Death sentences should be introduced for extremely serious charges in all countries.

You know you don't need to put my name in quotation marks. Allright, my opponent's rebuttal was quite lengthy so I will answer each of his points in turn. "This tells us that "Harlan" agrees with my point of view, and would like to see the death penalty applied in some cases." This is false. Punishment does not necessarily mean death. Punishment can mean exile, jail, a fine, or even public service. You have twisted my words around so that the punishment means death. That's a cheap card to play, man. "I would like to point out that we are thoroughly educated when we are young. Police come to our schools to talk about what to do and what not to do. But does this serve any purpose?" I would like to clarify that I am in no way suggesting that education will completely eliminate all crime. And likewise, the fear of being punished will also (and does) not eliminate all crime. By citing a single incident of education failing to discourage a man from crime in no way proves that education is completely useless in the effort of decreasing crime. If I so pleased, I could do the same thing with your method of decreasing crime via fear, by citing incidents of people going on killing sprees despite the fact that they will almost certainly wind up in prison or in the electric chair. But regardless of the effectiveness of education when compared to fear, it must be acknowledged that education is a better foundation for society than fear. It creates a healthier atmosphere, and makes the populace moral people, rather than immoral people who are scared to act out their immoral ideas. And once more, I am not saying that punishment should be completely eliminated, I am saying that a balance should be made, with alot of emphasis on education, and less emphasis on punishment. "So what 'Harlan' is saying here, that the death sentence is in place to 'kill more people in order to get organs'. Thats what he's saying. The point is, that if someone commits an "attrocious" crime, they get a fair punishment." Here you go again twisting my words. I never said that the death sentence is in place for any purpose. This is a hypothetical debate (see resolution), and has nothing to do with any death-sentence policy that exists in real life. I was merely responding to your hypothetical death-sentence ideas, which you happened to justify on the basis that "organs and body parts they have could be donated to those who need them" (see round 1). Those are your words, not mine. What you have done in the above quote is completely changed your argument to "The point is, that if someone commits an "attrocious" crime, they get a fair punishment.", while completely ignoring my rebuttal to your original point (the one you just pretended you didn't make), which was that the felon's organs could be used. "This proves that he is feeling sorry for the criminal who has killed lots of people and thinks that this is dishonoring the person." It's not so much a matter of "feeling sorry", as you have twisted my words to say, as it is honoring every Human being's fundamental rights, regardless of their personality. Once more, 2 wrongs do not make a right, and with that in mind it can be said that it is not justified to deny a fellow Human being of his rights, no matter what the scenario is. I think using their organs against their will would be immoral and dishonoring. "Why doesn't 'Harlan' feel sorry for those who were killed?" Where could you have possibly made this conclusion out of anything that I said in round 1? Now you are simply making up stuff that I said. "I am not talking of prison break outs. I am talking of how people are released because their time is up and then they get put out into the public, and then they kill more people (which is almost always the case), and then they get sent to jail again, and then the cycle continues." Once more, this is a problem that has a simple and practical solution: don't release them. You have made it clear that the crux of the problem is not that they are alive, but that they are being released from jail when they shouldn't be. The same people who you are suggesting to be jazzed with electricity could simply be kept in jail for life. "Well, can I just say, people don't enjoy working with killers. They don't feel safe." Well, too bad. It's their job. "We are not trying to get rid of people." Neither of us said this. "We are not trying to find ways to donate organs or blood." Those were your words, not mine. "We are not trying to find ways of lowering a population." I never said this either. "We are just trying to find a way to fairly punish someone for what they've done." Fairness is a narrow-minded and naive way of punishing criminals. Punishment should never be about fairness. It should be about discouraging criminals, and (if the punishment is one compatible with this goal) possibly keep them away from society for practical reasons. I fail to see a reason to punish people for the sake of fairness. "And can I also say, that there are spelling and grammar mistakes in 'Harlan's' argument. Take the word "attrocious" for example. That was in 'Harlan's' argument." Fine, if we ARE playing that game, then I guess I'll play too. In the above quote, his first sentence did not need a comma and should have had a quotation mark instead of a period, since it was phrased as a question. Also (I wasn't going to say anything, but I suppose I will), he misquoted Al Capone earlier. -Harlan