Resolved: In the United States, the principle of jury nullification is a just check on government.

To start off, I would like to ask my opponent to refrain from accusing me of being a thief, and to stick to the debate. Also, I would like to ask the voters to disregard those other cases seeing as that doesn't at all impact this debate. What makes this debates is the arguments and counter-arguments. But, for the sake of clearing my name, 1) In the debate community it is not unlikely to see similar or even exact same arguments pop up on the same topic. 2) I have friends who I share ideas, evidence, and blocks with to not only educate them, but myself. So \that other debater having my case is not a surprise. I don't mind, because its not the case that makes the debater, its the arguments. But moving on, here's for an interesting rest of the debate. Concerning the definition debate, I view "abuse arguments" as whining, so for the sake of a more interesting, less technical debate, we will use his definition of jury nullification. I'll go down the flow in the same format as my opponent. 1. The affirmatives standards a. He agrees that Justice is the primary value in the debate, yet goes on to attack mine. You can disregard this seeing as its contradictory. So you as voters will determine the debate by the value of Justice. Also, going off the "fair" argument, he's now expecting to define every word in my case. But for the sake of my opponent, fair will be determined by what the majority see as fair, For ex: The majority agrees its fair to vote for president, then its fair. Also, once again back to the annoying technical debate of definitions. He defines Justice as "Fair and proper administration of the law". But this definition is more like two definitions, seeing as sometimes the proper administration of the law isn't always "fair". So for compromise, we will use the definition of "Fair administration of the law". b. Show me a rule that said arguments go in only the contentions. Granted its more expected that way, but don't just disregard a key argument in this debate because it doesn't fit with my opponents ideal format. I ask you as voters to get past who uses the most debate jargon, or who follows the most debate format. I ask you to vote on who makes the most convincing arguments. c. I notice in this debate that a lot of my opponents tactics is to point out how im not doing my job, but he doesn't focus on his job. Since all he said's is I provided no analysis, but never said why legitimately rendering justice is bad, then once analysis has been provided you must accept my measuring mechanism since it stands unrefuted. Throughout the debate I provide analysis, but to sum it up, to legitimately render justice is to enact "fair administration of the law". Plain and simple. 2. Negative standards Agree on standard of Justice, except with the new compromised definition. Also my opponent states that the "justice system is set up primarily to apply laws in an objective fashion", but I don't ever recall seeing that in the constitution or any book of law. My point is don't buy that objectivism was a building block of the U.S constitution. Already his value criterion falls because 1) Being objective would violate the definition of Justice or better known as fair. It would be illegitimately rendering Justice. See the argument in my framework about the manslaughter convictions 2) He ignores that the proper channels to repair the law don't always work, if they do at all. He provides no alternative channels, or evidence to point them legitimately rendering justice. 3. My observation a. Once again, whine whine whine *abuse* whine. It's merely an observation. I'm narrowing the debate to show that the Negative must prove other channels better, or jury nullification itself an illegitimate way to render justice. By him advocating the public having no voice, he's being anti-democratic, going against all foundations of the U.S. He should be downed for that because he isn't debating for the welfare of America, i.e the people. A. He even said that the people have different views and perspectives, so I'd say I have most perspectives quite covered. B. Who has the ethical authority then? Some corrupt political figure? No, the people of the democratic nation should. C. Then who should determine when the law is being properly applied? Since the Negative provides no alternative, and since this is a government for the people, by the people, and of the people, I vote the people. 4. Pro's first contention (sub-point A) a. I make a claim, I back it up with evidence. What is circular about that? Since he neither attacks my evidence or provides any counter evidence, you can extend my C1-SPA that "The principle and application of jury nullification serves as a just check on the power of the government.", as supported by my warrants. 5. Pro's first contention (sub-point B) a. Okay...and point? The negative needs to say why it isn't a just check. b. Essentially he's saying the author is wrong. Right or wrong, he provides no evidence himself, so extend that jury nullification is a just check on government power. 6. Pro's second contention a. Once again, i didn't do my job so he ignore his. Nope. I clearly give the so called "lens". But since he doesn't do his job, i.e show why I'm NOT fighting injustice, then we have to default Affirmative and assume I fight injustices. b. I see no warrant's, example's, or anything to back him up. Actually jury nullification has been known to start a social outcry against the law in question, thus urging for change/repeal. c. As affirmative I'm required to state those claims. I back them up. Unless your going to attack my arguments, warrants or examples, stop playing the same old tune. d. Yes, agreed. The judiciary is very independent. But seeing as you give no reason why thats bad, it has no impact in this debate. As an overall objection, my opponent only provides framework but no contentions or evidence to 1) Support his claims 2) Show what the Neg world looks like 3) Show how he enacts the Neg world. So already vote him down because he makes all these arguments without evidence. I feel it almost pointless to just defend my case if I have nothing to attack. I'll give my voters in the last round, and I'd like to apologize to my opponent if the tone of this rebutal was edgy. I was offended by the thief comment. All and all he made great, interesting arguments and I look forward o the next round. Best of luck Neg.=)