The Death Penalty should be banned in most cases in the United States

I point out that the title of the debate is "The Death Penalty should be banned in most cases in the United States". The word "most" was never properly defined, at any point, by the instigator in this debate. Furthermore, death penalty varies by state. For instance, death penalty in Massachusetts is currently nonexistent. It would, for this reason, be invalid to discuss death penalty varying by state, as they are all different, be it by sentences or ideas in general. Furthermore, they are states, not the United States itself, which implements Federal law. For this reason, the only valid way to speak of death penalty "in the United States" would be in Federal law. Federal death penalty is mostly including murderous tasks which are committed on purpose. Therefore my opponent is arguing insufficiently from the first paragraph my opponent had written in Round 2, as my opponent states "I do however affirm that the death penalty should be left open for a few cases in where it is absolutely and totally justified. Such as evidence of needless murder without a doubt". Federal law covers, for the most part, espionage, national security threats, terrorism in general, and military justice. My opponent argues "I do however affirm that the death penalty should be left open for a few cases in where it is absolutely and totally justified. Such as evidence of needless murder without a doubt." This would mean that my opponent is arguing that the death penalty should not be eligible for espionage, which he has not mentioned throughout the duration of the debate. When my opponent states "I do however affirm that the death penalty should be left open for a few cases in where it is absolutely and totally justified." the word "however" does not have commas on both sides of it, as necessary, as the word "however" is not necessary to the sentence. This is a grammatical error. Many persons who would dare commit espionage are foreigners. Foreigners do not care if the death penalty is there or not, foreign spies care if they are assisting their government, so their job would be to commit espionage against the United States. Therefore the pole about the death penalty being an "Ineffective Deterrent" is invalid under these circumstances. For my opponent's first argument, with the statistics that the death penalty is not an effective deterrent, the participants have not, or at least I can safely presume not, committed death penalty eligible crimes, so their mental stability differs from that of a person who has committed such a crime. With proposition 4, which I am arguing for, the death penalty would be limited further to cases which include video/scientific evidence. This would greatly lower, if not diminish the number of persons innocent who are executed. My opponent argues for the death penalty for murder cases which were committed with intention, or as my opponent states "I do however affirm that the death penalty should be left open for a few cases in where it is absolutely and totally justified. Such as evidence of needless murder without a doubt". Later on in my opponent's Round 2 argument, my opponent states "Some times there are cases where evidence is provided at later dates that shows the person convicted was in fact innocent. " This is contradictory to what was stated earlier in the same round of the debate by the same opponent, therefore my opponent's argument is invalid. My opponent argues for the right to life. If my opponent had paid any attention to how the death penalty is constitutional. Even if my opponent had not paid attention to such an argument, my argument is further justified, by the fact that the right to life has been violated by he who murdered with intention. The states with a higher murder rate were those with death penalty, and the lower murder rate states were those without death penalty. There is no evidence given which prompts belief that when the states who abolished the death penalty did so the murder rates dropped. Therefore my opponent's statistics of murder rates are invalid when making such an argument, as my opponent had made. My opponent states "We are essentially invoking the code of Hammurabi, eye for and eye and tooth for a tooth and applying it to a modern criminal justice system. " This is very untrue in cases of serial killing cases, in which it may be something as ten eyes for two eyes, therefore invalid. My opponent states "and provides the same results as far as keeping that person from killing again. " This statement is invalid. There are 5 murders per 100,000 murders [1] in jail for white males alone, so the criminals can actually kill again. There are innocent persons killed by state death penalty from time to time, although those states have not ratified any laws regarding proposition 4. My opponent's sixth source is Wikipedia. This website can be modified by users as needed, therefore this source is invalid, along with every point that references such as "There are situations that trump this such as self defense and justifiable homicide. If you are ever put into a situation where murdering someone is the only option to save your life or the life of the other under most state statues we are allotted the right under stand your ground laws [6]". I won this debate, because my opponent stated, from the first paragraph of my opponent's Round 1 argument, that the death penalty should be implemented on those who have committed murder with intention, then proceeds, throughout the rest of his argument, to tear the very same argument down. Therefore my opponent did not hold a position in this debate, therefore my opponent's argument, in its entirety, is invalid. Sources: [1] http://www.slate.com...