In the United States, organized political lobbying is a just check on government

*Preface* I'm sorry if it seems like I'm being a bit lazy with this last Round; but, for whatever reason, it seems that my motivation to put all of my effort into this debate has mysteriously left me. Now, considering that Pro hasn't exactly followed the flow of the arguments, I'll just go ahead and cover his extensions, and then deal with any necessary refutations/extensions of my own. 1. Pro's first Contention a. This isn't an extension - simply a restatement of his original contention; however, he abandons these arguments in Round 2, where he explicitly states that "with jury nullification, mistakes are made quite often, not making it a true check on power". I'm not sure how I could misconstrue that to mean something other than "jury nullification is not a just check on government". So, what his contention says contradicts what his more recent Round 2 argument says. This contention obviously falls flat. b. Once again, flow through the argument that something being a constitutional right doesn't necessary make it a just check on government (and related arguments). This is an argument repeatedly dropped by Pro, and this helps Con immensely by removing the entire "constitutionality" justification from his framework, leaving him nothing to lean on. 2. Pro's second contention a. I understand that he is calling the results of the Zenger trial unjust - however, the Zenger trial is an instance where nullification was used to acquit the defendant (despite overwhelming evidence of guilt); if he calls that unjust, he isn't supporting the affirmative position. b. Nullification still isn't checked. Unchecked power in a democratic society (or a democratic republic for you people who want to get picky) is a bad thing. Tyranny. c. Also extend the argument about presupposing the validity of the resolution, as opposed to proving the validity thereof. Failure to meet the affirmative burden tends to lose rounds. Negate it up. 3. Pro's third contention a. He urges you to cross-apply; considering that this argument was based in ignorance of the evidence - his Round 2 arguments which blatantly contradicted his stated position - I urge you to disregard that cross-application, and simply extend another instance of Pro arguing against the Pro position. 4. The standards a. All of them are dropped by Pro. That means that you: A. accept the lack of legitimate standards on Pro's part, and adopt Con's value and criterion. B. recall Pro's flawed presupposition that all Americans will share the same values, and that the jury can somehow represent all of these views - accurately, and without personal prejudice - when the time comes to put the law on trial. C. accept that only Con can provide justice through consistent application of law, and the checks integrated into the system to prevent the application of unjust laws/change laws which we know to be unjust. D. accept Objectivism as the paramount (and only) standard, since laws must be objective and based on reason; however, since Pro openly admits that nullification is a subjective institution, he fails to meet the sole criterion in the round, and thus, loses the round. Now then, the moment you've all been waiting for. My trademark. You know it, you love it, and you can't get enough of it.......... it's the *POINTS BREAKDOWN* Conduct: Tied/Con - neither side decided to be a douchebag. Though, I personally resent the "try reading my case" comments. So you might vote for me on that. Your choice. S/G: Con - Obviously. There were capitalization, punctuation, and grammatical mistakes aplenty on Pro's part. Arguments: Con - Also pretty obvious. Pro contradicted himself, and abandoned nearly every argument in the round, apart from the bare skeletons of his contentions. Sources: Tied - Con used no sources, but there's was no effort on Pro's part since his sources were all integrated as a part of his case. So, all things considered, 4-5 points Con. Thanks for the debate, Pro.