Resolved: The Letter of the Law Ought to Have Priority Over the Spirit of the Law.
Debate Rounds (4)
Hello! This debate is set up for the purpose of challenging me on a subject I know little about. I hope that whoever accepts, we'll have a polite, fun debate.
The definitions are as follows:
Letter of the Law: Interpreting the law literally; or as it is written.
Spirit of the Law: Interpreting the law according to a social and moral consensus on the interpretation of the law.
The rules are as follows:
1. If one person violates a rule, his opponent must politely point out the violation to the voters, and proceed.
2. No plagiarism. Sources must be properly cited.
3. No cursing, swearing, or obscenity in general.
4. No forfeiting rounds. (Doing this violates the debate structure, too.)
5. Failure to address a point means that you concede it.
6. No violating debate structure.
7. Et cetera. Let's have a fun debate.
Here is the structure:
(Key: P = Pro, C = Con, Numbers specify the round.)
P1: Rules, Definitions, Structure.
C1: Acceptance, and Negative Argument.
P2: Affirmative Argument. Rebuttal to Negative Argument.
C2: Rebuttal to Affirmative Argument, Introduction of New Arguments.
P3: Rebuttal to Negative Arguments, Response to Negative Rebuttals, Introduction of New Arguments.
C3: Rebuttal to Affirmative Arguments, and Respones to Affirmative Rebuttals. NO introduction of new arguments.
P4: Response to Negative Rebuttals. Summary of arguments, explanation to voters as to why they should choose Pro as winner. NO introduction of new arguments.
C4: Summary of arguments, explanation to voters as to why they should choose Con as winner. NO introduction of new aguments.
Thanks! Let's have a good debate!
Thanks! This looks like it'll be a lot of fun. Let's start!
First, I will begin my stating my contentions, before moving on to respond to my opponent's arguments.
My first contention is that prioritizing the Letter of the Law over the Spirit of the Law ensures that all men are judged by the same standard. This is paramount to the resolution, because all laws first must be just, and if the law cannot be just if it applies to different people in different ways.
The Spirit of the Law in this debate is defined basically as the interpretation of the law according to the social or moral consensus—in other words, social norms. NY AGRI & MKTS § 71-n requires a permit for the production of raw milk in the state of New York. While the general consensus in society is that it's okay to drink milk directly from a cow without a permit if you're a family farmer, the problem is that people can be harmed without understanding the dangers of raw milk, something that this law is supposed to prevent. Prioritizing the letter of the law would ensure that laws are followed without exception.
In both of the above cases, the law is meant to apply to everyone equally, but a problem occurs when they are interpreted through the spirit of the law, as they would apply to people only according to social attitudes. The issue with this is that a law cannot be just unless there is equality for all. When the law applies differently to some people based off of social standing or circumstances, there becomes inequality, and as a result, injustice.
My second contention is that the Spirit of the Law should reside within the Letter of the Law. What I mean by this is that prioritizing the letter does not do away with the spirit, but instead ensures justice by creating a standard of law parallel with the Spirit of the Law. This is paramount to the resolution, because it shows that the benefits of the spirit of the law can apply without the drawbacks, even if the letter of the law is prioritized.
Before, I noted that if we judged laws by what we wanted as opposed to what they directly decreed, then laws would be unjust. The solution to this problem is to decree within the laws those exceptions which must be made; and amend the laws themselves when there are mistakes. This is a simple way to keep in mind the spirit of the law while keeping it fair and just.
My third contention is that a just government will not punish people for the purpose of maintaining ethics. The concept of individual rights includes the ability to exercise those rights even opposed to the moral consensus. When laws, as proposed by my opponent, are only abstract concepts to be interpreted by a judge according to the moral consensus, it violates not only your right to a fair trial but also your individual rights as you can be punished simply by simply committing a violation of ethics.
—Next, I will move on to rebut my opponent's arguments.
My opponent contends that "The spirit of the law should take [precedence] over the written words, or else loopholes form and the law essentially loses all meaning." He moves on to describe a hypothetical scenario to back this up, which describes the evolution of a simple law into complicated rulebook full of loopholes, before concluding with how the spirit of the law would have fixed this problem.
First I'd like to clarify that the difference between letter of the law and spirit of the law is not between different types of law, but instead ways to interpret the written law.
Next, the law my opponent presented contained the text, "Do not disturb your neighbor; respect their presence," something that he touted as a good law, when in both spirit and letter of the law it would generally be interpreted as making it illegal to disturb your neighbor, forcing you by law to respect their presence. I contend that this is not a good law, and the problem with his example is not how the law is interpreted, as he stipulates, but instead the fact that there's such an unenforceable and unjust law on the books.
He makes a good point that written laws based upon abstract concepts would create a lot of loopholes, but that relates little to the resolution, being an argument better suited for whether or not laws should be complex.
In terms of his actual point, I'm surprised to hear him talk about the law losing all meaning, because it is the letter of the law, its direct language gives the law its meaning, not a vague social consensus. His other point was that letter of the law would cause loopholes, but the only evidence he provides is a slippery slope fallacy used in his example. I will provide a quick counterexample to show a law, interpreted through letter of the law, that did not devolve into a bureaucratic mess of loopholes.
I contend that speed limits, despite being interpreted by the letter of the law, have not devolved into said mess. In fact, loopholes in this case occur only when interpreted by the spirit of the law. For example, pregnant women driving to the hospital.
In terms of my opponent's proposition that laws should be written to be broadly applied, I contend that if this was so, then this would actually result in less clarity, and as a result, more confusion in our judicial system. However, I won't delve very much into this, as I don't see how it relates to our resolution.
In terms of theft of the iPod, if you actually did commit larceny, taking his stuff with the intent of depriving him of his use, then yes, he would call the police. If you actually meant something else by your example, please explain, because it's very confusing.
In Conclusion, the Letter of the Law ought to be prioritized over the Spirit of the Law, because it is just, it contains the benefits of the Spirit of the Law without the drawbacks, and because my opponent's proposition seeks to punish those for the purpose of maintaining ethics as opposed to maintaining justice.
Your second argument is that prioritizing the letter of the law ensures the spirit is kept, if I am not mistaken. This argument makes little sense to me, so lets use the tax code as an example. The tax code is written very specific and the letter of it is surely prioritized. Multiple problems have arisen from it obviously. One would be the fact that its so excessive in length that very few people in the world could ever read it all and understand it completely. The main problem though is that by creating different ways the law applies to different situations creates, like I said before, loopholes where people and corporations can evade taxes. In all honesty, if I really didn't want to pay taxes right now, I could easily evade them because of the loopholes that have formed, and my evasion would be completely legal. However, when people can evade it so easily and many do, I would argue that the spirit of paying taxes (which is 100% just in my opinion) has been lost and it has just become another obstacle or burden that people see. I would argue that if it were written simpler, it would have little to no loopholes for corporations or normal people and we wouldn't have so much debate in society about it all the time. If we followed the spirit of the law, which is that everyone should contribute fairly to society to help upkeep it, I believe we would be able to stop these obvious tax evasions and at the same time, normal people would be able to understand the tax code.
Third, you argue that by judging based on ethics, it infringes on peoples individual rights and such. However, I don't necessarily think that judging based on the spirit of the law is judging based on ethics. I would rather interpret it as judging based on what the law is intended to do, rather than what the law specifically says. A law doesn't necessarily have to be ethical, as ethics differ from person to person.
Now I will help you understand by what I meant with the iPod example. The point was that in day to day life we don't need formal judges and law books and lawyers for everything, because we follow the spirit of the law and can generally judge for ourselves whether we're breaking it or not. Unfortunately this doesn't exactly help explain it and that's one of the disadvantages of debates over text I guess. Maybe that example was better suited for a vocal debate.
One thing last thing I'd like to point out is that when a law is written in specifics and the letter of the law takes precedence, it is virtually impossible to cover any loopholes. This is why we have such complex laws. We try to patch them up continuously instead of looking at the way laws are written. This is why it is so important to value the spirit and intention of the law over the letter of it. It is the only way to make sure it is followed. Essentially, it's finding a balance between specifics and intention that will fix the law system we have today.
Thanks! You made some very good points. I'm glad that we can have a civilized and intelligent discussion on a topic such as this. Now, to dive right in!
This is my final opportunity to introduce new contentions, and I have chosen not to. Instead, I will respond to my opponent's rebuttals, and rebut his points.
First, my opponent proposes that in order to ensure a fair standard, different cases should should set a standard for future cases. That interpreting the law by the spirit would set standards for similar cases in the future.
My opponent makes a fine proposal, however, the letter provides for this in the same way. Using other instances in which the law has been previously applied is a legal strategy that works in either instance, letter or spirit. However, the Letter of the Law provides for this better, because in the Spirit of the Law, the moral and social consensus would be prioritized over previous cases. Meaning, that a just interpretation of the law would still be thrown out in favor of an unjust moral and social consensus.
Second, my opponent gives an example in response to my second contention. He states that with the tax code, the letter is prioritized, but the problem is that it's so excessive in length that very few understand it completely. He notes that he could easily evade taxes because of loopholes, and that his "evasion would be completely legal." He contends that if the tax code were written simpler, it would have no loopholes.
In response, I first contend that his example is committing Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc, by assuming that interpreting the tax code by the letter is the reason why it is so lengthy. The U.S. Tax Code is lengthy because of the type of taxes we have implemented, not because of how they are interpreted.
I also challenge my opponent to provide an example as to how he could "easily evade" taxes "because of the loopholes," and how that "evasion would be completely legal."
Third, my opponent notes that he would rather interpret the Spirit of the Law as judging based on what the law is intended to do, rather than what the law specifically says.
I set the definition of the Spirit being what the social and moral consensus of the law's interpretation is, because it's oftentimes difficult to determine the original intent. So unfortunately, that is the definition we are debating. As a note, when I say "ethics," I am referring to the social and moral consensus without wanting to use up too many characters.
Fourth, my opponent clarifies his "iPod" example, noting his point was that in day to day life, we don't need formal judges and lawyers for everything, because we follow the spirit of the law for ourselves.
My opponent's point does little to strengthen his argument or relate to the resolution. This debate is on how the law should be interpreted when it must be applied, not on how often we must apply it. However, I would encourage my opponent to keep this point in mind. My opponent's point may have missed the resolution of this debate completely, but if he adjusts his aim, he can use this point very well to suit his argument.
Finally, my opponent notes that when a law is written specifically, it is "impossible" to cover "any" loopholes when interpreted with the letter. He contends that this is why we have complex laws, because we patch laws up continuously. He states that it is important to prioritize the spirit because it's the only way to make sure the law is followed.
Interesting point, however, like I contended with the speed limit example, interpreting the law through the social and moral consensus causes plenty of loopholes, too. In this example, I also contended that just because laws are specific does not mean that there are loopholes.
Also, in response to my opponent's contention that prioritizing the spirit is the only way to make sure the law is followed, I contend that the enforcement of the law resides outside of the judiciary, and therefore lacks relevance to this debate. I also contend that just because there are loopholes does not mean that the law is not being followed. People still follow speed limits despite the Spirit of the Law loophole, and people still pay their taxes despite any hypothetical loophole in the tax code.
In Conclusion, the Letter of the Law ought to be prioritized over the Spirit of the Law, because doing otherwise would be unjust, because the Letter contains the benefits of the Spirit of the Law without the drawbacks, and because my opponent's proposition seeks to punish those for the purpose of maintaining ethics as opposed to maintaining justice.
As a reminder my opponent may no longer introduce new arguments. He may rebut any new arguments I have made, and he may respond to my rebuttals of his argument. This does not mean he may not respond to my arguments in new ways, but rather that he cannot introduce a new idea. To illustrate, my opponent can say that "You're wrong on this point because of X, Y, and Z," but my opponent cannot introduce new ideas, such as "If the letter of the law is prioritized, then the fundamental concept of mercy is ignored."
My opponent would also do well to remember that this next argument is his final opportunity to rebut my points and respond to my rebuttals. I would encourage him to do his best, for the spirit of humanity, and the spirit of the law.
Letter of the Law Argument
Oh, I understand your circumstances completely, and it's a pity that you didn't respond to most of my arguments.
I will begin by responding to rebuttals, and then I will summarize my arguments.
My opponent only chose to respond to my second rebuttal, where I challenged him to provide an example as to how he could "easily evade taxes" because of the loopholes [in the tax code], and how that "evasion would be completely legal." He replied by giving me two examples.
First, my opponent contended that he could legally evade taxes by creating a business in a tax haven, and then channeling his money into it.
The issue with this is that it isn't a loophole at all. He cannot send money to an offshore business unless he has earned money. He cannot earn money without it being considered taxable income. Therefore he wouldn't be evading taxes at all, at least not "legally," because he would have to pay taxes when he earns that money in the first place.
Second, my opponent contended that he could legally evade taxes by bartering in commodities, which would not be taxed, and then trade those commodities for cash.
Even if this is a "common" occurrence, it is not at all "completely legal." Bartering income, as in this case, is included as taxable income, and you are required to include that in your taxes. Failing to include this in your taxes is not a "legal" loophole, it is a crime, one that would not be any more enforceable if the law was interpreted by the Spirit.
Summary of Debate.
This debate was on whether or not the Letter of the Law ought to be prioritized over the Spirit of the Law. I was arguing that when we interpret the laws, we should prioritize the Letter of the Law over the Spirit of the Law. My opponent argued the opposite.
Was the conclusion of this debate that the Spirit should be prioritized over the Letter, or visa versa? As the voter, you will decide this. I will summarize this debate to show you why I won.
My three primary contentions went through the entire debate well-established, and they were hardly challenged, if at all.
My first contention was that prioritizing the Letter over the Spirit is just, and ensures that all men are judged by the same standard. My sub-points of this contention went virtually unchallenged, especially my example. The contention itself was only challenged with a proposition as to how a court maybe could interpret a law, which was refuted by an unchallenged rebuttal that the Letter was still superior in ensuring justice, even in his scenario.
My second contention was that the Letter contains the benefits of the Spirit without the drawbacks, a contention only challenged with a fallacious example on the tax code. I showed how my opponent's example committed the Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc fallacy, a stipulation conceded by my opponent.
My third contention was that my opponent's proposition violates the rights of individuals by punishing people for the purpose of maintaining ethics, rather than to maintain justice. This point was completely conceded, and my opponent only addressed it to note how in his opinion, the Spirit would be interpreted contrary to the rules of this debate, a point that I called him out on, and he conceded.
My opponent made multiple different contentions, all of which I have rebutted.
First, he contended that if the Spirit does not take precedence, loopholes form, and the law loses all meaning. He gave an example with his "Do not disturb your neighbor" law. I rebutted this easily, establishing that direct language gives the law more meaning than a vague social consensus, and I gave the speed limit example to show that not all laws have loopholes, and some only have loopholes when interpreted through the Spirit. These points were conceded by my opponent, and his contention fails.
Next, he proposed that we ought to write laws differently, and provide better training to judges, in order to have a cleaner legal system. I pointed out that this was completely irrelevant to the debate, a point that my opponent also conceded.
My opponent also proposed an "iPod" example too show that we don't need formal judges for everyday life. However, I pointed out the debate is on how we should apply existing law, and therefore his example is not relevant to the debate. He conceded this point.
Next, my opponent proposed that different cases should set a standard for future cases. However, I contended that even if we used his proposed method for interpretation, the Letter would still be superior when interpreted, a point that my opponent conceded.
Finally, my opponent contends that it is "impossible" to cover "any" loopholes when a specific law is interpreted with the letter, and that we should prioritize the spirit because it's the only way to "make sure" the law is followed. I brought up the speed limit example, an example my opponent conceded, to show that just because laws are specific does not mean that there are loopholes, that just because there are loopholes does not mean that the law is not being followed, and that his point regardless lacks relevance to this debate. All of these points were conceded by my opponent.
It has been fully established in this debate that the Letter of the Law ought to be prioritized over the Spirit of the Law, because doing so is the only way to ensure justice, because it includes the benefits of the Spirit without the drawbacks, and because my opponent's proposition seeks to punish for the purpose of maintaining ethics as opposed to maintaining justice. My opponent's numerous points are not only proven false, but even if they weren't, they would still fail to back up his side of the resolution.
Therefore, I conclude that I have won this debate.
Thanks for the fun debate! Remember that you can't actually respond to anything I've said here, or said beforehand, without violating the debate format. You may only summarize the argument, and explain to voters why you won. Thanks again!
My opponents first contention was that, "prioritizing the Letter of the Law over the Spirit of the Law ensures that all men are judged by the same standard." However, I rebutted this saying that the outcome of cases in the judicial system would set a standard as well, as it does with the Supreme Court in today's judicial system. Therefore, if the Spirit of the Law is prioritized, there will still be a standard set, as there is when prioritizing the Letter of the Law.
His second contention was, "the Spirit of the Law should reside within the Letter of the Law." However, I don't find this valid because if you are prioritizing the Letter of the Law, and there is a case where someone technically followed the letter but broke the ethics and intention of the law, you are obligated to let them go. Therefore you cannot have "The best of both" if you will.
Their third contention was,"a just government will not punish people for the purpose of maintaining ethics." In my opinion, a just government would write laws for the purpose of maintaining ethics, while making sure to maintain justice. This is an area of the debate that I failed to address with strength, and in hindsight I wish I could have argued against this point better.
Throughout the rest of the debate, I felt the main focus was towards whether prioritizing the letter created loopholes that prioritizing the spirit would not. Though my opponent and I volleyed back and forth with contentions and examples, I feel that with reason, anyone can understand that my points still stand.
No matter the outcome of this debate, I feel this has been very well structured, educational, and reasonable and I am very pleased to have been given the opportunity to debate with such an intelligent opponent. That being said, I still believe that the Spirit of the Law should be prioritized over the Letter of the Law, and if you feel this way too, make sure to show it with a vote. Thank you for this debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.