Resolved: The Death Penalty Should be Removed

I shall recap on this debate and shown why I've won. Much to the protests of my opponent. My case versus my opponents. Round 1 clearly states no semantics or ad hominem. The following are violations: Opponent states "He argues that someone could be innocent. First, this doesnt link in with capital punishment, it is an argument to increase the standards of evidence." in round 2. I stated (previously): "While she may claim they were convicted of a felony, she does not take into account those who were falsely accused and killed as a result." in round 2. This is semantics, as my opponent contested the exact meaning of my sentence.[1] I never made a claim for the increase in the standard of evidence, I stated very clearly CP causes innocents to die as well. I furthered this point with the Steven Truscott case, as evidence was there to NOT convict him yet it still happened. Second violation of semantics: Opponent states: "He argues that the state shouldn't have responsibility for people, but we have to make the assumption that it should be. Nothing less significant than the legitimacy of the modern state rests on this assumption, and since this is a debate about an individual issue not statism, its imprudent to debate the merits of government here." In the second round. I stated (previously):"The state is NOT responsible for the procreation of the individual, so why then shall it have the right in determination the death of the same individual? Indeed, death is never needed. Remember when you were a child? What did you fear most? Your mother yelling and screaming at you? Or your mother giving you the 'I'm disappointed in you' speech? The former causes a fighting response while the latter makes you regret the decision very quickly. Shame is -statistically speaking- far more effective." in the second round. This is also semantics, I never stated the state is not responsible for people per se, but that it is NOT responsible for determining their life lengths. Pretty clear, and thus my opponent should automatically lose with this alone, however I shall continue. Violation of ad hominem Opponent states: "Its incredibly cheap for him to advance new arguments at this point, he should lose the debate for trying to cheat here." in round 3. I shall state several issues: 1) violation of the rules for my opponent to attack my integrity personally, and 2) it still allowed her to rebuttal my arguments, I even TOLD HER that I would argue those within round 3 in round 2. The arguments are fair. My opponents complaints are unfair and should result in her automatic loss in combination with the above semantics. However, I shall show as well why I've won: Round 1 clearly states justification through political, legal, moral, or economical means. Let's see how our opponent fulfils her BOP. Economical: Me: too expensive, more costs to the taxpayer due to judges, experts, witnesses, to ensure the prevention of a wrongful conviction.(dropped) Opponent simply maintains justice is higher than money (concession). Result: no BOP filled. Legal: Opponent: Theory of justice, claim deterrents crime, claim recidivism Me: violation of the US constitution, UN Declaration of Human Rights, shown a US supreme Court Judges testimony, also Canadian findings of CP being cruel and unusual punishment (charter of rights and freedoms), showed it did not deter crime but just the opposite. Opponent: Claims Supreme Court Rulings opposite, claims ceteris paribus in measurement, and claims drops in her sources. Claims I must show family seeking revenge for 'culture of violence'. Also claims people released if lwop came into power. Me: sources broken links, shown with other sources area of error, shown New York state and Massachusetts overrule CP due to Cruel and Unusual punishment. Same as Canada, AND pointed out studies show neighbouring states, and Canada versus that of Canada. Case shown for opponent as requested. Shown criminals on death row would not be released, meerly transfered to lwop. Opponent: violates ceteris paribus to attack Canada versus US. Should count as drops. Also claims case is irrelevant for culture of violence. (I do not know how she could ask only to claim it's irrelevant. SHE ASKED FOR IT) Also should count as a drop. Moral: Opponent: claims self evident. Me: Not so -shown through consequentialism (everyone's life is at risk thus immoral) refutes eye for an eye. Opponent: irrelevant, LWOP immoral Me: miscarriages of justice do not result in innocents being killed, thus relevant, also consequentialism covers due to the fact that it is better for everyone. Also shown through Primum Non Nocere that doctors reputation is tarnished. Opponent: not the case .. yet no objective theory shown, still claims immoral. I should also note that our sources will be key in determining a winner if the audience finds no wrong doings of my opponent. I therefore ask them to check clearly and carefully. CSI effect does not exist her source even shows that as well. Other than that violations of semantics, and ad hominemshould result in my win never mind the debate it's self, which even then as I have shown my opponent failed to justify via moral, economical, political, or legal grounds. The resolution is upheld with superb aplomb. I thank you for your time and VOTE PRO! Sources: 1)https://www.google.ca... 2) http://www.debate.org... 3) http://www.debate.org... http://www.google.ca... http://www.google.ca... http://www.google.ca... http://www.google.ca...