In the United States, Plea Bargaining in Exchange for Testimony is Unjust.

I'll start with standards go down the con case and then respond to his arguments on mine. In his response to my standard he says I didn't present a criterion. However LD rules do not state that a criterion has to be used. I am setting up a standard that is very weighable in the round. He tells you he'll link it back to his case but he never does. Under the standard you extend the Sapienza analysis. Sapienza is saying that procedural justice protects individual's interests in the long run. It also affirms individuals their value to the relationship, group or organization. This argument is important to the round because it is showing that by using procedural justice we are benefiting individuals and the society. Second, extend the two analytical points of analysis. Point 1- My first point under the standard is that the resolution asks if something is unjust and the only type of Justice that can be used for this resolution is Procedural Justice because it asks if a court procedure is just. This argument is important because for a court procedure to be just we must strive for procedural justice. Point 2- My second point under the standard is saying that since the resolution is contextualized in the United States, we have to use a type of justice relevant to the U.S. Court systems don't have time to evaluate case by case so a procedure must be used. This argument is important because it is showing that since we are talking about the United States we must have a value beneficial to the United States. The only response he gives is that it is similar to his value but gives no reason why. Thus, my analysis is used in the round. Let's move on to the con case- First look to his resolutional kritik. It is a few lines long and is a blunt assumption. Don't let him get away with this. He makes a short statement and then goes through the round assuming the resolution is correct….a clear contradiction. Contention One- His main warrant for this argument is the Companion to American Law analysis. However this has one main flaw, it is non- topical. The resolution is specific to Plea Bargaining for Testimony whereas his evidence is relating to plea bargaining in general. As the affirmative I can say that plea bargaining is just but plea bargaining for testimony isn't and still win the round. Contention Two- This contention rests on the Law and Society Review Warrant. However, this warrant is not Plea Bargaining for testimony specific. As stated in my case, testimony's can also be unfairly influenced through threats. Pro Case- To my first sub-point he makes one response; checks and balances exist. However, judges can be just as coerced into accepting an unjust testimony. Overview- The rest of his arguments against my con case is published in the comment section. This is unfair to me as a debater. Let me provide an example: In high school LD debate, a time limit is providing. Exceeding this time limit is not accepted. Similarly to this, there is a character limit on Debate.org. Exceeding this limit is not allowed. If an unlimited amount of space could be used, I could write a book prior to challenging and post it through multiple comments. In three days, my opponent could not respond to all of my arguments throughout this hypothetical book. For the reasons above, I urge all voters not to look at anything he tells you through the comment section. Fairness is the most important thing when debating. Thus since, my opponent didn't respond to any of my arguments, I will now extend them. Subpoint A- Plea Bargaining in exchange for testimony incentivizes lying. Plea bargaining in exchange for testimony incentivizes lying. In hopes of getting a shorter prison sentence as a reward, criminals falsely accuse an innocent person of being an accomplice. The incentive for lying is a shorter prison sentence, People who lie and commit severe crimes shouldn't be rewarded with shorter prison sentences while people who don't lie and commit misdemeanors receive longer sentences. The impact of using procedural justice in this case is inequality. Subpoint B- People May be Threatened to testify against themselves. In order to not get convicted, heinous criminals may threaten an innocent person, and force them to testify against themselves. This will lead to faulty convictions flawing the court systems. Subpoint C- Plea bargaining in exchange for testimony increases crime. This argument is saying that plea bargaining in exchange for testimony increases crime. By giving evidence criminals are given preferential treatment and are allowed into the society to commit crime. As a result we are increasing crime rate and allowing injustice to innocent people. For these reasons I urge you to vote Pro. My opponent has failed to respond to any of my arguments and all of them have been extended, impacted, and warranted.