Qualified Immunity

Thanks to Hayd for the debate! I. HousekeepingCon cannot respond to any arguments which he dropped, conceded, or otherwise failed to respond to in this last round, insofar as the rules prohibit new arguments. Judges should disregard any and all new arguments. II. FrameworkA. TopicalityCon did not directly respond to my analysis from last round. My analysis was: "Let's substitute the definition of limit and part of the definition for QI for those words in the resolution. If we do that, this is what we get: 'The United States ought to reduce in quantity or extent the legal doctrine which protects government officials from lawsuits. '. .. [W]hat this shows is that we are reducing the extent of the legal doctrine which protects police officers, implying that it should be easier to deny them QI and that some changes to how QI works are required to affirm. " Con needed to directly rebut this analysis, because his analysis has not disputed that when you input the definitions themselves into the resolution, the output is my interpretation. Any attempt to directly refute this argument, including the conclusion that I argued flowed from it, would be new. Moreover, Con says that QI is absolute. So, literally the only way I can affirm is to change that absoluteness, which is to alter the QI doctrine itself. You cannot limit that which is categorical. Therefore, this debate is precisely about what QI should be (should it be a more limited doctrine, or an absolute one), which is why his sibling example fails. This is also why altering QI does not change the debate topic. Finally, Con's position was never clearly justified or explained until last round. This left me with little time to address his exact interpretation. Thus, on fairness and clarity grounds, you should prefer my interpretation. B. Morality v. JusticeCon originally (see R2) explained that justice is "fairness, equality, and equity. " Do not allow him to suddenly redefine what justice is simply to dodge my rebuttal. This is unfair because I was operating under the assumption that justice was what he originally said it was. In his R3, he offered no proof of why morality entailed justice. He should have worked within the confines of his original definition (maybe making a philosophical argument that something could not be moral if it were not fair, which wouldn't have altered the definition of justice). He is reinterpreting his own standard to sidestep my response to it--this is a clear shifting the goalposts fallacy. Even if you don't buy that, the Google definition is still wrong. There is certainly a logical disjunction between morality and justice, per my dropped utilitarianism example. Suppose X is an action which benefits the greatest number but involved theft. A utilitarian might agree that X was unfair, but still argue that it was morally right. The fact that we can make such conceptual distinction is evidence against the idea that the concepts envelope one another. Don't let an appeal to authority blind you to logic. C. Role MoralityCon's arguments about minority rights beg the question, because they presuppose a justice-based framework. These arguments only make sense if we are prioritizing fairness over the welfare of the majority. Hayd cannot use arguments which assume fairness's value to justify fairness's value. Then, Con goes on to make a new argument against a point he previously dropped. Drops should be treated as concessions, and voters should disregard Con's point. Even if you don't disregard it, there are three more reasons to prefer my standard. Firstly, I said I preferred court systems which are generally fair, because I think that encourages social stability, but I do not think fairness is the overriding objective, and can be set aside in cases where there are substantial concerns about how a verdict may negatively impact the society. So, I am not sure how Con is getting tyranny offense of my advocacy, since my court system would still be largely fair. Secondly, Con doesn't give you any reason why reciprocating in terms of human rights is better than in terms of promoting the general welfare. Society at large is the one paying taxes. Society at large is the jury population. Society at large has the cultural connections to the country. So, it is society at large and its welfare (i. e. the general welfare) with which the court should concern itself. Con hasn't been able to dissect this logic. Thirdly, Con drops that he has no clear interpretation of justice and that I have a clear interpretation of morality. III. CasesA. My CaseCon drops my entire case, including my defense of the catch-22, my solvency, and my links to justice. B. Immunizing1. Self-PolicingCon puts all his eggs into the DOJ basket. Firstly, in 2008, there were 16,000 law enforcement agencies in the US. [2] It is highly unlikely that the DOJ can effectively police and investigate all of these agencies to quickly and efficiently detect and correct malfeasance. Secondly, the DOJ is subject to the political leanings of the AG. A more hands-off or pro-police AG may be less likely to intervene when allegations of misconduct reach his or her desk. I doubt, for instance, Sessions is going to pursue civil rights complaints as seriously as Lynch did. External actors suing is necessary to keep departments in check. The government shouldn't be trusted (nor is it always able) to police itself.2. BOPNo one is talking about purposely convicting innocent officers (I screen out frivolous suits with QI as well). A civil conviction does not result in the same kind of loss of rights and freedoms that a criminal trial results in. Civil juries can't throw you in prison or give you a felony that could deny you the right to vote. This is a worthwhile trade-off: there are still legal protections in place for defendants and the penalties aren't generally as severe, but it is easier to hold the government accountable for misconduct with lawsuits. B. Charities1. ImpunityI think that legislatures are less likely to allocate funds for agencies riven by scandal and lawsuits is self-evident. Legislators do not want to be tainted by the scandals of the agency, and it makes good political theater to be seen as punishing scandal-shrouded agencies. This logic is my warrant. Con drops that damages (not just legislatures) can cut into agency budgets and that agencies have an interest in preserving their budgets (i. e. not getting sued). And, for reasons noted earlier, (1) criminal proceedings don't work as effectively as lawsuits at checking the government and (2) the government can be left to police itself.2. Taxation and CharityCon drops that charities cannot pay every single victim and that only in my world can there be compulsory compensation for victims. This is a fairness issue.3. Feasibility and FramingPolice departments are certainly shielded, since charities would be paying for their mistakes and since the damages wouldn't be subtracted from the department's budget for that year.4. DropsEven if you buy that Con is winning the arguments on charity, the fact that he dropped the "even if: perm" argument means that none of this matters. If you buy charity, than I perm (which means to "also do" in debate-speak) his offense. Moreover, the "charity discussion premature" argument, which Con also dropped, preempts his charity arguments. It doesn't matter if he pays with charity if the people who deserve compensation are being denied it because of QI. Con cannot rebut either of these arguments at this stage. IV. Voting IssuesA. Topicality I am winning the topicality debate. When you input the definitions themselves into the topic, we clearly see that Pros are limiting the extent of the legal doctrine which protects police officers. That is to say, Pros must do something to the doctrine itself. Also, the fact that QI is absolute implies that Pros must change that (and thus the doctrine itself) to limit. Therefore, my interpretation of the resolution best fits the terms of the debate. B. Framework I am winning the framework debate. I have shown that the resolution is asking a question of morality. An "ought" statement can only be answered by appealing to moral arguments. I have also shown that morality and justice are conceptually distinct. This means that Con cannot link to the resolution with a case based on justice, because morality and justice are not the same. So, you should accept my standard for three reasons: (1) it is less vague than Con's, (2) it is justified by the idea of reciprocity which I expounded upon earlier, and, most importantly, (3) it is the only one that can address the resolution. C. Linkage I am winning on linkage and weighing. Hayd makes no attempt to connect specific arguments of his to morality; do not allow him to do this in the final round, as I would have no chance to respond. If morality is the standard, then Con's arguments carry zero weight because no links were drawn. Conversely, I do link into Justice and Morality. I showed in R4 how each argument in my case linked to justice. Con dropped my case and did not dispute that it linked into his framework. I also showed how I linked into morality via promoting the general welfare. If Justice is the standard, I outweigh, since (1) I can co-opt all of Con's charity arguments, (2) my case stands, (3) Con dropped my mitigation of his indemnity offense, and (4) I best check government abuse. Thus, even if you're skeptical of my topicality but you accept my morality standard, Con doesn't weigh at all. In that case, the best you can do is tie. If you think my interpretation is, at least, fair or, at most, the better of the two, then it is an easy Pro vote under either standard. I am clearly garnering the most offense in the debate. V. Sources1 - . https://tinyurl.com...2 - . https://tinyurl.com...Thus, I affirm. Thanks again to Hayd and the readers.