LD Debate: Attorney-Client Privilege

Thank your for your post, now without further adieu... Concerning my opponent's value of justice, I don't disagree that the definition provided and the way it's used through the case is cohesive. I do disagree that it comes from the right source. Fairness in justice as a directly disputable matter applies more directly to Rawls' concept of distributive justice, which if you read the Stanford article on it, the fact that its relation to the criminal justice system is obscure. http://plato.stanford.edu... That sounds like an argument for fairness as justice. It has that concept written all over the article. It does not, however, sound like an argument concerning confidential information between an attorney and client. The link is minimal if existent at all. Now to more specifically attack the veil of ignorance, it is not part of the principle of truth to have this in place. Truth requires there to be no veil. It requires that lookers be examining it for what it is. Any truth that is hidden skews the perception of any given topic. This is not a good thing when considering the criminal justice system. Concerning my opponent's first contention, I'm confused by the statement at the end "privilege is no barrier to truth-seeking." On one hand it seems self-refuting to argue that as the argument logically follows that privilege assists in truth-seeking which means truth seeking is logically valued above privilege. On the other hand, it seems to be a contradiction in that privilege is for the purpose of restricting truth-seeking. Concerning the dropped arguments, I believe my position on them has been skewed. Yes, attorney-client privilege stops self-incrimination. If you read through my arguments, I actually address that issue. If someone has some dirt they uncover and that's held as confidential, the justice is indeed being barred. Concerning the adequate defense argument, I believe my argument was somewhat unclear, but what I advocate is that the ultimate goal of justice is not that the defense attorney did his job but that a just ruling was made. Therefore, that's an irrelevant point. I do believe I addressed the argument of the system. The problem is that the goal of the pro is to alter the system since the argument is that the system is flawed. Concerning the attack on my value, I feel it's necessary once again to bring up the nature of this debate. My job is to advocate for the best truth-seeking principle, and other ideas of truth-seeking don't bear relevance to my case as it's not part of my advocacy. I argue for actual truth-seeking, not police abuse of power. Now concerning my value criterion, I believe we're coming from different styles of Lincoln Douglas debate (even under the NFL it changes based on state traditions). However, I merely need to prove that the ideal principle of truth-seeking is preferable to the ideal principle of attorney-client privilege. Concerning the other attacks I believe I actually did state something along the lines of "one cannot be partial to facts." When the whole truth is known, which can only be solved through truth seeking, the full picture is created, and it's very difficult to see how the build up of truth to the whole truth skews a judgment in any direction. This also went along with the argument of subjectivity. Concerning the two attacks under my first contention, there is a point where justice, fairness and truth are all in the same boat. It would almost seem the con is arguing that truth should not be included in this group while simultaneously stating it should. When we have the whole truth, fairness and justice follow. One would actually have to consciously try to use the whole truth to obscure justice and fairness and those people will commit the crime either way. Concerning the constitution, the resolution does not specifically say "constitution" but like I said, we're debating the system. The con cannot use the system to prove itself. Like I said, that's begging the question. Saying the constitution is the reason our constitution ought to be followed is like me saying the attorney-client privilege is bad because it's bad. Now, onto the last attack, I'm sorry, but I must disagree with Kant. Now Kant would be more in favor of saying the ends cannot justify actions. I'm arguing the other way around. The goal of truth-seeking is to squire the whole truth. The whole truth is necessary to justice, therefore justice does not act as a prerequisite to truth. Even firer, method is not a prerequisite to truth, only a restraint some feel it necessary to put on truth-seeking. Ultimately, the principle of truth-seeking ought to be considered more important or better than the attorney-client privilege. The moral good should not be preceded by law or a method to the moral good. Whole truth is necessary to justice, and attorney-client privilege restricts the truth-seeking process to acquire the whole truth. Thank you for a great debate, and now I leave it up to you and the voters to finish the process of this debate.