The Death Penalty--With a Twist!

I will refute Con's case and offer voting issues now. OVERVIEWI posited two ways in which the right to life may be overcome: (1) choosing to kill myself, and (2) waiving my right to life.Regarding the first, Con makes the new claim the death is the complete reduction of a person because the killed person will never make decisions again. Unfortunately, this is non-responsive to my earlier assertion that the right to choice is the highest right. If I choose X, I am entitled to X on the strength of that right. The most immoral thing to do is to deny persons the results of their autonomous choices. This is worse than death, because it devalues an individual into a sub-human object, whose will means nothing. Thus, death is not contrary to the conception of human dignity I advanced so long as death was chosen by the individual.Next, Con asserts that the defendant did not decide to die because "the defendant does not want to be killed." This is false. Let's return to my cookie jar example. The child clearly does not want to receive a timeout for stealing the cookie, yet, it is his just due. By choosing to steal the cookie, he chose to accept the consequences of that action. In the case of the Criminal, by choosing to commit acts he knew might result in the death penalty, the Criminal has accepted the consequences of his actions, including death.Con totally DROPS the argument that the Criminal has waived his right to life. Extend this point. It will be important shortly.CON's CASEI agree that Pro may argue for alternative penalties, but let's refer back to my first round of debate, where I wrote: "Finally, it is a logical extension of the hypothetical scenario to assume that the Criminal knew, that if he were convicted, he may face the death penalty. If the justice system under which he is being prosecuted is considering that course of action after his conviction, this is a reasonable assumption to make." Con wholly DROPPED this point.So, if we agree that the Criminal knew that the proscribed punishment for his action was death, then by taking those actions, the Criminal accepted the consequence of death. It is insulting, demeaning, and paternalistic to deny people the consequence of their choices. To fail to respect the Criminal's choice of death would be to say that the Criminal's autonomy doesn't matter, which robs him of his dignity, and disrespects his status as a non-object.The reason life has worth is that we're able to exercise our autonomy in a meaningful way. As soon as our autonomy lacks meaning (we're denied the consequences of our choices) life becomes worthless, and becomes a living death; namely, because our human dignity, the sanctity of our life, is removed. Thus, death is preferable to the living hell encountered when human dignity is not respected to its fullest extent. The right to our choices thus trumps the right to life.Moreover, if you accept that I can waive my right to life by choosing to take certain actions, then this whole debate about human dignity and death becomes an interesting sideshow, but just that: a sideshow. Why is that? Because if I can waive my right to life, there is no reason why I couldn't be killed.Con claims next that I dropped Con's argument that "it is not always clear whether a violation of rights has occurred." In fact, I did NOT drop this point, and made the following response: "Con suggests that rights are fickle, yet, if not our rights, then what determines our moral sphere in life? The only alternative I can see is some conception of human dignity, affirming my case. Moreover, claiming that rights are vague seems rather disingenuous, as most proposed criteria for morality are also vague or 'fickle.' Next, we can say that certain rights, life the right to life, are fairly straightforward--you're either alive, or your not. Violations of that right are pretty clear." This has several key impacts, all of which Con DROPPED: (1) Con has no better alternative to rights, so judges must default to rights or human dignity as I outline it because they're the only options provided to them in the round; (2) Most moral criteria entail some nebulousness, so Con's argument is non-unique; (3) there are very clear rights that we can look to, even if many rights are still vague. These three DROPPED points take-out Con's meager rebuttals. Also, Con employs a lot of rights dialogue in Con's case, leading to a contradiction: Con both cites and agrees to the importance of inalienable rights (round three), but then bashes the rights paradigm for morality. Con's case suffers due to a lack of consistency.Con then says that rights change. This is another contradiction. In round three, Con said rights were inalienable, meaning that such rights are "incapable of being alienated, surrendered, or transferred." [1] In other words, inalienable rights are permanent; yet now Con suggests that rights change. Con needs to make up his mind.Next, Con's link is an attempt to evade the character limit. All arguments must be presented in the text of the debate. If I could just say, "X is true...read the link" I could avoid having to provide any actual warrants in my case, and fill my character space with a bunch of links that took readers to 40 page essays justifying those stance. This is clearly abusive and the link should be entirely ignored.Con utterly DROPS my rebuttal to the Declaration of Independence argument. I stated: "Con asserts that just because the Declaration of Independence says we have inalienable right, we have inalienable rights. While not quite a bare assertion fallacy, Con puts forth an argument and just assumes its validity, without providing any analysis as to why it's true. Since it's Con's argument, Con has the BOP to warrant the claim." Since Con has failed to provide any warrant other than to say "the Declaration of Indepedance demands that it is impossible for the right to life to be given up" Con has failed to substantiate his own argument. Just because the Declaration (or nearly any document/authority) says X is true, does not make X true.Con DROPS that rights forfeiture theory does not lead to a slippery slope. Con says that I concede that the only reason for the DP is reciprocity/revenge. Unfortunately, that's untrue. I have always contended that the purposed for the DP was to respect the choices of autonomous agents.Yes, killing is generally wrong, but I never said it was wrong in the case of the death penalty. Con writes, "the defendant is being prosecuted for murder: Yet, Pro suggests that the State should engage in that same moral wrong." There is a big difference between murder and the death penalty, in that the former is an act of violence without consent, while the later is chosen by the Criminal. The former disrespects autonomy, the latter embraces it. Con then argues that I failed to respond to need to reject demonizing rhetoric. In fact, I did address this analysis by turning it back on Con. I observed earlier that Con's opening rounds demonized the Criminal more than my entire case did. Consider what Con wrote: "this person seems to symbolize the worst of humanity--he is guilty of mass rape and murder. Sometimes people make light of serious crimes in by suggesting that the defendant 'feels remourse' for her/his actions." If saying that the Criminal represents the worst in humanity is not demonizing, then I don't know what is. Therefore, because Con employs demonizing rhetoric, we can say that this point is non-unique (assuming we both do it) or that it can be turned on Con as a reason to reject Con's case (assuming Con does it to a greater degree than me).Regarding the contradiction I noted earlier in this debate, Con attempts to say that he never said that revenge was immoral; yet, when we analyze what he actually said (pls. refer to previous rounds), it is very clear that this was exactly what he meant. Thus, the contradiction exists. But, even if you don't buy it, I don't need to win this argument to win the debate.PRO's CASECon attacked my sources, rather than my logic, which is disappointing. Just because a source is old does not mean it is invalid. I advised Con that I had a ton of internal warrants in my case (e.g. the chair example, the tools analysis, etc.) all of which Con DROPPED. The logic on which my case was predicated has therefore NEVER BEEN REBUTTED by Con at any point in this debate. Extend my case's framework.Con also shows how little time he devoted to rebutting my case. I NEVER CITED HUME AT ANY POINT DURING THIS DEBATE, yet Con spends an entire paragraph lecturing me on how Hume opposed the DP. In fact, I used Hegel, who is definitely not Hume.Con then says my case is "full of holes" but has devoted less than two small-ish paragraphs per round rebutting it. Clearly, Con has barely troubled to read my case, let alone poke holes in it.VOTING ISSUESCon may not rebut dropped points at this time, b/c I'd have no chance to respond.1. Human Dignity Insofar as choice is of prima facie importance, and the Criminal has, by choosing to take an action with a punishment of death, chosen death as his fate, it is moral to put him to death, in order to respect his autonomy unconditionally, as the Stanford evidence (my case) shows. Basically, just extend my case across. 2. Rights Forfeiture Rights are not inalienable. Con drops his slippery slope objection and doesn't respond to my 3 points re: the importance of rights. Conclusion: if I commit an act vile enough, I can surrender my life. As I noted round three: "Insofar as I commit some of the worst crimes possible, I waive my most fundamental rights [including] my right to life." Con admits the Criminal symbolizes the worst in humanity, and so meets the criteria for forfeiting his right to life. Thanks to Kbub and the Judges! Please VOTE PRO!SOURCEhttp://www.merriam-webster.com...