Should the US have the death penalty?

First, welcome to both opponents to this site. Glad you're both aboard.

Arguments: Pro's R1 argument is supported by the comparison of putting down animals for violent acts, mostly against against humans, but does not draw a distinction between animal kills, and their limited justification - it is common knowledge that animals do not have morality as a guide of conscience - and the willful murder of other humans by humans, who do have the capacity of moral judgment and choose to ignore it. The comparison of animal kills to human willful murder cannot be made. Con successfully rebuts the argument in R1. Con's R1 rebuttal argument re: the prison executioner reviewing his moral standing by doing his job is indeed a personal moral dilemma, but it does offer support against the Resolution that the death penalty should not remain because Con's cited example turns against the practice on his personal moral ground. Con effectively rebuts this argument, pointing out that the moral decision draws the argument subject to Con's BoP. Pro is never able to overcome this dilemma of Con choosing a source that opposes Pro's Burden of Proof. Points to Con

Sources: The argument discussion of Con's rebutting source in R1 carries the day since Pro did have have any supporting soutrcing at all, but merely used Con sources and argued unsuccessfully against them. Points to Con.

Legibility: Both contenders offered adequate description to understand their arguments, but both have some grammatical issues not worth pointing out since understanding was still possible. Both need to improve writing skills, and I'm sure both will. Tie

Conduct. Both opponents were respectful of the other. Tie