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

First, in my opponents opening paragraph, he makes the point that we must have a combination of both discovery of fact and due process. Of course I agree! As he showed, you very clearly have to have some of both. But my opponent draws the wrong conclusion from this. He states, "Have you only due process, you have no way to capture any criminal of any sort, as they are innocent until proven guilty. Have you only discovery of fact, you can arbitrarily throw anyone you want to in jail for no reason, because there is no due process stopping it. Therefore, I take the position that both must be valued equally. " My opponent claims that because we must have both, they must be valued equally. This is simply not good logic. This is like saying, if we want a water molecule, we must have Hydrogen as well as oxygen, therefore we must have an equal amount of both. But as we know this is false, as water takes 2 Hydrogen and 1 Oxygen. Point 1: My opponent, under point 1, basically says a person is innocent until proven guilty, but that doesn't mean he's not guilty. He could be guilty. Of course this is correct. But then he says "This is one of the reasons that I think discovery of fact must be valued equally with due process. " Again I fail to see the logic here. Maybe I am just misunderstanding my opponents argument, but I cannot see how his point that a person can be guilty while still being innocent until proven guilty supports his claim that discovery of fact must be valued equally with due process. Point 2: My opponent states, "While facts are not always perfect, neither is due process which is why both should be valued equally. " Again I do not see how the first part of that sentence justifies that they should be valued equally. Because two things are not perfect does not mean they should be valued equally. Also my opponent says, "I read up on Gideon v. Wainwright, and it is not true to say that the facts of the first case said he was guilty. It is more true to say that he was found guilty, which is different from the facts proving it. " So does my opponent think he was convicted without any facts present? I would hope not. Obviously, in a court case, facts and evidences are presented. If we have zero facts, there is no case. In the case, the jury will hear the "facts" and decided whether the accused is guilty or not guilty based on the facts presented. In Gideon v. Wainwright, the facts presented in the first trial led to a guilty verdict. To claim otherwise is simply false. Therefore my point that in this case, holding discovery of fact over due process led to injustice still stands. Point 3: Earlier I made the statement, "The only way due process stops evidence from being found is when that evidence can only be found by illegal means. " In refutation of this point, my opponent says, "Well, what if illegal means are the only way to prove that a crime was committed? " This is a direct contradiction of what my opponent argues throughout the debate! ! I point you back to round 2 where my opponent states the following: "It was never implied that a discovery of fact outlook supports the violation of the laws. 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. Facts are already used in the pursuit of justice (how could they be avoided? ) and have proved themselves obtainable through legitimate means. " Has my opponent changed his mind? Also in point 3 he brings out the case Weeks v. United States. Basically, in this case, the police violate due process and infringed upon this man's rights against illegal searches. As quoted above, my opponent even agrees that this is wrong! "Discovery of fact outlook would have to put an emphasis on legally discovering facts without doing illegal searches". So if my opponent agrees that we cannot do illegal searches, why is he supporting evidence gained by illegal searches? The point that he is trying to make with this case is that due process hindered justice because the facts found illegally could not be used. But because my opponent agrees that illegal searches cannot be used, a more valid argument would be that a violation of due process led to injustice. Now on to holding discovery of fact and due process equally. I showed earlier how in the actual practice of law you must choose one or the other. I used the example of myself being a drug dealer to convey this point. In an effort to refute this argument, my opponent states, "in the example that he presented, the police could always attempt to find a witness or plant someone to pretend to be a drug addict in order to find enough evidence to search for drugs. " He uses this statement to say that you do not have to choose one or the other, but I do not find this legitimate. He did in fact choose one without realizing it. What he is really saying is, instead of choosing to break into my house or not, we can just find other ways to find the facts, LEGALLY. So he is in reality choosing to not violate my rights and not break into my house, affirming that due process ought to be valued above the discovery of fact. In addition, we see that it is impossible to choose both, therefore they CANNOT be held equally. I believe this refutes my opponents entire argument. In response to his argument that they could be held equally somewhere else, I believe my opponent would agree that if a government doesn't give someone rights it is not a just government. So even if somewhere else gives people less rights, the same arguments would apply there and they still could not be held equally. Also the negative has affirmed that the rights we have in the US are all good things and should be followed. So this argument is not relevant. Now let's look back at the big picture. I affirm the resolution. Why? Because as shown, and as my opponent agrees, individual rights must be upheld no matter what, or justice is lost. (Just in case my opponent does not think he agrees. .. he stated, "discovery of fact outlook would have to put an emphasis on legally discovering facts without doing illegal searches or cruel and unusual punishment. ") Therefore we see that due process is absolutely essential. Obviously due process and discovery of fact both play an important role in the pursuit of justice. This debate is not a "one or the other" type of argument. It is about which should be valued higher. We see that due process is not perfect because in some cases someone will not get what he deserves, but this only happens when the facts needed to prove that persons guilt are only obtainable through illegal means. So I ask you, voters, which is more just, a government that might occasionally let a guilty person go but always under any circumstances upholds your personal rights, or a government which says it is okay to break any law to accomplish what it thinks is best? Because I say the first, I affirm the resolution. Now let's take a look at my opponents overall argument. I find it hard to asses where exactly my opponent stands. For most of the debate he has said that due process must be honored. He said that discovery of fact must follow the rules of due process, but that due process shouldn't be held higher. (I am really unsure as to how such a stance is possible) However, later in the debate, he seems to support illegal means to finding facts. Is this not a contradiction? He must choose one or the other, and he has failed to justify either one. So because I have given clear, un-refuted evidence that due process should be held above discovery and fact, and because I have shown my opponents stance (that they should be valued equally) to be impossible, I strongly urge and affirmative vote.