Resolved: The United States Ought To Use Capitol Punishment By Lethal Injection

>I shall rebut my own case then my opponent's. :: Value and Value Criterion :: >My opponent describes my criterion as inadequate for four main reasons. A. He makes no warrants The justice system is based on morals. I was under the impression that this was relatively obvious. For example, we do not sentence life in prison for stealing a candy bar. It would be immoral to do such a thing (given the already discussed worth of life). B. He makes no link the value See previous statement. Justice is based on morality. C. He makes no impacts to the value Without morality justice does not exist. I think that's an impact. D. He never defines what morality is About this my opponent is right although I still assumed it rather obvious. Morality is what is right or wrong; permissible or impermissible; should or should not. Additionally, my opponent claims that morality is too vague or relative. Essentially, he thinks that it is subjective. This is a logical mistake. He follows an informal logical fallacy known best as Loki's Wager. Basically, he makes the claim that something which is mot easily measured (in this case, morality) cannot be discussed. This premise is obviously false as it can be related to multiple subjects. For example, I could claim that piano skill is immeasurable. In some senses, this has a point. I, myself, would not be able to choose between two world class pianists. However, there is a bright line between skilled and unskilled. There is a similar line between moral and immoral. My opponent lastly claims that killing in self defense is a contradiction by this rule. This is actually untrue. This is by a rule known as et domus sua cuique est tutissimum refugium. This is Latin for "a man's house is his castle," in the case house refers to oneself. If the person kills not for malice, but rather for defense, this is perfectly moral. Additionally, murder is defined as killing with premeditated malice while killing is simply taking a life. The moral line lies in the malice. Justice is again based upon this. While the murderer may be sentenced to prisoner, a killer may not be. :: Contention 1 - Scale of Justice Argument :: >My opponent's first point of rebuttal is that capital punishment is not vengeance; but retribution. This has just as many flaws. For example, people from Oklahoma can be sentenced (remember that we agreed to discuss the entire US) to death for multiple sexual abuses (http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org...). Retribution means that the penalty fits the crime. We don't rape that person twice, instead they can be sentenced to death. This is clearly NOT retribution. Not proper retribution anyway. My opponent claims that my logic strengthens his first response. He has neglected to explain, so I have nothing to rebut. Simply a bare assertion fallacy. Third, he brings up that no punishment is personal. I completely agree. This is why there are five reasons to punish someone. This may not need to be personal. For example, assault could result in a year of jail. This is retribution because society has deemed this equivalent. Rape obviously does not equal killing. :: Contention 2 - The Use of Death As Punishment Is Immoral :: >My opponent's argument is basically an ignoratio elenchi; he admits that I am right about life's worth. He then immediately changes the subject to the second chance of someone who is killed on the streets. This is all well and good, but it doesn't really address my argument. It is just a distraction, a red herring if you will. If my opponent wanted to discuss innocents killed and their second chances, he would have added it as a contention. A. Pain In Lethal Injection >My opponent rules this void as the method of killing is not to be the main clash. While I agree with the principle of it not being the main argument, pain during death is relevant no matter how killing happens. However execution may happen: stones; lethal injection; hanging; etc. Pain is involved. Lethal injection is currently very common and is the best means of comparison. I thus claim that this point is NOT null. >I now move on to my opponent's case. :: Value and Value Criterion :: >My opponent bases his refutation of my rebuttal to his second contention off of what a bright-line is. I hereby concede that it is related or pertaining to rights violations. However, ought life to be a right? I quote my opponent: "Ought to, defined as referring to a higher standard of obligation impacts the resolution because the debate is over a standard, rather then necessity." "Life is the greatest gift." So don't we, even according to my opponent's implications, have a higher standard of obligation to protect a right to live? Don't we all deserve this? Yes, we ought to allow the right to live in the US. :: Contention 1 - Scale of Justice Argument :: >My opponent makes three claims in his third contention: My opponent says that he has met the burden of ought, but he neglects to explain it. This is simply the bare assertion fallacy. He next says that I never respond to "positive and negative right violations." If this truly falls under the umbrella of "Scale of Justice Argument," I have indeed rebutted it or its essence for that matter. My opponent says that contextualizing the murder does not answer the question (implied) given in his case. My opponent simply cherry picks in his case; he gives evidence true about some unique cases, but these are not always the case. He acts under the false premise that capital punishment is only used for murders. It is not. >Voting Issues: *My opponent has ignored several of the arguments I have given, he simply moves on to another topic while he is to be responding to mine. *My opponent has never fully proved his own case, rather he assumes that he is correct. *My opponent hasn't "killed" any of my contentions. >I thank my opponent for this debate and wish him luck. Please vote Negative. 5,998 characters used.