 2. Not copy and paste stuff without sourcing and quoting it 3. Not post stuff that goes against your own case next time. Okay paramore? :) I wish my opponent best of luck next round. Love ya kiddo! SOURCES (above) thankyou, Philosophical.