Public Behaviour

Con states " In no way does this my opponent's diction allude to debating over judicial permissibility. His interpretation is non-sequitir being as how any logical human could see where throwing a urine soaked sweatshirt on a cop is inappropriate and calls for punishment." (Emphasis added) I respectfully inquire if Con's statement "...throwing a urine soaked sweatshirt on a cop is inappropriate and calls for punishment" is a legal or a moral conclusion? Con can answer and clarify his statement in the next round. It is axiomatic that the infliction of punishment on a person presupposes that the person has been found to have committed a legally or morally wrongful act. A civilized society does not punish innocent people. 1 Since it is not disputed that Ms. Langrall "[threw] a urine soaked sweatshirt on a cop," it follows that she should be punished. In other words, Con is implicitly conceding that Langrall's action should not be excused. I will now respond to Con's Contentions: Contention 1. Psychiatric Disability. Con's citing 'a child acting out" is irrelevant because Ms. Langrall is an adult. She is 24 years old. Next, Con states: "that my opponent cannot prove that Ms. Langrall does not have a mental condition." But, Con has the burden of proof. It is fallacious for Con to demand that Pro prove a negative. 2 Con's argument is in contradiction. He claims above that Ms. Langrall should be punished, but under this contention she should be excused because of an assumed psychiatric disability. Contention 2. Crooked Cops, Drug Addiction, Desire for Revenge. We are debating a concrete fact situation which became a pending criminal case. Con argues from possibilities. But possibilities are irrelevant to a concrete case. Con states above: "In addition, my opponent's point on revenge is void and null because of the fact that, while not morally permissible, desires for revenge could justify throwing a urine soaked sweatshirt on a cop." Con's justification based on revenge is inconsistent with his statement above that "any logical human could see where throwing a urine soaked sweatshirt on a cop is inappropriate and calls for punishment." Con's argument is in contradiction. He claims above that Ms. Langrall should be punished, but under this contention he claims that she should be excused because of assumed circumstances of Crooked Cops, Drug Addiction, or Revenge. Con's arguments are incoherent 3 and contradictory. Contention 3. Unpredictability of the damned human race. Con states and argues: "The irrationality of the human race still serves to justify Ms. Langrall's actions," Con's argument is contrary to human history and thought, specifically, to such histories of law and of moral philosophy. Accepting the obvious, that man acts irrationally on occasion, does not entail that he should be relieved of either legal or moral responsibility for his wrongful actions. To hold otherwise would mean that no one could be held responsible for any action that is claimed to be either illegal or immoral. Abusiveness: On two occasions in his argument above, Con charges me with being "abusive." For Con to be consistent, I would argue, he should also admit that when someone is 'abusive' their actions are excused or justified because of the irrationality of the human race. Con's argument is in contradiction. He claims above that Ms. Langrall should be punished, but under this contention he claims that she should be excused because of the irrationality of the human race. _____________________ 1. http://en.wikipedia.org... ; http://www.merriam-webster.com... ; http://dictionary.lp.findlaw.com... 2. " The fallacy of demanding negative proof - http://en.wikipedia.org... 3. Incoherent - http://www.thefreedictionary.com... 4. Abusive - http://www.thefreedictionary.com...