Resolved: Jury Nullification is a just check on government (LD style)

ok so my opponents first fatal flaw is dropping my framework. Remember I tell you that that justice is the conceptual exclusion of the unjust. Extend Zizek who tells us that normative concepts have no privileged content; anything could hegenomize justice or morality. All we know is that when something hegemonizes the universal it excludes other competing influences, meaning that justice is conceptual exclusion. Next, extend Laclau 1 and 2 that tell us that we define justice by setting a limit in a field of differences that establishes the line between justice and injustice. There is no naturally occurring place for line to be; we construct it ourselves. Thus no limit is privileged in its definition of justice's content and all that we know is that justice is conceptual exclusion. Any particular can incarnate the struggle against injustice. This means that justice is just something that negates the differences of all particulars. It can't have its own meaning in the abstract because then it would just be one more difference in relation to other differences instead of the collapse of all differences. Instead all we know is that it is a fullness which is absent as a result of something that is excluded as unjust. Thus we can conclude that Justice is the conceptual exclusion of the unjust; Therefore, the affirmative burden is to prove jury nullification is conceptual exclusion. This is sufficient to affirm before anything else in the round because the only thing we know about justice is conceptual exclusion of the unjust. This means that if jury nullification excludes anything from the realm of justice you affirm. My opponents next mistake was not disproving how i meet my burden. Extend Agamben who tells us that every legal order depends on the determination of what are normal situations in which the law applies, and the exclusion from normality of abnormal situations in which the state is excepted from the law. Then, extend my second warrant that says that jury nullification involves the exclusion of things from the realm of justice. It accepts that a person is legally guilty under the united states system of justice and then excludes their legal punishment. Thus I meet my burden of proving that jury nullification is conceptual exclusion and you affirm. Now go to the NC, my opponent gives the value of justice. However, I have already proven that the affirmative upholds justice and thus I have a clear link into my opponents value. Now look to my opponents criterion, ensuring equality; this will function as a consequentialist standard, because an action can only be just if it has the result of equality. Cross apply my first underview: Consequentialism is flawed (my opponent dropped this so all three points can be extended). Because this is true you can no longer look to my opponents criterion, which means that her three contentions no longer give my opponent any offense in this round. However if you don't buy anything I just said, go to my opponents point "A." Here, my opponents is wrong on two accounts. First, remember as my opponent stated, we are talking about the principle of jury nullification not the actual implementation. Now, extend where my opponent tells you that it is the judges job to inform the jury of their rights. Thus, if the jury is not told of their right to nullify, this would be an implementation problem, not an issue that is inherent in nullification. Second, contradicts herself by stating that jurors don't no their rights, but continues to say that the judge is obligated to inform them of their rights. Now onto point "B." This contention is basically saying that we need consistent application of the law (achieved by looking at truths and facts). But, the law is way too broad to be applied consistently. If a law says "murder is illegal", that law would fail to account for instances of self-defense. The legislature cannot possibly account for all possible circumstances in which the law ought be disregarded, so juries ought retain the power to determine this. Also, you can turn this argument: The consistent application of law is a bad thing insofar as there are unjust laws. Without jury nullification, the common man would have no recourse against unjust laws, and would be directly harmed by their unfair application. On "C," my opponent makes two main arguments. One is that there is "not the remedy of a re-trial" (aka no checks on the jury). However, you can turn this argument:No check back is a good thing. An oppressive government will use the opportunity to check jury nullification to its advantage. Two is again this notion of consistent application of the law. Here cross apply my responses to point "B."