Death Penalty Should be Abolished in US

I'm not a fan of this 100 character format, as it constricts the debaters and hinders them from hashing their ideas out in full and giving proper responses to each other's points. But in all, I think the winner of this one is CON, as his one-liner "arguments" were generally more compelling and based on better sources.

Pro argument claim it doesn't deter, though Con's argument disagrees with this claim.
Pro claims innocents suffer, but Con notes there are mechanisms to attempt preventation of this. This not feel like 'full rebuttal by Con to me though, as Pro source shows innocents 'have suffered.
Pro claim and scholar source of eliminated witnesses not rebutted by Con. But looking back at Con source 'claim "three and 18 lives that would be saved by the execution of each convicted killer." Difficult to say.
Pro argument of financial cost partially rebutted by Con, as Pro argument not claim that execution too costly to implement, just very costly. I would have liked if Con could have argued for change in finance methods as well as the imperative of justice.
Pro makes argument that execution is murder retribution, not justice, Con make philosophical argument that execution is not murder.

Difficulty saying one side did better, I think 'maybe Pro do better arguments but not certain, so say tie, Pro did make larger use of sources that tied into argument, so I place Pro point there. Spelling, Grammar, Conduct equal.

This was an interesting one. I'd like to engage in one of these kinds someday.

Arguments: Con effectively refuted Pro's R3 and R4 arguments, there can't be any question there. R1 and R2 have most likely went on to be of equal strength between the two parties. To Con.
Sources: Relevance from both sides. Tie
SnG: Tie
Conduct: Nicely managed. Tie

Note: The absurd character limit makes it nearly impossible for either debater to get an elaborate point across, so I will instead be judging based on whose claims are backed up with proper sourcing and rhetoric.

Arguments:

They first argue over the deterrence of the Death penalty, but upon Con’s source bing used against them, they drop. Next is cost over justice, but Pro immediately agrees to justice as the value here, and argues that there is a distinction between the death penalty and justice.

Pro essentially makes an equivalence between executions and murder, and Con rightly points out that it is a false equivalence, though does not justify with proper argument due to space.

Conclusion: While Con does refute the specific claim made by Pro in round 4, they do not address the larger one with a source. However, rhetorically, Con does take the victory as their arguments have less logical fallacies. Thus tie.

Sources: Pro provides one in every round, while Con stops after round 1, therefore I give sources to Pro

BS&G: Very short character spaces, and sentence fragments are matched, Tie.

Conduct: Aside from the framing in general, both Debaters conduct themselves fine. Tie.

This debate is a perfect example of a little-used argument that while there is argument-a-plenty re: establishing a high limit on characters per argument [which ought to exist, but not unlimited - personally, I favor <20,000], there is little argument regarding a lower limit. 100 is absurd. A debate, and this one is a prime example, should allow participants a sensible ability to show critical thinking on a subject. This debate demonstrated an ability to throw sources at one another, with almost no thinking applied whatsoever. Were Conduct to allow voters to judge on the basis of an absurd debate set-up, Pro would lose the point. As no such call can be made, let my attitude suffice and hope I can still be fair. This was no debate, this was a little like "my dad can beat up your dad," which is a pointless argument because Pro and Con are the debate participants, not their "dads" [sources, in this case]. That said:

Argument: R1: Pro's deterrence and innocence argument were effectively rebutted by Con, with the add of jurors and appeals as solid Con arguments. Con wins R1
Argument: R-2 Pro argues source #2 "more trustworthy," but no substantiation of claim. Also argues Con dropped "impulse" argument from Pro source #1. Con reinforced deterrence by conflicting stats, but Con was able to note [by one example of c-thinking] that Pro has no argument that deterrence clearly has an effect, just not a majority effect. The data outweighs the impulse, as Con argues. Con wins R2
Argument R3: Pro offers source #3 re: cost benefit of eliminating death penalty. Con rebuttal: Cost vs justice is not a valid measure. Effective rebuttal. Con wins R3
Argument R4: Pro's source #4 offers justice is not revenge, then offers Pro's only example of c-thinking, but claims that execution is revenge, assuming the revenge is an equivalent action as the original crime, essentially an "eye-for-an-eye" approach, as Pro stated in R1. Con rebutted that the original crime of murder does not equate to execution since, in some States, execution is the legal punishment for crime, and cannot be defined as murder, itself. Effective rebuttal. Con wins R4, and Argument phase over all.

Sources: Pro offered "reliable" [broad acceptance of term] in all four rounds. Con abandoned sourcing after R1. Points to Pro.

S&G: Little to go on. Understood what ittle was offered. Tie.

Conduct: Ignoring my initial commentary, both participants conduted their arguments equally well. Tie

PRO and CON both end up agreeing that there is not enough info to conclude whether deterrence is a factor,
so both sides end up dropping that argument for justice instead. PRO also introduces an argument on cost, and it goes unrefuted.

However, as a judge I weigh justice over economic benefit... so while it is a factor, I'm mostly weighing on who won that justice point. And that is very unclear...

CON says: "To value cost over justice is awful. Any debater who puts cost over justice needs to lose there."

PRO replies: "Justice is not revenge. We don't punish rape with rape, arson with arson, why murder with murder?"

CON finishes: "Murder and execution aren't the same, one has jurors and due process, one is pure evil."

While CON might be right that murder and execution aren't the same, I don't think he establishes why exactly an execution is more just than, say, a life sentence in prison.

With a lack of offense on both sides, I'm leaving this one a tie.