Giving Murderers the Death Sentence should be illegal

"studentathletechristian8", it is a known fact that life imprisonment is cheaper...3 to 5 times cheaper in fact.

(continuation of cut off comment).....Pro posted a source and Con didn't, Pro managed to misquote the source and posit an incorrect definition of murder.

Clearly a Con win.

Better presented and better argued, although I disagree with his reasons.

Pro would have had a better use of source(s) as Con used none (and Con would need a source to support the financial claim) except Pro managed to misquote his own source! Murder is not the taking of a human life!

Since Pro didn't give himself a chance to rebutt Con's argument, the argument stands unrebutted.

Also, Pro mis-difined murder. Con never took issue with that definition. Pro's definition, if accepted, would defate Con's claim that a murderer is someone guilty of mruder. But again, Pro only offered one round and deprived himself of this argument.

Before: Pro
After: Pro
Conduct: Con
Language: Tie
Argument: Con
Sources: Tie (although

I do. The site freezes up when i'm on this computer posting an argument.

@ Cavil:

1) I agree, but it was only one round with 500 characters... Each round was only 5 min...
2) There wasn't a lot of space at all, I had to pick what I thought was the strongest argument for the death penalty and run with it...
3) In a longer debate, with more rounds, more time, and more characters, I'd have had a better argument, there just weren't very many resources at my disposal.
4) I completely agree with this point, however there was no space for explanations... I had 6 characters remaining (And for some reason, when I had four characters left, it cut out the last part of "Vote CON." Anyone else have problems like this?)

CON wins cuz 1 round debate no time for aff to refute arguements

1: This debate was way to short to be very interesting.
2: The pro effectively proved that the death penalty qualifies as murder and that using it on murders is hypocritical. The con never made any argument to the contrary.
3: The pro had a very poorly chosen definition. The con should've turned that because if a murder is simply taking someone's life, then it would be illegal to kill murders in self-defense. Then the con would be protecting innocent victims.
4: The final problem is that neither side explained why their arguments should matter more. Should we be more concerned with the hypocrisy (which the pro argued) or the cost of keeping a murder in prison (which is what the con argued).
This is just an objective evaluation of what could've been better.

Police do not give the death penalty. They kill people sometimes but I do not think this is what pro meant. I am very much opposed to the death penalty, but Pro did a poor job, 5 min debate or not. Con wins.

"I believe this is false. It appears you are only looking at the upfront cost it takes to kill someone, probably from lethal injection."

You need to take a look at the cost of appeals that those on death row go through.

The debate was open, but before I took it I saw I only had 5 minutes. So I didn't take it and went and made my argument on Word. I came back to accept, and it was already taken.