Pedophiles Should Be Executed

My opponent continues to reference the emotional appeal that pedophilia is a horrible thing, thus her position has to be right. As I outlined (and my opponent dropped), this debate isn't about the rightness or wrongness of pedophilia, but rather the rightness of wrongness of using deadly force as a response. She still has provided no real warrant other than "pedophilia sucks so they should all be dead since we can't rehabilitate them". Since she's still not providing any warrant as for why killing is good in this case, you default to the Categorical Imperative, which negates the use of killing in any case. While it's true that I'm including general level crimes in with pedophilia when I make my calculus of the Categorical Imperative, the reasoning behind that is there's no real substantitive difference between a crime and a different crime: they're all just a crime against the law. There's no really morally relevant distinction between them that doesn't devolve into subjective, arbitrary opinion. My opponent also misrepresents the Categorical Imperative in her refutation of it. The Categorical Imperative is not talking about a Karma-ish, "what comes around goes around" kind of mentality. The source I cite clearly states that the Categorical Imperative is talking about an action is good if I can wish other people to perform the same action in any other situation. This has nothing to do with Karma. Since my opponent doesn't provide an alternate way to evaluate the goodness or badness of an action, even if you buy her refutation of the Categorical Imperative, you still have to look to it since I'm the only providing some method of evaluating good and bad and thus have the only risk of offense in the round. And if the Categorical Imperative is true, then killing is categorically rejected since it cannot be wished to happen in every situation. This means that killing pedophiles simply for being pedophiles would be rejected. Also, my opponent's response to my criticism of her just isn't sufficient. For one, her own source says that, and I quote, "Castration, either physical or chemical, appears to be highly effective in removing such sexual impulses". This seems to contradict what she's saying, just slightly. But even if castration isn't effective, she's dropped that her source says that, and I quote, "Cognitive behavioral therapy, also known as relapse prevention, has been shown to reduce recidivism in contact sex offenders.", that, and I quote again, "Medications are used to lower sex drive in pedophiles by interfering with the activity of testosterone, such as with Depo-Provera (medroxyprogesterone acetate), Androcur (cyproterone acetate), and Lupron (leuprolide acetate).". So there are workable alternatives to castration and death that do work. As such, the debate breaks down very easily:1. The Categorical Imperative categorically rejects killing, which means that killing pedophiles is wrong.2. There are clear alternatives to killing, such as behavioral treatment, medication, and castration. 3. My opponent failed to uphold their burden of proving why killing pedophiles is something we should do. I upheld my burden to show why we shouldn't kill pedophiles. Thus, the resolution is easily negated.