The death penalty should be illegal.

The death penalty is supposed to be a punishment for someone that does something very extreme, like a murder or a rape. So for someone who kills, should they be killed? Do we live in an eye for an eye lifestyle? Do people with assault cases get beat up as punishment? Or people that steal, do they get robbed as punishment? NO! There is never a reason to take someones' life. Nobody can be the judge of who gets to live or who does not get to live.

I thank my opponent for the opportunity to have a great, enlightenig debate. The semantics seem pretty straightforward.
I would like to mention that death penalty is only frequent in cases of murder.

Case:

• Death penalty is an ultimate, decisive action, needed to lower crime rates. Each year, hundreds of criminals are re-released to the American public. We must then ask, should such heinous criminals be able to released? It is nonsensical to even risk the chance of a failed rehabilitaion. In fact, ABC News reports that it costs $888 milion a year to support federal and local prisons. The judical system lacks a reason to spend thousands of dollars on individuals who have knowingly broken the most primtivie rule of morality (never kill another human being). As well, it fails to be efficacious in its rehabilitation of murderers. What is the practicality behind spending cash to support a criminal who killed a human being, especially in today's failing economy? There is absolutely none.

Yes, you are absolutely right. There is no practicality in spending so much money to keep murderers in prisons. However, is money really something that can have as much value as a life? We cannot just say that they do not deserve life. Especially because it costs money. How can we restrict someone from living? The death penaly is a murder against a human. Is there any excuse that would really make a murder justified?

Thank you for your argument, Pro.
Now let's look at this from various aspects, including the ones both the Con and Pro share:

Morality - Pro says that this is not "moral" and that human life is valuable. If so, are we treating a human life any better if we lock up the criminal for his/her decades and rot in jail? Obviously not. In fact, I see prolonged sentences that come with charges of murder, etc. as a much more cruel punishment than ending the criminal's life.

Now, both options are immoral in one way or another. Ergo, we must now focus oneach option's practical advantages over the other. Here are a few primary ones for capital punishment:

I. Death penalty completely eradicates the risk of failed rehabilitation and the criminal repeating his or her actions after release (if there is one).
II. Death penalty saves tremendous money, esp. in today's 1.3 trillion deficit.
III. Death penalty helps prisons learn smoother and have more space.

I urge a ballot for the Con.

My opponent has unfortunately forfeited his third round.
I extend all of my points across the flow,

I. Life imprisonment is as immoral, if not more, compared to death penalty, in one way or another. Both are amoral treatments in one sense or another.
II. Death penalty eliminates the risk of failed rehabilitation.
III. Death penalty conserves scarce economic resources.

Voting Issue: I have proved that the incarceration alternative to death penalty is even more immoral than death penalty itself. After, I have showed the practical, municipal advantages and societal benefits of death penalty which its alternatives lack.

I urge a vote for the Con. Thank you.