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

Letter of the Law ArgumentOh, I understand your circumstances completely, and it's a pity that you didn't respond to most of my arguments. I will begin by responding to rebuttals, and then I will summarize my arguments.My opponent only chose to respond to my second rebuttal, where I challenged him to provide an example as to how he could "easily evade taxes" because of the loopholes [in the tax code], and how that "evasion would be completely legal." He replied by giving me two examples. First, my opponent contended that he could legally evade taxes by creating a business in a tax haven, and then channeling his money into it.The issue with this is that it isn't a loophole at all. He cannot send money to an offshore business unless he has earned money. He cannot earn money without it being considered taxable income. Therefore he wouldn't be evading taxes at all, at least not "legally," because he would have to pay taxes when he earns that money in the first place.Second, my opponent contended that he could legally evade taxes by bartering in commodities, which would not be taxed, and then trade those commodities for cash.Even if this is a "common" occurrence, it is not at all "completely legal." Bartering income, as in this case, is included as taxable income, and you are required to include that in your taxes[1]. Failing to include this in your taxes is not a "legal" loophole, it is a crime, one that would not be any more enforceable if the law was interpreted by the Spirit. Summary of Debate. This debate was on whether or not the Letter of the Law ought to be prioritized over the Spirit of the Law. I was arguing that when we interpret the laws, we should prioritize the Letter of the Law over the Spirit of the Law. My opponent argued the opposite.Was the conclusion of this debate that the Spirit should be prioritized over the Letter, or visa versa? As the voter, you will decide this. I will summarize this debate to show you why I won.My three primary contentions went through the entire debate well-established, and they were hardly challenged, if at all. My first contention was that prioritizing the Letter over the Spirit is just, and ensures that all men are judged by the same standard. My sub-points of this contention went virtually unchallenged, especially my example. The contention itself was only challenged with a proposition as to how a court maybe could interpret a law, which was refuted by an unchallenged rebuttal that the Letter was still superior in ensuring justice, even in his scenario.My second contention was that the Letter contains the benefits of the Spirit without the drawbacks, a contention only challenged with a fallacious example on the tax code. I showed how my opponent's example committed the Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc fallacy, a stipulation conceded by my opponent.My third contention was that my opponent's proposition violates the rights of individuals by punishing people for the purpose of maintaining ethics, rather than to maintain justice. This point was completely conceded, and my opponent only addressed it to note how in his opinion, the Spirit would be interpreted contrary to the rules of this debate, a point that I called him out on, and he conceded.My opponent made multiple different contentions, all of which I have rebutted.First, he contended that if the Spirit does not take precedence, loopholes form, and the law loses all meaning. He gave an example with his "Do not disturb your neighbor" law. I rebutted this easily, establishing that direct language gives the law more meaning than a vague social consensus, and I gave the speed limit example to show that not all laws have loopholes, and some only have loopholes when interpreted through the Spirit. These points were conceded by my opponent, and his contention fails.Next, he proposed that we ought to write laws differently, and provide better training to judges, in order to have a cleaner legal system. I pointed out that this was completely irrelevant to the debate, a point that my opponent also conceded.My opponent also proposed an "iPod" example too show that we don't need formal judges for everyday life. However, I pointed out the debate is on how we should apply existing law, and therefore his example is not relevant to the debate. He conceded this point.Next, my opponent proposed that different cases should set a standard for future cases. However, I contended that even if we used his proposed method for interpretation, the Letter would still be superior when interpreted, a point that my opponent conceded.Finally, my opponent contends that it is "impossible" to cover "any" loopholes when a specific law is interpreted with the letter, and that we should prioritize the spirit because it's the only way to "make sure" the law is followed. I brought up the speed limit example, an example my opponent conceded, to show that just because laws are specific does not mean that there are loopholes, that just because there are loopholes does not mean that the law is not being followed, and that his point regardless lacks relevance to this debate. All of these points were conceded by my opponent.It has been fully established in this debate that the Letter of the Law ought to be prioritized over the Spirit of the Law, because doing so is the only way to ensure justice, because it includes the benefits of the Spirit without the drawbacks, and because my opponent's proposition seeks to punish for the purpose of maintaining ethics as opposed to maintaining justice. My opponent's numerous points are not only proven false, but even if they weren't, they would still fail to back up his side of the resolution.Therefore, I conclude that I have won this debate.[1]http://www.efile.com...—Thanks for the fun debate! Remember that you can't actually respond to anything I've said here, or said beforehand, without violating the debate format. You may only summarize the argument, and explain to voters why you won. Thanks again!