Public Behaviour

Brief Road-map: Definitions Debate, Contentions, Voter Terms While my opponent's definitions are sound, they apply to the practice of law in the United States. This is not a court of law. And while my opponent might argue that the resolution refers to a court case, we must again look at my opponent's first constructive: "Resolved, that no circumstance can excuse Ms. Langrall's behaviour in the following incident: Police: Woman threw urine-soaked sweatshirt on cop" In no way does this my opponent's diction allude to debating over judicial permissibility. His interpretation is non-sequitir being as how any logical human could see where throwing a urine soaked sweatshirt on a cop is inappropriate and calls for punishment. My opponent favors a one-sided debate, where his case is basically a moving target. In looking at the debate from my interpretation, where we are debating over whether a situation could warrant her behavior, the grounds are more even, and it provides for a far more satisfying debate. In addition, my opponent's definition of circumstance takes mine out of context. My definition is "circumstance- a condition, fact, or event accompanying, conditioning, or determining another", while my opponent claims his definition is "or determining another", which is clearly abusive. I will now move on to my contentions. Contention 1:Psychiatric Disability Clearly, in any situation, when someone is of a handicapped mental caliber, they are to be excused from their wrongdoing. Like a child acting out, the parents, our those who are guardians, are responsible for the child's actions. My Opponent's case attests to that simple fact: "insanity is grounds for complete acquittal in Pennsylvania.[FN1] The verdict of 'not guilty by reason of insanity' means that the defendant did commit the act, but because of his mental illness he cannot be legally responsible". While my opponent will attempt to argue my contention does not apply because it must relate to the case itself, it must be noted that the resolution simply calls for conditions that would justify Ms. Langrall's actions, and also that my opponent cannot prove that Ms. Langrall does not have a mental condition. Contention 2:Crooked cops, Drug Addiction, and the Desire for revenge My opponent's claims for my second condition only relate to my sub-point about revenge. He ignores the possibility of cops being crooked, and Ms. Langrall's possibility of being on drugs. In addition, my opponent's point on revenge is void and null because of the fact that, while not morally permissible, desires for revenge could justify throwing a urine soaked sweatshirt on a cop. My opponent could argue that since these conditions are only a possibility, they do jnot stand as viable arguments. However, they fit the requirements of the resolution, and are therefore valid. Contention 3: Unpredictability of the "Damned Human Race" In this contention, I use Mark Twain's writings solely as an example, as Mark Twain is articulating upon the raw irrationality of Homo sapiens. My opponent claims this is fallacious because I am using Mark Twain at the core of my thesis, and using his word as law. However, even without Mark Twain's well developed literature, my contention would still stand. The irrationality of the human race still serves to justify Ms. Langrall's actions, proving the connection between my contention and the con side of the resolution. I have proven why my opponent's case is abusive and does not apply to the resolution he has provided. In addition, I have defended my contentions, and I Still prove that there are conditions justifying Ms. Langrall's actions. My opponent takes my words out of context and drops several points, including that of crooked cops and drug addiction. He also ignores my last connection stating solely that it is fallacious without truly refuting. Because my case still stands tall against the pro side, I urge a con vote. Thank you.