Kidnappers should be made to face capital punishment

First, I'd like to point out my opponent's plagiarism. As you can tell by visiting this link, everything from "as cases for kidnapping" -- even including the capitalized "AS" -- has been copy and pasted: http://www.nairaland.com... and yet he has not provided a citation. Next, he tells us to ignore his grammar. But how can we do that? That is one of the criterions for this debate, after all. One simply cannot say, "I am on my phone, so don't vote on grammar." My opponent is attempting to move the goal post here. I strongly advise voters to take into account both his deliberate plagiarism, and his attempt to remove from the voter's discretion a key criterion of voting. I will now issue my rebuttals since my opponent has the burden of proof. However, I will not address the plagiarized piece for obvious reasons. That argument is not unique, nor it is his, and it will not count toward his arguments. First, my opponent argues that kidnappers torture their victims. First of all, where is his evidence that all kidnappers torture? There is no objective evidence that all kidnappers torture their victims, so this is merely an unfounded assertion his part. Not only that, but has not established why torture is a death-penalty worth offense -- why we should even be willing to take "an eye for an eye" one step further, and deal two eyes for one eye (a harsher penalty, arguably, than the crime itself). I am not defending kidnappers, as my opponent may try to rebut, and I want to punish them within the fullness of the law. But my point is, there is no reason whatsoever why act of robbery should result in execution. Next, my opponent again tries to change the goal post. He argues that kidnapping is done for the purpose of killing -- again, without evidence -- and attempts to appeal to the sensibilities of the voters by arguing for the death penalty not for kidnapping, but for murder. The resolution does not deal with the death penalty for murder, but for kidnapping, so Pro is unlawfully changing the goal post, once again. Therefore this argument falls. On his point about selfishness, he commits the same fallacy by invoking killing. The resolution is not on killing, nor can he prove that every single kidnapper kills his victims -- which is the only way to argue that killing and kidnapping are inseparable. Again, I'm not defending kidnapping, and in this case, I'm not even going to present a case against the death penalty in the case of murder. Simply put, my opponent is committing fallacy after fallacy and is not substantiating his arguments. Onto selfishness itself, his point is laughable. Selfishness is a death penalty worth offense, he contends. Does anyone actually accept that? So, I took the last cookie out of the cookie jar without caring that maybe my baby brother who didn't get a cookie but loves chocolate chip really wanted one (not a true story, but bear with me). Was I selfish? Of course! But my opponent does not tell us where he draws the line. If selfishness, ipso facto, is a crime, I should be executed, says Pro. Hopefully we can all realize how utterly absurd his arguments are. He then claims that his argument is a "tooth for a tooth." No, it's not. It's three teeth for one tooth. He tries to connect several other crimes to kidnapping and argue that execution is therefore on an equal footing, but does not tell you that the simple act of kidnapping -- which is NOT torture, NOT murder, etc. -- while a horrible crime that should be dealt with, is not on par with execution. He then makes an even more laughable point and essentially says that kidnappers can engage in productive activities that improve society. Ok? Of course they should. Some can, while others -- perhaps those who are mentally ill -- cannot. This, however, is not an argument in favor of execution. Conclusion: My opponent has plagiarized, attempted several times to move the goal post, and has made several utterly asinine arguments, all of which I have thoroughly disproven. At this point, he has no more arguments remaining on the table. On top of all this, the presentation of his argument as well as his grammar were quite poor and nearly illegible.