The Supreme Court Proceedings Should Be Televised
Debate Rounds (1)
While perhaps in principle I agree with you, your plan cannot work. First, You say you want to limit the scope of the debate to the states, but all your evidence talks about the US Supreme Court and how it would work on that level, so the debate is lost for you on that alone by violating your own standard. Second, you say this is a plan, but you have no administration, weak funding, no execution of the plan, and no solvency to show where this has worked. Therefore, you again lose as you have presented no plan in fact. Now that the two main technical arguments are out of the way, it is time to actually begin attacking the 'plan'.
First, last time I checked, Court Proceedings at any level were matters of public record that could be reviewed by the pubic at any time. To impose the requirement that these proceedings are now broadcast live with the weak financing of $5/buy-in would create an undue burden on our judiciary.
Second, by bringing in cameras onto the proceeding concerning questions of law, there is now the question of possible comprise of the judiciary from three directions. First, by making court cases from keeping the judges busy with administering the broadcasting, since your plan didn't talk about who would actually run this pay-per-view network or on the fact that it could unfairly determine which cases the justices take up, since the question will now be what cases will bring in the most buy-ins. Finally, with the cameras on, the justices could become more worried about popularity, they could vote not based on the merits and law of the case, but rather on the thoughts of the public.
Third, no matter the possible level of education provided, if schools would have to pay money for each case, which you did not give an exception to in your plan, the likelihood that this would be used for educational is limited, especially since educational budgets getting so tight.
Fourth, concerning your interpretation of the Constitution the wishes of our forefathers, in his discussion of Televising and Broadcasting Trials, Paul J. Yesawich Jr. argued that the requirement of a public trial was created and satisfied at a time when television DID NOT EXIST and newspapers were fewer. I put the part of Television not existing in all caps since you seem to think Washington and Jefferson could imagine high speed audio/visual transmission at a time when the fastest news traveled was on horseback. Also, there have been established standards of limits on the freedom of the press and speech, such as during time of war the press' release of information is limited.
Now, for voters:
1) Pro went outside their own scope of the debate, making it unfair from the beginning on Opp.
2) Pro said they had brought a plan, but left out key requirements of the plan, such as Administration, Execution, and solvency of the plan. Without those you have no plan, but wishful thinking.
3) Court proceedings are already open to the public and have their records open to the public, thus requiring broadcasting is unneeded and an undue burden.
4) Cameras can compromise the judiciary by wasting their time with unneeded administration, not choosing cases based on merit, and not voting based on the law but on the public view.
5) The possible benefit to education would be negated by the fact that school budgets are already tight, and likely could not afford an additional cost.
6) The courts already fulfill the right of the accused to a public trial, and appeal proceedings have never been required to be public. Any change would require a constitutional amendment across the states and the US.
The courts have always had the privilege of deciding what is allowed in their courtroom, from what evidence is allowed to what testimony can be presented. This again remains in the hands of the courts and my opponent has not presented a viable reason for change. It is for these six reasons I urge you to vote for the Opposition.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by imabench 3 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||3||0|
Reasons for voting decision: con focused mostly on attacking what pro would do to televise Supreme Court hearings rather then actually give arguments about why they shouldnt be televised.... Even though this was a one round debate a lot of pro's points went unrefuted or were stronger then the con's counter arguments.
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.