In the United States, Plea Bargaining in Exchange for Testimony is Unjust.

This debate is a joke. My opponent makes sweeping statements that are blatantly false, refuses to responds to my extended responses, and then doesn't even respond to my rebuttals that DO fit in the 8000 character limit. My opponent's third speech also did not address any of what I said in my second speech, both the extended part and the part that fit. He dropped all of my contentions and also dropped my responses to his arguments. Not once in the course of this debate has my opponent provided any warrants for any of his claims, while I've been sure to produce evidence and examples that support what I'm saying. So in his third speech he states that we should extend his justifications for the standard of Procedural Justice. This is fine, we've accepted that a long time ago. He then claims that all of my arguments have been disproved, because they don't link to procedural justice. This is untrue. In fact, I can quote directly from my case an instance where I provided an explicit link: "Finally, my contention that plea bargaining ensures that the judicial system can continue to operate fully supports my opponent's value of procedural justice because without plea bargaining, proper procedure would be impossible." GoWolves claims that we should disregard my entire case because part of it was posted in the comments section. I have a number of things to say to that: 1) Extending arguments into the comments section is a common practice on this website, a practice that I've seen and a practice that I felt was fine. If someone has more arguments to make, then by all means make them. My opponent attacks this logic by saying that this simply demonstrates my inability to make my own choices, that me coming up with a multitude of responses harms my reputation. Great, now respond to my arguments instead of making personal attacks. 2) My opponent has made no effort to address any of the responses, which reflects an inability to respond to the arguments presented. He's spent most of his time making these spurious claims that we should extend all of his case and ignore mine. Maybe next time you should actually address the arguments. 3) Even if we disregard what was said in the comments section, which we shouldn't, Mr. GoWolves didn't even respond to the arguments I made in my 2nd speech, anyway! He drops my responses to his rebuttals, which means he pretty much accepts that the contentions are valid. He drops my link to the standard of procedural justice. He dropped my resolutional kritik. I don't even have much to say in this speech because of everything that he dropped. We can extend all of my contentions, as well as their impact to the value. For the purpose of clarity, I'll just restate what they were: 1) Plea Bargaining is so prevalent in the justice system that without it, judicial procedure would break down. Since 90% of all cases are resolved through plea bargains, the other 10% of cases that warrant court procedures can go through. Without plea bargaining, all 100% of cases would have to go through, and this would be impossible, as evidenced through my Chief Justice Warren Burger Card. Obviously, by upholding plea bargaining we defend the procedure of justice, which is the standard for the round. 2) Trials do not uphold justice, which is the purpose of judicial procedure. Therefore, if all cases went to trial than procedural justice would not necessarily be upheld. Trials vilify and demonize the accused, even if he or she is innocent. They make the deliberating process part of the punishment, which is obviously unjust for an innocent. 3) The Sixth Amendment Right to trial would not be a right if we were forced to go to trial in every case. Imagine if the 2nd Amendment right to bear arms was instead a MANDATE to bear arms. In order to uphold the proper procedure of our constitutional rights, we must guarantee options to not go to trial. Obviously, by negating the resolution we would uphold the standard of procedural justice. Please don't allow my opponent to respond to my contentions after dropping all of them in his 3rd speech. My opponent also does not respond to my kritik after I rebut the statements made in his second speech. This is significant because it inherently shows that the resolution cannot be affirmed. If he doesn't respond to it, he forfeits the round. His silence on the matter implies acceptance of the argument, and as such we must negate. I'll just briefly go over the kritik again: Plea bargaining is a tool, like a hammer or a pencil. Prosecutors and defense attorneys use tools like plea bargaining to ensure the proper procedure of justice. As such, in the same way that we wouldn't and can't judge a hammer to be just or unjust, we cannot judge a tool like plea bargaining to be just or unjust. The fact that my opponent fails to respond to this means that he has forfeited the round by accepting the affirmative position is false. Please, just understand that because my opponent did not address my rebuttals to his arguments, my rebuttals to his response to my arguments, or my resolutional kritik, he has in essence conceded the round. He spent his entire 3rd speech doing two things: 1) Claiming that we shouldn't accept what was said in my comments 2) Claiming that I dropped all of his arguments. If you were flowing you would see that this is not true, but since you're not I just ask that you briefly review my 1st and 2nd speeches, which will show you that I didn't drop any of his arguments, and the only thing that you can argue that I DID drop is his topical analysis, because I accept that the standard of procedural justice is fine for this round. The fact that his 3rd speech didn't rebut anything just affirms my own suspicion that he has no response to any of my arguments. Don't let him get away with abuse of accusations that I "dropped" this or that, when in reality he dropped everything in his 3rd speech. Also do not let him get away with responding to my arguments in his 4th speech when he already dropped and thusly accepted them!