Rawls veil of ignorance achieves justice better than Nozick.

= 0. Road map = 0. Road map - Duh 1. Framework - I shall establish a framework of discussion to clarify the intent of my arguments 2. Refutation - I shall refute the arguments of the Con 3. Underview - disclaimers and reservation of rights = 1. Framework = Observation 1: Philosophy- Whenever one chooses to partake in a debate concerning philosophical principles, it is of the utmost importance that said discussion take place within an ideological vacuum. that is to say that we should not assume principles related to philosophical concepts are true or false prior to the beginning of a debate. Unless we maintain this standard of argumentation, no progress will come of any debate. Instead bias of opinion enters into the realm of discussion and prematurely shapes our assumptions about such principles. through the course of this debate the issues that we must refrain from making prematurely biased judgements are as follows: 'Justice', 'The veil of Ignorance', and 'Nozick'. Further, let it be know that my opponent fails to clarify exactly what he means when he says 'Nozick', however I will assume that he is referring to Nozick's Entitlement Theory[1] [1] http://www.britannica.com... Observation 2: Presumption of Belief- Pro and Con refer to stances on a given proposition, not to the role of an instigator or contender. I make this clarification to preempt a burden of proof fallacy from my opponent. He is the instigator of this debate, and is therefore responsible for proving the claim he sets forth to be true -- I am not responsible to prove any claim to be true. Instead I as the contender have the burden of clash to refute the arguments of my opponent. That said the point of this observation is to clarify that the Pro has the presumption of belief in this debate. Meaning that once everything has been said and done, you default Pro if you fail to hear a compelling argument from the Con, or if I as the Pro am able to successfully refute the arguments of Con. Further I mean to clarify that I will not present a constructive of my own. Refutation will suffice. = 2. Refutation = Contention 1 My refutation here will be in three parts, a. My opponent's argument has a fundamental lack of warrant. He claims that we are not able to utilize the Veil of Ignorance, however never shows you why this is true. One might believe that the warrant comes in his analysis that we are unable to make purely objective decisions, but this still only a claim.Not a warrant. b. My opponent's first contention is not actually a contention -- it's a collection of claims. For an argument to be a contention it must contain a clear claim, a warrant(s), and an impact which shows why the argument matters. My opponent instead has three claims which he utterly fails to justify: That the veil of ignorance is not possible, That we are unable to make purely objective decisions, and they objectivity can't apply to justice. c. If you as the voters do not hold my opponent accountable to his burden as the instigator, and instead accept this argument as a legitimate contention, then this debate becomes truistic -- no discussion can take place. My opponent simply assumes these three claims to be true, and advocates a vote for con under the assumption that they are true -- that's a big debate no, no. Contention 2- My refutation will again be in three parts, a. This argument doesn't fully or accurately explain what the difference in subjectivity and objectivity is. This is bad as it allows my opponent to cherry pick his arguments concerning the nature of these two things and ends up making his argument both vague and uncompelling. Instead he makes the assumption that justice is inherently subjective and hashes out a few trigger words disguised as a warrant. b. This argument is wholly circular with my opponent's contention 1. There one of his basic claims, is that we are unable to make objective decisions (which is faise, but we'll get to that in a moment) and here he claims that justice must be subjective since it can't be objective. c. Objectivity does indeed exist. If you were to hand an employer two different resumes while he had no idea what kind of people the resumes belonged to, he's going to make an objective decision based on the content of the resumes, that is the very nature of objectivity. In the same way, if you present a jury with objective facts regarding a court case and do not tell them anything about the perpetrator him or herself, then they're going to make an objective decision. I would explain further but as my opponent has failed to meet his burden I don't really have anything to argue against. To further explain the viability of objectivity in the lack of a Con argument would be to adopt a burden of proof I do not have. = 3. underview = a. If my opponent further clarifies his arguments, then I maintain the right to change my refutations so that they respond to his arguments appropriately. This is necessary and just as my burden of clash is dependent on his burden of proof. b. If the fundamental nature of my opponent's arguments change, then he will be committing an 'ad hoc rescue' fallacy. Such a situation should be understood as an automatic forfeiture of all seven points. This shall be understood to have occurred if my opponent's first contention does not deal with the viability of the veil of ignorance due to a lack of possible objective decision and/or his second contention does not deal with... well it's circular fallacy so he can't save this contention.