Debater's Choice

I'm afraid my opponent misunderstands my theorem establishment. What my opponent is asking me to do is akin to asking me to prove 1 + 1 = 2. A theorem clause is as basic as one can get in epistemic terms. Asking me to provide further 'evidence' is an impossible request. "It is your opinion that there is no justified reason to lock away a rapist, murder, child killer under any circumstances. " Here you misconstrue my argument. As through the established theorem, I went over the ultimate justifications of humanity's necessary actions. Everything leads toward survival and happiness; emotional & evolutionary baseis. It isn't my opinion. That there is no compelling objective reason for this ultimate justification is, as according to my theorem's conclusion, fact. By indicating the astounding lack of evidence (theoretical and logical), I feel I've adequately established justification against my opponent's resolution. We have no reason to do anything at all. There is no such thing as objective necessity, therefore you cannot justify imposing anything on anyone (including the death penalty) under any and all circumstances. I have proposed a direct negative to the death penalty. The theorem's uncontended status confirms that doing nothing (including not implementing the death penalty) is the more correct policy which corresponds to the ideological stance that stems from it: Apathy. "I am sorry I failed to provide sources in my previous round but I would like point out so did you"The difference between my statement and that of my opponent is that mine are not anecdotal or statistical claims. I'm not claiming an applied mathematical statistic or generalization (such as saying x% of the population is y), I am establishing a theorem that runs within the philosophical realm. The argument is 100% original and requires no source. It is a self-supporting theorem that derives its strength from its undeniable clauses. It is not possible to prove any part of the theorem wrong. "On a purely personal view point why should the farther of the 8 year old boy killed in the Boston bombings have to pay to keep his sons murder fed, clothed, warmed , entertained and safe in prison? . I really don"t think that there is a justified reason for this. I accept the death penalty should not be used in all crimes but sometimes anything other than the death penalty is not enough. " On a personal, subjective viewpoint, I actually agree with my opponent: there is good reason to selectively implement the death penalty. It has been statistically proven that societal units that implement the death penalty have lower rates of murder. Remember, I'm a human too. I also have the human desire to attain happiness, survival and reproduction. However, the theorem still stands as hypothetically correct. There appears to be no way to prove it wrong. Accordingly, apathy may be the correct ideological & philosophical stance, but that doesn't mean you or I have to follow it. I don't care a bit for apathy. I am human. I have emotions. Screw objectivity. I hate to be repetitive, but, although I don't support the system, it is 'politically' correct (unless you find some way to prove it wrong, of course). Until my opponent does prove it wrong by providing compelling objective reasons for the desires of humanity and subsequently the death penalty, the theorem stands and I am yet victor.