Resolved: The Letter of the Law Ought to Have Priority Over the Spirit of the Law.

Thanks! This looks like it'll be a lot of fun. Let's start! First, I will begin my stating my contentions, before moving on to respond to my opponent's arguments. My first contention is that prioritizing the Letter of the Law over the Spirit of the Law ensures that all men are judged by the same standard. This is paramount to the resolution, because all laws first must be just, and if the law cannot be just if it applies to different people in different ways. The Spirit of the Law in this debate is defined basically as the interpretation of the law according to the social or moral consensus—in other words, social norms. NY AGRI & MKTS § 71-n[1] requires a permit for the production of raw milk in the state of New York. While the general consensus in society is that it's okay to drink milk directly from a cow without a permit if you're a family farmer, the problem is that people can be harmed without understanding the dangers of raw milk, something that this law is supposed to prevent. Prioritizing the letter of the law would ensure that laws are followed without exception. In both of the above cases, the law is meant to apply to everyone equally, but a problem occurs when they are interpreted through the spirit of the law, as they would apply to people only according to social attitudes. The issue with this is that a law cannot be just unless there is equality for all. When the law applies differently to some people based off of social standing or circumstances, there becomes inequality, and as a result, injustice. My second contention is that the Spirit of the Law should reside within the Letter of the Law. What I mean by this is that prioritizing the letter does not do away with the spirit, but instead ensures justice by creating a standard of law parallel with the Spirit of the Law. This is paramount to the resolution, because it shows that the benefits of the spirit of the law can apply without the drawbacks, even if the letter of the law is prioritized. Before, I noted that if we judged laws by what we wanted as opposed to what they directly decreed, then laws would be unjust. The solution to this problem is to decree within the laws those exceptions which must be made; and amend the laws themselves when there are mistakes. This is a simple way to keep in mind the spirit of the law while keeping it fair and just. My third contention is that a just government will not punish people for the purpose of maintaining ethics. The concept of individual rights includes the ability to exercise those rights even opposed to the moral consensus. When laws, as proposed by my opponent, are only abstract concepts to be interpreted by a judge according to the moral consensus, it violates not only your right to a fair trial but also your individual rights as you can be punished simply by simply committing a violation of ethics. —Next, I will move on to rebut my opponent's arguments. My opponent contends that "The spirit of the law should take [precedence] over the written words, or else loopholes form and the law essentially loses all meaning." He moves on to describe a hypothetical scenario to back this up, which describes the evolution of a simple law into complicated rulebook full of loopholes, before concluding with how the spirit of the law would have fixed this problem. First I'd like to clarify that the difference between letter of the law and spirit of the law is not between different types of law, but instead ways to interpret the written law. Next, the law my opponent presented contained the text, "Do not disturb your neighbor; respect their presence," something that he touted as a good law, when in both spirit and letter of the law it would generally be interpreted as making it illegal to disturb your neighbor, forcing you by law to respect their presence. I contend that this is not a good law, and the problem with his example is not how the law is interpreted, as he stipulates, but instead the fact that there's such an unenforceable and unjust law on the books. He makes a good point that written laws based upon abstract concepts would create a lot of loopholes, but that relates little to the resolution, being an argument better suited for whether or not laws should be complex. In terms of his actual point, I'm surprised to hear him talk about the law losing all meaning, because it is the letter of the law, its direct language gives the law its meaning, not a vague social consensus. His other point was that letter of the law would cause loopholes, but the only evidence he provides is a slippery slope fallacy used in his example. I will provide a quick counterexample to show a law, interpreted through letter of the law, that did not devolve into a bureaucratic mess of loopholes. I contend that speed limits, despite being interpreted by the letter of the law, have not devolved into said mess. In fact, loopholes in this case occur only when interpreted by the spirit of the law. For example, pregnant women driving to the hospital. In terms of my opponent's proposition that laws should be written to be broadly applied, I contend that if this was so, then this would actually result in less clarity, and as a result, more confusion in our judicial system. However, I won't delve very much into this, as I don't see how it relates to our resolution. In terms of theft of the iPod, if you actually did commit larceny, taking his stuff with the intent of depriving him of his use, then yes, he would call the police. If you actually meant something else by your example, please explain, because it's very confusing. In Conclusion, the Letter of the Law ought to be prioritized over the Spirit of the Law, because it is just, it contains the benefits of the Spirit of the Law without the drawbacks, and because my opponent's proposition seeks to punish those for the purpose of maintaining ethics as opposed to maintaining justice. [1] http://www.realrawmilkfacts.com...