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

1. The standards a. All he does it restate that morality is his criterion; however, he drops my attack that his value and criterion are defined in terms of each other (that justice is a moral principle, and that morality depends on dispensing justice); in a sense, he has presented two values, and no objective standard of evaluation to determine justice OR morality. At the point that no such standard exists on the affirmative side, you negate. b. The affirmative presupposes that all Americans share the same set of values; however, history shows us that this clearly is not the case, considering the large amounts of political diversity for which our country is so well-known. So, to say that morality is contingent on upholding "American Values" assumes first that all Americans hold the same values, and second that morality is grounded in the interests of the majority; however, this is nothing more than an appeal to popularity [http://www.nizkor.org...]. 2. My standards a. Concerning my value, he says, and I quote, "sometimes justice is not achieved with jury nullification." I agree to that; however, if he cannot guarantee that justice will generally be done in the face of government abuse, he can't claim to win the value. Additionally, recall that for law to be fairly and properly administered, laws must be objective; however, Pro's allowance of the subjective whims of the jury into the justice system proves that he is, at best, allowing for purposeless legal inconsistency - I say purposeless because, since juries do not give a reason for their verdict, it's going to be pretty difficult to tell when the jury is trying to make a moral statement about a particular statute. b. Concerning Objectivism, Pro argues that a lack of objectivity doesn't necessary equate injustice; however, when you consider that the fair and proper administration of law (a value we both agree upon) requires legal objectivity based upon consistent, rational rules, any subjective inconsistencies created by jury nullification are going to ruin the dispensing of justice, since defendants are essentially at the mercy of the jury if you accept Pro's case. 3. Pro's first contention a. The argument that he makes here is that jury nullification isn't fair, makes mistakes very often, and isn't a check on government. It seems as if Pro has switched his position, and is now attacking jury nullification. So, you can flow through this first contention to the negative, since Pro himself is arguing against nullification as a fair check. b. He drops the responses I make here, that: A. Something being constitutional right doesn't make it a just check. B. Nullification doesn't rewrite or get rid of unjust laws. C. Nullification doesn't send a message to the government, since juries don't explain their verdicts. D. If a law IS unjust, there are proper channels to go through to have the law changed. 4. Pro's second contention a. This argument again seems to be in Con's favor, since it argues against the use of nullification in the Zenger trial, and against the use of nullification to make the application of law unfair, and thus, unjust. b. He drops the response I make about how a nullifying jury is an unchecked power. Extend it. c. Extend the response about how Pro presupposes the justice of nullification in order to prove the justice of nullification - it's circular. 5. Pro's third contention a. Once again, Pro's arguments work for Con, since he openly states that nullification does not stress the "right and duty of the people" to protest unjust government action. 6. Closing arguments I don't know if Pro got mixed up, or what; but, all of his refutations seemed to work to Con's advantage, since he was openly refuting the affirmative position. Additionally, extend the argument that the lack of legitimate standards on Pro's part prevent him from determining whether a law is just or unjust; thus, he cannot definitively say that nullification combats government injustice, since he has no standard to determine when injustice is occurring. Finally, keep in mind that argument - which he has dropped - that he has circularly presumed the resolution to be true to support his arguments; however, his duty is to prove the resolution true, not to assume that it is. We'll see where Round 3 goes. Good luck, Pro.