Death Penalty- Killing 3 times and your NOT out...

I'll still refute them, but you, the voter, should disregard any of his arguments that were not provided in his first 2 speeches. <1. I don't see why we should be taking care of a murderer. Why should we pay for his food, clean clothes, showers, guards, safety, and upkeep for the prison he/she is in. I personally don't want to take care of a murderer that will kill anyone especially the guards that are taking care of him/her. > Why should we take care of him/her? ?? Because that person deserves a punishment. Solitary confinement is more of a punishment than the death penalty, since you have no choice but to live out your life with the guilt and consequences of what you have done. Why should we reward these people with the option of death, where they can escape the guilt? This is why we should imprison that murderer for the rest of his/her life. "I personally don't want to take care of a murderer that will kill anyone especially the guards that are taking care of him/her. " I personally don't want to know that money that I send to the government will be used to kill people in an inhumane fashion. <2. Even in solitary confinement, prisoners have still have a chance to kill a guard or attempt an escape. Solitary confinement still isn't painful for a prisoner. Some see it as a statue of being more "bad" then other regular prisoners. In there mind, they are satisfied that they achieved such a title to be a prisoner of solitary confinement. Many (if not most) prisoners pee and poopie on the floor and not in the toilet to make guards work harder and clean it up. They live around in their own urine and it doesn't disturb them. There has been too many cases when a prisoner has tried to grab a guard's hand or attempt an escape. We can't accuse him of it because he is already in solitary confinement. What is the point of making a case against him or punishing him. They aren't like regular humans. They've been trained to live tough. First, they are use to the prison life. Then they get in "the hole" more and more. And when they reach solitary confinement, they already know how it feels to live in tough conditions. > How are you going to kill a guard that you never see? How can you kill someone you never come into contact with? Solitary confinement is indeed what is is claimed to be. SOLITARY CONFINEMENT. You are alone(solitary) in a confined space. Also, the guards shouldn't have to clean up the criminal's mess. I agree. However, I think that the guards should just let them be. Keywords here; Tried, attempt. In other words, the prisoner was unsuccessful. What is the point? ?? ? What is the point of killing them. I'm sure my opponent will say to punish them. In the same way, solitary confinement works too. How are they used to the prison life? ?? If according to the 3 strike rule, the criminal is only in the prison twice in his life. .. .. not more and more. .. . You are exaggerating. And yes, they know how to live in prison. However, in prison, there are other people to interact with. There is something. Yet, in solitary confinement, there is no one. You can never be ready to live your life in a small room for ever and never see the light of day again, and never see anyone or anything other than what is in your room. 3. Your third point can only support my case. You claim that solitary confinemnt is a horrible place. THEN THE CRIMINAL SHOULD NOT HAVE KILLED IN THE FIRST PLACE! !! !! !! ! This is what he gets for murdering, if it is after 3 kills, or as I advocate, 1 kill. 4. You are conceding to my side. You are saying the death penalty isn't really a penalty, since you think that perhaps everyone goes to heaven anyways. Assuming they are theistic in the first place. And if you don't want murderers in our midst, you shouldn't let them out after they have killed! !! !! !! And let them have the chance to kill again! !! !! !! !! !! and AGAIN! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! ! So you are indeed conceding to my side. My side states that either we kill them after one murder, or we give them solitary confinement after one murder. Either way, you are conceding to my side. 5. Why should one who has killed deserve a second chance? ?? You are saying that we should let a murderer the chance of killing again, when they have a proven record of killing before? ?? Why should we let them back into society? ? Plus, part of your case states that we should GET RID OF THOSE WHO HAVE MURDERED. You are contradicting yourself. 6. Exactly, which is who we have been discussing for the past week or so. If the criminal kills someone because the victim did something to the criminal(which I'll assume you are talking about attempted murder) then the criminal would not get convicted in the first place. If you were not talking about attempted murder, then the murderer has no excuse. He cannot claim self defense since that does not work. And if a gang member kills a "granny because a leader tells him to, it is still the gang member's fault he decided to kill the granny. Hate to be the bearer of bad news, but now is the wrong time to point this out. For future reference, you should define your topic as how you interpret it in the first speech. CONCLUSION My opponent has made an outstanding case, but one not without flaws. I have successfully refuted all of his points, and for the details read the debate. Because the burden of proof in this debate lies on the Proposition, and my opponent has failed to prove anything in this debate that has not been disproved, I have won this debate. A rehash of my arguments My case is built upon the foundation that there are two options I am advocating. After one kill, you either kill the criminal in the most humane way possible, or you give them life in prison in solitary confinement. Either one of these cases can win me the debate, but I have been able to extend enough of my arguments that I have won both cases. I said that instead of letting the criminal have 3 chances in society, we should give them one chance, and if they violate the rules of the society, often times the law, they should no longer be allowed into the society. They should be removed from the society. My opponent also agrees with me. He says that the way to get rid of them is the death penalty. In other words, he has conceded this debate when he said that. The topic of this debate is not the death penalty. The topic of this debate is the 3 strike rule. My opponent claimed in his second and third rounds that the topic of this debate was actually about the death penalty, and not about the 3 strike rule, but it is too late for him to change the topic. I would be more than willing to debate him again, but instead on the death penalty like he wanted. Because most of his case was based upon a topic that did not exist in this debate, I have won this debate. Thank You p. s. I realize that I did not really rehash my arguments as promised. However, at this time I only have 35 characters l