The Instigator
Johnicle
Pro (for)
Winning
28 Points
The Contender
Korezaan
Con (against)
Losing
18 Points

Resolved: In the United States, true intent ought to have a higher weight in court than ends.

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
Pro Tied Con
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: 3/18/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,575 times Debate No: 3285
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (5)
Votes (15)

 

Johnicle

Pro

Resolved: In the United States, true intent ought to have a higher weight in court than ends.

Explanation of the resolution: The resolution is meant to ask if we ought to consider making the intent of people that commit crimes more important than what actually happens. No where does the Pro have to prove that this action is even capable of happening, but simply if someone's intention should be punished before someone's result. It's sort of like if someone was driving 100 miles per hour and kills someone if they should be punished for the death to full extent because they killed someone or should they only be punished for speeding, keeping in mind that the whole point that there are speeding tickets is because of the danger of other peoples lives... With that, I will begin with my opening arguments...

I. Punishing ends is wrong.
When someone intends to do no harm, they should not be punished for causing harm. When someone intends harm, they should not be set free for accidentally not causing harm. Having bad intentions is where the crime is. Just because there is a bad result, does not make something a crime. Therefore, when looking at court proceedings, true intent ought to have a higher weight than ends.

II. We ought to punish TRUE intent.
When someone intends harm, it is obvious that they deserve to be punished. The criminal justice system OUGHT TO prioritize them self to only be concerned with what was intended. Certainly it may be hard to determine intent, HOWEVER, that is the reason that TRUE is in this resolution. TRUE intent is punishable, unintended ends ought to not be punished.

In the end- If something is unintended, it is out of the persons hands. Punishing them for something that they can't control is wrong. Therefore, In the United States, true intent ought to have a higher weight in court than ends. So please vote Pro.

Thank You!
Korezaan

Con

I negate.

Definitions:
True Intent - Objective truth of the intent of an action
Ought to - Should, morally compelled, etc.

Value in this round is Justice, as that's what we attempt to achieve through the courts and the legal system.
Justice is defined as giving each their due.

Our current legal system works, when determining causes of crimes, on a basis of "beyond a reasonable doubt". However, "beyond a reasonable doubt" does not always present the truth. In fact, (I don't need to provide evidence for this), there are quite a few times in history where evidence had been uncovered later to prove that a "criminal" was indeed innocent. It is clear that since there is absolutely no way to truly determine why someone committed an act, there will always be imperfections in the system. Because of that, we are not giving each their due, and therefore we are being unjust.

Just because we supposedly CAN do it with a unanimous vote of the jury right now doesn't mean that the verdict is true. Let's say an African American man owns a candy shop. I go in. I steal a box of Nerds. Does that suddenly mean I'm racist? Let's go even further, and say I was in LA during the Rodney King Riots. My jury panel happens to be all black. What do I do eh? They convict me doing it because I hate black people or whatever; but that doesn't suddenly mean that I did it BECAUSE I was racist. In law, sure, but as the resolution says, we're talking about TRUE intent. And there is no way to ever determine true intent; there is no equation or algorithm for that. You can HIT the mark, sure, but that's not giving EACH their due, as when the legal system happens to actually convict someone for their TRUE intent, they're just spraying the bullets of punishment and praying they hit in the right places.

Justice always hits the mark. And weighing for intent does not.

SUMMARY:
1) We cannot determine intent; the resolution cannot be weighed; default CON.
2) We cannot determine intent; justice is not served; go CON based on Value.

RE to PRO Case:

"No where does the Pro have to prove that this action is even capable of happening, but simply if someone's intention should be punished before someone's result."

I'm going to assume that morals dictate law and not the other way around. The resolution states "In the US, true intent ought to have a higher weight in court than ends". Then he goes and says "we don't need to think about whether or not this is implementable or not". I don't think that's how things work. We CAN'T know whether true intent or ends ought to have a higher weight in courts UNLESS we know of the consequences. We can't just arbitrarily say "Oh, commercial jetliners should only have three wheels" and then just go on to compare how, say, three wheeled vehicles have much less accidents than vehicles with more than three wheels or whatever. We can't just weigh other instances that are RELATED to determine how ANOTHER instance will work out; this isn't pre-algebra, not every graph is a straight line with a directly proportional slope. There are negative slopes, scatter plots, all your conics sections, etc. In order to even BEGIN debating the resolution, we MUST take into account the effects of if this EXACT resolution was implemented. This counts as an overview, as it attacks an assumption in his case.

(Cause obviously, commercial jetliners need more than three wheels)

I. Punishing ends is good. If we only punished on based on intent, then children will basically learn that if they say "I didn't mean it", then they can basically get off with absolutely anything. Even though to our more-mature minds it seems kind of ridiculous, children can't understand such a complex mechanism in the first place. This will lead to a worse off society, where few if any people get justice because they just lie to get off the hook.

II. It ought not to because if it did, ridiculous things would happen. Professor Jacobs explains how our current legal system today has been twisted to do extremely unjust things in the name of justice:

(Jacobs, James B. Professor at New York University School of Law, "Hate Crimes: A Critical Perspective" Crime and Justice Vol. 22. University of Chicago Press, 1997. P.37)

"[W]itnesses may be called on to testify about how the defendant told (or laughed at) racist or homophobic jokes, or whether he ever used racial slurs. In Grimm v. Churchill, 932 F.2d 674 (1991), the arresting officer testified that Grimm had a history of making racist remarks (pp. 675-76). Similarly, in People v. Lampkin, 457 N.E.2d 50 (1983), the prosecution presented as evidence racist statements that the defendant had uttered six years before the crime for which he was on trial (p. 50). In effect, the trial may turn into an inquisition on the defendant's character, or at least his values and beliefs."

I think the debate comes really down to this:

"Do we, or do we not, weigh something based on its real world effects?"

Basically, my position is that we should and my opponent opposes it.

I really think that we need to find if something is moral or not by seeing its effects on the real world. We can be good and benevolent ALL WE WANT, we can believe that intent should be valued over ends for punishments ALL WE WANT, but AS LONG AS the resolution for this debate is "In the United States, true intent ought to have a higher weight in court than ends", we need to weigh the debate based on its real world effects. As long as we're talking about something real, the United States Court System, we need to look at what would happen if the courts actually implemented this system of morality. My opponent says in R2, that "[t]he criminal justice system OUGHT TO prioritize them self to only be concerned with what was intended". I personally believe that it's true, intent should be the determiner of the punishment - but that's not how justice works. Justice doesn't work like lightning from God's finger; we aren't all-knowing and omniscient. My case says that the criminal justice OUGHT NOT prioritize themselves to concern themselves with intent, because then we WOULDN'T be giving each their due.

"The road to hell is laid with good intentions" - 17th century proverb

AS LONG AS "United States" and "in court" exist in the topic,

You cannot vote PRO.
Debate Round No. 1
Johnicle

Pro

Thank you for taking this debate, your arguments are good, but of course are flawed :)

I am okay with making justice the value in this round, as long as the "due" that we are giving is deserved. What you will see in this round, however, is that justice is achieved on the Pro side. This is from us punishing only what people intend. My opponent contends that we aren't able to determine intent, but this is untrue, to prove this, I offer the following example...

A. Example
There are two people on two different highways driving at 100 miles per hour. Both are obviously at risk of seriously hurting someone. Their intention is to get home quicker. One gets pulled over by a cop. The other, accidentally runs over a kid that was out in the street (in a town he was trying to pass through)... Now you have a choice to make, do you punish the capabilities of the intentions, or the actual ends? Con will claims that giving the person who killed someone manslaughter and a year or two in prison while the other gets off with a $200 fine. Pro, however, will allow you to punish them equally. Give each of them a maximum of one month in jail and a maximum of a $1,000 fine (depending on previous offenses and judges discretion which is another debate)... It is unfair to punish someone more JUST BECAUSE SOMEONE ELSE was in the wrong place at the wrong time. Instead, they should both be punished for the CAPABILITY of hurting someone by going over the speed limit. NOT you only get punished if your dangerous act actually hurts someone, that is what I like to call anti-justice-un-american-ism...

My opponent says that our current justice system works, but against this, I have to say that it could work even better by voting Pro and only prosecuting intentions. This is proven by my A. Example. Punishing intentions is simply what we ought to do because when you punish ends, you punish someone for something out of their control.

His next paragraph seems to be quite irrelevant. He says something about jury convicting someone doesn't make it true. This fault is something that both sides carry equally. However, what you can prove should help to determine intentions. He goes on to say that if he killed a black guy that it doesn't mean that he is racist. This is true, HOWEVER, his intention WAS to kill a guy (for whatever reason)… therefore, he should be punished for that.

His last little line of justice hitting the mark and intentions not… Against this I simply have to separate our two types of justice. His form of justice simply looks at ends; mine weighs intentions over ends to give justice that is DESERVED. In other words, Con's "justice" is unjust in giving due's that are undeserved while Pro gives justice that is deserved… a just desert if you will.

I think I need to explain why this round goes beyond if this action is capable of happening. My opponent explains that I need to be able to prove that this can happen. This is simply not true. The resolution specifies that this ought to happen. I ought to donate but that doesn't mean that I am capable of doing so. I ought to help someone dying, but if that person is thousands of miles away there isn't much I can do. Ought to do something goes beyond capability. We ought to punish people for what they intend. So even if he proves that punishing intentions is not possible, he does not win that we ought not to do it. Besides that, you can see that we CAN punish intention. This is proven through my Example A. argument. We ought to punish those people for putting their time concerns over the safety of others regardless of if either of them hurt anyone or not. Therefore, I can only see a Pro vote.

Off of his argument of punishing ends is good.--> Simply against this I have 2 arguments…

1) Punishing ends benefits people who meant harm (Example B.)
If someone tries to kill someone and fails, they will be tried for attempted murder which is not as bad as being tried for real murder, even though the factors stopping them could have come up out of nowhere. People who try to kill someone ought to be punished just as much as someone who does kill someone.

2) Punishing ends hurts people who meant no harm.
Here I would just like to pull through Example A… The man who killed the kid that was in the middle of the street meant no harm, however, he was punished a lot more (at least if you accept con and the present system) That is wrong and ought not to happen, therefore I urge you to change it and vote Pro.

Off of the evidence in II.-->

1) This argument in irrelevant to II.
He brings up this evidence that has NOTHING to do with what I originally argued. I argue TRUE intent and my opponent argues people corruption. I can assure you that there is people that are corrupt whether you vote Pro or Con…

2) There is more corruption on con.
The true difference between pro and con is that on con you have corruption built into the system by giving dues that are not deserved. Therefore, I urge you to see that there is less corruption on Pro since we punish what is intended and therefore what is attempted… NOT what results as results are out of the hands of the people affected.

3) The evidence is flawed.
The currents system is first of all the Con side because they use intentions, but do not have a greater weight in court than ends which is wrong and ought to not happen. Secondly it is tagged wrong, it says ridiculous things WOULD happen when the evidence says they MAY spend the trial testing his values and beliefs. This is people corruption and has nothing to do with intentions. Instead it is taken out of context. If he wants to use this evidence, it should be in a resolution that talks about the credibility of the people in our system… NOT the system itself.

Onto the real world effects debate

1) The real world effects are good.
When punishing intentions, you get the true criminals off the street (which is our goal)… His main argument is that it's not possible (which was already covered). Example A and B prove that this is possible and WILL have good effects. My opponent literally said in his last speech that "intent should be the determiner of the punishment"… right there you should vote pro as my opponent agrees that this is what ought to happen when he says should. He goes on to say that this is not how justice works… but this is how it should (or ought to) work. People should punish intentions by looking at what was attempted, NOT what was achieved.

2) Only punishing the bad intentions.
His last quote is as follows… "The road to hell is laid with good intentions"… This is true, however, there is a difference between having good intentions and falling short (which ought to NOT be punished), between bad intentions and not reaching them which ought to be punished. That is my stance and I urge you to see it and vote PRO.

(and as far as the "in court" and "United States" and not being able to vote pro argument, I urge to see explanation to this as I don't see how this matters)

Thank You!
Korezaan

Con

"[...]but of course are flawed :)"

- As are all arguments.

He agrees with the value of Justice, defined as giving each their due. By giving the argument that "we can't determine intent" the response of "we CAN determine intent", he is conceding to the fact that if we can't determine intent, we can't give each their due. At the point where I win that we can't prove intent, that means I have already won the round because if our justice system is not going to give each their due, then it isn't something that should be implemented.

Let's look to his example.

He claims that this hypothetical situation proves that we can determine intent. However, this does nothing more than weigh the effects between an omniscient and benevolent justice system that somehow can read every person's life to determine their intent, compared to another which weighs merely on ends. It doesn't mention anything even related to determining intent; he's just talking about what happens AFTER the fallacious "intent determination". As I explained clearly in my R1, I agree that justice is best served when we punish on intent and not just the ends. However, I said even more explicitly, that ""AS LONG AS the resolution for this debate is "In the United States, true intent ought to have a higher weight in court than ends", we need to weigh the debate based on its real world effects." His counterargument isn't anything more than a summarization of his case.

Extend my case. He still has not shown how we can prove intent.

I am still winning the debate.

And regardless, one ran over a kid and one didn't. They didn't even have the same ends.

"[...]it could work even better by voting Pro[…]"

- Well apparently A. Example proves nothing more than "it makes us feel better, so y'all should go PRO". Feeling Good is not the value in this debate. It is Justice, and insofar as he isn't giving each their due, which is what our system is attempting to achieve, we cannot go PRO.

"[...]irrelevant"

- It isn't. It talks about Hate Crime Enhancements, an area where intentions weigh heavily.

"This fault is something that both sides carry equally."

- I do not understand this statement.

"[...]killed a black guy[...]"

- I think everyone should take note of this. It is quite obvious he is not reading my arguments at all, as my example talks about STEALING A BOX OF NERDS. For anyone that wants to be enlightened, they are little rock-shaped candies. Nothing to do with killing.

The reason why I put such a big space above is because I want you to read the below argument. He says, word for word, in his previous speech, that I advocate a form "of justice simply looks at ends; [and his] weighs intentions over ends to give justice that is DESERVED."

First of all, he has NEVER shown why my "type of justice" is that; he never gives you examples nor shows you any links WHATSOEVER. Second, I challenge ANYONE to go through my case and thoroughly explain to me how I have done that. In my R1, I specifically state that "I personally believe that it's true, intent should be the determiner of the punishment - but that's not how justice works. Justice doesn't work like lightning from God's finger; we aren't all-knowing and omniscient." IT DOESN'T MATTER if his arguments make the world seem like a nice happy bright flowery place, because it JUST ISN'T GOING TO HAPPEN. The situation I provide in my R1 about stealing the box of Nerds proves this sufficiently: To most of us today, we probably wouldn't think that an asian kid stealing a box of Nerds from an African American guy's store is a racist crime. However, if that had happened during the Rodney King Riots, and the jury panel was all black, then they might as well have seen it has a hate crime. It DOESN'T MATTER if we're attempting to give people what they deserve, if we don't even KNOW what they deserve. AT THE POINT WHERE INTENT CANNOT BE DETERMINED, PRO CAN NEVER WIN THE ROUND.

I give in my R1 an explanation for why "ought" is determined by the real world consequences of the action in question, and not just examples related to the situation at hand. My opponent does not respond with anything but examples, which only go further to show my point, because they can all be disproven by simple, real world impacts. In one of them, he says "I ought to donate but that doesn't mean that I am capable of doing so." First of all this is a bad example, this comes in the form "Obligation does not mean Capability". My position is "Outweighing harms cancel out Obligation". I say nothing about capabilities. My case would basically say this about the example: If donating actually resulted in your money being sent to some fraudulent corporation that is doing really immoral things instead of donating to whatever cause you originally meant it for, then I would say you ought not do it.

"So even if he proves that punishing[…]"

- That's not how my argument works. Your case says "we should judge on intent in courts". My case says "since we cannot judge intent, we are not just, therefore we shouldn't use it in courts." If my argument were only the first premise, his argument would be correct. But it isn't. So he's not.
- Obligations don't exist in a vacuum. They change based off of real world situations, which is why we need to take the hypothetical effects on a world where justice is based more on intent than on ends. Actually, we already have that and I brought evidence up in R1. Let's go to that now.

1)
Actually, He argues "true intent" and I argue "believing that we can determine true intent leads to really ridiculous things". It is completely relevant, as it attacks the assumptions in that argument.

2)
I would say there isn't, as the PRO is basically defending the status quo of the Hate Crime Enhancements systems, of which a brief summary is provided by Jacobs. At the point where he hasn't shown how the CON is AT ALL corrupt, and at the point where I have shown that HIS fluffy world IS corrupt, I've already won this arg.

3)
- The current system is PRO, as I just explained.
- His whole thing about "people corruption" and "MAY" just bite into the harms of my argument that obligations need to take into consideration real world effects.

RWEff

1)
"When punishing intentions, you get the true criminals off the street"
- This is taken out by my case. Intents cannot be determined.
"Example A and B prove that this is possible and WILL have good effects."
- Example A has been disproven, and has shown to be unlinked.
- There is nothing in his case labeled "Example B".
"My opponent literally said in his last speech that "intent should be the determiner of the punishment"… right there you should vote pro as my opponent agrees that this is what ought to happen when he says should."

Let's go over this AGAIN.

R1:

"I personally believe that it's true, intent should be the determiner of the punishment - ***but that's not how justice works***. Justice doesn't work like lightning from God's finger; we aren't all-knowing and omniscient. ***My case says that the criminal justice OUGHT NOT prioritize themselves to concern themselves with intent, because then we WOULDN'T be giving each their due.***"

Thank you very much.

2) He's right, it's the PRO's stance. The PRO only has good intentions but no way to reach them. "The road to hell is laid with good intentions." All the more reason to vote CON instead.

("Court" and "US" are my link to all the real world impacts. They are also why your [mis]quoting of me will not work, as I've stated very explicitly that I disagree with you ONLY BECAUSE the topic says "US" and "court", which denotate real world things. I agree that it's something we should want, but i disagree that the courts (or whoever) have this obligation)
Debate Round No. 2
Johnicle

Pro

I would like to begin by thanking my opponent for this well debated round... I will look forward to the voters and their decision. Either way, it was a good debate... I will basically rebuttal straight down my opponents last speech then go to why the voters should vote Pro.

Value of Justice
He is right in saying that I agreed with his value of justice but what I didn't agree with is who achieves it. The value of justice is gained on the Pro side as we punish what deserves to be punished... intent. When the resolution specifies TRUE intent, determining it becomes irrelevant. I did prove in my last speech where intent CAN be determined, and when we weigh that over ends/results... we give true "due." I would like to take the chance to flow through my Example A and B as these show how intent is where people commit crimes, not ends.

His argument against my Example A is flawed in so many places. My example showed two people doing the EXACT SAME bad act... One killed a person and one got a fine, let's now examine that. One ended up killing someone, so on the Con side they would presumably get a charge of manslaughter when the speeder who got picked up would just get a fine. That OUGHT NOT HAPPEN because they both did a bad act under their own control but they both got ends that were out of their control, therefore, we must punish people for what they CAN control, so you vote PRO.

"Extend my case. He still has not shown how we can prove intent. I am still winning the debate."-->

No my good sir, I just proved intent and control of people speeding, that is something they can control, they got bad ends, something they can't control. That is all that I am trying to do, punish people for what they can control... and besides, it is up to the voters to determine who is winning the debate:)

"And regardless, one ran over a kid and one didn't. They didn't even have the same ends."-->

This is the PROBLEM. My opponent has agreed that "I agree that justice is best served when we punish on intent and not just the ends"... here this proves how the ENDS were not under control of the INTENT. The two peoples ends OUGHT TO BE the exact same. When it don't give them the same punishment, we fail justice. My opponent read the resolution and assumes that I have to prove that intent is capable... that is FALSE for two reasons, 1) the resolution says true intent which means that the intent we prosecute is actually there, and 2) the resolution says ought to which means that this intent may not even have to be capable of being proven, but we still ought to prosecute that intent whether it can be proven or not... besides that, I do prove that intent can be proven when we look to Example A and B. Therefore, I can only see a PRO vote.

---------------------------------------------------------------

"First of all, he has NEVER shown why my "type of justice" is that"-->

I have shown the type of justice is not deserved... in my Example A and B, the person who killed the person did NOT deserve a greater punishment than the person who sped just as fast.

"In my R1, I specifically state that "I personally believe that it's true, intent should be the determiner of the punishment - but that's not how justice works."-->

But that is how justice OUGHT TO work. Justice ought to punish people for what they are in control of. Which means that we ought to give a greater weight to true intent rather than ends in court. Again, pull through my argument of ought to does not mean can. I ought to donate to the poor but I hardly have enough money in my bank account for a tank of gas. Same here, we ought to punish intentions, but there may be some confusion in what that is. The MAY BE is of course not very strong though as I do offer Example's A and B that show how intentions can be seen AND punished.

"it JUST ISN'T GOING TO HAPPEN"-->

Again, it ought to happen though.

"It DOESN'T MATTER if we're attempting to give people what they deserve, if we don't even KNOW what they deserve. AT THE POINT WHERE INTENT CANNOT BE DETERMINED, PRO CAN NEVER WIN THE ROUND."-->

Again, we OUGHT TO give people what they deserve. INTENT can be determined. Someone who speeds does not deserve to be punished for someone who was killed, it was not their intent... Flow through BOTH Examples A and B. If someone tries to kill someone, they should not be punished for ONLY breaking and entering, their intent was to kill. Certainly we will still go by innocent until proven guilty, and if we can't prove their intent of trying to kill then they will still get breaking and entering... but we must try... TRY by voting PRO.

Against his arguments about capability and obligation. What you will see is that in COURT, you must punish people for what they attempt to do that will cause harm, and punish them for the capability of causing harm (which relates back to example A)... Onto his argument about donating to a fraudulent corporation... If it was my intent to donate, I should not be punished for donating to someone bad. If I try to donate to a third world country but accidentally fund a terrorist corporation, CON would say that bad ends = punishment... but on PRO I would say that good intent = no punishment. What makes more sense? Punishing people for what they have control over.

His next paragraph covers intent can't be determined but I have already hit that with Examples A and B.

1, 2, 3)-->

Punishing ends ought not happen. Sure you can start an investigation by seeing bad ends, but in order to do what ought to happen, you must punish intentions. Ends are NOT under the control of each individual. If I spend a million dollars to try to find the cure for cancer but fail, I did nothing wrong. If I do EVERYTHING to get an "A" on a test but actually get a "D", I did nothing wrong. If I speed 20 over and accidentally kill someone, I should only be punished for speeding WAY too fast which had the CAPABILITY of hurting someone. It would be UNJUST to put someone in jail for 10 years because of something they did not have control over.

1)--> Here, you fail to look at my Example B... We DO get TRUE criminals off the street. This is shown when someone tries to kill someone but fails, they should still be punished as if they did kill someone. THAT, ought to happen.

"I personally believe that it's true, intent should be the determiner of the punishment - ***but that's not how justice works***. Justice doesn't work like lightning from God's finger; we aren't all-knowing and omniscient. ***My case says that the criminal justice OUGHT NOT prioritize themselves to concern themselves with intent, because then we WOULDN'T be giving each their due.***"-->

(reason to vote PRO)

When punishing TRUE intent, we do in fact give each their deserved due. He says. We aren't all knowing, but we can still determine what people tried to do. All examples provided in this debate, we were able to determine the intent of the people. That is when we give true justice and that is when we are truly just. When he says that, "intent should be the determiner of the punishment", then it ought to happen, so you must vote PRO. WE OUGHT TO do this, and that's all that matters.

Thanks again for this truly GREAT debate. I hope to debate you again, and hopefully in a tournament system :)
Korezaan

Con

ROADMAP: Summarization, Line-By-Line, Voting issues.

The debate comes down to one thing: Intent. I've said throughout this debate that I agree with his position ******************EXCEPT****************** that the resolution says "United States" and "courts", meaning that this debate is whether or not there's an obligation in the real world. I don't care if he keeps saying that I agree with him, I said quite clearly in R1 that I didn't. His cutting skills basically turned a statement that's structured like "I am not a terrorist" into something like "I am a terrorist". I'm sorry I chose to say the "except" part after the initial "concession"; I like sentence style variation. But anyways,

He says in his last speech two things about intent:
One, intent determination is already done by the resolution, and
Two, his Example A and B meet it anyways.

His first argument has absolutely no warrant; he says it in one line: "When the resolution specifies TRUE intent, determining it becomes irrelevant." Well, I can say "When the resolution specifies TRUE intent, my mom will buy me a car" all I want, but it isn't going to happen. He provides no link and no analysis as to why this is true; NOWHERE in the debate and certainly NOT in his last speech. Besides, it is BECAUSE it says "true intent" in the resolution that my argument about "intent determination" applies. If it were talking about, "horribleness ought to have a higher weight in court than ends" then my point would be irrelevant, but BECAUSE the resolution has told us to talk about true intent vs ends, it is IMPERATIVE that we look at the implications of both. And the PRO has never given a sufficient way to find true intent. At this point,

His second argument doesn't prove how we can determine intent at all. All Example A and B do are create hypothetics where intent is somehow already there and weigh that against hypothetics where only ends are weighed. He doesn't prove anything except that a world where only ends are weighed is "bad" and a world where somehow intent is always a given and weighed is "good". But since intent CAN'T be determined, he can't take ANY of those impacts. He links directly into the Jacobs card, which says that if we're looking to intent while we can't determine it, then we're just going to get into really ridiculous and unjust situations.

And then he links the "only ends is weighed" is bad to me. He said, "I have shown the type of justice is not deserved... in my Example A and B, the person who killed the person did NOT deserve a greater punishment than the person who sped just as fast." Sure, I don't disagree with that. However, this does NOT mean that I'm supporting that ends should be weighed over means. Actually, I've never said anything about an alternative. My position in this round has been consistent; that we should not weigh "true intent" over ends. It doesn't matter what else the system would become, as I have not advocated any sort of alternative plan.

The PRO is basically saying "You should run across a beach."

I am basically saying "You should not run across a beach."

The PRO basically responds, "What should we run across then, a field?"

Which is something I never touched upon.

You know, after reading the PRO's R3, I got really annoyed. He kept saying "OUGHT" in capital letters. As if it actually mattered in this debate. As I've told you all AGAIN and AGAIN and AGAIN and AGAIN and AGAIN and AGAIN, I pretty much agree with the PRO ******************EXCEPT****************** for the fact that the resolution says "United States" and "Courts", which means in the real world. Every instance he says something like "Justice OUGHT to work this way", I agree, don't get me wrong. But none of those instances matter int his debate, as we are talking about the resolution in a real world situation. Since the resolution DOESN'T imply that we already know intent, and since there is no way in the real world right now to determine intent, we can't assume that we can somehow figure out intent. At that point, we can't weigh the debate in terms of an ideal situation, as we are humans and not some higher being; we can only do as much as we can. We can't do as much as we want.

"Again, pull through my argument of ought to does not mean can."

- You can't "pull something through" if you drop the responses to it.
- "[T]his is a bad example, this comes in the form "Obligation does not mean Capability". My position is "Outweighing harms cancel out Obligation". I say nothing about capabilities." (R2)

"Again, it ought to happen though."

- AGAIN, IT DOESN'T MATTER.

"Again, we OUGHT TO give people what they deserve."

- AGAIN, IT DOESN'T MATTER.

"and if we can't prove their intent of trying to kill then they will still get breaking and entering... but we must try... TRY by voting PRO."

- Apply Jacobs from R1. Intent determination links to ridiculous and unjust things.

"Here, you fail to look at my Example B... We DO get TRUE criminals off the street."

- Well then, let's take a look at his example B!

"If someone tries to kill someone and fails, they will be tried for attempted murder which is not as bad as being tried for real murder, even though the factors stopping them could have come up out of nowhere. People who try to kill someone ought to be punished just as much as someone who does kill someone."

- Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm (eats some Goldfish) mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm (drinks some apple juice) mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm (takes a nap) mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm nope, I can't see how this proves that we get true criminals off the street. All I see is a bunch of fluffy "ought"s.

And I've already responded to his VI multiple times.

VOTING ISSUES:

1) He never proves how he can determine intent. The resolution doesn't assume it, and his Examples, which he SAYS proves how we can do it, don't talk about it at all, but rather, weigh between a straw man which he says is me, and another, which he claims is him. But as I've said since R1, this ideal pretty flowery world isn't going to happen, instead, we're going to see plenty of situations like the one mentioned by Jacobs (R1), where people are called out as racists just because they said a racist joke six years earlier.

2) We OUGHT NOT do it because it can cause a lot of unjustice in the real world. His only defense against this is that "oh, that's only human corruption", but this just bites into the argument, because I'm saying that we shouldn't do it if the harms outwiegh the benefits. Benefits are us feeling high because we THINK we're doing justice, harms are tons of innocents getting convicted because there's no real way to determine intent. Sure, it SHOULD be, in an ideal world, but we live far from it. We can't determine intent, so we shouldn't try to assume we are able to in the courts.

3) I do not link into any of his impacts. I have never said that an ends-based system is better, and just because I oppose his system doesn't mean that I automatically support the other. Refer to the beach example I mentioned earlier in the round.

It doesn't matter if you "ought" to vote PRO.

CON serves more justice because we don't assume that we know a person's intent.

Because the value in this debate is Justice,

You vote CON.
Debate Round No. 3
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by Ylareina 9 years ago
Ylareina
Every one in the dock says "I didn't do it"; but if proved that they did, "I didn't mean it."

Even in our every interactions with those we live with (roommate, spouse, brothers, sisters), we say "you meant to do it", and we think they did, but when someone accuses us in the same way, we feel quite differently.

This is the reality.
Posted by DrAlexander 9 years ago
DrAlexander
Here we go again with your LD debates John.lol.
Posted by DrAlexander 9 years ago
DrAlexander
Who do you agree with? Mr. Intent or Mr. Pro Justice?? lol
Posted by smiletrishalovesyou 9 years ago
smiletrishalovesyou
I really want to do this debate, but I most definitely agree with you and have an actual debate in debate class I should be doing... :/
Posted by DrAlexander 9 years ago
DrAlexander
I'd say no one side should ultimately be valued more than the other side.. both the deontological as well as the consequence approach should be combined in the judicial system.. but since our government system is not composed of philosophers whom decipher the morality behind the motive or since our government isn't composed of psychiatrist whom can discover through evaluation the ACTUAL motive behind a crime, the government tends to focus on the consequences of the action as it would be profoundly difficult I determine the TRUE motive behind each crime... it is significantly easier to determine whether some one has robbed another, opposed to WHY they did it. Despite whether or not I WANTED to kill someone.. I did. So I should be punished for my action, murder, depriving someone of their greatest right, life. Metaphorically speaking of course =D . So in the end intent should be considered as significant and so should the action itself.. In MOST if not in all cases. No side should be weighed higher than another in courts.. or else true justice could never be served... Just my opinion about this topic..
15 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Johnicle 7 years ago
Johnicle
JohnicleKorezaanTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by Rezzealaux 8 years ago
Rezzealaux
JohnicleKorezaanTied
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 
Vote Placed by meganlg43 9 years ago
meganlg43
JohnicleKorezaanTied
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 Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by draxxt 9 years ago
draxxt
JohnicleKorezaanTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by roycegee 9 years ago
roycegee
JohnicleKorezaanTied
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 Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by ronnyyip 9 years ago
ronnyyip
JohnicleKorezaanTied
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 Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by smiletrishalovesyou 9 years ago
smiletrishalovesyou
JohnicleKorezaanTied
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 Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by Logical-Master 9 years ago
Logical-Master
JohnicleKorezaanTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by shaqdaddy34 9 years ago
shaqdaddy34
JohnicleKorezaanTied
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 Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by Teddy_Bear 9 years ago
Teddy_Bear
JohnicleKorezaanTied
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 Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30