In the United States, organized political lobbying is a just check on government

Good luck. Yes, It was quite late when I had posted the debate, and I accidentally posted the incorrect resolution. I am glad that my opponent is debating on the real resolution I had in mind and not the one posted. First I'd like to defend my case, and then I shall go on to attacking his case. 1) " His value and criterion are rather circular. He states that justice is a moral principle determining just conduct; yet, he states that morality (his criterion) is contingent on providing justice. He offers no objective standard of determining which actions are moral, and which are not; ergo, it's clear that morality isn't a criterion which can be used to evaluate his case. " As I previously stated, morality is simply my criterion that will measure justice. Morality measures justice, because in order to have justice, you need to go in accord of our American values. Without doing this, justice is not achieved. So in short, you need both in order to achieve what's best for the USA. 2) "His criterion, morality, is never applied in his case. At best, it is a superficial standard of evaluation which has absolutely no impact on the arguments he makes. Because he provides no objective standard of evaluation (and doesn't apply it, even assuming that his standard is acceptable), it's clear that he can't affirm the resolution. " I would like my opponent to read my case carefully. In order to achieve justice, we need to go in accord of our fundamental values, which is what my whole case is about. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- My opponent is all over the flow, so I guess my road map won't really work in this case. 1) "Value: Justice Justice is defined by Black's Law Dictionary, 7th edition, as the fair and proper administration of law. This is an important value in the United States because the justice system is set up primarily to apply laws in an objective fashion so as to impartially arbitrate disputes among men. If a law cannot be fairly and properly applied, the proper channels must be used so that the statute in question might be repaired or scrapped. " We are in accord of the same value. But I strongly believe that justice works best in the PRO side, because sometimes justice is not achieved with jury nullification. Sometimes, there is a lot of evidence that pins down an individual to being guilty, and yet no justice is done. 2) "Criterion: Objectivism Ayn Rand argues in The Virtue of Selfishness that the proper purpose of government is "as a policeman which protects man's rights. .. and settles disputes by rational rules". To ensure that laws are fairly and properly applied to that end, Rand states that the rules under which a government operates must be absolutely objective; otherwise, the use of force would remain solely in the hands of individuals, which contradicts the function of government as a policeman, and subjects individuals within a social setting to the equivalent of mob rule; ergo, objective law and the application thereof are the primary priorities of a just system. " My opponent believes that laws need to be under objectivity to ensure laws are properly applied. Laws that are not under objectivity don't necessarily mean that they are unjust laws. I don't see how this connects to my opponent's points. 3) IN his first contention, he says that nullification works as a type of checks and balance. This is not true. Checks and balances are fair in every case, and with jury nullification, mistakes are made quite often, not making it a true check on power 4) "Nullification keeps laws fair and legitimate" I refer back to the John Peter Zengel case, where he was charged with printing seditious libels of the Governor of the Colony of New York, William Cosby. Even though there was enough evidence to frame him, he was set free. This was an unjust decision, since he obviously deserved to be penalized, but wasn't. This does not keep laws fair, because if it did, he would have been decided with "Guilty" 5) "The right and duty of the people" To protest against the government of unjust laws is the duty of the people. In court cases, not every single person that consists of the people goes. Therefore, the right and duty of the people is not stressed in jury nullification Again, I apologize for the big mistake in my resolution, but I am thankful to my opponent for arguing the resolution that I had put.