In the pursuit of justice, due process ought to be valued above the discovery of fact.

Thanks to my opponent for his response! And I apologize for taking so long to post my argument. I first want to say, at one point in my opponents debate he states, "Breaking the laws to uphold them isn't very effective, as such a discovery of fact outlook would have to put an emphasis on legally discovering facts without doing illegal searches or cruel and unusual punishment." I would strongly agree! But this seems to be an argument for the affirmative side. My opponent argues that in the "discovery of fact" we must follow due process in that we discover the facts legally. But if when discovering facts, we have to follow due process, are we not holding due process above the discovery of fact? If discovery of fact was held higher than due process, or to fit my opponents wording, "Due Process does not need to be valued above the discovery of fact" why are we binding discovery of fact under the rules of due process? By your own argument it seems the resolution is affirmed. But the best I can understand, my opponent is taking the stance that they should be valued equally. He did not affirm or give any evidence (in fact he argued against) valuing discovery of fact over due process. Because he negates the resolution, and does not advocate discovery of fact over due process, the affirmative must assume he is arguing that they should be valued equally. First I will respond to your rebuttals, and then discuss this assumed affirmative position. Point 1: My opponent starts by saying, "All the rights mentioned exist, and must be upheld lest there be unfair practices". Translation: Individual rights must be upheld in the pursuit of justice or justice is violated. Next he says, "Truly Due Process has commitment to legality." Translation: Due process is about upholding these rights. To this point the negative agrees with my position. But then he says, "in cases where a guilty person is brought to trial, they must indeed be offered Due Process. This Due Process is a legal right that they are granted, and is under what the law sets forth. However, the person is also guilty, and therefore should also suffer the punishment specified by law." I ask my opponent, how does he know that the party is guilty without a conviction? He assumes the party is guilty and being set free, but in America we have what is called innocent until proven guilty. We cannot say "the person is guilty therefore should suffer the punishment specified by law" when according to the law he is still innocent. Point 2: My opponent makes the claim that due process can lead to injustice in some cases. I agree with this statement. Sure due process isn't perfect! No justice system in the world has ever been perfect, nor do I believe it ever will be. But this does not take away from the fact that due process is our best option. Facts are not always perfect. It is important to remember "facts" are not necessarily always truth. In the above mentioned Gideon vs. Wainwright, the facts of the first case said he was guilty and deserved punishment, but these facts were wrong. Point 3: For the most part I have already addressed this argument, but I do wish to cover one more thing. The negative says, "Although my opponent claims that "Even if the evidence needed to convict that person is found his rights have been infringed upon, and justice therefore already lost.", if evidence exists that would indicate the person's guilt, failing to find him guilty is an equal failure of justice". Ok, so according to this statement, either way commits injustice. So what we are looking for is which side best and most consistently leads us to justice. And as I have shown that side is due process. I would like to point out that negative's argument here implies that we are finding those facts illegally. The only way due process stops evidence from being found is when that evidence can only be found by illegal means. Now on to the negative's position that due process and discovery of fact should be valued equally. Although this is a nice thought, it is very much impossible. When you look at justice as a whole it seems possible, but when you consider each case it clearly is not. Consider the following example: Let's say I am suspected of being a drug dealer. It is common theory that I am, and the police strongly believe it to be true. And for the sake of this example, let's say that in truth I really am a drug dealer. Ok so now comes the "pursuit of justice". But there is a dilemma! I'm REALLY good at hiding my drugs, and the police don't have enough evidence to get a warrant to search my house to find the evidence needed to convict me. So what do we do? We have two simple options. Due process says the police cannot come into my house. That would violate my constitutional rights. But if we value the discovery of facts over due process, then we'll break into my house to find those facts. The point here is this: you cannot choose both. You cannot hold due process and discovery of fact equally. When it comes down to actual practice of the law, you must choose one. And as I have shown, due process is the one we must choose.