The Rights of the victim should take precedence over the rights of the accused in felony cases

I'll go AC (Rebuttal) then go NC. 1. The question in the resolution is not over the presumption of innocence. The resolution is questioning the prioritization of rights. --> I agree to an extent of this observation. Yes it is about prioritization of rights, however the right of innocence is a sub-category of the umbrella of accused rights. --> Since the affirmative must prove the resolution categorically true then it is his burden to negate the right of innocence to truly win the round. 2. A felony case is different then a misdemeanor case. Therefore, we are talking about egregious crimes, such as rape, murder, kidnapping. --> That's fine. Value: Justice --> I'll agree that this is the value for the round. Whoever achieves a greater amount of justice should win the round. Value Criterion: Maintaining Culpability --> I have 3 responses First, this is extratopical because the resolution states felon CASES. I.e. the culpability of that person has not been decided. Second, my opponenet has failed to set up a bounds of culpability therefore there is no way to measure it. And third, even if you don't buy my 2 arguments it still does not achieve the value because justice ought to be purified of procedural injustice and arbitration. --> You can drop his criterion. A value of justice is implied in the resolution since we are discussing punishment and rights in a court system. Thus, that legal system ought to be just. --> When I present my case you will see why affirming actually leads to a more unjust legal system. Maintaining Culpability achieves justice because the only way to properly allocate due is to make a distinction between the legally innocent and legally culpable. --> Extend my above attacks. Contention I: Prioritizing Rights When rights come into conflict it is an obligation of any legal system to prioritize the rights of the victim/innocent over the culpable. --> I have two responses: First, my opponenet never provides an example of where rights would come into conflict. However, secondly, if this where true then the obligation of an unbiased legal system would collapse because the scale of justice would be put off balance. I.e. right equalization in trial would be put into the side of the victim rather then to keep it equal. Overview: 1. My opponent is extratopical because he already assumes that the accused is guilty. 2. My opponent never makes a realistic link between his case and his standard. Moving on to my own case: I negate: The Rights of the victim should take precedence over the rights of the accused in felony cases For analysis of the resolution I offer the following observation: 1. The resolution is talking about the trial aspect of a criminal proceeding. Therefore, it is unknown if the accused is guilty or innocent. The negative values a just legal system. This is an appropriate value for the round because the resolution talks about court proceedings. This value is achieved by the criterion of minimizing procedural injustice. For a just legal system to be achieved it is imperative that the proceedings of the trial follow a just procedure. If not, then the final decision/verdict would be an unjust one, even if it were correct. Contention I: Resolutional Impact Basically the resolution states the accused. Therefore, the guilt or innocence is unknown at that point. Therefore, the equalization of rights is undone. In case turn: My opponenet tries to advocate culpability. However, simply turn this against him using my above logic. He is the one going against maintaining culpability because he is making the scale of justice unbalanced. Therefore, he himself tip the scale in the other extreme against culpability. Contention II: Court Bias Basically affirming the resolution undermines the idea of the court being unbiased. By letting precedence be taken of the rights of the victim over the accused is an explicit sign of bias towards the victim. In case turn: This point shows that my opponenet is going against justice because justice implies looking from unbiased eyes. Clearly by affirming you are taking that unbiased obligation of justice and turning it against itself. For these reasons for can negate.