LD Debate: Attorney-Client Privilege

Thank you for that constructive and rebuttal, now I will be attacking your case and rebuilding my own. Concerning the value of Justice I would like to point out that John Rawls argues for distributive justice, not necessarily justice itself. According to http://plato.stanford.edu..., "Principles of distributive justice are therefore best thought of as providing moral guidance for the political processes and structures that affect the distribution of economic benefits and burdens in societies." I fail to see how this applies to the criminal justice system. Distributive justice and criminal justice are two different areas of justice. Concerning the value criterion of veil of ignorance, again this applies to the fact that Rawls argued an economic philosophy that included primarily provision of welfare. In your contention, you assert a disjunction between truth and justice. However, is a lack of truth inherent in justice? There seems to be a flaw in a system which works under that premise. Under the attorney-client privilege, the client could reveal incriminating evidence to his/her defense attorney, and the only way it will be found is if the attorney reveals that. Now this would most likely be considered confidential under the attorney-client privilege, and while it is a somewhat extreme example, it is necessary for out understanding nonetheless. I will continue my response to this in the defense of my case in the next paragraph. The attack on my value is somewhat mislead. There seems to be a lack of principle involved in the argument. This is in fact a debate of principle, so let us examine it. Given the example of a judge who knows the facts (not that he merely thinks he knows the facts), it is impossible to be partial. A fact is true no matter the source. If all facts are known and nothing is excluded, then the proper judgement is even easier to make. Concerning my criterion I have a similar response. However, I should add that I am arguing epistemologically which is the study of knowledge. I'm also arguing under the ideal situation (as Lincoln Douglas is designed for) that the whole truth be understood. This is important, since in order for one to have knowledge,they must understand the knowledge otherwise it's faulty. Therefore, understanding truth is vitally important, and it is how I achieve my value of justice. Concerning the first attack under my first contention, I would like to point out that a matter of justice cannot be brushed off by a small statistic. The number falsely convicted may not be very large comparatively, but 10,000 situations of injustice is enough for there to be considerable injustice. It's nearly equivocal to saying the Boston Bombing wasn't worth worrying about because there were only a few casualties out of the hundreds that were in the vicinity. Concerning the second attack, it's necessary to understand that we are currently questioning the Constitution. Asserting the Constitution is simply a reassertion of the con's side of the resolution. If anything it's begging the question. What we need to focus on is the principle of each idea and not the constitutionality. Onto the attack of my second contention, the method of acquiring truth doesn't matter. What matters is that truth is known. If the method is what matters then truth can be lost or hidden by the processes of determining truth. So long as the truth sought is the whole truth, as the term "truth-seeking" would imply, the methods of finding that truth are irrelevant. Once truth is understood, fair judgments may be made. Half truths or partial truths do not lead to an accurate understanding of a criminal case, and therefore, justice cannot be made with these truths. Thank you.