The United States judicial system is seriously flawed.

In order to have a debate first a good debate topic must be selected. This has not been done. The National Forensic League runs debating tounaments The pick debate topics with great care because the topic is very important. It must be fair. The thesis that our judicial system is just fine is indefensible. We need some protection from stupid debate topics. This is provided in the rules: http://wiki.idebate.org... 1. Each debate involves two debaters, one of whom argues the affirmative side, the other the negative. The affirmative speaker must present a position agreeing with the resolution. The negative debater must disagree with the resolution's statement. (1) In circumstances where a resolution presents two alternatives, (e.g., "the sanctity of life should be valued above the quality of life') a negative side most commonly should argue the alternative to which the affirmative side has given second priority (i.e., 'the quality of life should be should be valued above the sanctity of life'). (2) A negative may choose a third option and argue both alternatives provided by the resolution. (3) A negative debater can also argue a "critique" against a resolution in its entirety. Because productive conflict, or 'clash,' is key to a Lincoln-Douglas debate, each debater should be able to make a positive case for their position and values, as opposed to a purely negative attack on those of their opponent. 2. Lincoln-Douglas is a fundamentally value-oriented (as opposed to policy-focused) debate. Judges must remember that debaters are not required to propose 'plans' for dealing with given situations. The role of debaters is to argue a moral position, and to use logic and ethical reasoning to do so. Notice the word "disagree." I am critiquing the resolution. It is stupid. It is not even remotely fair. That is why I took the debate. If my opponent wants to say, for example, that the U.S is the greatest country in North America, and I am able to argue that restricting the debate in this manner is unproductive and does not address the broader perspective, and I can come up with a better topic, I should be allowed to argue that. My opponent is becoming desperate if not entertaining with an argument that it is the car's fault or the gun's fault, or that obesity is the fork's fault. It is our fault. Anyway online debaters are stupid anyway. We can see why serious debaters avoid online debating and do not even consider it a serious attempt. My opponent clearly states that there are exactly two things wrong with our judicial system. Since the examples I am citing are not judicial review or the jury system, they are the part that my opponent asserts are not wrong with the judicial system. This may be a little difficult to follow but that is a consequence of my opponent picking a stupid topic and presenting stupid arguments. Can my opponent describe the Munia Exception? Is my opponent arguing that there is not enough judicial review due to party politics? A good point. Anyway Leonard Peltier. Evidence was suppressed but it was successfuly argued after the trial that evidence that proved he could not possibly have commited the murder with which he was charged would have no effect on a jury considering this charge. I rest my case.