Resolved: In the United States, the principle of jury nullification is a just check on government.

1. The affirmative's standards a. His claim that I contradict myself is superficial, considering that he is equivocating on the word justice. Look to the fact that his definition is entirely circular (an argument which he does not contest). Unfortunately, he redefines this value as what the majority deems fair, essentially arguing "if the majority says X is fair, X is fair." Unfortunately, this is an appeal to popularity [http://www.nizkor.org...]. He also contests my definition of justice; unfortunately, he fails to explain why the proper administration of law isn't always fair; that is, why the proper application of law isn't always impartial and objective. I refuse to compromise. Without objective, impartial application, the law becomes superfluous. b. The place of the value premise in a case is to explain one's value, and how it applies to the resolution. The contentions are the proper place to support one's standards, not the premise itself. But, considering that he considers it to be a "key argument", I'm sure it will come up in other places in the case; if not, let it die. c. Of course I didn't say that legitimately rendering justice is bad; I would be foolish to argue that. My objection was that he never really provided the standard for determining what justice was, much less a standard to determine how it would be legitimately rendered. Of course, he employs my definition by saying that it is the "fair administration of the law". So, Pro is basically arguing "you legitimately render justice by fairly applying the law"; but, since fair administration of law IS justice, his argument is of the form "you legitimately render justice by achieving justice". Still circular, and still without an objective standard. My objections remain valid. 2. My standards a. I still refuse to compromise on the definition, on the grounds that Pro is committing the "middle ground" fallacy [http://www.nizkor.org...]. Also, I really don't care whether Objectivism was in the Constitution. If Pro wants to claim that rationality shouldn't be our highest standard of evaluation, that's his prerogative. 1) Actually, being objective doesn't violate the definition of fair - namely, impartiality (and by extension, consistency). Pro's definition of fair is whatever the majority says is fair (which is based upon a fallacy); so, in that respect, objectivity doesn't remain in line with fairness, if we're defining fairness in Pro's terms. 2) Generally, replacing legislators, protesting, appealing verdicts, and things of that nature tend to work. Even so, my job as the negative isn't to provide alternatives, nor to support any positive assertion of my own. My task is to disprove that jury nullification is a just check on government - that is all. 3. The observation a. Try to keep it professional, Pro. Making fun of me is not only in bad taste, but is another logical fallacy [http://en.wikipedia.org...]. Furthermore, despite what his observation claims, I don't have to prove that other channels are more effective. This isn't policy debate. Also, keep in mind that he is attacking a straw man (yet another logical fallacy) [http://en.wikipedia.org...] by presupposing that an indict of jury nullification is an indict of democracy; however, this relies solely on the hidden premise that nullification is a strictly democratic institution; but, I've already disproved that assertion in multiple ways. Also, "the people" isn't an entity. By Pro's admission, he's only concerned with what the majority thinks is fair. A. Prove it, Pro. How can 12 people accurately represent the ideological perspectives of 300,000,000 Americans - especially when those 12 people aren't elected? B. Probably the judge. If you want to claim that the politicians are corrupt, by the way, I don't think you can do that while praising democracy, nor can you glorify "the people" who elected those officials. C. Laws are supposed to be based on objective reason. You're attempting, by your own definition, to determine fairness and justice based fallaciously upon whatever happens to be popular at the time. Also, keep in mind that my lack of alternatives has no bearing on whether jury nullification is a just check on government. I only have the burden of clash - and I'm certainly clashing with the position you've set forth. 4. Pro's first contention (sub-point A) a. Pro says in Round one: "Ultimately, the law does not equal justice thus the only way to legitimately administer justice is through jury nullification. Without Jury nullification the people of the United States would be lacking this legitimate and just check on the power of the government." In this statement, he is presupposing that jury nullification is a just check on government - that's the only thing that allows him to say that it's the "only way to legitimately administer justice". He hadn't proved anything prior to that. And, using the conclusion as one of the premises (even if the premise is hidden) is circular logic. b. He drops my argument that, since he provides no standard for determining the justice of a law, or of its application, he cannot argue that nullification justly checks government, or that it won't target just laws (since nullification, as a doctrine, is based upon jurors' personal feelings toward the law). 5. Pro's first contention (sub-point B) a. My point is, if his argument doesn't prove that it's a just check on government, it won't win him the round. This argument doesn't fulfill that burden. b. I'm not attacking the author at all. I'm saying that it's a non sequitur [http://en.wikipedia.org...] to claim that, because the founders intended an independent judiciary, jury nullification is a just check on government. I'll say it again: does not follow. c. He drops this argument as well - extend that juries are neither elected nor accountable, which puts the judiciary in greater danger of arbitrary action; if anything, nullification is an antidemocratic institution. Critical argument. d. He also drops the argument that he's appealing to novelty by claiming that old laws are unjust by virtue of their being old; or, perhaps it's chronological snobbery [http://en.wikipedia.org...]. I might be mixing fallacies, and I apologize for any confusion. 6. Pro's second contention a. Pro hasn't provided a lens. He has redefined his standards in equally circular terms, but considering that he has denounced objectivity as being inherently unfair, it would be contradictory of him to claim that he has an objective standard of determining what justice is - his criterion is used to legitimately render it, at best; not to evaluate what is just, and what is not. Oh, and Pro - we can't just "default affirmative and assume" anything. That would be a bit of a cop-out in terms of the burden of proof. b. Since juries don't warrant their verdicts (secrecy of deliberations and all that), it's hard to believe that nullification has actually caused social outcries. Be careful of confusing correlation and causation [http://en.wikipedia.org...]. c. He backs his conclusion up by assuming it as a premise. That's circular. d. Independence is detrimental to fairness when jurors aren't accountable, being that institutional accountability is a cornerstone of democracy. 7. Pro's objections a. I didn't really make any claims. I merely refuted Pro's, and proved that most (if not all) are mired in fallacy. b. This isn't policy debate. I don't have to demonstrate a "neg world". I merely have to disprove the affirmative position. c. Again, this isn't policy debate. I'm not required to show solvency, much less demonstrate what method(s) I use to do anything. I must only disprove the resolution. Good luck in R3.