The one who passes the sentence should swing the sword

There is a consistent lack of comprehension between Con and Pro in this debate. The misunderstanding lies in that Con and Pro have totally different views on what is important versus what is trivial.Pro states that the judge takes no pleasure in the killings, this has nothing to imply that the judge has any discontent with it (which I will get to later). Furthermore, what is a 'judge' if it's also the executioner? The job description of a 'judge' is a totally separate job description of an 'executioner'. This means there'd have to be a new job title created just for this 'terminator judge'(and yes I'm aware practicality is being ignored here). The entire proposed case and way of dealing with what Pro seems to think is an issue with the justice system, however is in fact a good precaution that is in place, is nonsensical to say the least.I shall begin focusing on some major blind spot in Pro's argument. Pro argues that judges don't take pleasure from the killing and would be definitely taught a lesson about what execution really is and be more reluctant to sentence the death penalty if they were to carry out the executions. He originally stated they'd be less 'desensitizes' but somewhat dropped that point and is now explaining that they'd simply be more up-front with the killing. The first and foremost blind spot with this is that if the judge really dies get revolted by the thought of execution and killing, then the judge will be less willing to sentence someone rightfully deserving of execution to execution. Bias to leniency makes just as faulty a judge one suffering from bias to harshness. If the judge is ambivalent to the killings and feels no remorse whatsoever to the killings then it wouldn't alter them anyway. In other words, since Pro points out that pleasure, in this debate, cannot be derived from the executing from the judge, he has forgotten that too much leniency is as far from 'sound judgement' as too much harshness. The secondary blind spot in Pro's argument is that he assumes one must go through something or partake in an activity before they are capable to judge it. Pro would have all X Factor judges sing their way to the live shows of the X Factor before they could be deemed worthy of such a challenge. In a more related example, Pro would have all judges experience, or carry out, rape murder, theft, fraud etc before being able to judge the moral implications of the actions that they judge worth or unworthy of punishment of varying severity for their entire career. This makes absolutely no sense and has no backing whatsoever to it other than Pro's constant assertion of some mysterious pseudo-desensitization which I already explain does not occur or exist.Pro's rebuttal to my final point is the most Kamikaze rebuttal I have ever come across in a while. Pro states that if the job of judge and executioner were fused, the executing would be a small,almost negligible, aspect of the job barely having any impact on one's willingness to judge and capability at the overall job with the new aspects to the role they must fulfil. This means that Pro is laying down their entire case in support of the resolution and saying 'hey, the execution is barely relevant to the job or decision to send someone to death penalty, a judge will be pretty much the same skill-wise and temperament-wise if they execute or not'. Pro further asserts this by emphasizing that 'Con provides no reason why "passionate judges who accept executing as a bad part of the job" would be a rare commodity.' So is Pro saying that he'd be pretty sure in placing bets on the landslide majority of judges not being put off their job or the implications of it it executing was part of it? If so, then why argue for the resolution at all and if not why did Pro inadvertently admit to this?Con rebuts my point about psychopathy making a good executioner and instead states something about the distancing against. The mirror example is insufficient as you are not forcing the judge to watch the executions, but to physically carry them out; this is morally different, Obesity harms oneself but executions affects others directly.I don't know the jury point and didn't didn't understand how Pro worded it.