Resolved: In the United States, true intent ought to have a higher weight in court than ends.

I would like to begin by thanking my opponent for this well debated round... I will look forward to the voters and their decision. Either way, it was a good debate... I will basically rebuttal straight down my opponents last speech then go to why the voters should vote Pro. Value of Justice He is right in saying that I agreed with his value of justice but what I didn't agree with is who achieves it. The value of justice is gained on the Pro side as we punish what deserves to be punished... intent. When the resolution specifies TRUE intent, determining it becomes irrelevant. I did prove in my last speech where intent CAN be determined, and when we weigh that over ends/results... we give true "due." I would like to take the chance to flow through my Example A and B as these show how intent is where people commit crimes, not ends. His argument against my Example A is flawed in so many places. My example showed two people doing the EXACT SAME bad act... One killed a person and one got a fine, let's now examine that. One ended up killing someone, so on the Con side they would presumably get a charge of manslaughter when the speeder who got picked up would just get a fine. That OUGHT NOT HAPPEN because they both did a bad act under their own control but they both got ends that were out of their control, therefore, we must punish people for what they CAN control, so you vote PRO. "Extend my case. He still has not shown how we can prove intent. I am still winning the debate."--> No my good sir, I just proved intent and control of people speeding, that is something they can control, they got bad ends, something they can't control. That is all that I am trying to do, punish people for what they can control... and besides, it is up to the voters to determine who is winning the debate:) "And regardless, one ran over a kid and one didn't. They didn't even have the same ends."--> This is the PROBLEM. My opponent has agreed that "I agree that justice is best served when we punish on intent and not just the ends"... here this proves how the ENDS were not under control of the INTENT. The two peoples ends OUGHT TO BE the exact same. When it don't give them the same punishment, we fail justice. My opponent read the resolution and assumes that I have to prove that intent is capable... that is FALSE for two reasons, 1) the resolution says true intent which means that the intent we prosecute is actually there, and 2) the resolution says ought to which means that this intent may not even have to be capable of being proven, but we still ought to prosecute that intent whether it can be proven or not... besides that, I do prove that intent can be proven when we look to Example A and B. Therefore, I can only see a PRO vote. --------------------------------------------------------------- "First of all, he has NEVER shown why my "type of justice" is that"--> I have shown the type of justice is not deserved... in my Example A and B, the person who killed the person did NOT deserve a greater punishment than the person who sped just as fast. "In my R1, I specifically state that "I personally believe that it's true, intent should be the determiner of the punishment - but that's not how justice works."--> But that is how justice OUGHT TO work. Justice ought to punish people for what they are in control of. Which means that we ought to give a greater weight to true intent rather than ends in court. Again, pull through my argument of ought to does not mean can. I ought to donate to the poor but I hardly have enough money in my bank account for a tank of gas. Same here, we ought to punish intentions, but there may be some confusion in what that is. The MAY BE is of course not very strong though as I do offer Example's A and B that show how intentions can be seen AND punished. "it JUST ISN'T GOING TO HAPPEN"--> Again, it ought to happen though. "It DOESN'T MATTER if we're attempting to give people what they deserve, if we don't even KNOW what they deserve. AT THE POINT WHERE INTENT CANNOT BE DETERMINED, PRO CAN NEVER WIN THE ROUND."--> Again, we OUGHT TO give people what they deserve. INTENT can be determined. Someone who speeds does not deserve to be punished for someone who was killed, it was not their intent... Flow through BOTH Examples A and B. If someone tries to kill someone, they should not be punished for ONLY breaking and entering, their intent was to kill. Certainly we will still go by innocent until proven guilty, and if we can't prove their intent of trying to kill then they will still get breaking and entering... but we must try... TRY by voting PRO. Against his arguments about capability and obligation. What you will see is that in COURT, you must punish people for what they attempt to do that will cause harm, and punish them for the capability of causing harm (which relates back to example A)... Onto his argument about donating to a fraudulent corporation... If it was my intent to donate, I should not be punished for donating to someone bad. If I try to donate to a third world country but accidentally fund a terrorist corporation, CON would say that bad ends = punishment... but on PRO I would say that good intent = no punishment. What makes more sense? Punishing people for what they have control over. His next paragraph covers intent can't be determined but I have already hit that with Examples A and B. 1, 2, 3)--> Punishing ends ought not happen. Sure you can start an investigation by seeing bad ends, but in order to do what ought to happen, you must punish intentions. Ends are NOT under the control of each individual. If I spend a million dollars to try to find the cure for cancer but fail, I did nothing wrong. If I do EVERYTHING to get an "A" on a test but actually get a "D", I did nothing wrong. If I speed 20 over and accidentally kill someone, I should only be punished for speeding WAY too fast which had the CAPABILITY of hurting someone. It would be UNJUST to put someone in jail for 10 years because of something they did not have control over. 1)--> Here, you fail to look at my Example B... We DO get TRUE criminals off the street. This is shown when someone tries to kill someone but fails, they should still be punished as if they did kill someone. THAT, ought to happen. "I personally believe that it's true, intent should be the determiner of the punishment - ***but that's not how justice works***. Justice doesn't work like lightning from God's finger; we aren't all-knowing and omniscient. ***My case says that the criminal justice OUGHT NOT prioritize themselves to concern themselves with intent, because then we WOULDN'T be giving each their due.***"--> (reason to vote PRO) When punishing TRUE intent, we do in fact give each their deserved due. He says. We aren't all knowing, but we can still determine what people tried to do. All examples provided in this debate, we were able to determine the intent of the people. That is when we give true justice and that is when we are truly just. When he says that, "intent should be the determiner of the punishment", then it ought to happen, so you must vote PRO. WE OUGHT TO do this, and that's all that matters. Thanks again for this truly GREAT debate. I hope to debate you again, and hopefully in a tournament system :)