The "Seinfeld" gang did not deserve jail

"First of all he didn't buy a book, he rented it."My point was in regards to the public urination, and remains unrefuted."(Theft) still wasn't serious enough."What are you talking about? Serious enough for what? He wasn't charged for that crime; he was charged with breaking the GS law. The fact remains that he commited that crime. That is completely undeniable."Technically something like this only goes on a crimnial [sic] record is the fine is not paid, so therefore not a crime."That is so glaringly wrong on numerous levels. So, if a person doesn't have a criminal record, they have absolutely never commited a crime? That's idiotic, frankly speaking. I've been caught speeding a few times. I broke the law. I paid my fines. That does not mean I never commited a crime. That's stupid to even suggest."Actually, they weren't tried just for that (GS law)..."I never said they were, but that they were only charged with it, which is true. From the final episode (1):"And how do you find with respect to the charge of criminal indifference?""We find the defendants guilty."None of the gang were charged with any of their prior fights, spats, crimes, idiocy, or contests, so quit trying to pass this off as fact."95% of the cases, like the contest, were not cases of legality."And how about the other five percent which you have yet to refute?"Last time I checked, when you've got cases against them other than the BS cases (most of which weren't illegal), then you're prosecuting them for more than something they were initially arrested for."Perhaps to put them in a bad light, but for the umpteenth time, they were not charged for those things."Some of the cases that did indeed happened were not used in court, so it's irrelevant."That doesn't matter. The only criteria for this debate was that you would try to prove that the Seinfeld gang never commited any crimes other than breaking the GS law. I have shown you numerous times that that is false, and you have yet to refute them. Again: This debate was not over whether their past crimes reflected on their sentence, which is worth debate. I've showed many different crimes the gang committed, which has blown an un-fixable hole in your debate."OK, I stand corrected, but last time I checked, Newman only ordered Jerry to pay a fine, which I assume he did. After all if you pay a fine, nothing is posted on your record."Why do you keep reiterating this same idiotic point? Just because you pay a fine does not make the original act not a crime."It wasn't private when the Soup Nazi foolishly left it in his china. It was his negligence and his own foolishness that brought upon his downfall, he must suffer the consequences."Let's replace recipe with "car":"It wasn't private when he foolishly left his keys in his car when she stole his car. It was his negligence and his own foolishness that brought upon his downfall, he must suffer the consequences."I hope you realize how foolish this sounds."I did argue that Newman's crimes were more serious in nature, which my opponent hasn't refuted. He actually agreed with me that Newman did indeed commit crimes."No, that's misleading. In the opening argument, you said:"There was a double standard which I will also argue was previlent in the trial of trying to portray the gang as evil, when several of the show's characters, such as Newman, have actually tried to cause harm towards, at the very worst, or at the least, trouble for Jerry and his friends."However, this was not the main debate. The main debate was "The Seinfeld gang did not deserve jail." I have proven without a doubt that not only did the gang deserve jail, but that they commited other crimes that they could have also gotten in trouble for. Tossing in the Newman situation just seemed like a way of pointing out that other people did worse things, which, fine, is true.But, you know what? Just to pacify you, I will refute all of your Newman points as well."The Old Man": Despite what you said, Newman did not go "Jim Crow" on the owner (whatever the hell that means). Kramer was there, telling Newman what to say to the store owner, of which the owner was fully aware. Newman also did not get violent with the owner; the owner attacked him first. This whole paragraph of making Newman look like a racist, violent, screaming lunatic is actually incredibly miseading, especially since it was entirely Kramer's doing. Thus, that's another point for me (2)"The Label Maker": Newman never threatened or blackmailed Time Whatley. He merely made a joke about what he could do. What's the harm in that? Have you ever said to yourself, "I'm gonna spit in that jerk's burger!" You have absolutely no intent to do so, but the though sure sounds fun. Techincally, spitting in someone's food can be considered attempted homicide. Obviously you won't do it. Obviously Newman feels like doing that, but that certainly doesn't mean he has any intent to do so. Big deal. Making a dumb joke to yourself is not worse than cockfighting."The Engagement": Kramer paid him to do so! Another point against the gang."The Package": Newman's attempts at framing Jerry are laughably useless and are of absolutely no real harm. Let's not forget that Kramer did commit mail fraud, which is a felony, and justifies Newman's actions. Another point against the gang.___My opponent's entire argument consisted of trying to find loopholes in how certain crimes the gang commited were not technically crimes at all. Every single one fell flat, mostly due to your lack of knowledge in regards to how basic law works. Among my points that went unrefuted:Jerry's public urination, theft, overdue library book, George's parking in an illegal area and impersonations, Kramer's cockfighting, impersonations, mail fraud, attempted kidnapping, and ownership of Cuban cigars, Elaine's theft and illegal distribution of the Soup Nazi's recipe, and Newman's sneaky, yet totally innocent, behavior.On the other hand, I refuted all of my opponent's points, and have met all of the requirements of the original debate. Not only this, many of my opponent's points were entirely misleading (especially in regards to Newman's antics).Vote for whoever made the better argument.1. 2.