plea bargaining ought to be abolished in the United States criminal justice system.

Summary-The aff is valuing justice while the neg is valuing liberty. The aff said that justice is being violated by people being pressured into plea bargains while I said that people should have the option. What my opponent dropped 1.Theory-Even if I didn't choose to use the fact, it still should be weighed on my side of a vote. 2.Economic Collapse-They didn't bring it up till the last speech and should be counted as a new argument and not viewed in any way. Also, the argument they gave is bad because he just says that we should cause fewer people to be in prison. This causes a surge in racism which I will explain in more detail in the racism point. Arguments I have won 1.Liberty-Taking away choices does not uphold liberty. Any sense of political logic will tell you that. As I said, tools aren't the bad things, it's the people. He is opening an autocratic door by putting the responsibility of a trial on people. All he does is force a trial on everyone. 2.Plea bargains violate laws-I said the sixth amendment was a choice to use. I did attack him on it. It was mixed with my liberty argument because I'm saying that the reason it's not violating the law is that it's a choice. 3.Right-Same as liberty, the aff just wants to list more things so he can make himself look better. I feel it is a cheap trick but one I have to stoop down to with this argument so it's not a drop. 4.Court backlog-I know I said the economic collapse in an earlier portion and I don't want anyone to feel I'm repeating the same argument. He did attack the idea of court backlog, just not the impacts. On this argument, he wants to help minorities which I'll prove him wrong on in the final point, but I also proved that we have to balance quality and quantity. His focus on only quality will be the downfall of the American economy. 5. Race-This has been one giant missed argument on both sides. I don't think the aff understands my argument. I will re-explain it and we will let the judge vote if it was sufficiently explained. Minorities have been complaining of racism for a while. I'm not saying it isn't a problem, but I am saying people might feel it's getting old. People will believe minorities are just being professional victims rather than actually having problems and due to this, they will no longer try to help them. Racism will get worse and nothing will get done for decades because the aff frames minorities as a professional victim rather than a real problem that needs help. When you pulled more evidence in round 3, you proved the point by showing that people are trying to say that minorities are all victims. The best way to help minorities right now is to give it time. If you vote aff, you will live in a world where you have government mandated responsibilities rather than rights.You have to own a gun otherwise your right is violated. You have to say things for your freedom of speech. You will see the economy collapse and nothing will be done about it because "quality over quantity". Not to mention racism will get worse than what it is because people will believe there is no issue. They will thing minorities are whiny and will be less willing to help them. If you vote neg, you will live in an economically stable United States. Racism will stay at the level it is but is better than the worsening of the problem the aff would have happened. We can fix racism later on down the road but if we make any moves now, the problem will get worse. The best thing of all is you will still have rights. You can make choices about your own life rather than having the Bill of Responsibilities tell you what you need to do. Thank you for this round Momo12345, and thank you to anyone who takes the time to judge our round.