The Instigator
Nymphadoraa
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
phill3006
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

Justice is Achievable

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/25/2010 Category: Politics
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,393 times Debate No: 12623
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (1)

 

Nymphadoraa

Con

Justice can be defined as the moral principle determining just conduct, to act or treat fairly, to justify: a "moral rightness", rightfulness or lawfulness, or administering a 'deserved' punishment or reward. Synonyms for it may be words such as truth, authority, law, right, rule or sanction.
Yes, some say that justice has been achieved throughout wars in the worlds history. However, not using examples focusing off of a political basis, can this idea of being 'just' or 'fair' be truly achievable?
Lets call for example a situation where a man was speeding in a school zone due to his wife in the back seat in labor. Now the man has no choice but to pull over with a cop behind him and get a ticket. When seeing the woman in the back, the cop allows him to be on his way. However, after all is said and done, the man still has a ticket. Is this just? Yes, he was speeding in a school zone which is against the law. However when looking at it in a different perspective how does that make sense? He had to get his wife to the hospital for his baby.
Now the idea of taking the ticket to court and trying to get it nullified is a different matter, definitly a different debate.
Lets try another situation.
Last year I debated on economic sanctions, if they should be used or not. One of the reasons why they shouldn't be was because the ends do not fulfil the means. The purpose of an economic sanction is to put restrictions on that country, thus achieving justice by putting the deserved restriction amongst them. However, this is not achieving what the meaning of justice is. Justice top synonym is FAIR. The people in this country that did not participate in the smugling (or whatever that country did to "desreve" the sanctions) are suffering due to others actions. I do not wish to debate over wether economic sanctions should be allowed or not, I just wish to see if there is a situation that would be considered 'just'.
This topic goes along with wether or not the world is black and white -- right or wrong.
I'm looking for a clean debate, something that will make you think.
phill3006

Pro

I will begin by saying I am new to the site, and so I will try to be as clear and clean as I can in this debate. I am not sure how a debate typically occurs on this site, so I am open to pointers, and please correct me if I'm doing this incorrectly.

Justice is achievable.
To begin my summary, I will provide a perhaps more concrete definition of justice that my opponent may or may not agree upon.
"Justice is the concept of moral rightness based on ethics, rationality, law, natural law, religion, fairness, or equity, along with the punishment of the breach of said ethics." [wikipedia] Since this is such a broad topic, I would propose that we focus specifically on legal justice, since legal justice is common to both of my opponent's examples. Natural justice is an amorphous topic that would lend itself poorly to debate as humans do not exist naturally but in societies with many artificial rules. I would propose to define legal justice as, "justice served through a legal system" where a "legal system" is a system of similar structure to the legal system of the United States with laws, law-makers, law-enforcers, judges, juries, etc.
To achieve justice (hereafter 'justice' will be understood to mean 'legal justice') common sense must be used on every level, the law must not be absolutely inflexible in any way, and the law must allow for judgement.

When justice is not served, it is typically due to a corrupt system, or general stupidity on the part of a member of the legal system.
An example of a corrupt system would be one that took money instead of actually forcing an individual through the system.
An example of stupidity would be the passage of an unjust law, poor judgement displayed by a law enforcement officer, or a poor judgement on the part of a jury or judge.
Debate Round No. 1
Nymphadoraa

Con

Nymphadoraa forfeited this round.
phill3006

Pro

phill3006 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
Nymphadoraa

Con

Nymphadoraa forfeited this round.
phill3006

Pro

phill3006 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 3 years ago
Ragnar
Nymphadoraaphill3006Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: FAIL DEBATE, as both sides dropped out... (checking the voting period debates, from Least To Most votes. By giving this one, it won't be prioritized in the system anymore.)