In the United States, organized political lobbying is a just check on government

As an overall objection, I'd like to note that, while the resolution - as posted - is "In the United States, organized political lobbying is a just check on government." However, he is arguing about the principle of jury nullification; ergo, because he isn't debating the resolution, you'll vote Con. Still, I feel it fair to go over the affirmative's case (to give him the benefit of the doubt); as opposed to presenting my case all at once, I'll integrate my own arguments into my attacks on the affirmative position. 1. The Standards (value and criterion) a. His value and criterion are rather circular. He states that justice is a moral principle determining just conduct; yet, he states that morality (his criterion) is contingent on providing justice. He offers no objective standard of determining which actions are moral, and which are not; ergo, it's clear that morality isn't a criterion which can be used to evaluate his case. b. His criterion, morality, is never applied in his case. At best, it is a superficial standard of evaluation which has absolutely no impact on the arguments he makes. Because he provides no objective standard of evaluation (and doesn't apply it, even assuming that his standard is acceptable), it's clear that he can't affirm the resolution. c. On those terms, I'd like to offer an alternative set of standards in place of my opponent's. Value: Justice Justice is defined by Black's Law Dictionary, 7th edition, as the fair and proper administration of law. This is an important value in the United States because the justice system is set up primarily to apply laws in an objective fashion so as to impartially arbitrate disputes among men. If a law cannot be fairly and properly applied, the proper channels must be used so that the statute in question might be repaired or scrapped. Criterion: Objectivism Ayn Rand argues in The Virtue of Selfishness that the proper purpose of government is "as a policeman which protects man's rights... and settles disputes by rational rules". To ensure that laws are fairly and properly applied to that end, Rand states that the rules under which a government operates must be absolutely objective; otherwise, the use of force would remain solely in the hands of individuals, which contradicts the function of government as a policeman, and subjects individuals within a social setting to the equivalent of mob rule; ergo, objective law and the application thereof are the primary priorities of a just system. With functional standards established, let's look at the contentions. 1. Nullification as a legitimate and just check a. This argument is fallacious in that it relies on the presupposition that nullification is justified, and is a proper response to the unjust application of law; however, to assume this is to assume the truth of the resolution which the affirmative is supposed to be proving; ergo, this point is circular. b. First of all, simply because something is a constitutional right doesn't automatically mean that it's a just check on government. The fact that the government possesses no power to stop nullification means only that nullification is an unchecked power, which is completely antithetical to the purpose of strengthening checks and balances - a purpose to which nullification claims to be committed. Furthermore, keep in mind that nullification doesn't actually rewrite laws - it merely refuses to apply a particular law (with the affirmative assuming that just laws will not be targeted), which says nothing to the government, as juries do not reveal the reasons behind their verdict. If one wishes to keep the legitimacy of the law intact, one must go through the proper channels to have the law changed so that the administration of law can remain fair and objective. 2. Nullification keeps laws fair and legitimate. a. Once again, keep in mind that there are channels that can be utilized to change unjust laws; nullification doesn't rewrite the law, which means that it doesn't at all check government. b. Just as laws can be unjust, so can jury nullification; however, unlike laws, there are no checks upon jury nullification. Juries do not answer to the judge, or to the attorneys, or to the people of their community. This means that the biases of jurors are unrestricted when nullification comes into play; ergo, the administration of law can no longer be objective since a nullifying jury is entirely unaccountable to any entity within the judiciary or the wider government. c. Pro's argument again presupposes already that nullification is justified, and will produce just results - however, this is something that he as Pro must prove, not an assertion that Pro can rely on to add credibility to his position. 3. The right and duty of the people a. This is a huge non sequitur: The people have a duty to check their government; therefore, nullification is a just check on government. This is yet another instance of Pro assuming in advance that nullification is a just check. The fact that we ought to check our government in no way means that nullification A) checks government, or B) does so justly. As an overall response to the Pro position, I'd just like to point out that, besides assuming the truth of the conclusion to support his premises, his arguments are based upon a fatal flaw. Even if we assume that nullification had the power to change laws, the lack of legitimate standards on Pro's part means that he has NO way to determine whether or not the laws in question (or the application thereof) is just. Because he can't definitively prove to you that nullification will combat governmental injustice, he can't say that nullification checks government, much less in a just manner. So, because Pro's case repeatedly assumes the truth of the resolution to support his premises, and because the standards he establishes are not adequate to evaluate the resolution (or the case itself), it's clear that the only way to vote is Con. See you in Round 2, Pro. It's 1:30 AM, and I'm going to sleep. :)