This house would ban prisoners publishing accounts of their crimes
Debate Rounds (5)
This debate will be done in the style of a British Parliamentary debate.
To clarify round two will be the first speakers, round three the second speaker, round four the extension and round five will be the summations. Rebuttal should be included to some degree in each argument.
I would prefer if the opponent has some experience of BP debating but it is not necessary.
Thank you and I look forward to starting the debate.
First off, I would be glad to specify a few definitions for which we will look to not only in providing jurisdiction on the overall thrust of the debate, but also arguments as well, and hope PRO will allow them to stand, as following:
1> Ban: To prohibit, forbid, or bar; interdict 
2> Prisoner: A person deprived of liberty and kept under involuntary restraint, confinement, or custody 
3> Publish: To make publicly or generally known 
4> Account: An oral or written description of particular events or situations; narrative 
5> Crime: An action or an instance of negligence that is deemed injurious to the public welfare or morals or to the interests of the state and that is legally prohibited 
Now, as this round is merely acceptance, there remains a specification for which I am inquisitive of:
Concerning the structure of the debate itself, would you, as PRO, like to specify it more universally, both for readers' and judges' benefits, such as limiting it to a normal debate in which argument presentation, refutations, further refutations, and summation is the order? For the structure for which you have proposed, especially your specification for the third round is, if I may say, relatively vague. Do you mean by second speaker, to introduce a whole new argument, or merely going back over same points and strengthening the latter case? Thank you very much for your thoughtfulness, in advance.
Thank you so much, and I look to a most interesting debate and await any further responses and developments.
I see a problem in society and I believe that proposing this motion will solve it. The problem we see is that people who have been charged with a crime, any crime, who then seeks to publicise their account of the story out side of the British court where they were tried makes money out of a criminal act that caused pain and suffering to persons or their property. I will devote this round to showing why this is harmful to society from two main points.
Point one: suffering caused to victims and/or family of victim is unacceptable
Point two: the glorification of crime
My first point looks into the suffering of the victims of the(se) crime(s) committed by the prisoner publishing their story. Being the victim of a crime punishable by a jail sentence naturally comes with stress and harms that cause grievance to the victim and most are put at ease or gain a little more strength to cope knowing that the offender is serving out a jail sentence and justice is being served. However when a prisoner seeks to publish his/her story the victims are thrown into the spotlight once again and reminders of the crime are constantly around them with journalists and publishers coming to their house or phoning them asking to corroborate information or the like and when the story is published. With these reminders they cannot escape the crime and the memory of the fear is brought back again unnecessarily. Even though the offender is behind bars they still have the power to cause suffering to their victims and I see this as unacceptable. The state has a duty to protect its citizens hence why we punish criminals so why then do we allow them the luxury of being able to cause upset to the citizens we sought to protect. This is a harm to society because when this happens citizens lose faith in the way that we are trying to protect them. They see that it doesn't matter if they are in jail or not because prisoners are still able to cause this emotional harm to the victims when in jail. If people lose faith in the system they are less likely to be co-operative in helping to sentence the more serious offenders due to the belief that they are not protected even if the offender is in jail therefore giving due to the view that it is better to not get involved with the conviction even if the offender is dangerous because they feel unsafe rather than to aggravate the offender and suffer at their hand which they see can happen even if they are in jail. By not only sentencing the criminals but enforcing the core principles of jail, to be removed from society as punishment for a crime committed and to protect society until the offender is no longer deemed a danger, by making sure they are prevented form publishing a story and glorifying their crime we uphold our commitment to our citizens and show we are very serious about the punishments we give for crimes committed on our land. We protect our citizens, maintain the seriousness in which we view crimes and allow the victims of crime privacy and confidentiality to recover from the trauma of the crime.
My second point addresses glorification of the prisoners a crime and the unnecessary publicity that the criminal gets. This person has been sentenced to jail for a serious crime they have been convicted of by a court. They have taken away a persons positive right and have broken their side of the social contract. No one should be allowed to make money out this act. By publishing a story they are allowed to portray their crimes in such a way that can portray themselves to be victims of an unfair system where this has not been the case. Not only does this impact the views of the police and their puts social restrictions on them that can impact how they work in a negative way but it creates a situation where police and the law are less likely to take these claims seriously from other people charged with a crime. If this other person has been unfairly treated or is wrongly convicted the law are less likely to believe them due to so many other criminals making claims of bad treatment or being wrongfully convicted. This means that the right people are less likely to get the right help harming the image of the police and the law even more which this mechanism will go some way to putting an end to as they are now forced to make these claims through their lawyer meaning the claims are directly in the system and are not hampered by media publicity which can give unnecessary weight to unsupported claims. This brings me to my main point; the media. Newspapers and magazines are companies that sell stories and they have been known to twist stories or to add weight to unfounded claims to add more impact and get more readers. This distorts the facts and can blind the public form the truth, sparking unnecessary, angry views that are unfortunately based on unfounded opinion and hardly ever true facts. This publicity allows the prisoner a place under the spot light but not to portray their crime in a factual fashion but a way that gives them ten minutes of fame brought about at the cost of someone's suffering. Crime should not pay. This glorifies being a criminal more than something fictional seen on TV or read in book because it is real. The crime is real, the offender is real, the prison sentence is real and this makes this situation so much more dangerous. If a sort is said to be a true story, even if it is biased to the point that the facts are distorted, people are likely to believe it. This is harmful in this type of situation because of the bias and the effect of publicity in the media that I discussed earlier. The accounts are believed and pressure is put on the law where there shouldn't be and criminals are allowed the ten minutes of fame that they see even though it is causing harm to society and the victims of the crime. By proposing this motion we are saying, "no" to criminals that seek to earn from their conviction and we keep unnecessary pressure off the already pressured police while lessening the effect biased views keeping trials as fair as possible and making it easier for justice to be served where there has been a miscarriage of justice.
We must remember that the suffering of the victim is as real as the crime that the offenders seek to profit from. We must remember that the reopening of wounds from the pressure of being dragged under the scrutiny of the media by those that harmed them in the first place is an unnecessary stress and defeats the purpose of the core values of a prison sentence. It is our duty to protect our citizens and punish those that break their side of the social contract. It is our responsibility to take these crimes seriously and not allow criminals to abuse their right to freedom of speech at the cost of those already made their victims. It is our duty to stop this and for those reasons the motion that "this house would ban prisoners publishing accounts of their crimes" should be proposed.
Now, as he does not make any attempt to refute any of my definitions, we find it imminently clear, therefore, that they may stand for the context of this debate. However, Pro makes it clear that all arguments are entitled to consideration under British policies. As such, there remains a few issues that must be taken into consideration before we may continue this debate, and I will introduce them throughout my arguments and rebuttals.
Now as my opponent makes it obviously clear that all British policies may come into effect for the purpose of this debate, we find it imminent that, even by the intrinsic and inherent Constitutional policies imposed by the British parliament, freedom of speech is a categorical right that is entitled to any individual in its society.
By article 10 in the British constitution, the freedom of speech policy introduced and endorsed by the European Convention upholds the inherent and intrinsic right to freedom of publication and speech as long as it does not interfere majorly with government policies or cause treason or a wide context of riot.
As such, we find it crystalline clear and stolidly cut in stone that all prisoners retain the intrinsic categorical right to freedom of speech and publication so long as it does not completely interfere with government policies or uphold treason, for which, by the very concept and definition of account, opposes. When we take away, however, this categorical and intrinsic right to speech, we take away the very hierarchy of government and policies that provide the fundamental and foundational premises of life.
Prisoners, by the explicit resolution, as they give 'accounts' of their crimes, provide for only the publications of the facts of their crimes that claim objective status in a societal context. As my opponent makes no attempt to interfere with or even propose any other definitions, we can thus adhere with my definitions, by which the explicit phrasing of the definition provides for the grounds on which we can judge that the account will completely be factual in nature, and will not include the so proposed 'glorification' of crime.
Wherein denying such freedom of the press or speech would not only destroy the fundamental policies that make up the foundational structure and infrastructure of the government, but also eliminate all validity and certitude for all other government policies as well.
As I am limited in time, I would like to introduce the framework for which I will endorse and justify further and deeper in detail in the next round, specifically 'Oppression of Individualism'. I apologize for my limited time schedule, and thus await further developments and urge a CON vote for the present. Thank you.
I will start my argument with a bit of rebuttal towards the previous speech and using this rebuttal I will reinforce my previous points showing why they still stand. Then I will move to my substantive discussing credibility and accountability.
As my opponent says people of Britain have freedom of speech and are quite fond of it however as I had said in my first speech this is becoming an abuse of our right to freedom of speech. Prisoners have broken the social contract therefore they are removed from society and lose certain rights like the right to vote. I believe they should also lose their freedom of speech in relation to their crime. Prison is meant as a punishment not a platform for individuals to capitalise on suffering. We restrict our citizens everyday to up hold our protection of our citizens positive rights. Con's rather over dramatic vision that somehow our parliamentary infrastructure will disintegrate and the government loses credibility for implementing other restrictive policies is flawed and I will discuss it in more depth in my substantive.
I have no issue with the dictionary definitions provided by Con and I am assuming he is discussing definition 4 "account: an oral or written description of particular events or situations; narrative" when he attempts to damage my second point about the glorification of crime. This is a very nice dictionary definition but I tend to debate in terms of real life actions. However even if we go with Con's argument for the moment we see that my point still stands. So a black man breaks into a house with the intention to steal from the house. He has no job and is living off of benefits in a council flat. He has no intention of looking for a job and spends most of his money on alcohol. The house he broke into belongs to a wealthy, middle aged white couple. The house has a silent alarm and the police alerted and a male and female officer respond immediately. When they arrive at the house the man becomes aggressive and attempts to flee. The female officer uses her taser to subdue the thief who is overpowering her male colleague. The man is then arrested. In the bag of items the man had attempted to steal from the house the police found expensive jewellery, games consoles and a box of biscuits. The man publishes this statement independently of his lawyer:
"I broke into the house to steal because I do not have enough money to buy food. A white cop fired a taser gun at me. I have been arrested for breaking and entering a house that belonged to a rich, white couple. I believe I have been discriminated against because I am black and have no job."
All of this is true but it also gives a very biased view of the crime. Even if something is factually correct it can still lead situations where the crime is glorified or given legitimacy by the public who are subject to biased views exploited by the media. The type of accounts we get are public interviews or books or articles in newspapers/magazines. They will be based around fact however they will also be biased such as the nature of a personal account of a situation. It is the manipulation of the biased view that causes the harm and it is harmful enough for it to be banned.
On to my substantive now. Con believes that the Government will lose credibility by restricting prisoners freedom of speech. We actually see that the opposite will happen and the Government will gain credibility. Many people are affected by crimes and one of societies biggest concerns is reduction in crime and protection from crime. Many people believe that the government does not do enough to deal with these issues. This is where this motion comes in. The Government understands the problem that I pointed out in the first round that people don't feel protected even if the criminals are in prison because they can still manipulate things. The Government sees that it has a duty to keep their citizens safe. The Government sees that criminals can abuse their freedom of speech to bring further suffering to their victims. The Government has the power and the right to restrict prisoners freedom of speech when more good will come from it than harms which is what happens. When the Government is seen to take a harsher new on the situation and implement more safeguards for the public they are seen to be taking more interest in their primary concern of keeping their citizens safe and taking crime more seriously they gain respect. By allowing the facts to be manipulated to the benefit of the criminal prevents the trial from being overly influenced by already influential perceptions. It drags victims into the media spotlight causing them unwanted and unnecessary stress. It allows the media and the criminal to capitalise on crime and it allows the facts to be skewed by bias manipulating the public view. It is better for society for this right to be restricted and because prisoners have broken the social contract the Government has the right to restrict their rights when it is in societies best interests.
This brings me on to my second point of accountability. The law is now fully responsible for producing the full and unbiased account of the crime that took place and the court proceedings. All accountability now lies with the law. Why is this a good thing? Because the law is forced to take more care in the way crimes are handled. They are now under more pressure to get things right because it is now very easy to pinpoint who got it "wrong". Nothing will ever fully get rid of bias simply because it is human perception but this can lessen the effects. The law hands out the punishments and should have full accountability for the facts released to the public. This makes sure that hate crimes where can be properly dealt with in a way that is sensitive towards the victim and the families but still gives a very accurate account of the crime. It also gives the police space to analyse the evidence properly to determine whether possible hate crimes are actually hate crimes without the defendant pushing public views on the subject. The government has more accountability and therefore more public pressure for the right outcome not the most popular outcome due to interference caused by publications from the prisoner.
For the reasons that the victims must be protected, because the negative effects of the media will be lessened and more accountability is given to the Government this motion must be proposed. Thank you.
First off, the thrust of his argument towards my main constructive of the intrinsic right to freedom of speech is merely that it is often abused. Now, his justification for such an argument is merely that as such individuals have so blatantly violated the social contract by which we all abide, they lose the intrinsic right to speech.
However, looking in retrospective, the inherent right to freedom of speech, as proposed not only by the British parliament, but also as we find it on a social context, may and should only be taken away if it completely interferes with the infrastructure of the government and/or the safety of the general population. As such, we find that my opponent's assertion that 'individuals to capitalise on suffering' is completely invalid and unjustified.
The 'glorification' of crime, as PRO puts it, is contradicted by the definitions and very nature of the terms 'published' and 'account' in the explicit wording of the resolution itself. A published narrative about an event does not allow for the fanciful descriptions that are untrue and falsely composed if it is to be an account of an event or a crime. If I, for example, intended to publish a novel, on the other hand, would be adequately and sufficiently justified in my act if I were to provide flowery and false descriptions.
As such, and due to the very fact that a published account is exactly the opposite of the latter, we find imminently that it is absurd to presuppose or make the assumption that any type of glorification may occur in the publication process. Furthermore, as the government makes it clear in its endorsements that any form of speech that violates safety of the general population or infringing upon intrinsic rights of others may be banned, it becomes clear that such falsehoods of publications that my opponent proposes would never be published.
Since by the BoP exacted by the explicit wording of the resolution, my opponent has to justify and endorse all opposition of publishing accounts of crimes. He thus provides himself with the double bind in which his so called 'glorification', is, even if it is not just hypothetical and viable, for which I have already justified the contrary for, only testifies against a small aspect of the whole. He must justify the complete elimination of such publications, even if such glorification does not exist on a societal context, for which he fails to do, thus falling short of his BoP.
Now, my opponent's endorsement of the social contract, I am inclined to pronounce with all my charitable intentions, vague and invalid. A violation of a social contract, as by a prisoner when committing a crime, only provides for and gives leeway for the government to take away certain societal liberties as well as privileges for which are extraneous and positive rights that are given with certain obligations.
As such, my opponent's false example of 'voting' for prisoners is not only justified, but also provided for completely with the foundational fact that such privileges only come as a positive right, and may be taken away at the government's pleasure when a violation of the social contract ensues. On the contrary, there exists certain categorical societal rights and liberties that are not only intrinsic and inherent to an individual's life, but also to the infrastructure of a government, specifically the freedom to speech and others of such type.
Such rights provide us with a definitive model for which we can determine the welfare of the people, as well as to give to the population that right which is intrinsically theirs. By neglecting or failing to acknowledge just such a right, we are advocating for an infringement tantamount to death, as such categorical rights may only taken away under the severe circumstances of threat to the public safety. Indeed, as such freedom of speech in the case of publication of accounts of crimes does not provide for such, we find it obviously clear that my opponent's *social contract* argument may be disregarded and not considered for plausibility or certitude.
Indeed, my opponent, as PRO writes on to claim that I assert that the government will lose credibility. As such, I urge all individuals to look in retrospective at my case, and attempt to point out the exact point for which I claim the latter. Instead, we find that my argument rests upon the fact that the government's infrastructure and foundational principles will be shattered, not *credibility*, when certain societal virtues are denied, namely freedom of speech.
He not only straw mans my argument, distorting it to represent credibility and basing a refutation off of the latter, but also fails to refute any of the central points of my arguments, namely the categorical right to freedom of speech, as well as societal need. Indeed, he introduces a utilitarian view for his policies, and states that the government is justified in doing anything as long as it brings about more harm that good.
As such, we find immediately that such an argument is once again flawed, in that by failing to acknowledge such an intrinsic categorical right, we are not only neglecting to provide consideration for the general representation and welfare of the people, but also to expedite the amount of harm done on a societal context. No amount of government intervention, therefore, will serve to successfully mitigate the severity of its deprivation when neglecting its people the freedom of speech.
From the latter we thus find that in whole, my opponent provides us with an argument which bases itself off of the straw man fallacy when distorting my arguments, defending 'glorification' insufficiently when he provides no adequate justification that is actually viable or possible on a social and legal context, and introduces arguments such as the social contract for which we find to be invalid and absurd in composition.
As for my arguments, he fails to adequately refute my endorsement of the categorical intrinsic right, as well as my explicit arguments for the welfare of a government and the people, which are compromised to a huge degree by such deprivation of rights.
I apologize for the time constrictions on my schedule as well as real-life issues that prevented me from providing a whole argument in the past round, and will thus only provide judges and my opponent with a supplementary argument that is a subjunctive argument to the main endorsement of categorical rights.
*Oppression of Individualism*
Now, by oppression of individualism, I merely strive to achieve to justify the categorical right of freedom to speech, which will only serve as an impact analysis on a societal context.
When PRO so strongly advocates for the oppression of individualism for which our government may control the rights to freedom of speech and neglect to acknowledge such categorical rights, he is in turn endorsing the contradiction between a government and it's own policies. Indeed, individualism itself is what brings about the voice of the population, for which the government is not only dependant upon, but also imperative for our societal welfare to remain intact without compromise.
The freedom of speech, therefore, prevents such oppression of individualism, for which my opponent provides no adequate or sufficient justification against. Solvency on such a matter may include providing for laws in which certain specific regulations may be exacted in the latter case of publications of crimes, so that it may not cause harm to public safety, though it is highly unlikely, instead of my opponent's endorsement of complete eradication of such publications for prisoners.
As such, I urge a CON vote.
Before I begin my extension for my proposition case I'll start by apologising for misinterpreting your point and I'll adjust my rebuttal accordingly to the very best of my ability. Con's argues "that the government's infrastructure and foundational principles will be shattered" if we restrict prisoners freedom of speech. I would like some more in depth analysis on how this is the case because I believe it's a good point to bring up and I would like to rebut it correctly as I have failed to do so far however I will begin rebuttal here. Freedom of speech is a very important right I agree however at the moment I fail to see how this restriction is going to cause as much damage as you claim it will. We are restricting the right not removing it and I can see how it may seem counter intuitive but the freedom of speech is not an inalienable right. This means that the Government does have the power to restrict it or remove it where it sees fit to do so. I feel that it is pointless trying to justify this in a social context because the very nature of being a prisoner is to be removed from society. I don't believe we are restricting their freedom of speech that much anyway. They are not allowed to sell information about crimes they have committed because I see this as infringing upon the rights to privacy of the victims of those crimes committed and because your freedom of speech is not an inalienable right then the Government can do this.
I will use my previous argument as rebuttal to back up my social contract point. Freedom of speech is not an inalienable right because it can be taken away or given up. It is a respected right by those who keep their side of the social contract as part of a democracy. When someone breaks the social contract you are removed from society and your views are not represented in the democracy as highlighted by the government from removing prisoners from the voting roll. Your expression in politics is not regarded as valid because of the disregard for the social contract and that is part of your freedom of speech therefore it is not a false example and my argument may NOT "be disregarded".
This strongly relates to my rebuttal for con's point about "oppression of individualism" so I will make this my first substantive case. I'd like to point out that this debate is about a change in policies since I am arguing as the British Government therefore there is no "contradiction between a government and it's own policies". I believe that this new policy I am proposing should be passed and that can't simply be rebutted by saying it contradicts the policies it is going to replace (in terms of this debate). I agree with the point you make when you say "individualism itself is what brings about the voice of the population, for which the government is not only dependant upon, but also imperative for our societal welfare to remain intact without compromise" but I can prove however that this point falls on my side of the table (pro). I'd like to reinstate that the nature of being a prisoner is that you and your political opinions are removed from society to indeed stop the compromise of our societal welfare. As the government I am highlighting another problem which I feel is causing a harm to this very same societal welfare. The harm being that prisoners are allowed to sell information about their crimes without any respect for their victims. Crime becomes an even easier way to make a living and what we see is so bad about this is that the bigger the crime the more it can be sold for because of the increase in media attention. Hence the glorification of crime. (Apologies for not being able to explain it better sooner.) This means that "bigger" criminals would care less about going to prison because they can make money from it as well as giving extra grief to their victims. Prison is just a mere inconvenience now. When the government stops this easy money game it only affects those who are willing to use it i.e. "big" criminals, fame seekers or martyrs. These three types of criminals damage society and can cause more damage when they are given this platform to work on in our own legal system. Most criminals will not be affected by this because most criminals don't chose to sell information about their crimes but some do and it's these types of criminals that are willing to sell the information that cause the harm which can be stopped by proposing this motion. By inciting this extra media attention on the victims of the crimes the criminals oppress them even though the victims are usually still within the grounds of the social contract and as my opponent says should be as far as possible free from oppression. So since freedom of speech is not an inalienable right the government has full legitimacy to act and restrict the prisoner's freedom of speech.
On to my second substantive argument, media restrictions, which I touched on briefly before but I will go into far more detail here. The police are restricted in the information they can give to the public in order for a fair trial to be held and the victims respected. The media looses respect for this when some individuals are tempted to buy information off of the criminal or the victim or both for the sake of a better story. In Britain we do not allow cameras inside our courts because we find it inappropriate for legal cases to be treated as a show room. Why then do we allow this lack of respect from the media to continue. Media ethics are under fire because they crossed too many boundaries. These boundaries were crossed because of lack from the media towards peoples privacy and a lack of respect towards our legal system. By also criminalizing acts which seek to extract information about cases for the inept of publication the government imposes restrictions on the media reinstating the serious nature of crime and the need for the media to respect our citizens. I would like to quote myself here because although this point was raised before I believe it is far better suited here. "When the Government is seen to take a harsher new on the situation and implement more safeguards for the public they are seen to be taking more interest in their primary concern of keeping their citizens safe and taking crime more seriously they gain respect. By allowing the facts to be manipulated to the benefit of the criminal prevents the trial from being overly influenced by already influential perceptions. It drags victims into the media spotlight causing them unwanted and unnecessary stress. It allows the media and the criminal to capitalise on crime and it allows the facts to be skewed by bias manipulating the public view." This means that the Government now also has pressure from the media along with a natural pressure from the public to give accurate information while still being respectful towards the victims and to bring about the truest course of justice since there is now less biased public perspective. The government now has more of an incentive to insure the out come is the right one not the most popular. Restricting media coverage can help combat the fuelling of stigmas that result in hate crimes. The media instinctively knows these types of crimes as big sellers and they are only big sellers because they can exploit the information to fuel as much heated discussion about the crime as possible. When the media is being restricted and their ethics are under scrutiny they are more likely to respect the police response which is as unbiased as possible then unnecessary fuelling of hatred is reduced. The more the Government can do to restrict media responses that fuel hate crimes the easier it will be to combat the stigmas which are at the root of these crimes which also stops groups of people being oppressed allowing individualism and benefiting society.
Now, what I have stated was merely to reinforce the fact that a breakdown and infringement of a government's own policies by itself would not only take away meaning from the objective fact that which is law, but also to encourage individuals to disregard the importance of basic societal virtues and values. In just such a way, I refer to the breaking down of the infrastructure of the government, merely to give a vivid example of the impact of such violations of societal values. "I" am not claiming that it will cause the extreme damage that you assume, merely that the violation of such an intrinsic natural right that is crucial and central to policies and the infrastructure of a strong and respectful government is irreversible and WILL definitely cause a negative degradation of societal values.
Now, in much the same context, my opponent's only argument against this as a form of refutation is merely to assert that the government has the *ability* and *power* to restrict such a right, and that they should do so in the context of this resolution. On the contrary, however, my opponent gives absolutely NO sufficient justification for such an argument, merely stating that prisoners SHOULD be removed from society and the very influence of the account of their crimes would violate privacy of victims.
First off, I would like to immediately point out that it is exactly the fact that the government has such a power that our awareness for such oppression must be prioritized. It remains as an obvious objective fact that the only terms on which the government may exercise such an infringing power would be in the case of imminent and immediate threat to our social community, for which my opponent makes *NO* attempt to refute.
As such, we find that there remains no reason or justification for the government to take away the intrinsic right to freedom of speech in the context of this resolution, for my opponent fails utterly to refute the basic foundational guidelines for which the government actually places jurisdiction upon. His assertions of glorification as well as violation of privacy has no relevance to the safety of our social community as a whole, and can obviously be ascertained to be invalid.
Now, he writes further concerning the distortion of facts by the mass media. Indeed, however, I would like to point out that the explicit wording of the resolution, as in "publish" accounts of their crimes, that I have brought up numerous instances in my rebuttals, does not allow for the so called 'glorification' of crime as he puts it. Now, the publication of the account of a crime will encompass the range of objective facts that occurred in the past. In no way does such a publication, as I have explained, allow for the subjective glorification of crimes for which it provides a barrier to society.
He writes about "big" criminals, and the money reaped from the publication of crime, and yet provides no warrant or substantial evidence for such an interesting claim. Furthermore, we find that such an argument is invalid on social grounds, on which the monetary or financial gain reaped by individuals in prison are not directly received by them for a plethora of reasons. The legal community may very well liquidize all funds and any further financial gain made by the individual who has committed a crime, and even if not so, the financial gain made by such a criminal can only be argued with by subjective ethical grounds, but with no tangible impact that allows us to believe such a claim is in any way true.
The media, then, is in much the same way limited by the explicit wording of the resolution itself as well. If an account of a crime were to be published and broadcasted or spread by means of the media, then we would, by the very nature and definition of the terms in the resolution, take it that there would only exist accurate accounts of occurrences. The purposeful distortion of facts by the mass media is irrelevant to the context of this resolution, for it would be absurd to hypothesize about an event for which the likelihood is miniscule, if not impossible, due to legal restrictions.
The publication of such accounts of crimes by the criminals themselves may also serve as a substantial way for individuals to inform our social community of the range of crimes committed, and educate as well concerning the way that our legal system has proposed treatment of such individuals for the welfare of our society. It will not only serve as a fundamental way to further the deterrance of crime, but also to allow for the informative means by which all individuals may learn the consequences and retribution that our society gives to the wide range of crimes that have been committed.
Now, finding that my opponent fails to in any way testify against or refute my arguments of the Constitutional rights that are categorical and imperative in nature as well as the oppression of individualism for which forms the grounds for neglect of societal virtues and development, there remain really no points or arguments that she has refuted adequately on my part. Due to the lack of time, as I am having a few issues in my life at the moment, I apologize sincerely for my short arguments and hope to refer to them and expand in the next speech. Looking to such a point of consideration, I thank my opponent and await further developments.
Fluer forfeited this round.
As such, my arguments may be extended, and thus I urge strongly a CON vote for the forfeiture of arguments, if not only for conduct. Thank you.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by cameronl35 5 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:||0||1|
Reasons for voting decision: FF
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.