The Death Penalty should be made illegal in the USA.

While you and I might consider calling people "anti-death penalty zealots" an OK and not OK thing; this ultimately will be considered by the voters, not us, and so, while we might disagree, conduct is a set rule that can be breached and the voters will assess. I would also say that it calls upon the hasty generalization fallacy -drawing a majority conclusion from a minority number. With rule six, again, the voters will decide our fates ultimately. But enough of this: let's continue! I will address my contentions from round two in order and work down. Contention 1: Innocent executions. My opponent has not addressed my refutes in round three, though this might be due to characters limits, but until he does, I'll extend my argument and refute. Contention 2: Cost. My opponent accuses me of "cherry picking" the state of California as an example. While I did choose California and it might be one of the more severe examples - this problem is hardly unique to California[1]. Cherry picking would require it to be so; it is not. My opponent also suggests that the studies "inadequately address the high cost of medical care" among other factors. Now, one cannot simply dismiss all the evidence that the cost is too high relatively. Otherwise, I could call the investigations that investigated cases that resulted in people being executed inadequate; these studies never take into account the possibility of quantum tunnelling, after all. Clearly, this example is ridiculous, and my opponent has not met his burden with his example, either. Lastly, my opponent asserts his own opinion as a conclusion instead of an argument for a conclusion. ("Ultimately *I consider* this a fraudulent basis. .. "). I don't consider it. Opinion does not equal argument. I extend my contention. Contention 3: Deterrent failure. (I would recommend the use of paragraphs as it would help me (and possibly the voters) greatly, please). My opponent takes percentages of murderers versus the total population. This is largely irrelevant when approaching it from a deterrent point of view. I will give a different approach: #1 State for murders: California. Has death penalty. (DP) #2 State for murders: Texas. Has DP. #3 State for murders: New York. Doesn't have DP. #4 State for murders: Pennsylvania. Does have the DP. #5 State for murders: Michigan. doesn't have the DP. [2][3] So, in the top five alone, three of the states have the death penalty - and yet - they also have the highest murder rates. It cannot be shown that it does work as a deterrent. Again, my opponent cites his own opinion on the approach: "*In my opinion*, this is a very simplistic approach that. .. ". Opinion does not equal argument. "Amazingly, you seem to believe a cat scratch is a deterent but not death! " Apparently, but I just follow the numbers. I extend my contention. Contention 4: The 8th Amendment. Straight away, for the third time, my opponent cites his own opinion - which does not equal argument - for an argument. ("*I consider* this erroneous reasoning; the. .. "). However, after this he does give a strong counter; I will consent the argument. But, as a side note, going to sleep might not make any difference to pain. It might - I have not seen any study showing how we don't feel pain while asleep, and since they tend to be dead after the injection, no one can really say for certain. Now, onto yet more contentions: Contention 5: Racial equality (or lack thereof). Several studies indicate that if you're coloured; you have a higher chance of being found guilty than if you're white. [4] This is disturbing on many levels, indicating a racially bias system. This doesn't mean that everyone's racist, but the statistics are undeniable, nevertheless. Of course, it could be a racial bias system in alternatives, too, however, these alternatives would be better suited to a racial bias system because it doesn't deal in absolutes. Contention 6: The right to live. Every human has a right to live - that much is clear[5]. Yet, this is violated by allowing the death penalty. Simple logic. However, there could be more logic that adequately explains this violation and accepts it as "an exception. " The burden of proof rests with Con here, though. So I will leave it open for attempted refutation. I thank my opponent, the audience, and the voters once again for this debate; I will await the response(s)! Sources: [1]. http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org... [2]. http://www.fbi.gov... [3]. http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org... [4]. http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org... [5]. http://www.equalityhumanrights.com...