Death Penalty- Killing 3 times and your NOT out...

1. no problem, as long as we understand each other. 2. That's not how I saw the topic. My interpretation of the topic was that you were arguing in favor of a 3 strike rule, and I was arguing against one. Because you did not clarify what you interpreted from the topic in the first round, you can't change your interpretation now. If you intended it as an example, you should have used it in your speech, not the topic. 3. I don't quite see your point in this argument. You are saying that one can go to jail once, kill, come out, murder, and then get the death penalty on the 3rd murder. If you kill, you are going to be given life in prison. You aren't going to get out because you went in on drugs. Because you killed in prison, they would probably extend your term to life imprisonment. So still, you would need more than one life to get 3 convictions of murder. That wouldn't work. 4. If you want to get rid of the criminals we don't want in society, we don't have to kill them. We could put them in solitary confinement in a cell that is heavily guarded. That is essentially the same thing. You argue that we should kill those who we don't want in society anymore. According to your logic, we should just kill all those who we see as people we don't want in our society. Life in prison is the same thing, and if anything it would be worse. Imagine living on your own, your meals pushed through a hole in the door, and you have nothing to do, no one to talk to. Most people who undergoe this would probably go crazy. If anything, that is painless, but worse than just killing them. I don't think we should be allowed to kill these murderers in such brutal fashions, just to show that them killing by painless means is wrong. 5. And I am saying that we should not be killing those who have killed, just to show that they are wrong for killing. We would be hypocrites for doing so. And whether you want it or not, these mistakes happen all the time, yet we continue to kill those people. I submit that that is wrong. 6. Yes you are. Let me put it this way; You are advocating for a 3 strike rule. In other words, you are saying that if a person kills once, lets let them out after a few years, give them a chance to kill again, give them a couple more years, and then let them kill a third time, AND THEN punish them. Because you are claiming that jail doesn't change that person, then jail must not be a punishment then. So you are waiting until the 3 kill before you allow that person to be punished. I propose that we shouldn't even give them that chance of killing for a second time, and we should just put them in jail for their life. If you advocate an eye for an eye, then you should agree with me. We are taking one eye(the victim) for one eye (the murderer). The way I see it, you are advocating THREE EYES (the three chances that murderer has to kill, thanks to the 3 strike rule) for ONE EYE!!!(the murderer's life). Is that fair??? You are again, valuing the murderer's life more than the victim's life since you are waiting until their third murder until you punish them. your example: What we can do is put them in solitary confinement without the chance of parole for life. We can let them spend their lifetime to think about what they have done and what that act has done to their life. We shouldn't just kill them for killing someone else. The government should not be stooping to the murderer's level, and they should show that they are better than the murderer by not killing them like the murder has killed others, but instead we should just put them into solitary confinement for the rest of their life. If anything, that is a worse punishment since they have to live for the rest of their life with that guilt upon them, and the consequences. I'm not advocating letting the person kill 3 times and let him go back to jail. I'm advocating that we should only give them that one chance, and if they kill someone, they should go to jail for life. We shouldn't even let them get another chance in society to kill once more, and once more, and them give them the death penalty. We should just jail them for life and not let them out. What, the death penalty? If so, then aren't you just conceding to my side? So I just finished refuting all of my opponent's points. Seeing as he hasn't refuted mine, I can't do much but extend my arguments. My opponent in this debate is supposed to be advocating in favor of a THREE STRIKE RULE, before you get the death penalty. He claims that the first 2 jailings have not changed that person, so the third time we should punish them with death, the ultimate punishment. However, this is wrong because the first 2 jailings have not been a punishment if that murderer comes out and kills again. I propose that we should punish them the first time and jail them for life, instead of the few years my opponent advocates. 1. I do not have to prove that the death penalty should not be used. That is not the purpose of this debate. The direct interpretation, which I am assuming my opponent is using, is that this debate is about whether or not we should institute a "3 strike" rule before we kill the murderer. My opponent has the burden of proof, and he has to prove that we should indeed have this "3 strike rule" All I have to do in this debate is to disprove my opponents arguments like I did above, and then I will win this debate. However, if in doing so I show some arguments of my own, so be it. 2. I propose that we should not use a 3 strike rule, but instead we should use a 1 strike rule. If you kill someone in a premeditated murder, you should be punished immediately. Why in the world should we allow these people a second chance to kill someone else??? That is like making that murderer's life more valuable than your average citizen because if the murderer is allowed to kill someone, and that murderer is released back into society, and can kill again, you are saying that that murderer can kill 2/3 people before he will be killed. So 2/3 average citizens= 1 murderer. That makes no sense. Imagine if we gave them a third chance!! Thank you, and I await your speech.