> Even discussing other factors arguments and considerations dilutes the core point...
Fair enough, I understand that those are your beliefs (they are mine too) but you'd be surprised how poorly they hold up in the real world against the testimonies of victims of some truly horrific crimes.
But from the sound of it you would prefer to weaken the case for abolishing the death penalty for the sake of making a more general point around the sanctity of life that, in the long run, will achieve...what exactly?
That's not really what "justification" is. I go through life assuming that only my mother and other loved ones care what I believe as such. Other people care about the arguments that I can make, with a bonus if I can make them using premises that they already accept.
An argument is what it will boil down to because there will be a group of people who don't believe that it is "inhuman and barbaric". For the record - I agree with you, but I also recognize there are people who do not agree with us.
That's fair enough, but he's pointing out the consequences of your beliefs. The crux of the objection is that you position yourself in opposition to the discussion of any other justification for abolishing the death penalty; it is not that the death penalty must be abolished, but that it must be abolished for a specific correct reason. This presents a relationship between the death penalty and your beliefs where it seems to your audience that you wish to abolish the death penalty not due to any urgency regarding its consequences, but because of your insistence on imposing your will on others.
