Resolved: In the United States, plea bargaining for testimony is unjust.

For my final speech, I will go in LD form, Values, Neg Flow, Aff Flow, and lastly Voters. I AFFIRM Values 1)My opp. concedes to agreement that Justice is a higher value than Gov't legit. Please see this as a voting issue, as the opp. has now stated that his case does not lead to upholding his own value. However, he states he achieves my value better than i as a counter. However, this is not true. Firstly, let us look at the various ways that it does not: a)Justice is defined as giving each their due, my opp. concedes this, so the let's use this def. b)My opp. does not give each their due. He states he gives every person their due, however, the fact that innocent persons get coerced illegally into guilt, and that there are those CRIMINALS WHO STILL GET LESSER SENTENCES. The fact that the system the NEG advocates lets criminals get off the hook, and that innocent persons are oft falsely convicted,states that Jsutice is nto given. Therefore, my opp., not only drops his own value by concession, he also does not give Justice, as he tried to admit. Thus, for the result of no V for the NEG to UPHOLD, YOU VOTE AFF! My opp also give Max. of Social Welfare as a Criterion. He states, for his counters, of that his criterion is resolutionally specific, and mine is not. However, the fact that he also states that the best criterion is one that provides best for the people. So let's go resolutional. Since Max. of Welfare sets up for, in this case, PB. However, as shown through my attacks, he does not provide for the best of the nation, as he conceded that giving each their due is the highest priority, by valuing my value over his. So, even though he was specific, it does not mean he provides the best of the people. My opp. DEOS NOT ADDRESS WHY JUSTICE IS DIFFERENT. HE DOES NOT GIVE OTHER DEF. OF JUSTICE, THERFORE, YOU MUST STILL LOOK AT MINE. FOR HE GIVES NO ALT. IN WHICH TO WORK. My opp. also states that Org. Crime allows for use of the Criterion better. However, the risks OUTWEIGH THE BENEFITS, contrary to opp. arg's. COERCION, INNOCENCE GOING WRONG, AND THE ALLOWANCE OF PETTY, UNSTABLE, CRIMINALS TO LEAVE EARLY, DISPROVES THIS. My opp. also does not directly address why giving rights to all is bad. Therefore, with all these arg., the criterion, of which the case creates, is broken and hypocritical, thus, you vote AFF. NEG. FIRST OF ALL, my opp. offers a turn of my 1 card. However, this shows ONLY ONE EXAMPLE OF A SYSTEM. RICO indictments are one instance, while the card I stated can happen universally. There are those systems where lawlessnesses occurs, as I have shown in my card. thus, his first turn is OUT. For the second evidence I have given, he states just because it can happen, means abolishment is not the right way. However, the mere fact that there is a shred of doubt, is why you SHOULD ABOLISH IT. In a fair system, we must strive for perfection. Even, when there is a shred of doubt in a defendant's guilt during a trial, the jury is compelled to vote innocent until PROVEN GUILTY. Thus, we must strive to create what is overall correct, and just to the highest degree. Thus, his second arg. goes down. Also, there are situations were the police does not stake out a gang, as they often are hard to destroy. The 3rd evidence my opp. counters with the fact that the future effects do not coincide with PB and the Negative situation. However, for the system of PB, this is an outcome. We must also look to the fact that PB could make this society one that could not function. The effects, or affects, of this are to great. Again, the risks outweigh the benefits. THE AFFIRMATIVE CAN DO MORE THAN THE NEG, contrary to the Neg., FOR A LONGER SENTENCE MAY GIVE MORE TIME TO RECIDIVISE, AS MY CARD STATES. ALSO, the reason why crime bosses can rat out lower members are because so that they can stay in the organization still, a common sensical idea. thus, my opp. arg. on my 3rd card dropes. Also, the impact my opp. makes does not clearly show WHY PB IS JUST, is basically shows the reasons on WHY TO CONVICT! Thus, for all the arguments have dropped, his cas is taken down, thus VOTE AFF. AFF DEFENSE: I. My opp. argues that you cannot testify against yourself, and that my def. is flawed. He gives a def. I can offer a broader sense of the term the opp. gives, which is from the highly respected Merriam-webster's. firsthand authentication of a fact : evidence b: an outward sign c: a solemn declaration usually made orally by a witness under oath in response to interrogation by a lawyer or authorized public official http://www.merriam-webster.com... Thus shows, the innocent may plead against himself, for the d\def. clearly shows a non-specifical term, of that the innocent may convict themselves. Look back to the def. Thus, his arg. to my sub-A is gone,a s it is not ABUSIVE. For my sub-B. The whole point WAS NOT THE WAITING IN JAIL. Look back tot he card, which I will write down below an excerpt: "On the day she met him, she told him he'd been charged with a felony, but if he pleaded guilty he could go home that day because of the time he'd already served. If he pleaded innocent, he'd be kept in custody for at least another year awaiting trial". This excerpt of my sub-B shows the threat. Do you notice it? There it is. My opp. did not understand the point of my arg. without asking me. Thus, his unbased arg.s fall. HE WAS THREATENED WITH A LONG JAIL TIME BEFORE HE EVEN CONVICTED. II. I offer Retribution as an example of hypocrisy. Retributivists are those who follow retributivism. These people are oft in the Justice system. To follow PB means that the lesser sentences do not connect with he heinous crimes committed. For this, nothing is just except the full pun. TURN: Look to the def. of Justice, which my opp. dropped. Giving each their due, is what then we must look as jsut. If that is what we look at, then retribution i s the clear form that we look at in this debate. My opp. does not give any other ALT>! My opp. gives a card which states a 2 in 1 is catergorically imperative. However, the fact that the 2 in 1 may not be just significantly shows that Categorical Imperative is not achieved. My point shows HOW THE OPP. DOES NOT GIVE MAX. OF RIGHTS. That is how it links to the case. Thus my opp. arg. drops, 2 co. stands. III. The fact that it was a flip flop in favor of PB by the LRCC, shows that their support was not based on morality. I later bring up that it is immoral, because of the coercion. My opp. did not understand this. Efficiency is given in the 2 FOR 1 deal during Pb, so that gets rid of my opp arg. next. THE FACT THAT PB IN GENERAL ALSO CONTAINS TESTIMONIAL PB,and that PB for self-guilt are the same, SHOWS THAT MISCONDUCT CAN OCCUR ANYWHERE. I have shown tha efficiency can lead for leniency, which can lead to loopholes, damaging the JUSTICE SYSTEM, which IS LAWLESSNESS. My opp. did not see this. THE OPP> DID NOT SHOW HOW PB IS NECESSARY FOR FUNCTIONING, THUS HIS LAST ARG. FALLs, AND YOU AFFIRM. Voters: 1) Concedes Gov't Legit, wants Jistice 2) Drops Justice Def., go with that 3) Still doesnt give J based on def., must Affirm 4) Does not see the welfare of nation, does not maximize based on def. 5) Does not argue Max. of Rights, drop. 6) Offers specific text throughout, i give broad terms and such. 7) AFF CAN FULFILL BOTH JUSTICE AND MAX. RIGHTS AND WELFARE. 8) Clearly does not understand heart of my con. AND FINALLY< THE FACT THAT THERE ARE MORE RISKS (COERCION, INNOCENCE, MOST CULPABLE TO STAY OUT OF PRISON, LAWLESSNESS BASED ON EFFICINCY, AND ETC.) THAN BENEFITS< IF ANY, AS MY OPP> ARGUMENTS ARE ALL GONE. For these reasons, you should affirm, thank you. PMAGYAR, you are excellent, thank you for the debate. Are you from Edina or Apple Valley, by any chance? Look at my posts in the comments below to see my arg. form Roun. 2. THANK YOU! I HAVE AFFIRMED.