Death penalty is never justified, under any circumstance

ConclusionThis debate is silly. PRO makes various arguments without asking one very simple question - does she exist to ask these questions?For example:1) PRO states "The question I’m interested in is *why*." Does she exist to ask the question?2) PRO states "Restorative punishment actually addressed this problem [of the dynamics that caused the birth of the killer" (PRO apparently believes we are all capable of reliving a second childhood, or having two lives instead of one). Does she exist to be able to address this problem?I have been very clear as to where I stand with such an extreme resolution - the only question worth asking (and which I asked in the prior round) in regards to the resolution is "Who would be left to uphold this principle?" If no one is left, then this issue cannot be debated and the resolution cannot be upheld. In cases where the entirety of society and humanity face extinction for whatever reason, and when the only solution is to summarily execute someone, the only question worth asking is "Is society left with any other choice than to summarily execute this person?" This question was inherent in my scenarios but apparently PRO thinks that I have reached some sort of limit when it comes to imagining the "most severe case Con could think of", even though I made it clear in my opening that "I simply ask that audiences imagine the most heinous crime imaginable, and then do whatever it takes to make it even more heinous...and then to do this ad infinitum." For the purposes of this resolution, there is no limit to severity of the crime.Threatened with human extinction for whatever reason, the only question to ask is "Is humanity's existence justifiable"? If the answer is yes, then we will kill anyone that threatens humanity's existence. Killing anyone, even without a trial, is the death penalty. Pertaining to the round #1 definition of "death penalty", one can be convicted in a "court" without a trial. One can be convicted of a "court" of one person with no audience.All this debate entails is asking whether or not there is any reason that exists to justify killing a person. Go straight to the logical conclusion and ask "if humanity was faced with extinction, would you destroy the source of this threat if it was a human being?" The only possible way to answer this question "no" is if you thought that humanity should not exist.PRO talks about trials, hearings, prisons, deterrence, restoration, etc...none of these are relevant to such cases. A case where summary execution without trial is required due to the exigencies of an extinction event will negate the resolution. I have stated this repeatedly in this debate, and PRO has chosen to ignore the existential question I have brought forth over, and over again.SummaryAdmittedly I may not have been as clear as I could have been, as I have brought up other cases that bear some token resemblance to PRO's arguments, but all I have done in this closing is to repeat the existential questions I have asked throughout this debate:1) When it comes to the death penalty, ""Who would be left to uphold this principle?" (round #3) If no one is left due to failure to execute someone, then obviously executing that person would be preferable to extinction.2) When "a criminal is beyond redemption and risks not only destroying societal cohesion, but may very well risk destroying ALL of the people that constitute society itself," when this criminal can escape any prison, cannot be interrogated and cannot be reasoned with, the only question worth asking when it comes to summary execution is "Is society left with any other choice?" (round #2)3) "I simply ask that audiences imagine the most heinous crime imaginable, and then do whatever it takes to make it even more heinous...and then to do this ad infinitum." (round #2)ClosingMy case is very, very simple. Simply ask yourself: in the scenario where all of PRO's arguments could not occur, whether it be restoration, deterrence, interrogation, prison time, trials, sentencing, etc...if all of these could not occur and humanity was faced with extinction unless we killed someone, would we kill that person?If you value life to any degree, the answer would have to be yes. If you don't value life, you would not be around to ask the question in the first place, so the resolution would still be negated. All of this is within the parameters of this debate, as its extreme nature forces any argument to this kind of ridiculous logical conclusion.I have thus negated the resolution. In the extreme circumstance that no one is around to debate the issue because humanity went extinct due to the failure of administering the death penalty, no one can uphold burden of proof for the resolution.Thank you for reading this debate. Apologies to audiences and to PRO that it took so long for me to cite the ridiculousness of such an extreme resolution. I probably should have led with this closing, but as I said, I don't think about the death penalty very often.