Rawls veil of ignorance achieves justice better than Nozick.

=Road Map= 1. Rebuild my contentions. 2. Refute my opponents arguments. 3. Voting Issues. 1. RECONSTRUCTION: My opponent states in (a) on contention one, that I lack warrant of the inability to make totally objective decisions and offers the court room analysis. In response, objectivity [wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwm] is making a decision without influence from emotions or personal prejudices. Even in a courtroom this is not possible. In a case with an accused rape victim, women of the jury will take sides of the supposed victim. This is important because with the inability to make a pure objective decision that the veil requires, we cannot support a subjective value. On (b), my opponent claims that my contention one is not an actual contention. Two responses to this, 1st, a contention is only an assertion [merriam-webster's online dictionary] and I did assert my point. Secondly, though it is my fault, i was working on my cell phone and therefore had an even more limited amount of characters. {my bad} lol On (c) my opponent speaks about you, the voters. Myself, as the instigator, can affirm this argument in the way i see fit. And I will get to this more on the contention two. Discussion can take place, because it is an open debate that is up to the voters to decide how they see fit. CONTENTION TWO ANSWERS: On (a) subjectivity and objectivity are or should be understood terms in a Justice debate. But since my opponent also fails to define, they are still open to define. Subjectivity- judgement based on personal impressions or feelings and or past experiences. Objectivity- judgement uninfluenced by personal impressions or feelings. In this case, (the veil of ignorance) there is not a situation in which a TRUE veil of ignorance can be applied. Justice is itself subjective, because we have to base justice on past experiences. Slavery was once wrong, but now we see the issue with it. We base justice on the past and arrange it so the injustices do not occur again (rectification). On (b) my opponent believes that it is circular with contention one. The limited text on my cell led me to limit my contentions length. Therefore I used contention one as a precursor to my contention two which is my main point. On (c) Objectivity does not and cannot truly exist. A PURE objective decision cannot be made in any decision. As for the employer, if someone totally disagrees with homosexual rights, and a homosexual applicant comes before him, his past emotions/prejudices will come into play. Thus leading to a subjective decision. Subjectivity is the only way to support justice and the veil cannot allow for this. OPPONENT UNDERVIEW: I agree that my opponent can refute further and grant his argument on this. I understand the burden of clash. I can save my 2nd contention, because they are both similar to upholding my arguments. Main argument is that a pure objective decision can in no way be made. Yes both contentions may deal with similar arguments but achieved in different ways.: My 1st, showing that we cannot apply a true veil of ignorance. My 2nd, showing that Justice is subjective and the veil requires a pure objective decision.