Realizing I am not qualified to nationals this year in LD, I have decided to post an "Amoral Affirmative case" I ran at regionals once (and I won that round I might add)
As a forewarning, to run this case requires 2 main things:
1: You must be prepared to be called a Nazi, terrorist, heathen, and any other names of the like
2: You must be able to defeat the "Rendering each his due" definition (PM me if you would like a fun CX set up)
A tip for running this case: Harp on the source Black's Law Dictionary! Black's law specializes in law and such matters.
For rendering each his due, possibly get the confession laws help us determine punishments.
That in mind, here's the case:
Two men commit two separate crimes. One man steals $100 from a bank, tries to return the money, and gets 15 years in prison. The other steals roughly $1 million from four banks via fraud, and gets 3 years and six months in prison. Does this make sense? No. However,the law was followed, therefore we had justice. I have just told you two true stories, the first was about Roy Brown^1 and the second was about Syed Rehman^2, it is because I the law was followed, and therefore Justice was served, I affirm today's resolution. I stand resolved that in the pursuit of justice, due process ought to be valued above the discover of fact.
Now as the famous Philosopher Socrates says “The beginning of wisdom is the definition of terms”^3
Justice: The fair and proper administration of laws.
(Black's Law Dictionary, Ninth Edition “Justice” )
Fair: Free of bias or Prejudice
(Black’s Law Dictionary, Ninth Edition “Fair”)
due process: the administration of justice according to established rules and principles; based on the principle that a person cannot be deprived of life or liberty or property without appropriate legal procedures and safeguards.
(Princton http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/we ... %20process
) (substansive DP)
due process: (16c) The conduct of legal proceedings according to established rules and principles for the protection of private rights, including notice and the right to a fair hearing before a tribunal with the power to decide the case. – Also termed due process of law; due course of law
(Black's Law 9th Edition BACKUP DEFINITION)
Discovery: the act or process of discovering
Fact: an actual occurrence
Therefore the discovery of fact is basically the act or process of discovering of an actual occurrence.
Resolved: In the Pursuit of the fair and proper administration of laws, established rules and principles based on life, liberty, and property, ought to be valued above the act or process of discovering an actual occurrence.
These definitions in mind, let us look at the Affirmative case.Resolutional Analysis:
Justice is not equity
This is basically the groundwork of the affirmative case.
Now Justice differs from equity in that justice is the fair and proper admin of laws, however equity is:
Equity: The body of principles constituting what is fair and right; natural law
(Black's Law Dictionary, Ninth Edition “Equity” )
In short, Justice is administering the law, equity is the principles of goodness.
The purpose of justice is to achieve equity, and often times Justice does achieve equity, as when we uphold the Bill of Rights, however Justice does not always achieve Equity, as seen through the introduction of the Affirmative Case. In other words judge, Equity can be achieved without Justice, and Justice can be achieved without equity.
Is equity more valuable than Justice? Yes, but today's resolution asks us to pursue justice, not the purpose of justice, which is equity. This is why my value is Justice
( Now to illustrate the idea that we are pursuing justice and not equity, think of a cat and mouse. The cat is pursuing the mouse to eat the mouse, the mouse however, is pursuing his home. In reality, the cat does not care about the mouse home, because you cannot eat a mouse home, the cat only cares about the mouse. In today’s debate, we are asked to persue the mouse, not the end goal of the mouse home of equity, but we need to value the mouse of justice.)C1: Due Process administers Justice
OJ Simpson# and Kasey Anthony, Regardless of whether or not they were guilty, justice was served. Justice: The fair and proper administration of laws.
(Black's Law Dictionary, Ninth Edition “Justice” )
Due process facilitated this justice, because Kasey and OJ were sentenced according to established rules and principles.C2: Dof does not administer Justice
In the case of OJ Simpson, certain facts were not brought in for the Jury's consideration, like "The jury was not allowed to hear testimony concerning Simpson's rumored jailhouse confession to Rosie Grier."^4
In conclusion, we have seen that Justice is our end goal, and therefore should be valued highest in todays debate. Through OJ Simpson and Kasey Anthony, we saw how justice was served regardless of guilt, and we also saw that dof does not administer Justice.
For these three reasons, I ask you join me in affirming the resolution.
1 Roy: (http://www.ktbs.com/news/Man-Who-Took-O ... index.html
Accessed April 20th 2012, from KTBS, a local news channel in East Texas, Northwest Louisiana, western Oklahoma, and southern Arkansas. )
2 Syed: (http://www.foxbusiness.com/news/2012/04 ... ud-scheme/
Accessed april 20th 2012 from Fox Buisness)
3 Socrates: http://thinkexist.com/quotation/the_beg ... 91600.html
Source: Think Exist.com, accessed April 20th 2012
4 Facts on OJ Simpson: University of Missouri-Kansas City http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/f ... dence.html
So feel free to shred this case, reply, ask me about the case, and anything else in the comments!