Resolved: In the United States, true intent ought to have a higher weight in court than ends.

"[...]but of course are flawed :)" - As are all arguments. He agrees with the value of Justice, defined as giving each their due. By giving the argument that "we can't determine intent" the response of "we CAN determine intent", he is conceding to the fact that if we can't determine intent, we can't give each their due. At the point where I win that we can't prove intent, that means I have already won the round because if our justice system is not going to give each their due, then it isn't something that should be implemented. Let's look to his example. He claims that this hypothetical situation proves that we can determine intent. However, this does nothing more than weigh the effects between an omniscient and benevolent justice system that somehow can read every person's life to determine their intent, compared to another which weighs merely on ends. It doesn't mention anything even related to determining intent; he's just talking about what happens AFTER the fallacious "intent determination". As I explained clearly in my R1, I agree that justice is best served when we punish on intent and not just the ends. However, I said even more explicitly, that ""AS LONG AS the resolution for this debate is "In the United States, true intent ought to have a higher weight in court than ends", we need to weigh the debate based on its real world effects." His counterargument isn't anything more than a summarization of his case. Extend my case. He still has not shown how we can prove intent. I am still winning the debate. And regardless, one ran over a kid and one didn't. They didn't even have the same ends. "[...]it could work even better by voting Pro[…]" - Well apparently A. Example proves nothing more than "it makes us feel better, so y'all should go PRO". Feeling Good is not the value in this debate. It is Justice, and insofar as he isn't giving each their due, which is what our system is attempting to achieve, we cannot go PRO. "[...]irrelevant" - It isn't. It talks about Hate Crime Enhancements, an area where intentions weigh heavily. "This fault is something that both sides carry equally." - I do not understand this statement. "[...]killed a black guy[...]" - I think everyone should take note of this. It is quite obvious he is not reading my arguments at all, as my example talks about STEALING A BOX OF NERDS. For anyone that wants to be enlightened, they are little rock-shaped candies. Nothing to do with killing. The reason why I put such a big space above is because I want you to read the below argument. He says, word for word, in his previous speech, that I advocate a form "of justice simply looks at ends; [and his] weighs intentions over ends to give justice that is DESERVED." First of all, he has NEVER shown why my "type of justice" is that; he never gives you examples nor shows you any links WHATSOEVER. Second, I challenge ANYONE to go through my case and thoroughly explain to me how I have done that. In my R1, I specifically state that "I personally believe that it's true, intent should be the determiner of the punishment - but that's not how justice works. Justice doesn't work like lightning from God's finger; we aren't all-knowing and omniscient." IT DOESN'T MATTER if his arguments make the world seem like a nice happy bright flowery place, because it JUST ISN'T GOING TO HAPPEN. The situation I provide in my R1 about stealing the box of Nerds proves this sufficiently: To most of us today, we probably wouldn't think that an asian kid stealing a box of Nerds from an African American guy's store is a racist crime. However, if that had happened during the Rodney King Riots, and the jury panel was all black, then they might as well have seen it has a hate crime. It DOESN'T MATTER if we're attempting to give people what they deserve, if we don't even KNOW what they deserve. AT THE POINT WHERE INTENT CANNOT BE DETERMINED, PRO CAN NEVER WIN THE ROUND. I give in my R1 an explanation for why "ought" is determined by the real world consequences of the action in question, and not just examples related to the situation at hand. My opponent does not respond with anything but examples, which only go further to show my point, because they can all be disproven by simple, real world impacts. In one of them, he says "I ought to donate but that doesn't mean that I am capable of doing so." First of all this is a bad example, this comes in the form "Obligation does not mean Capability". My position is "Outweighing harms cancel out Obligation". I say nothing about capabilities. My case would basically say this about the example: If donating actually resulted in your money being sent to some fraudulent corporation that is doing really immoral things instead of donating to whatever cause you originally meant it for, then I would say you ought not do it. "So even if he proves that punishing[…]" - That's not how my argument works. Your case says "we should judge on intent in courts". My case says "since we cannot judge intent, we are not just, therefore we shouldn't use it in courts." If my argument were only the first premise, his argument would be correct. But it isn't. So he's not. - Obligations don't exist in a vacuum. They change based off of real world situations, which is why we need to take the hypothetical effects on a world where justice is based more on intent than on ends. Actually, we already have that and I brought evidence up in R1. Let's go to that now. 1) Actually, He argues "true intent" and I argue "believing that we can determine true intent leads to really ridiculous things". It is completely relevant, as it attacks the assumptions in that argument. 2) I would say there isn't, as the PRO is basically defending the status quo of the Hate Crime Enhancements systems, of which a brief summary is provided by Jacobs. At the point where he hasn't shown how the CON is AT ALL corrupt, and at the point where I have shown that HIS fluffy world IS corrupt, I've already won this arg. 3) - The current system is PRO, as I just explained. - His whole thing about "people corruption" and "MAY" just bite into the harms of my argument that obligations need to take into consideration real world effects. RWEff 1) "When punishing intentions, you get the true criminals off the street" - This is taken out by my case. Intents cannot be determined. "Example A and B prove that this is possible and WILL have good effects." - Example A has been disproven, and has shown to be unlinked. - There is nothing in his case labeled "Example B". "My opponent literally said in his last speech that "intent should be the determiner of the punishment"… right there you should vote pro as my opponent agrees that this is what ought to happen when he says should." Let's go over this AGAIN. R1: "I personally believe that it's true, intent should be the determiner of the punishment - ***but that's not how justice works***. Justice doesn't work like lightning from God's finger; we aren't all-knowing and omniscient. ***My case says that the criminal justice OUGHT NOT prioritize themselves to concern themselves with intent, because then we WOULDN'T be giving each their due.***" Thank you very much. 2) He's right, it's the PRO's stance. The PRO only has good intentions but no way to reach them. "The road to hell is laid with good intentions." All the more reason to vote CON instead. ("Court" and "US" are my link to all the real world impacts. They are also why your [mis]quoting of me will not work, as I've stated very explicitly that I disagree with you ONLY BECAUSE the topic says "US" and "court", which denotate real world things. I agree that it's something we should want, but i disagree that the courts (or whoever) have this obligation)