In the USCJS, truth-seeking ought to take precedence over attorney-client privilege.

Thank you to Bsh1 for accepting this challenge!! Looking forward to a great debate.Note: I will be referring to the United States Criminal Justice System as the USCJS. Definition ArgumentMy opponent talked about how attorney-client privilege provides certain exceptions, proving my definition to be incorrect. For this argument, look to my third contention. All of these exceptions fit my definition of truth-seeking: "Trying to get or achieve the real facts about something." Essentially, these exceptions are examples where the United States Criminal Justice System lets truth-seeking take precedence over attorney-client privilege. The exceptions that my opponent listed should actually flow over to my side. Looking at strictly the definitions, it doesn't really matter what definition you look at because the exceptions of attorney-client privilege are separate from the concept of attorney-client privilege. In the affirmative world, attorney-client privilege can still exist, but the exceptions that allow for truth-seeking should always take precedence if need be. ObservationHere my opponent explains strong rights and weak rights. I would agree with this concept of strong/weak rights. However, I aim to prove that attorney-client is a weak right because truth-seeking is more important. I'll into this more as I attack my opponent's case. Value- Government LegitimacyFirstly, based upon resolutionality, justice should be the paramount value in the resolution because this is the primary goal of the USCJS. I defined justice as "the process or result of using laws to fairly punish crimes or criminals." This is a debate about whether or not truth-seeking should take precedence in the United States Criminal Justice System. The best way to decide weather or not truth-seeking ought to take precedence is to see if the USCJS is achieving it's primary goal, justice. Attorney-client privilege being held higher than or equal to truth-seeking stops justice from being achieved. Also, Government Legitimacy is not achieved because the USCJS is not living up to it's full potential by going out of its way to preserve a right that focuses on protecting the guilty. Criterion- Distinguishing Between Strong and Weak RightsTo decide whether attorney-client privilege is a strong or weak right, look at the goals of the USCJS. 1. Justice2. Preventing and Controlling Crime3. Protecting the InnocentAs I showed in my constructive, attorney-client privilege has the potential to hinder us from achieving such goals, proving that attorney-client privilege is a weak right. Contention One: Fundamental constitutional rights are strong rights.Attorney-client privilege actually is never directly mentioned once in the constitution. Through the affirmation of the resolution, attorney-client privilege does not completely disappear, making sure that all amendments are protected while seeking the truth. Contention Two: Attorney-client privilege is a fundamental constitutional right.A. ACP is protected by the fifth amendment.The first thing to take into account with this argument is that through the affirmation of the resolution, attorney client privilege isn't always going to be denied. It will only be denied in cases where the things the client says are essential in finding the truth. In my third contention, I listed some exceptions that show how the court system already holds truth-seeking higher. Death of the client, fiduciary duty, and crime/fraud exception, as well as the exceptions my opponent listed are are instances where attorney-client privilege would be overridden. My opponent says in his evidence, "the only way the client could prevent self-incrimination from reaching prosecution would be for him to limit his communications with his attorney." This would only be the case if attorney-client privilege ceased to exist when truth-seeking took precedence. This is of course not the case. The exceptions are not part of attorney-client privilege. The exceptions are part of truth-seeking. Because the USCJS takes advantage of these exceptions, truth-seeking already has precedence, yet the fifth amendment is not violated because attorney-client privilege still exists.B. ACP is protected by the sixth amendment.Again, look to the fact that affirmation of the resolution does not result in the abolition of attorney-client privilege. Attorney-client privilege will still exist. My opponent talks about how the client won't disclose sensitive information that could prove them guilty if truth-seeking takes precedence. There is really no point in them sharing this information with their attorney if it will never be made known in court due to attorney-client privilege. Essentially, if attorney-client privilege is held higher than or equal to truth-seeking, the guilty is protected, not the innocent. My opponent never gave one actual example of a client who was hesitant to disclose necessary information because truth-seeking took precedence, so this point cannot be looked to. In conclusion, I would like to provide a quote from Elizabeth G. Thornburg of Dedman School of Law. "Attorney-client privilege rejects both moral and utilitarian explanations and argues that, far from being beneficial or benign, the privilege actually does great harm to the truth-seeking function of litigation and imposes tremendous transaction costs on the litigants and on the judicial system as a whole." The USCJS has goals that they currently are not fulfilling. Preventing and controlling crime is made possible with truth-seeking due to crime/fraud exception. Protecting the innocent is made possible because the other exceptions that allow the truth to be told. Clearly the USCJS is not achieving their goals right now. 10,000 people are falsely convicted every year. The way to solve this problem is to let truth-seeking take precedence. My opponent stated that attorney-client privilege must take precedence. If it takes precedence, exceptions witch are vital to achieving justice will be overlooked.