Resolved: Capital punishment ought not be continued in the United States.

First against the facts on the cost of the death penalty he states I get most of my evidence form amnestyusa. org which clearly not true if you are to read through my MSNBC article which he has no argument against the validity of the website or the article. Then he says amnestyusa. org is an "anti-death penalty propaganda site" which is simply not true. This site is a humans right site. Since when has been upholding human rights been propaganda? It baffles me that my opponent would attack this site which is trying to uphold human rights around the world and defending those who haven't been that well defended in the first place. I believe his argument against my source is a rather weak one at that. He also, again like I stated before, refuses to attack the statistics that are brought up in MSNBC article and it seems almost as if he has refused to read it all together. The facts he brings up about statistics being skewed was from a year or two before the MSNBC article. Therefore, it holds no ground that the MSNBC studies are in any way incorrect. I like how my opponent says that DNA technology can advance but study taking can seemingly not. My opponent then to defend his DNA argument basically says what he said in the first round over again. In the perfect world DNA technology would work all of the time. However, we can clearly not say that it does. While DNA evidence is a great new source of information for us in our judicial system, we can't put all of our eggs in to one basket with it. We don't live in a utopia where DNA testing will always work in time to save an innocent persons life who has been wrongfully convicted. We always wont get that lucky and we don't know if we have sent innocent people to death before they were saved. While I will agree with my opponent that DNA testing is a great tool, I still can't say that we can continue use of the death penalty just because we have it around. DNA testing may make the margin of error a bit slimmer, but that margin is still there. While that margin of error is there we can not send people to death row with no moral uncertainty. Now on to my final argument and defense for the round on the death penalty being a deterrent. My opponent simply states on this point that he doesn't need evidence because it does deter him. If we were only talking about the death penalty as a deterrent on well mannered debaters then yes this argument would flow to his side. However, when I bring up evidence proving that in one of the states that the death penalty is most commonly used in we so no deterrent effect we can see that this magical deterrence we believe the death penalty has is clearly just not there as my opponent would like you to believe. His defense here is very weak and falls rather easily. Now on to the main reasons that the pro side has won today's debate. 1. Even with DNA technology around, we can not say that the margin of error of sending an innocent person to death row still isn't there. Therefore, our judicial system can not morally continue the use of the death penalty. We ought not continue the use of the death penalty within our judicial system. 2. The death penalty simply costs too much. If you are to look through my evidence from the MSNBC source you will see many shocking factors in to why it costs so much to house an inmate on death row. Even if they aren't executed there are more factors that lead to the cost being so high. If we were to simply do away with it we would no longer have to worry about the millions of dollars we are pouring in to it, and could maybe send those millions of dollars to trying to prevent crimes from happening in the first place. 3. The death penalty has no deterrence. When you look at the evidence that only my side has provided in this debate on the argument you can see that the argument simply falls that it has any sort of deterrent effect. You can clearly see that the pro side in today's debate has clearly shown that capital punishment ought not be continued in the United States. Our judicial system can not fulfill it's moral obligation when they cost our nations millions of extra dollars and put innocent people's lives on the line just so we can execute a person. "Capital punishment is the most premeditated of murders.