Pedophiles Should Be Executed

Before I begin, I'd like to make a few notes about the resolution itself and the topic of debate, and then shall move into my own case while attacking my opponent's case. The resolution is about whether or not killing someone who has sexually violated another person is a good thing to do or not. While certainly people who commit acts of pedophilia are not in the moral right, their actions should not and do not affect the permissibility of killing someone. Therefore, involving descriptions of their acts and how horrible it is to be a pedophile or other attempts at emotionally appealing to the audience on the ground that pedophilia is horrible so we should just off them all should not be weighed, as it is non-topical to the debate over the permissiblity of killing. With that in mind, I will move onto my case and advocacy. Whenever we describe what we should do or not do, we are essentially assigning value or non-value to an action or event. This, of course, only begs the question of how we assign that value or what gives the action or event value. To this end, there must be some sort of framework to evaluate the rightness or wrongness of the action in this topic (killing a person). To that end, I will advocate for Immanuel Kant's Categorical Imperative(1) which says we should act in ways that we can wish that every person would act. For example, if I am considering the rightness of helping an old lady across the street, I would have to consider if I could wish everyone else to do this action. Since I could do that and it would still be good, then I could say that helping an old lady across the street to be a good action. As for another example, if I were considering the rightness of cheating on an exam, I would have to consider if I would wish everyone else cheated on their exams. Since I couldn't do that and still call it okay, then cheating on my exams would be wrong. Bringing the Categorical Imperative back to the resolution, for killing a criminal to be okay, I would have to wish that everyone killed criminals. Sure we could consider killing to be okay for people who commit mass murders or genocide or something like that, but would killing be an appropriate punishment for shoplifting? Or jaywalking? Surely not. Therefore, since I cannot wish that it happen in all cases of criminals, I cannot wish for it to happen in the one case of pedophilia. Thus, killing pedophiles cannot be considered a good action, and thus something we shouldn't do, even if the alternatives are worse economically or something like that. With that, lets go and adress my opponent's case. The problem with my opponent's case is two-fold:Firstly, My opponent's case essentially boils down to one point: because pedophilia is bad, and because putting them in prison is too expensive, we should kill them. The problem with this is she claims that pedophilia is bad without much warrant to it other than an emotional appeal (not that I'm contesting this, just bear with me), and doesn't really warrant why putting them to death is a better option than housing them (which is exactly what I'm contesting). As for this, her case and advocacy is very poorly warranted. Because of this, there really isn't much of a reason to look to her case when I'm providing a reason as to why we shouldn't do the resolution. Secondly, her own source seems to contradict the point she's trying to raise that there is no way to rehabilitate those who are pedophiles. If you look specifically at the section that says "Treatment"(2), it lists a bunch of ways that lower the recidivism rate of pedophiles, as well as suggests physical or chemical castration as a viable way of permanently preventing pedophilia. This means that there are better ways to fix the problem than killing them. Because of this, I must urge a con vote on the resolution. Sources:(1): . http://simple.wikipedia.org...(2): . http://en.wikipedia.org...;