Resolved: In the United States, plea bargaining for testimony is unjust.

Values: My acceptance of your value has absolutely no weight in who wins, the value and criterion simply setup how the round is to be evaluated to determine who wins. Re-extend my argument that has been unresponded to that neither side can completely achieve Justice, and the round should be decided by whoever does that best. This is determined through the criterion. Ill deal with the b point under Values where the argument is fully made later on by my opponent. Criterion: my opponent still makes no arguments for why my criterion is a bad way to evaluate the round. His only arguments are why the negative do not achieve that criterion, not why it's a bad standard. Ill address those issues later. Re-extend the three justifications for my standard. 1. It best evaluates the resolutional question 2. Providing for the welfare of society is the govt's job, thus it's the best way to evaluate the govt's justness 3. Individual claims of justice conflict, the only way to evaluate justice is on a societal level. There is nothing wrong with giving all individuals rights however the aff has yet to show how they actually achieve that. Ill show how only a government with PB for testimony can actually protect rights and best provide for the welfare of society. Which ever side best provides for the welfare of society wins this debate. Neg case: 1st piece of aff evidence: RICO is not a system, it's a law dealing with organized criminal enterprises. My opponent claims "there are those systems where lawlessnesses occur" but fails to provide any evidence of what those systems are or why they cause poor testimony to be given. 2. There is no reason why the reference to RICO means the argument does not apply to other cases as well. The testimony given is far more elaborate then person A did it, all of the details provided must mesh with what other witnesses testify to. The person actually has an incentive to testify truthfully because they often do not know if there are other witnesses, and it its usually the same court who decides how lenient of a sentence they receive for the testimony they give. If they give false testimony that is contradicted by the other witnesses and evidence, they will not receive a lesser sentence at allTHIS SHOWS THEY HAVE AN INCENTIVE TO GIVE TRUTHFUL TESTIMONY. 3. Even if you buy that this only applies to RICO cases, you would still negate because the harms of organized crime outweigh. 2nd piece of aff evidence: My opponent clearly does not understand how the Justice system works. A shred of doubt does not mean an acquittal. Guilt has to be proven beyond reasonable doubt, not any doubt. He only responds to the 1st argument I made against his evidence, extend my 2-4 responses. "2. This is not how prosecutors would deal with RICO indictments, the more individuals they can turn against the upper levels of the organization the stronger the case will be against them and the more likely they will get convictions with long sentences. 3. Law enforcement usually knows who are the upper members of a criminal group are, or at least some of them. It is highly unlikely they would be fooled into thinking a lowly foot soldier actually was the one responsible for the crimes, so this won't happen. 4. The impact my opponent gives isn't related to either criterion, in order to claim its unjust they have to show that it doesn't benefit social welfare, for if it benefits social welfare it is just. 3rd piece of evidence: My opponents arguments here have NOTHING TO DO WITH THE EVIDENCE HE OFFERED. Extend my dropped responses from above. (cant get them to fit here with the character limit, if you think my opp's argument has merit see my responses in Rd 2) Aff Case Off I. My opponent ignores my first argument about why it is impossible to testify against yourself in exchange for a PB, extend it. "The only way you can have testimony is if it is presented at trial. An individual who accepts a plea bargain is forgoing a trial. It is therefore logically impossible for an individual to accept a plea bargain in exchange for testimony against themselves. Once they accept a plea bargain, there is no trial, and so there is no testimony to be given. The only way plea bargaining for testimony can work is if they are testifying against another individual. Any other interpretation is a highly abusive use of the resolution. If it was intended to be a debate about plea bargaining in general, the words for testimony would not be there. They are there to limit the debate to instances in which a plea is accepted in exchange for testifying against other individuals." Also, Extend that innocent individuals cannot accept a plea bargain FOR TESTIMONY because they would not have anything to testify about if they were not guilty of criminal conduct. B point: the example doesn't apply because there was no testimony involved, see above. The threat of jail time dealt with normal PB, NOT PLEA BARGAINING FOR TESTIMONY, ITS NON-RESOLUTIONAL II. I do not have to show what philosophy of punishment is best to negate. If you want to show that PB is unjust under a specific system of punishment you need to show y that system is just, if its not then it doesn't matter if PB violates it. Also, re-extend the turn that's dropped. "If it is a categorical imperative to punish whenever the opportunity presents itself, we ought use plea bargaining for testimony because it allows us to punish both the individual testifying and individuals they are testifying against. It would be unjust to ignore a tool that would allow us to punish more individuals" III. "the courts would grind to a halt without plea bargains" That is from my opponents own piece of evidence, the turn still stands. PB is the only way for the justice system to function, which means it's the only way to protect rights and provide for the welfare of society. I've responded to my opponents voters above where he actually makes and explains the arguments. Here's why you negate. 1.The turn off AFF II. If we ought to punish whenever the opportunity presents itself, then we ought to use PB for testimony because it is a tool that allows us to punish more individuals. 2.The turn off AFF III. My opponents own evidence states the courts would halt without PB. This alone shows that the only way to have a functional court system is with PB. That means that only the negative has a way to actually adjudicate rights claim between individuals and thus protect people's rights. It is also the only way to prosecute criminals. The inability to prosecute criminals will lead to all the harms my opponent claims happen with PB. 3.The NC. The plea bargain is the ONLY WAY to prosecute the upper levels of organized crime. Without the PB, prosecutors will have nothing to offer to individuals to convince them to testify against their bosses. Without that, there will be nothing to stop the power or organized crime. This will lead to the impacts in the NC. 1. Corruption destroys unions because needed reforms are not able to be passed when the unions are controlled by crime rendering unions ineffectually. Thus it outweighs on magnitude because the destruction of unions and the rise of a corporate controlled economy will harm all people in the United States economically because unions are a necessary check on corporate growth and power. 2. Union members themselves are harmed because they lose valuable pensions and welfare funds that are necessary for them to remain economically competitive in society. It outweighs on magnitude because more people are directly affected by union corruption then by some possible flaws in plea bargaining. 3. Labor corruption outweighs on timeframe because individual rights abuses take longer to filter through the criminal justice system than economic abuses. This outweighs all the harms my opponent presents.