Moral Accountability

MY CASE 1. "All of us have a sense of morality, no matter how small. We are all given a sense of right and wrong in this society. " If my opponent stands by those previous statements, then I win the debate, because if all people have a sense of right and wrong, then all people should be held accountable for their actions, otherwise pandemonium would ensue. "Morality is not determined by laws. " Yes but they hold a close, almost equal relationship, where in a democratic society such as the US, the things considered immoral are made illegal, and the things that are illegal are considered immoral (not because they're illegal, but because of the thing's intrinsic value. ) OPPONENT's CASE 1. "This topic is a hypothetical situation. This will never actually happen in real life. " If a hypothetical could never possibly work in real life, then whats the point? I had assumed that the real world could be used in to support one's case in this debate, as I have done to attack your first point. IF it is in fact true that we're not allowed to use real life to explain why one side is good/bad, then I suppose I can kritik the resolution. I find that this resolution and topic is completely pointless and not worth discussing in any way if it can not possibly be related back to real life. (I'd much prefer sticking to how things were going until here. ). .. "Because we all have a "moral compass. .. they should still be punished. " This is the core of my argument, and could be considered by some as a total concession. "This point my opponent makes is not part of the topic, so should be disregarded. " Disregarding my point will lead this debate down a dark path of resolutional kritiking. 2. " First off, there is no such thing as an example that downplays a topic. " I don't disagree, and I take back saying that before. However, your example does not explain why the maxim should be universalized, as it does not negate the counter example that I provided (criminals going unpunished. ) "My example is valid, and proves my point. " Under the logic used previously, your example is actually invalid because it uses real life. Again, I recommend that pro drops the idea that real life can't be used in this debate or discard the example he or she provided regardless of its potential relevance. "You make a claim as to how it is bad. You have not shown how. " I would ask for clarification please, that looks like a contradiction to me. "My point still stands, since my opponent has not given justification as to why we should. And if we don't have justification, we shouldn't do an action. " I think my opponent means "why we should not. " I also would have thought that the justification for holding criminals who weren't aware of the law accountable was inherent, although just to be safe, it ensures the safety and rights of a society that would otherwise be subject to people who act dangerously. According to the benchmark set by my opponent, he or she just lost that point. " This point still stands since my example has proven my point, so the point stands. " The example is (or at least I think it should be considered) valid, sure, but it doesn't hold weight against my example, that criminals would not be stopped. A child being punished for stealing a cookie from the cookie jar is much less of an issue than a person breaking into the child's room and abducting him or her. So lets review everything thats happened so far. Opponent says that it is unjust to punish criminals who had no idea that they did something bad. I say 'No Way! That would lead to crimes intentionally being left unresolved, which would be a terrible thing for obvious reasons. ' I also explain how the laws are tied to morality in a democratic society, and so its safe to determine that a person that breaks the law acted immorally in relation to the society's standards. Not to mention the breaking of laws infringes on other people's rights, which is also inherently bad. My opponent then goes on to say that everything that I've spoke of doesn't count because it applies to real-life, disregarding the fact that he or she uses a real life example him/herself. An interesting point my opponent makes is the idea that everyone has a moral compass inherently. This would suggest to me that all people then have a sense of morality, and so there would be no need for the resolution that my opponent created to even exist, because all people would know right from wrong. Its also said (or at least implied by his or her example) by my opponent that being merciful with regards to punishing children for eating cookies is more important than holding criminals accountable. What does this all mean? I have shown that it is more important to ensure the maximization of a society's rights as a whole by holding criminals accountable, as arguing in favor of the opposite of the resolution does, than ensuring that feelings don't get hurt when justice is served. Again as a reminder: "My opponent's point has been shown to be both extra resolutional and wrong. " If my opponent would prefer to stick to this idea that real life doesn't count, we can go down a different path, and I can switch up my game a little bit. I would then argue that this resolution has no bearing on real life, et cetra. Thanks to my opponent, can't wait to hear back from him or her.