Resolved: The Letter of the Law Ought to Have Priority Over the Spirit of the Law.

Thanks! You made some very good points. I'm glad that we can have a civilized and intelligent discussion on a topic such as this. Now, to dive right in!This is my final opportunity to introduce new contentions, and I have chosen not to. Instead, I will respond to my opponent's rebuttals, and rebut his points.First, my opponent proposes that in order to ensure a fair standard, different cases should should set a standard for future cases. That interpreting the law by the spirit would set standards for similar cases in the future.My opponent makes a fine proposal, however, the letter provides for this in the same way. Using other instances in which the law has been previously applied is a legal strategy that works in either instance, letter or spirit. However, the Letter of the Law provides for this better, because in the Spirit of the Law, the moral and social consensus would be prioritized over previous cases. Meaning, that a just interpretation of the law would still be thrown out in favor of an unjust moral and social consensus.Second, my opponent gives an example in response to my second contention. He states that with the tax code, the letter is prioritized, but the problem is that it's so excessive in length that very few understand it completely. He notes that he could easily evade taxes because of loopholes, and that his "evasion would be completely legal." He contends that if the tax code were written simpler, it would have no loopholes.In response, I first contend that his example is committing Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc, by assuming that interpreting the tax code by the letter is the reason why it is so lengthy. The U.S. Tax Code is lengthy because of the type of taxes we have implemented, not because of how they are interpreted.I also challenge my opponent to provide an example as to how he could "easily evade" taxes "because of the loopholes," and how that "evasion would be completely legal."Third, my opponent notes that he would rather interpret the Spirit of the Law as judging based on what the law is intended to do, rather than what the law specifically says.I set the definition of the Spirit being what the social and moral consensus of the law's interpretation is, because it's oftentimes difficult to determine the original intent. So unfortunately, that is the definition we are debating. As a note, when I say "ethics," I am referring to the social and moral consensus without wanting to use up too many characters.Fourth, my opponent clarifies his "iPod" example, noting his point was that in day to day life, we don't need formal judges and lawyers for everything, because we follow the spirit of the law for ourselves.My opponent's point does little to strengthen his argument or relate to the resolution. This debate is on how the law should be interpreted when it must be applied, not on how often we must apply it. However, I would encourage my opponent to keep this point in mind. My opponent's point may have missed the resolution of this debate completely, but if he adjusts his aim, he can use this point very well to suit his argument.Finally, my opponent notes that when a law is written specifically, it is "impossible" to cover "any" loopholes when interpreted with the letter. He contends that this is why we have complex laws, because we patch laws up continuously. He states that it is important to prioritize the spirit because it's the only way to make sure the law is followed.Interesting point, however, like I contended with the speed limit example, interpreting the law through the social and moral consensus causes plenty of loopholes, too. In this example, I also contended that just because laws are specific does not mean that there are loopholes.Also, in response to my opponent's contention that prioritizing the spirit is the only way to make sure the law is followed, I contend that the enforcement of the law resides outside of the judiciary, and therefore lacks relevance to this debate. I also contend that just because there are loopholes does not mean that the law is not being followed. People still follow speed limits despite the Spirit of the Law loophole, and people still pay their taxes despite any hypothetical loophole in the tax code.In Conclusion, the Letter of the Law ought to be prioritized over the Spirit of the Law, because doing otherwise would be unjust, because the Letter contains the benefits of the Spirit of the Law without the drawbacks, and because my opponent's proposition seeks to punish those for the purpose of maintaining ethics as opposed to maintaining justice.As a reminder my opponent may no longer introduce new arguments. He may rebut any new arguments I have made, and he may respond to my rebuttals of his argument. This does not mean he may not respond to my arguments in new ways, but rather that he cannot introduce a new idea. To illustrate, my opponent can say that "You're wrong on this point because of X, Y, and Z," but my opponent cannot introduce new ideas, such as "If the letter of the law is prioritized, then the fundamental concept of mercy is ignored."My opponent would also do well to remember that this next argument is his final opportunity to rebut my points and respond to my rebuttals. I would encourage him to do his best, for the spirit of humanity, and the spirit of the law.