Death Penalty

Before I begin, I would like to clarify a misunderstanding in this debate. In my second post I did in fact state that "Jail is a more horrible punishment than death" to which I provided several statistics trying to attest this. My opponent has stated that this is contradictory, but this is simply a misunderstanding. I was trying to state that criminals would be more dissuaded from crime by an entire life in a prison rather than a painless death, which was why I asked the "What is a worse punishment? " argument. I was not trying to say that prison is a low-quality, horrific hellhole, I was trying to state that prison would dissuade crime more than death. I apologize for the lack of clarification, and I do not blame my opponent for his misunderstanding. Now I will attempt to demonstrate why you should try to vote in negation of the resolution. My opponent has stated frequently, including in his last post, that I am using subjuctive arguments unsupported by evidence. My opponent even goes as far as to say his points do not need opinions. Here are the arguments that my opponent makes that I feel are subjuctive: *That the death penalty establishes order *That one shouldn't compare prisons to death *That life in prison takes just as much court time as death penalties *That justice has--and should have--the same punishment for everyone *That race does not come into play in court trials In just his last post alone he makes numerous subjuctive claims: *That criminals have time to get affairs in order, they just don't use it (if you see the ABC News article I linked to, it shows that criminals don't use the time because they don't have it and spend almost all of their day alone in their cell) *That more Latinos and blacks are committing crimes than white people *That the most rural and poor areas are predominantly minority based *That a very low percentage of people are executed wrongly (which I refuted by listing three cases according to the conditions that my opponent gave in Round Two) *That criminals act sympathetic just to get out of the punishment (my source states that the one-third of death row inmates who showed remorse did so sincerely, refuting this point by my opponent) I ask you, are these points ones that do not need evidence? Does my opponent adequately defend these points with the logic he claims? He states that he "dissects" my sources and explains the flaws, and thus he doesn't need to post proof, but does that make any logical sense? Why should he get a free pass on backing up his claims even after I explicitly contradicted them by "dissecting"? It's an incorrect assertion. It is worth noting that several of my opponent's rebuttals neither rebut my own sources/points nor advance his own. An example can be found in the last post, where his rebuttal against my point about people using IV drugs was centered around the point of "that person should not have been doing drugs". Is this an adequate response to my point? He does very similiar arguments when attempting to rebut my first and third sources about wrongful executions. How are those proper rebuttals? It is further worth noting that my opponent dropped my argument, stating that death penalties were far more expensive than life in prison sentences. This is not addressed once in any of my opponent's rebuttal attempts. Nor is my point about mental illness in the prison population or my statistic that states that black defendant-white victim cases heavily outnumber white defendent-black victim ones. My opponent also appears to misunderstand several of the points I raised. Along with my "Prisons are a far worse and intimidating punishment" point, he misunderstands my source about Texas death row prisoners who sincerely feel remorse for their actions rather than faking it as my opponent states and my point stating that while prisoners on death row do have plenty of time, time is almost never used for this purpose and time that could be used is decreasing (prisoners are not misusing the time because they have little control over what they do, had my opponent read the source he would have seen that) in his last round post alone. Now let us look the points of this round, mine and my opponent's: 1. ) The death penalty is applied in an unfair manner against United States citizens. I stated numerous statistics pointing that many death penalty decisions are based on race. My opponent states that it isn't true without citing any statistics, simply stating that cases all throughout history prove me wrong. He does not even go so far as to cite a single case. My point still stands. 2. ) The death penalty is a misuse and waste of taxpayer dollars. My opponent didn't even attempt to rebut my point. My point still stands. 3. ) Innocent people too often are executed. My opponent tries to rebut my sources, but the rebuttals have numerous shortcomings, as previously mentioned. He then states that a very low percentage of this has happened, but he doesn't provide any sources. Should we put favor on a claim that is backed up by nothing or three examples that were inadequately rebutted? My point still stands. And now, my opponent's points. 1. ) A murderer should be rightly punished for his actions; the only way to do this is the death penalty. My opponent's defense centers around attacking a point that he misunderstands and that a murderer should die too. My rebuttal to this, about the rather high rate of remorse and mental illness, is partly dropped (mental illness) and misunderstood, as previously mentioned. My opponent, thus, is left with little defense. This point falls. 2. ) The death penalty is a painless and suffering-free way to die. My opponent's defense is based on a subjuctive statement (that it's painless) and based on rebuttals that further misunderstand the point I was trying to make. My opponent also drops my point about the mental anguish executees face on the gurney and on death row. This point falls. 3. ) Death penalties give the criminal enough time to get his affairs in order. Again, my opponent misunderstands my rebuttal, which states that time is almost never used for this purpose as they are stuck in their cell for almost their entire day which they cannot and do not control. This point falls. 4. ) There is no justice in allowing the murderer to live. This is a very similar contention to my opponent's first one. My opponent has stated explicitly on several instances that justice means the same thing and should applied in the same way to everyone. I pointed out several instances where this is, or at least should be, to the contrary, such as remorse and mental illness. As previously mentioned, the mental illness point goes unchallenged and my point about remorse is misunderstood. This point falls. In conclusion, I will try to offer my reasons as to why you should be voting for Con. 1. ) My opponent offered only one source in five rounds to back his claims. He stated that this is because he ran out of room, that his points do not need sources and that his attacks on my sources are adequate. I ask you, are these adequate, rational reasons not to back up one's claims with evidence? Are those proper excuses? 2. ) My opponent misunderstands several of my points and rebuttals. Disregarding my rebuttal to his first contention, he misunderstands my source on remorse as well as my rebuttal to my opponent's third contention. 3. ) My opponent's rebuttals are inadequate. These include my opponent's rebuttals to my sources on wrongful executions as well as my opponent's final rebuttal to my own rebuttal on his contention about painlessness and one of my opponent's final points about conditions in prisons and soldiers. 4. ) My opponent dropped a number of my points, including my contention on the cost of the death penalty. For these reasons, I strongly urge a ballot in negation of the resolution. Thank you.