In the United States, true intent ought to have a higher weight in court than ends.

I will tackle my opponent's argument in chunks for clarity. I will give the beginning and ending statements of each chunk in capital letters and in quotation marks before my responses. Please reference my opponent's Round 1 speech in order to understand all argumentation. "FIRST OF ALL, I DISAGREE WITH YOU...JUST NOT AS MUCH WEIGHT AS THE ENDS." 1. The judges are not required to read minds or administer justice in a perfect world to determine true intent. Witness statements, evidence, and even testimony from the accused often bring this true intent to light. Also, in cases of accidental or mentally-unsound actions it is very simple to distinguish what is true intent. 2. Even if this hypothetical world were required to learn true intent (which the PRO does not advocate is true), this would not make using the ends right or conducive to justice. Indeed, if we convicted bad-ending situations and acquitted good- or neutral-ending situations based chiefly on the ends, we would garner more injustice than justice. 3. The most fair way to consider the round is to give each side the equal chance to prove their position – if the resolution were "Unicorns are better than regular horses," the debate ought not center around the existence of unicorns, but rather which one is superior. And again, true intent is no unicorn – it is obtainable and understandable in many circumstances. "THE MORALITY OF AN ACTION IS BASED ON THE INTENT...BUT THE LAW HERE IS FARILY SIMILAR IN ALL THE STATES." 4. Please pull through the examples of the surgeon and the burglar, which were not attacked. These clearly demonstrate the fact that ends are often inconsistent with morality, whereas intent is always consistent with morality. Because laws are based on moral codes, to base a law on the immoral act of prioritizing the ends would achieve justice. 5. You say that both ends and intent are factored into the present system. I agree with this to an extent, but the intent is still the more important of the two. Which of the following ought to be (and is) more severely punished: a nurse who injects a mislabeled drug into a patient, thus killing her, or a vengeful ex-husband who injects a dangerous drug with intent to kill? If charges were brought against the nurse she would be quickly acquitted, but the ex-husband would likely face life imprisonment – even if he failed in his task. 6. Suppose the ex-husband did fail: if the ends were more important than the intent, the nurse (who actually caused the patient to die) would be more severely punished than the ex-husband (who did not cause the patient to die). But because the true intent carries more weight than the means, the nurse would receive lesser (if any) punishment. 7. I also take issue with the statement that "the laws are based on the ends." It is not illegal for a person to die (ends). But it is illegal for someone to attempt to bring about those ends (intent). And regardless of whether the ends happen as a result, the crime has been committed by the intending and acting on the intention. "AS YOU CAN SEE, FOR AN UNLAWFUL HOMICIDE...REGARDLESS OF THE INTENT." 8. Your statements about how "the intent goes only to the weight of the charges" and about "the initial requirement is the ends" only prove the PRO side. What happens in a United States courtroom is chiefly the determination of the weight of the charges. If we view the round judiciously (as my resolution analysis stated, and which was not attacked), the debate is about the weight and not the naming of the charges – which is not the prerogative of the judge(s). Yes, the ends are often the first thing pounced upon by the authorities, but anyone who has been to a concert where a local garage band opened for the main event will tell you that what comes first isn't always what is most important. "EVEN TO BE CHARGED WITH ATTEMPTED MURDER...NOT MERELY FORMED THE INTENT." 9. Again, I agree that ends are often the first indication of a crime taking place. I also agree that having the intent to commit a crime is not the same as committing a crime. But viewing a round judicially assumes that the criminal has already succeeded in or attempted his or her crime – otherwise they would not be in a court of law. The question of the resolution is that, during that trial, what has a higher priority – true intent or ends. And it is indeed true intent that makes-or-breaks a prosecution's case. 10. Acting on one's intent is part-and-parcel with that intent. It is NOT the ends. The ends are what happens after the action – someone dies or not. Yes, you must have actually done an act to try and kill someone, but this is considered proof of that intent, and because there is no life-or-death result given with it, it cannot be the ends. "THIS IS HOW THE LAW CURRENTLY IS...YOU HAVE TO ACT ON YOUR INTENT TO COMMITT A CRIME." 11. THIS IS THE MOST IMPORTANT POINT IN THE ROUND. I do not advocate the elimination of all ends from courtroom consideration. What I do advocate is that the intent ought to carry more weight. We can see this by looking at the example of the nurse and the ex-husband provided above. This example shows exactly why true intent is more important. If ends were more important, the nurse would be jailed and the ex-husband would go free. But because intent is more important, the ex-husband is punished and the nurse is acquitted. Until the CON can prove that the nurse is more blameworthy than the ex-husband, the true intent must carry more weight. "AND INTENT CAN EASILY CHANGE...THEY WILL BE PROSECUTED FOR MURDER." 12. Nowhere in my previous arguments do I advocate prosecuting intent only. 13. Neither of these examples proves the CON side. The robber ought to be prosecuted for breaking and entering, because he acted on this intent. The ends he created were beneficial, but these same ends pale in comparison to the weight of the intent. The robber would be convicted of breaking-and-entering because acting on the intent, regardless of what ends it produces, merits punishment. Also, the would-be-murderer has not performed any illegal action – he bought a gun. But had he attempted to fire at the person (this is in the domain of the intent, not the ends), he would be jailed – whereas an accidental fatal shooting would not lead to the same result. This goes along with the nurse/ex-husband example, and further proves the folly of raising the ends above the intent. "AND WE CAN NEVER COMPLETELY KNOW...WE CAN'T PUNISH PEOPE FOR WHAT THEY THINK THEY INTENDED." Refer to argument #1 and #2, about how telepathy is not required to determine true intent, and that if it were this would still not prove that using the ends would lead to justice.