plea bargaining ought to be abolished in the United States criminal justice system.

Yes, I have dropped your theory and you have won the right to bring up guilty people as well. But since you did not really in your second speech and cannot bring new evidence in your final speech, you have given up that right. The format of this will be -summary of debate -what my opponent dropped -what my opponent didn"t defend -why I urge a pro ballot So first off, in summary my opponent stands on the side of liberty, and I stand on the side of justice. My opponent claims that with taking away plea bargains that takes away the right to plead guilty. What my opponent doesn"t understand is that taking away plea bargains is not taking away the right to plead guilty, it is purely taking away the incentive for court officials to pressure a guilty plea, and taking away incentive for innocent people to plead guilty and serve time for what they didn"t do. Meanwhile I claim that plea bargains takeaway justice by pressuring people to give up their right to a trial by jury. My opponent did bring up that these people are willingly giving up that right, but then I proved that they are being pressured and forced into giving up that right. Which is unjust. On that note, I will mention what my opponent neglected to/or insufficiently attacked me on. Justice- has failed to prove that either, liberty is more important than justice or that justice is being upheld with plea bargains. Plea bargains violate laws- has failed to prove that plea bargains are not taking away the unconstitutional right to a trial by jury. Only stated that it is a right, which I have proven that they are being pressured to give up that right. Which is unjust. Plea bargains target minorities- stated that "trying to fix the problem causes the public to believe there is no race problem." What my opponent is saying is that instead of working to actively fix our countries racism problem, we should just continue to complain about it. While I am bring up ways to fix this problem and my opponent is completely ignoring those, claiming I did not tell how to fix it, just said we should. Which I will bring up in my attacks. I will now mention what my opponent failed to defend against/what I have proven wrong. Liberty-I have proven that liberty is not being upheld within the plea bargain system. Proving that with my opponents view point, neither value is being upheld. Guilty- my opponent did in fact win the right to being up guilty men and women as well, bu since they neglected to bring up evidence, they cannot mention that in their final speech. Right-I have proven that yes, a right to jury is in fact that, a right. But it is being taken away with plea bargains. My opponent wants to say that by taking away plea bargains we are taking away the right to not having a trial. But as I mentioned, it does not take away the right to not have a trial, it takes away the incentive to force plea bargains on people, and takes away incentive for innocent people to plead guilty. Court backlog/economy- I have stated that instead of trying to rush through trials, or not even have them is valuing "quantity over quality." my opponent claims that this will lead to an economic collapse. But, I have stated another option, working to better society. My opponent claims I gave no plan to do so, but I in fact did. I stated that we should work to better increase the relations between minorities and our officers to try to stop the amount of minorities being falsely arrested. Because I did not go into much detail, I can not bring up much evidence to how to do this, but I will state that their are programs out there already trying to increase relations and are being quite affective. Race- My opponent has stated that we shouldn"t try to fix the racist problem. Instead we should keep "complaining" so that people know it is an issue. IF WE WORKED ON FIXING IT, IT WOULDN"T BE AN ISSUE. If you decide to vote negative on today"s resolution then you will be agreeing with violating the constitution, a constitution that was written to PROTECT the citizens of the United States, a constitution that is the BASIS of our ENTIRE country- if you decide to vote negative, you will be voting for a falling society. If you decide to vote negative you will be voting for all people of the United States to be treated differently, which is what is currently happening in the SQ, by voting for negative YOU WILL BE VOTING FOR THE FACT THAT RIGHT NOW IT IS OKAY FOR PEOPLE OF DIFFERENT COLORS TO BE TREATED AND DEALT WITH DIFFERENTLY IN OUR CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM AND THAT THAT IS INDEED MORALLY JUSTIFIED. But by voting for affirmative, you will be acknowledging that plea bargaining is a system that is flawed, it is a system that COMPLETELY violates the Constitution which is the entire BASIS of the United States today, by voting for the affirmative team today you will be voting for the fact that racism in the courts and justice system is COMPLETELY wrong and unjust and by voting for affirmative you will be voting for an equal America. In conclusion, voting for negative towards today"s resolution- Plea bargaining ought to be abolished in the United States criminal justice system.because it creates a flawed and unequal- overall morally unjust society- whereas voting for Affirmative promotes an overall more equal America.Which is why judge I respectfully urge you to vote affirmative.