death penalty

Alright so again as a brief road map - I will be strengthening my own case (affirmation). - I will be addressing negation contentions. Alright so just to clarify the Negation didn't state this in his speech but he must agree with my definitions because he hasn't provided any of his own and thus my value, criterion, and clarifying definitions stand. Ok so to jump right into my case my opponent hasn't directly hit any of my points which is the whole point of debate! A term we often use in parliamentary is that if someone doesn't respond to an argument they must agree with it. Even though my opponent didn't actually refute my arguments I will briefly restate them and elaborate on them. 1. Just desserts a. To summarize what i said in this point is that people who receive the death penalty are not innocent people and how people must go through a strict appeals process that rarely misses innocent people. I believe my opponent tried top respond to this but his lack of sign posting made it fairly unclear if his point about innocence was a refutation or one of his own connotations ether way I'm just going to take its as refutation and show you (voters) why it isn't reverent to my point or even accurate. My opponent states that 18 people have been shown innocent not only is this a false statistic but its also only a part of the statistic this is from 1855 to 2011 ok so this is 18 wrongful deaths in almost 2 centuries. In the past 3 decades we have had no wrongful executions thus proving my point that people go through they appeals process and that effectively separates the innocent from the guilty. Unless my opponent is suggesting that the American justice system is fatally flawed he has no real refutation to my point and if he is suggesting that the Justice system is flawed i would challenge him to show me why and where and if thats so true then why are we ranked number 6th on the worlds scale of equitable court systems? b. My sub point b is that people are deterred my the death penalty and that it keeps most criminals from actually committing felony crimes that can get them executed. My opponent didn't say anything on this matter at all, he didn't address the argument I also proposed of that fact that we as culture members of society shouldn't have to pay for room and board of these monsters. My opponent again did not refute these arguments and thus he must agree with me 2. Morality a. Victims families/closure: My opponent basically refutes this argument by making three claims the death penalty reopens wounds, money could be spent on violence prevention efforts, and the fact that the death penalty focuses only on the legal consequences. I can basically address this argument with one point EVIDENCE!!!! My opponent seems to believe that we don't have to have citations and that we can continually just make open claims and this is simply not true in order to have a good, fair, and educational debate you must cite sources for your claim otherwise their just opinions and they shouldn't be held in account when it comes down to voting. The basic argument structure is: Claim Evidence Warrant Impact So my evidence for the argument that it doesn't provide closer is "My family deserves justice, we deserve to have closure," said Jesse Ripley, daughter of Jane Hungerford, who was killed by Cecil Davis, now on Washington"s death row. Read more: http://q13fox.com... Ronald Carlson wanted vengeance when his sister was murdered in 1983 in Texas These are two pertaining examples of families needing the death penalty for closer thus i have sufficiently refuted my opens argument and mine still stands. b. American court system: So My opponent yet again could not find a refutation to my point about the fact that the us justice system requires fair and accountable punishment for crimes he said nothing in response to this and thus he is agreeing with me. So now I'm going to move on the Negations case, I will be showing you why its wrong and based on faulty evidence 1.Wrongful convictions a. Racial bias: My opponent made the claim that 60% of executions are people who aren't white. This again voters is simply another occasion when my opponent is nay presenting part of the fact. What he is trying to led you to believe is that we are majorly biased and only excite people who are african american. So here is the full statistic and this will simply show you that the evidence really backs my side of the case an less of his. BLACK 474 34% LATINO 110 8% WHITE 771 56% OTHER 24 2% http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org... So what we see is that the race excited the most is actually white, so this again voters shows you how unreliable my opponent is. He even goes as far is to make the blatant claim "it's always the African American race.". Voters we cannot in good conscious let someone who is going to make out right wrong claims and say that hey are facts wins debate! 2. Expensive a.Puts Criminal in head lines: My opponent claims that by executing people we put them in the headlines. Now this again is simply another pen of my opponents continued falsehoods. Its not the execution that puts someone in the headlines its the crime and the hearing that puts people in the headlines. I can back this up with the evidence of people committing crimes and getting life without parol and still needing up in the headlines. b. Life without parol: I actually am not quite sure what my opponent was trying to do here because he didn't offer a counter plan, so if he's suggesting that life without portal is his "plan" he has to have the main parts of a plan 1.Mandate:what he's going to change and how. 2. Agent of action: who's gong to put the mandate into effect. 3. cost: how much the mandate will cost. 4. Enforcer: who's going to make sure the mandate is followed. Because this a value case anyway there really is no need for a plan and it runs counter to what value debate is. But if you (the voters) decide to say he can offer a counter plan I can show you why his counter plan will not work. First off this has already been tried to be passed, second it doesn't fulfill todays criterion or value. We can't hold people accountable for murder if were going to let them just get away with living in prison their entire lives and pay for their food and shelter that simply is showing the criminal population that they can get away with murder; this is not punishing them thus we aren't holding them accountable for their actions! The impact of this not fulfilling our criterion is that we don't actually meet our value which is justice and without proper justice for xlll our entire country would fall apart simply because we were founded on the principles "Liberty and Justice for all". Ok to basically sum up my argument again the death penalty is just because Its Moral, It provides closer, It allows for people to receive true justice, and it is an effective deterrent. Because the Negation has been unreliable with citations, had confusing contradictory case, and because I have been able to provide citations, have followed proper argument structure, and finally have just presented a stronger case overall I urge a strong vote in firm of the Affirmation. Thank you all for reading todays debate hope you enjoyed it!