Life without parole is more ethical option than capital punishment.

I will not reinsure all my arguments this round because I will post my own arguments in Round 4. Though I will attack the key points. "Yes, true I mistakenly neglected to add in the 'United States' in the original question, my opponent has showed a lack of sources for his statement that 1,500 criminals have escaped from prison. " I am sorry for not posting my source for last round, because I had to save up space due to my opponents choice of making only 4,000 characters. ([1]) The source also shows that the amount of escapes were much more than just what my opponent states "mere five times" "My opponent has proved to me that he can pick on words and phrases for the smallest negligent mistakes." Exposing spelling and grammatical errors is one whole section of voting. "My opponent states that 15,000 inmates convicted of any major crimes have unknowingly escaped due to my opponent's lack of reliable sources. I am pleased to announce that 2.5 million inmates are currently incarcerated and have not escaped." Pro has failed once again to see the whole argument, as it states that only from 2000-2013 were those escapes. Once again, [1] shows the "reliable source." I did not state that 15,000 inmates have escaped, though i have stated 1,500. Once more, my opponent fails to read the entire argument. "Also the only reason my opponent has exceeded the word limit is behalf on speaking negatively about my words." My original draft of my round 2 argument was 6,000 characters, but I had to take out key information. And true, one key point of debates are exposing the failures of the opponent's arguments. "I am pleased to announce that 2.5 million inmates are currently incarcerated and have not escaped." But are these criminals not potential dangers to society? "To recap, my opponent has not offered reliable sources and has proved to me that he is skilled and shedding negative light on my arguments." I believe my opponent did not actually review his argument before submiting, because he repetedly states that I had not provided any information, though I have stated 4 times now. Thank you. And for the last time, it is: [1] I will no longer refute my opponents arguments this round, because I will state my own. "The study examined the relationship between the number of executions and the number of murders in the U.S. for the 26-year period from 1979 to 2004, using data from publicly available FBI sources. The chart nearby shows the number of executions and murders by year. There seems to be an obvious negative correlation in that when executions increase, murders decrease, and when executions decrease, murders increase." [2] Like the quote states, there is a solid relationship between the amount of victims of the death penalty, and the amount of murders committed the next year. "Recent research on the relationship between capital punishment and homicide has created a consensus among most economists who have studied the issue that capital punishment deters murder" [3] "Figure 1 displays the murder rate and the number of executions in the United States for the period 1960-2000.23 The two series appear to move in opposite directions." [4] "my claim about the topic being ethical." My next argument is also a refutation. My opponent states that Life without parole is indeed, more ethical "We suggest, in other words, that on certain empirical assumptions, capital punishment may be morally required, not for retributive reasons, but rather to prevent the taking of innocent lives [5]" I have few characters left so therefore I will extend my arguments next round. [1] http://tinyurl.com... [2] http://online.wsj.com... [3] http://www.judiciary.senate.gov... [4] http://www.hawaii.edu... [5]http://www.bus.lsu.edu...