We should replace capital punishment with gladitorial combat

So, the debate is left with essentially two issues after you did not respond to any of my other points. The first issue, funding, and the argument that making GC public would lead to the outlaw of capital punishment and subsequently negative consequences. The funding issue I addressed in the last round. "Government institutions, like this one and the lottery for example, are not legally allowed to be sponsored by corporations. Also, I don't claim this anywhere in my arg. Second, the gov makes money on the winnings of the casino/people because of taxes. The payment to see this event by people would bring in revenue as well." The government would make money off of ticket sales and the taxes I mentioned, not requiring any kind of corporate involvement. They would also avoid the cost of the execution itself, like the prices of lethally injecting someone. That avoidance would be small, but the revenue (depart from sponsorships etc.) would be large, maintaining the money advantage I claim. Next, the rest of your post cites three sources that you claim argue publicizing executions would lead to the ban of capital punishment. I'll address them source by source. Keep in mind, we are attempting to ignore the legitimacy of the current system (a goal that seems to have gone by the wayside). In the part of the first article you don't quote, Miller says that public execution would allow us to "face up to the logic of our position." This means that people would only become outraged if they had a problem with capital punishment in the first place, which we stipulated they don't. The part of the article you cite is based on Miller's previous assumption that Americans don't like capital punishment. As I stipulated in Rd. 1, we are assuming the legitimacy of the current system. The piont this evidence makes is subject for a whole different debate and can not be applied to this one because it is based on assumptions neither of us prove here. Based on the issue we are discussing, this evidence is not correlative and doesn't function in the way you want it to. Your first two sources place themselves in a double-bind. Your Compton evidence argues that publicity would outrage the public, while your Farrel commentary claims "their television screen would allow people to accept it and rationalize it". So, which is it? Your own evidence disproves your argument. The lengthy Compton paragraph argues for public broadcast as well. He claims the public who want to see this should be able to. The only part that would benefit you "Some people may find the procedure barbaric and may be moved to protest further executions" is directly nullified by the very next sentence "Some people may see the execution as a just and rightful end to a barbaric human being". In the same article, your author argues for it again "Capital punishment is gruesome, but if television viewers wish not to see an execution, they can simply change the channel. The fact that some viewers may be emotionally affected by an execution should not prohibit an inmate or the press from exercising their 1st Amendment rights." In fact, the entire conclusion of the Compton article is a MASSIVE argument FOR broadcasted capital punishment. Compton does say that some people will be moved to protest, but he also claims an equal number would move in the opposite direction, cancelling each other out. Your own authors argue for my point. You may be able to snip one-liners that support your view, but clearly the general argument of both of these authors is FOR braodcasted executions. Additionally, as a point of my own. The rise against CP is terminally non-unique (it already would have happened). The news shows clips of Al-Jazeera(sp) networks beheadings, dozens of other countries (including us in the past) have public executions, and there are frequent shows which analyze and illustrate the real process which all would have caused this rise already. The only remaining source is the psychological study. At the surface, this seems persuading, but there are a couple of problems. First, the selection group is small and we don't know their prior views on capital punishment. This means that the results may not be as substantial as you want to claim. Beyond that, the study alone doesn't prove the brink to your argument. The results of the study found "televised) executions may somewhat reduce support for the death penalty". This doesn't provide for, prove or claim the societal upheaval that you do. So what if support for capital punishment goes down "somewhat", this doesn't mean it will lead to its outlaw. So, as these sources function with your claim that publicized GC would lead to the ban of capital punishment, they do not add up. Your first author assumes that people don't like the deaht penalty already (which we presupposed at the beginning of the debate wasn't true) in order to get to his conclusion. His contributor (Farrel) disagrees with him, claiming that publicized executions would lead to public rationalization and acceptance (the opposite of what you claim). Your second author is actually PRO publicity and cites several reasons for it. He also directly refutes your claim that there would be an uprising against CP by observing the trend in favor of CP. Finally, the study, if its results are verifiable, does not provide for the magnitude of your argument, finding that the drop in support was meager. This drop would not uproot the legal nature of CP. Also, we began this debate on the pretext that the current system is legitimate, whether that is true or not is irrelevant to this debate. So, as these two arguments are the only two you make, you observe the other benefits of GC and its very functionality. Remember the moral benefit of lifting thousands of deaths off of innocent shoulders. And, society would get some kind of value out of these people that have done such terrible things to damage it. Also, the government revenue (devoid from sponsorships and corporations, as I have specified and explained throughout the debate) from tickets and taxes, no matter how large, would offset or benefit the financial problem death row inmates present. After solving the funding problem and further examining your sources, I have proven that GC wouldn't lead to the abolition of CP and that your sources actually ADVOCATE MY POSITION. This means you have no ground to stand on, defensive or offensive. Weighing the harms, we have the moral, financial and entertainment benefits of GC against virtually no disadvantages. Therefore, we have every reason to switch the current capital punishment system to gladiatorial combat. Thanks, nice debate. I think I would put Sihan Sihan (killed Bobby Kennedy) against Hussein, to make people who agree be forced to kill each other. Otherwise, Charles Manson against any big strapping guy, to see just how good his skills of persuasion and charisma really are.