The Instigator
nsoccer23
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
PeeGor
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

The Rights of the victim should take precedence over the rights of the accused in felony cases

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/5/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,533 times Debate No: 6100
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)

 

nsoccer23

Con

They definetely should
PeeGor

Pro

My opponent did not warrant his case, as well as take the wrong side. He said that they 'definitely should' which would mean he would be affirming the resolution. If my opponent does try to make any arguments in the future, you can immediately drop them.

Now on to my case:

I affirm: The rights of the victim should take precedence over the rights of the accused in felony cases

For the sake of clarity, I would like to define some key terms

[Definitions]

Victim: one that is subjected to oppression, hardship, or mistreatment

Accused: one charged with a violent offense

Felony Cases: differ from misdemeanors, felonies are egrigous crimes like murder, rape, kidnap, etc.

[Topical Observations]

(1) The resolution questions the supremacy of rights versus the presumption of innocence

(2) The resolution implies all other options have been exhausted

(3) The resolution implies the clashing of rights. Therefore, equality of rights is impossible. My opponent therefore has to prove the resolution categorically true by giving superior rights to people accused of felonies AND giving inferior rights to victims, who have done nothing wrong

[Value]

Value: Justice

Justice is giving each their due. In other words, giving what people deserve. Therefore my opponent must prove how giving victims, how are innocent and have done nothing wrong, inferior rights is maintaining a just society and a just legal system.

[Contention]

I offer a sole contention to prove my point

Contention I: Moral Responsibility

When a person performs or fails to perform a morally significant action, we sometimes think that a particular kind of response is warranted. Inferiority and superiority are perhaps the most obvious forms this reaction might take. For example, one who encounters a car accident may be regarded as worthy of superiority for having saved a child from inside the burning car, or alternatively, one may be regarded as worthy of inferiority for not having used one's cell phone at least to call for help. To regard such agents as worthy of one of these reactions is to ascribe moral responsibility to them on the basis of what they have done or left undone. Thus, to be morally responsible for something is to be worthy of a particular kind of reaction — superiority, inferiority or something akin to these — for having performed it. Therefore, my opponent must prove how treating a victim as inferior is reflecting on poor moral responsibility
Debate Round No. 1
nsoccer23

Con

I am so stupid. Again i took the wrong side. I am making another debate that has me on the affirmitive of this subject.
PeeGor

Pro

Ha, it's okay. Extend my arguments.
Debate Round No. 2
nsoccer23

Con

nsoccer23 forfeited this round.
PeeGor

Pro

PeeGor forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
nsoccer23

Con

nsoccer23 forfeited this round.
PeeGor

Pro

PeeGor forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
nsoccer23

Con

nsoccer23 forfeited this round.
PeeGor

Pro

PeeGor forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
No comments have been posted on this debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.