We should bring back gladiators for the death penalty

Why should someone be protected by the law if they break it? Because that's how society works. That's a huge necessity for it. If I speed, I'm not therefore tufted out of society. I'll now talk about which is beneficial to society by resources. By dedicating resources to this idea in building it, society as a whole is not benefitting, it is losing out. Sure, the government might benefit from it through people paying for it, but society as a whole isn't benefitting as the standard of living is only falling due to the violence caused, and even I doubt that a project such as this would make its money back, as my opponent has failed to prove. If we actually set these people to work, society as a whole will benefit as their labour will raise the standards of living and can be put to work improving the country. My opponent then tries to argue with the idea of consensus. Yeah sure, scientists were once wrong about fire being an element. Now they're not. That's how science works. We look at the evidence and slowly we get closer to knowing the truth. If you're going to say science can be wrong, hence let's not look at it, you're disavowing all the knowledge we have for it. The fact is, the vast amount of experts in this field have looked at the evidence, and that. You make a point about countries with low crime rates without providing any sources. There's a myraid of other factors to take into account. It seems my opponent is happy to disagree with the opinion of 88% of scientists, but would instead like to go broad and just start listing out countries without any regard for other factors. By the murder rates in Source 4, seeing as we're talking about violent crime, the majority of the top six don't have the death penalty. My opponent is still trying to argue with the vast majority of criminologists, and it's clear to us: this is not a deterrent. Are you seriously arguing that forcing someone to fight to the death in a gladiator fight is a better fate than prison? No, it's most definitely not. Not only this, if they're imprisoned, they can be released in the case of evidence exonerating them. The law should not be a harsh no exceptions case. There's a reason judges can give different sentences for the same crime, because there's different circumstances. This means that we're not bound by rigid rules, but we apply these rules alongside reason and logic for a better, more equal system. My opponent's refutation of how this would victimize the poor is basically a shrug and a "What are you going to do?" while disregarding how the system works. Again, my opponent fails to acknowledge the point I've made about how the legal system would have rich people using their power and influence to escape such a sentence as we already see happening. Glorifying violence as a form of entertainment and a solution would most definitely increase the levels of violence. The gladiator fighting would not be an outlet for violence, it would encourage it, holding it up as something that's entertaining, enjoyable and a solution to problems. Hell, you're even rewarding it for the winner. This is something we cannot allow. You've brought up Rome's crime rate in regards to the gladiators having an effect on it, then when you realize its actually the opposite you say there's no connection? The justice issue still applies. This system is vastly unjust, as you'll be forcing and giving someone a better condition because they were the best at violence, rewarding it and forcing somewhere to watch. The fact that you want to make the reward prison not only doesn't change the fact that this is vastly unfair, but it also you moving the goal posts for the premise you gave in your opening. All in all, we can see that this is bad for society, encourages and rewards violence, is hugely unfair to classes, punishes innocent people, and is unjust. It for these reasons I argue we do not do this barbaric practise. Thank you. Source 4: https://www.numbeo.com...