A New Radical Justice System

Before I begin this last round, I would like to concede my mannerisms: You're stupid as hell. Carrying on: "A justice system is only valid if it isn't based on one person's views." I never even implied this. The point about the views of this one person lacking supporters is made to show that others do not harbor the person's sense of justice. They're innate response is that this sense of justice is wrong and unjustified. It is my way of drawing from a large source of existing support and making it part of my contention. How do I know this support base exists? Pro says in round 1: "Most people who have known me in life have described me as a mad-man, a genius of the rarest kind, the next Hitler and a fool. Most names came before my system was suggested and after I told my justice system to people they have freaked out saying it's insanely wrong and unjustified." fool (n.) - a person who acts unwisely or imprudently; a silly person My opponent is a fool. The support base supplements this statement. My opponent has nearly zero credibility. "The current system of imprisonment is not based on one's system and thus is valid." The current system is valid not because it isn't based on my opponent's system, but because it has been refined and refurbished over and over again. It's has undergone centuries of practical application. The current system has more 'experience'. My opponent's system, which is based on hypothetical accounts and reasoning, is no match in comparison. The current system is more than valid, it is practically developed. (Semantics: The current system is based on the views of many ones. My opponent seems to think that he is the only 'one' and that no other human being are 'one's. Groups are made of many ones, therefore, it is based on one's system depending on the 'one' you single out.) "Pro's system is based on Pro's own views so thus is invalid." Pro's system is not only invalid, it is impractical. The reason for impracticality, though, is not that it is based on pro's views. I've established several reasons for invalidity. How does my opponent miss every single one? "A woman other than pro displays the urge to get revenge on men who brutally raped and tortured her." I'm sorry, but I don't see how this supports your side of the debate. "A criminal obviously knows the legal repercussions of murder. This does not stop them from killing, stealing, burning or raping." This is exactly the issue with the current system, it isn't terrifying enough to prevent someone from committing a crime such as murder." I will attack this 'terror' system later in the round. "error is the use of the phrase 'sole reason'" I must address this. My opponent fails to argue against my contention about limitation (Receiving less than 0% or more than 100%). My point has not been addressed. Assaulting my diction error is like grasping at straws. It is pedantically insubstantial. "My opponent's 'logical argument' is not considered logical by any other person. Many people instinctively know it to be illogical but lack the ability to clarify this. How can you possibly justify the assumption that not ANY OTHER PERSON THAN ME considers my argument logical. Also, you provided no evidence to support the invalid claim that many people instinctively know my idea to be illogical" How do I know? Is my opponent serious? Let me re-re-post this statement from round 1: "Most people who have known me in life have described me as a mad-man, a genius of the rarest kind, the next Hitler and a fool. Most names came before my system was suggested and after ->I told my justice system to people they have freaked out saying it's insanely wrong and unjustified."<- Ask any of these people whether or not they think your system is logical. The standard reply would be: no. (someone needs to teach me how to italicize or bold phrases/words) "The blind-spot is that they punish two people who committed crimes under the same label and same named manner of committing it EQUALLY despite the fact that they committed the crimes in an entirely different manner from one another. " My opponent contends that this is not fair. What gives him the authority to judge what is fair or not? (as established earlier, his credibility is near nonexistent) Notice that, on careful examination, my opponent's system only applies to the most atrocious crimes. The colossal efforts required to gain followers to the system coupled with lack of support would make its real application near impossible and therefore impractical. To introduce such a radical change, my opponent would have to rely on some kind of social upheaval. All this just to cover the 'unfairness' of the punishment given to the more heinous criminals. To destroy the established and well-practiced system to obtain results that only pertains to about 3% of all crime[1]. Is the result worth the effort? It is like climbing a mountain to obtain something (a cup of water for example) that already exists at the ground level. It's impractical and stupid (no offense Mr. Pro :3) '"I fear prison (my opponent already describes it as a horrible place to be), and I fear death (especially death more than anything). The fear of death is a primal survival instinct key to nearly every single species on Earth." Okay, so I'll just ignore that the fear of pain is an equally, if not more powerful, survival instinct that helps us control animals and disciplines humans." As I have presented through my arthritis example, fear of pain is only abstract until after its experience/application. Was that example insufficient? Shall I provide more? Alright: Would you fear people if I told you some could be murderers? Would you fear people if I told you some commit horrific crimes? Would you fear the sun if I told you that the sun could cause excruciating pain? Would you fear snow if I give you detailed accounts of extreme frostbite (losing extremities)? Would you fear fire if I told you that it can elicit pain? Would you fear water if I told you it could drown you? Unless all criminals were agliophobic, the terror of pain which my opponent attributes to all criminals only exists in abstract. My opponent fails to establish insurmountable logic/proof to support his claim that making people feel the exact same degree of suffering is better than imprisoning or killing. My opponent fails to prove his contention stating that his system is more practical than all other systems in existence. My opponent fails to disprove my contentions (and resorts to semantics, good job) My opponent fails to provide evidence (or logical support) to his obviously extensive knowledge of criminal psychology (criminals will definitely think the way you want them to think :3) My opponent fails to establish his theory under the light of practicality. Before I bring this debate to a close, I would like to thank my opponent for the effort put into this debate. I respect that he put a great amount of time and thought into establishing this system, but I cannot accept this system as viable. I hope I was able to convince him of his erroneous logic and bring him towards acceptance. http://www.census.gov... (I added rape and murder and divided it by total overall crime)