The Instigator
UUAA
Con (against)
Winning
1 Points
The Contender
4n-sic-eletist
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points

Resolved: Withholding an individual's right to a fair trial is a justified against terrorism.

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: 5/29/2009 Category: Society
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,326 times Debate No: 8471
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (1)
Votes (2)

 

UUAA

Con

We should use this first round as a "Hey I like this idea lets debate!" kind of deal and then the actual debate will commence in round two. There will then be two constructive speeches each and two rebuttals. Actually Let's make this round an intro round with no real arguments just like the beginning of a case. Heres mine:

"Do unto others as you would have others do to you" - The Golden Rule

It is because I strongly believe that the actions of individuals rely upon the way they have been treated by others and that in a just society (which may or may not actually exist) actions by all would represent a mutual respect for the way all beings should be treated universally that I strongly negate the following resolution:

That withholding an individual's right to a fair trial is a justified against terrorism.

The following definitions are for clarification:

Withhold - to refrain from giving or granting.

Right - that which is due to anyone by just claim, legal guarantees, moral principles, etc.

Fair Trial - a trial that is conducted fairly, justly, and with procedural regularity by an impartial judge and in which the defendant is afforded his or her rights under the U.S. Constitution or the appropriate state constitution or other law
NOTE: Among the factors used to determine whether a defendant received a fair trial are these: the effectiveness of the assistance of counsel, the opportunity to present evidence and witnesses, the opportunity to rebut the opposition's evidence and cross-examine the opposition's witnesses, the presence of an impartial jury, and the judge's freedom from bias.

Justified - to show to be just or right.

Terrorism - "the use or threat [of action] designed to influence the government or to intimidate the public or a section of the public, and the use or threat is made for the purposes of advancing a political, religious or ideological cause."

All definitions are from Dictionary.com with the exception of terrorism which is brought to you courtesy of "The Terrorism Act of 2000"
4n-sic-eletist

Pro

I accept the challenge. I will in this speech go over several points: Burden, Definitions, and Standards.

Burdens
This is debate groundwork and not intended as an argument. I feel it ought to be presented here.
Due to the wording of the resolution, and the fact that the negative initiated the debate, I place the burden of proof on the negative. The simply revolves around the wording: "withholding an individual's…" stress on the singularity of the word "an." This means that to win, the affirmative need only prove that there may be a situation where the right to a fair trial is either justly removable or impossible. This view is taken whereas if it is impossible to hold fair trial, then the justice or injustice of the trial becomes void.

On the other hand, the negative should be voted for if he is able to prove that it is never acceptable to withhold that right.

Definitions:
Impartial- not partial or biased; fair; just

For consistency's sake, this is also from dictionary.com.
I otherwise agree with my opponent's definitions.

Standards
There are times when it is impossible to judge or judge fairly. In these cases, it may be better to simply withhold those rights. Note that the negative did not state that that withholding was infinite. I will go under the belief that these rights may be returned when it becomes possible to do so in justice.

Don't take either debater's views personally. This debate is for the sake of a constructive, fun, and engaging debate, not the expression of the actual political or personal views of either debater. Some of the arguments may be brought up for the sake of debating.
Debate Round No. 1
UUAA

Con

UUAA forfeited this round.
4n-sic-eletist

Pro

4n-sic-eletist forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
UUAA

Con

UUAA forfeited this round.
4n-sic-eletist

Pro

Sorry, my guess is that we both forgot to post anything. I've been out of it for a while. Anyway, now to the arguments.

My case hinges around the fact that justice and what is "just or right" is continually fluctuating. A lot of that inconsistency comes from the fact that no two situations are the same. Likewise, the perfect idea of Justice can be filled only so much in each situation. Because of this fluctuation, it could be seen as unjust or unfair to put an individual to trial at a time or place where only minimal justice could be done. As I stated in my first round, one such situation may be that there is no impartial judge available. Is it then fair or just to simply abuse a person's rights and force them into a "fair trial?" It could happen, by using the rights to a speedy trial, the law could potentially force someone into the "fairest trial." It would be fair according to the situation, but the individual could still be thrown in jail. On the other hand, an individual could use those rights to pressure a court into using a judge partial to the defendant. Then there is the issue of witnesses. The right to a speedy trial could be used as a weapon on either side to make sure there are no decent witnesses, especially if witnesses plead the fifth. There are so many situations where it is better to withhold the right to a fair trial for periods of time. Note once again that these rights may be returned later when maximum overall justice may be achieved. The suspension of this right would make the trial impossible until it is returned to the individual, allowing time for all concerned to prepare to do the best that they can in court to fulfill their respective roles. Vote affirmative.

I'm going to end the case here. short and sweet, since neither of us is likely to post or respond again during the debate's duration. I will try to post again if my opponent responds, but since we've both skipped round two, and I barely caught round three, I don't think it'll happen. sorry, but you can keep checking to see if we resume.
Debate Round No. 3
UUAA

Con

UUAA forfeited this round.
4n-sic-eletist

Pro

4n-sic-eletist forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
UUAA

Con

UUAA forfeited this round.
4n-sic-eletist

Pro

4n-sic-eletist forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by zircle_of_life 7 years ago
zircle_of_life
UUAA, do you ever post arguments when you debate???
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Atheism 7 years ago
Atheism
UUAA4n-sic-eletistTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 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:10 
Vote Placed by zircle_of_life 7 years ago
zircle_of_life
UUAA4n-sic-eletistTied
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