A just society ought not use the death penalty as a form of punishment.

Lets get straight to the point. This is a hypothetical situation. My opponent is using this hypothetical situation and trying to apply it to our world, which is arguably an unjust society. A society soley based on reasoning, fairness, and justice is impossible as it is clearly a utopia. In my counter-arguments, I DID argue within the context of his argument. Although I did not state his contentions, I pointed out many flaws within his arguments that followed. Do I really need to point out word for word? My opponent is treating you as simpletons, when I believe that you can understand the arguments I am making and how his contradict the ideals of a just society. Lets recap. Under my logic, my only argument is that the extent of the punishment is unmeasurable. However, my opponent is arguing in a REAL society, which doesn't apply to a just, hypothetical situation. It is better to leave a person with less punishment rather than more punishment. More punishment would be completely avoided, if possible, because the responsibility of enforcing what the criminal deserves is placed upon society. As the saying goes, it is better for a guilty man to be set free than an innocent man lay dead. Under this logic, alternative methods such as indefinite incarceration and rehabilitation are MUCH better methods than the death penalty in a real society, the society that my opponent is arguing about. That aside, we are arguing about a just society, one that is not possible. My opponent is taking my one contention, rewording it, and trying to point out the flaws and how the same argument can contradict each other. However, this hypothetical situation still has its limits. A just society is one that is honest, fair, reasonable. It isn't one that knows all the facts. It isn't one that can measure the punishment in proportion to the act. It is one, however, that is responsible for the acts it imposes upon the criminal. Even in this just society, excessive punishment would be worse than under punishment, re-iterating the saying above. Because a just society still has its incapabilities, the wrong amount of punishment is unavoidable. However, weight it out for yourself. Imagine you are loyal and honest to the just society. Say you go into a supermarket, ethics still intact. When being charged one dollar per pound, the scale only reads it by the pound with no rounding up or down. You either have 0, 1, or 2 pounds. Would it be more honest, loyal, and fair to take 1.99 lbs and be charged for 1, or taking 0.99 lbs and accepting the fact that you have lost 0.01 lbs? Sure, the supermarket, or the criminal, saves 0.01 lbs, but would it be more just to steal 0.99 lbs and have the market suffer more than necessary? Of course, this applies to a real society as well. Refining my argument, underpunishment (rehab, life in prison) are much more reasonable than excessive punishments (death). Let's assume the rules are in place. My opponent says follow the rules. Rules. Rules. Rules. If you live in the US, you abide by its rules. US Law is based on fundamental principles in religion- most notably the Ten Commandments. The 5th Commandment says "Thou Shall not Kill". How is killing someone for killing someone else justifiable. Is it just? Is it right? No, its cruel, is barbaric. In fact, I would say it is vengeance, not justice. And justice is what we are striving for, not vengeance. My opponent argues about consent to the rules. We are arguing about the validity of the rules and punishments. We are arguing about the Death Penalty, part of the rules, RIGHT? My opponents circular logic towards the act and the rules behind it are flawed. Rules that are unjust can be defied. Isn't that what we strive for in a real society? Is that not why the American Revolution was started? Britain, with heavy taxes, was placing EXCESSIVE rules that were unfair. That is what we are arguing about today. Don't change the subject. The validity of my statements are perfectly justifiable. You can reason for yourself. What piece of evidence is flawed. Is killing someone for killing someone else justice? Or vengeance? Would you prefer a guilty man free or an innocent man dead? I don't have journals or quotes, I have plain and simple logic. I don't tell you what is right, I let you think about what is right. I have refined my argument and have justified my vote on aff on the resolution. Circular logic and blind sightedness do not contradict my argument and my argument is well-maintained. My opponent, however, has not defended his position, but has only attacked mine.