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

ROADMAP: Summarization, Line-By-Line, Voting issues. The debate comes down to one thing: Intent. I've said throughout this debate that I agree with his position ******************EXCEPT****************** that the resolution says "United States" and "courts", meaning that this debate is whether or not there's an obligation in the real world. I don't care if he keeps saying that I agree with him, I said quite clearly in R1 that I didn't. His cutting skills basically turned a statement that's structured like "I am not a terrorist" into something like "I am a terrorist". I'm sorry I chose to say the "except" part after the initial "concession"; I like sentence style variation. But anyways, He says in his last speech two things about intent: One, intent determination is already done by the resolution, and Two, his Example A and B meet it anyways. His first argument has absolutely no warrant; he says it in one line: "When the resolution specifies TRUE intent, determining it becomes irrelevant. " Well, I can say "When the resolution specifies TRUE intent, my mom will buy me a car" all I want, but it isn't going to happen. He provides no link and no analysis as to why this is true; NOWHERE in the debate and certainly NOT in his last speech. Besides, it is BECAUSE it says "true intent" in the resolution that my argument about "intent determination" applies. If it were talking about, "horribleness ought to have a higher weight in court than ends" then my point would be irrelevant, but BECAUSE the resolution has told us to talk about true intent vs ends, it is IMPERATIVE that we look at the implications of both. And the PRO has never given a sufficient way to find true intent. At this point, His second argument doesn't prove how we can determine intent at all. All Example A and B do are create hypothetics where intent is somehow already there and weigh that against hypothetics where only ends are weighed. He doesn't prove anything except that a world where only ends are weighed is "bad" and a world where somehow intent is always a given and weighed is "good". But since intent CAN'T be determined, he can't take ANY of those impacts. He links directly into the Jacobs card, which says that if we're looking to intent while we can't determine it, then we're just going to get into really ridiculous and unjust situations. And then he links the "only ends is weighed" is bad to me. He said, "I have shown the type of justice is not deserved. .. in my Example A and B, the person who killed the person did NOT deserve a greater punishment than the person who sped just as fast. " Sure, I don't disagree with that. However, this does NOT mean that I'm supporting that ends should be weighed over means. Actually, I've never said anything about an alternative. My position in this round has been consistent; that we should not weigh "true intent" over ends. It doesn't matter what else the system would become, as I have not advocated any sort of alternative plan. The PRO is basically saying "You should run across a beach. " I am basically saying "You should not run across a beach. " The PRO basically responds, "What should we run across then, a field? " Which is something I never touched upon. You know, after reading the PRO's R3, I got really annoyed. He kept saying "OUGHT" in capital letters. As if it actually mattered in this debate. As I've told you all AGAIN and AGAIN and AGAIN and AGAIN and AGAIN and AGAIN, I pretty much agree with the PRO ******************EXCEPT****************** for the fact that the resolution says "United States" and "Courts", which means in the real world. Every instance he says something like "Justice OUGHT to work this way", I agree, don't get me wrong. But none of those instances matter int his debate, as we are talking about the resolution in a real world situation. Since the resolution DOESN'T imply that we already know intent, and since there is no way in the real world right now to determine intent, we can't assume that we can somehow figure out intent. At that point, we can't weigh the debate in terms of an ideal situation, as we are humans and not some higher being; we can only do as much as we can. We can't do as much as we want. "Again, pull through my argument of ought to does not mean can. " - You can't "pull something through" if you drop the responses to it. - "[T]his is a bad example, this comes in the form "Obligation does not mean Capability". My position is "Outweighing harms cancel out Obligation". I say nothing about capabilities. " (R2) "Again, it ought to happen though. " - AGAIN, IT DOESN'T MATTER. "Again, we OUGHT TO give people what they deserve. " - AGAIN, IT DOESN'T MATTER. "and if we can't prove their intent of trying to kill then they will still get breaking and entering. .. but we must try. .. TRY by voting PRO. " - Apply Jacobs from R1. Intent determination links to ridiculous and unjust things. "Here, you fail to look at my Example B. .. We DO get TRUE criminals off the street. " - Well then, let's take a look at his example B! "If someone tries to kill someone and fails, they will be tried for attempted murder which is not as bad as being tried for real murder, even though the factors stopping them could have come up out of nowhere. People who try to kill someone ought to be punished just as much as someone who does kill someone. " - Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm (eats some Goldfish) mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm (drinks some apple juice) mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm (takes a nap) mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm nope, I can't see how this proves that we get true criminals off the street. All I see is a bunch of fluffy "ought"s. And I've already responded to his VI multiple times. VOTING ISSUES: 1) He never proves how he can determine intent. The resolution doesn't assume it, and his Examples, which he SAYS proves how we can do it, don't talk about it at all, but rather, weigh between a straw man which he says is me, and another, which he claims is him. But as I've said since R1, this ideal pretty flowery world isn't going to happen, instead, we're going to see plenty of situations like the one mentioned by Jacobs (R1), where people are called out as racists just because they said a racist joke six years earlier. 2) We OUGHT NOT do it because it can cause a lot of unjustice in the real world. His only defense against this is that "oh, that's only human corruption", but this just bites into the argument, because I'm saying that we shouldn't do it if the harms outwiegh the benefits. Benefits are us feeling high because we THINK we're doing justice, harms are tons of innocents getting convicted because there's no real way to determine intent. Sure, it SHOULD be, in an ideal world, but we live far from it. We can't determine intent, so we shouldn't try to assume we are able to in the courts. 3) I do not link into any of his impacts. I have never said that an ends-based system is better, and just because I oppose his system doesn't mean that I automatically support the other. Refer to the beach example I mentioned earlier in the round. It doesn't matter if you "ought" to vote PRO. CON serves more justice because we don't assume that we know a person's intent.