The United States judicial system is seriously flawed.

I don't think we're on the same page here. Sorry. The resolution is: the United States judicial system is seriously flawed. As PRO, I am supposed to be backing up the fact that the United States judicial system is seriously flawed, which you have conceded over and over again in this debate. As CON, you are supposed to negate the resolution; in other words, you need to support the idea that the United States judicial system is NOT seriously flawed. You have never done this. Ever. "The reasoning is that the opposition gets to take a stand just like the other guy." Well, your stand has to at least oppose with mine. I am saying the the U.S. judicial system is seriously flawed. You're trying to say that it is not seriously flawed, and that it is about to collapse. Seriously - extremely (http://www.merriam-webster.com...) Flawed - an imperfection or weakness and especially one that detracts from the whole or hinders effectiveness (http://www.merriam-webster.com...) In order for me to win, I have to establish that the U.S. judicial system has extreme imperfections or weaknesses. You are trying to show that the U.S. judicial system is about to collapse. When something collapses, it is because its imperfections haven't been fixed and its weaknesses have been exploited. Your resolution is just an extreme version of my resolution. It would be like me starting a debate saying, "The United States is the most powerful country in North America," and you disagree and say, "The United States is the most powerful country in the world." Anyways, about what you said: "The Constitution spells out our rights. If something is unconstitutional it probably is so because it infringes on our rights in some way. Therefore, in general, a ruling that a law is unconstitutional is in the direction of protecting our rights. This is often a good thing." This would work better if the decisions were obvious and unanimous. Currently, we are under a system in which whichever party the majority of the SC Justices are in has extreme power over everybody else. If the Republicans pass a law successfully through the Senate and the House of Representatives and override the veto, if there are five Democrats in the Supreme Court, the law is overturned. It is not necessarily because it is unconstitutional, but because it goes against their beliefs as Democrats. They could then find some excuse to call it unconstitutional by using a very loose interpretation. The system is made even more faulty by the fact that the President and the Senate are the ones who replace the Supreme Court Justices, so it's a matter of luck for which party controls both branches at the time in which a Supreme Court Justice retires or dies. "You cannot say the system does not work if you don't use it properly. And in order for that to happen everyone has to take an interest and participate and demand the best." So, the rest of the United States is using the system improperly, and the way they are currently using it is flawed. Because how they use it is synonymous with what it is, the system is flawed. They aren't using it improperly, exactly. They are bending the rules that were laid down, but they are not breaking them. The allowance of such abuse is a fault of the system. In conclusion, my opponent has not said anything to oppose my resolution that he hasn't ever conceded, and because all arguments he makes next round are irrelevant because of the 5th round clause, I win. Vote PRO. For my undisputed arguments, see Round 1. I would also like to point out that his sources are going for my case, not his.