The Instigator
lovedebate
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Domino
Pro (for)
Winning
18 Points

in the united states, the principle of jury nullificatin is a just check on the government

Do you like this debate?NoYes-1
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 5 votes the winner is...
Domino
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/12/2010 Category: Politics
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,696 times Debate No: 11164
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (10)
Votes (5)

 

lovedebate

Con

thanks to whomever accepts this case, lets keep it in traditional ld format okay,
i will post cross ex as soon as you post your aff constructive!!!
Domino

Pro

In affirmation to the resolution, I believe that jury nullification is most definitely a just check on government.

First, allow me to set some definitions out to avoid any confusion in that aspect: 1) jury nullification- The process in which the jury may override a "guilty" charge if they deem the law by which he was decreed guilty morally unacceptable or unjust. 2) just- Something that is right, and guided by reason and fairness.

This argument is based in the values of morality and human well being.

My contentions are as follows: 1) It is the right and duty of the people to keep the government in check 2) One man placed in such power is easily corrupted 3) A judge's hands are tied 4)Laws themselves are frequently wrong or unjust, thereby needing something to stop them in action

First Contention: It is the right and duty of the people to keep government in check
It is and always has been the duty of the American populace to keep their government in check so as to prevent tyranny and injustice. The founding fathers stated this clearly in the Declaration of Independence, "when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government". In political philosophy this appears a lot, and is called "the Right of Revolution". Perhaps this is believed to be an extreme statement, but I am sure that my opponent can understand my meaning. In a more succinct explanation, it is our job as the citizens of this nation to keep our government in line. What better way to handle this than in the court room where some of the most injustices are done? We only have to look back in history to see that the court room is not a haven that is free of the trouble of injustice and false judgment. Many times in history it has been a place of bribery and false accusations. That is simple fact. You are putting the life of one man into another man's hands and praying that he is correct in his decision.

Second Contention: One man is easily corrupted
Putting one man in such a high position of infallibility is a dangerous decision. You are putting that one man in charge of hundreds of people's lives. Under political and social pressure alone, it is easy to break and turn away from justice. Under that type of pressure, it is easy for a judge to interpret a law in a way that a man in a calmer situation wouldn't have done. With a jury, they're there for one case, one time. They don't have to worry about being chased down by the media or anything like that. They simply have to worry about their opinion on the matter at hand. Also, with a judge, you have one person and he may or may not be a good one, but in a jury, you have a larger amount of people with less of a chance for them all to be corrupt.

Third Contention: A judge's hands are tied
A judge may know a law is wrong, but if the legislature passed it then he must comply. Whether the law itself is fair or not, the judge has to follow through with it to an extent. He may lessen the punishment or interpret it differently, but he must follow it. A jury is the loophole to save the judge from sending a good person to prison. The jury is free to do what they think is right, without anything binding them to an immoral law. A judge does not have the luxury to judge only on morality and fairness, which brings me to my next and final point.

Fourth Contention: Laws aren't always fair
Laws are not always fair nor are they always right. Look back at the Alien and Sedition Acts, there were many good people saved from those laws by jury nullification. There have been many laws in the past discriminating against African Americans, women, etc. and in a good number of cases the people charged guilty were saved by the jury. It is foolish to think that suddenly our government is perfect and totally infallible. Why should we think that? In history, the government becomes MORE corrupt after time, it doesn't become less corrupt. So there's no reason to think that we're above making unfair laws today, just as we did yesterday. We have not reached any level of perfection or infallibility. We are human and, as is human nature, we make mistakes and perform injustice. Our government is not free of these human faults by any stretch of the imagination.
Debate Round No. 1
lovedebate

Con

i will post cross examination and post my negative constructive when my opponent responds.

do you believe that if someone commits a crime that they should not be punished?

would you say that it is the duty of the government to keep the people in check?

it is in fact the jury that makes the decision of the veridict, not the judge, correct?

can you give atleast two examples of current laws in the us that are wrong or unjust?

are the government not made up of the american people?

thanks for accepting this debate!!!
Domino

Pro

"do you believe that if someone commits a crime that they should not be punished?"

Define crime, because I am almost certain our definitions are not the same.

"would you say that it is the duty of the government to keep the people in check?"

No I would not. For the government (a small group compared to the general public) to control the populace would cause our government to be a type of oligarchy. In a way the people keep themselves in check by making local laws and by keeping a sense of justice in a community. An anarchist community survives in a similar way by the will of the people to live in a just community. Because of this, I do not believe it is necessary to keep the people in check, and if I do not believe it is needed, then by proxy I do not believe it is their job. On a different note, the people do not really hold enough power to have a need to be kept in check. They vote, but through the dispersal of abilities the individual loses most destructive power, unlike government officials who have been given extreme amounts of harmful capabilities. With the amount of power they have and the amount of officials, they have a stronger power with more of a need to be kept "in check". I am realizing, now that I myself have used the term "in check", that it is a term mildly depending on definition. My apologies for not realizing it on my part.

"it is in fact the jury that makes the decision of the verdict, not the judge, correct?"

Yes it is the jury. They make the final decision. I have nothing more to say to that.

"can you give atleast two examples of current laws in the us that are wrong or unjust?"

Alright. First I have to wonder if we are only talking about laws, or if we are talking about precepts as well. For instance there is the precept that income tax is required of a person, though no where in any book of law is it written that we must pay income tax. I invite you to look for yourself if you do not believe me. This is a precept though, but you can still be put in prison just as easily for it. There's wiretapping which leads into "thought crime". That's an interesting one. President Bush was the first to really push this topic. In short, if they suspect you may be thinking of committing a crime, then they can charge you. There's one law about to be passed here in Oklahoma that states that if a minor dies from alcohol abuse on your property, you are then charged with life in prison under the assumption that you are guilty of murder until you can prove yourself innocent. Is it to be believed that you are now guilty until proven innocent? I hardly think that seems accurate. One other question to get this straight, do you want laws affecting the individual, or laws affecting a group, federal laws, or state laws? My main point of confusion goes back to my original question of, do you want precepts, or do you want legitimate laws. If you could please clarify this, then I would be more than happy to respond with an appropriate answer.

"are the government not made up of the american people?"

Your last question strikes me as being a bit open ended, but I will do my best to explain my answer. Though our government, in principle, is designed to be controlled by the people, it isn't quite so today. Referring back to my statement on how corporations and lobbyists are considered as one person. This removes the individual right of the people making up the corporation. Also take a look at campaign finance reform. An individual can only give a certain amount of money to a candidate while a corporation can give far more. So the corporation has more power than the individual. Therefor I would almost say that the government is made up of corporations and groups, which are made of people. Though these are made up of the people, it is impossible for the individual to be entirely represented, just as it is impossible to represent every citizen simply because of the ration between citizens and reps. So, in a way, the government is made up of the people, but in another way it is not. Things in the government have been done without the people's knowledge as well, so the government currently is not what the people necessarily intended, so because of that alone the government isn't made up purely of the people's ideas. I apologize for rambling, but I believe it was all relevant.
I'm almost sure my answers will not satisfy you. I wrote them too quickly and didn't have a chance to explain them as thoroughly as I'd like for lack of time. I'm very sorry for that.
Debate Round No. 2
lovedebate

Con

crime is an action against the law.
okay you agree that the jury make the final decision but alot of your argument is about how it is unjust to allow the decision to fall into the hands of the judge, the judge doesnot make the decision, the jury do.
i am infact discussing LAWS. and that breaking them is a crime. do you not agree?
for example, it is against the law to kill someone, that is a crime and entails punishment.
it is the peoples choice to be in the government by doing so they know what it entails.

constructive:
vp: justice
c: it is the jurys responsibility to declare someone who is proven to be guilty to be so, to judge the facts and the law.
use the scenario of a murder case, the defendant has evidence against him or her and there was a witness to the crime
the judge is convinced that this person is guilty but the jury nullify the case . now every thing could be okay, however majority chance is that when you let this person go that they will commit crime over and over, are you just going to keep nullifying the case?
think of the victims family of his kids who will have to grow up without a parent.
jury nullification is a danger to society!!!
i guess what i am trying to say is that it is a just check on the people for jury nullification to be eradicated.

opponents case:

yeah the government should be kept in check but jury nullification is not the act to use to do so.
the us government is made up of american citizens so you say that it is the duty of people to keep other people in check, i agree but the people who go into the government have that choice, and if it is thepeoples job to keep the government in line then how are the people to be kept in line?

You are putting the life of one man into another man's hands and praying that he is correct in his decision.

trial by jury is a just way of deciding the verdict. and the judge doesnot make the decision
Domino

Pro

Okay then. Here is where our definitions differ; I believe a crime to be something against the law that inflicts mental, physical, or emotional trauma on another person (or animal too, I suppose), or on the person's property. You believe it to be doing anything against the law. You see, I wouldn't consider self-abusive actions to be a crime. For instance, if there's a guy sitting in his room getting high, I figure that to be his own business, just as if you're shooting up heroine or anything else. I do not believe this to be something truly deserving a prison sentence (since what they're doing is as much of a punishment as anything) unless they are hurting someone else (ex: bad influence to their children, dealing drugs, hurting neighbors, driving under the influence of a drug, etc, etc). As I said though, I most certainly agree that if a person has been infallibly proved of committing a crime like murder or rape that he or she should be punished.

"alot of your argument is about how it is unjust to allow the decision to fall into the hands of the judge, the judge doesnot make the decision, the jury do."

I'm aware that the judge doesn't make the decision and the jury does. That would be why I am in the affirmative position of this resolution. I'm arguing why it is just to have jury nullification, and unjust not to. Therefor, yes, a lot of my argument is based on the fact that it is unjust to leave all power to the judge, because I'm attempting to prove my point that jury nullification is just, and trying to say why lacking it is unjust. I'm sorry if I didn't make that very clear.

"use the scenario of a murder case, the defendant has evidence against him or her and there was a witness to the crime the judge is convinced that this person is guilty but the jury nullify the case ."

You give no back up for this murder scenario. Jury nullification isn't used for something like this, it's used in cases where the law itself is questioned. I suppose you could be thinking of something like the O.J. Simpson case, in which the jury ruled "not guilty", but that wasn't jury nullification, that was simply a bad jury ruling. There is a difference. A jury ruling is based more on the infallible facts of the case, like yes this man did murder his neighbor, while jury nullification is used in a case where them law is thought to be unfair by the jury like, this man didn't pay his income tax. Very different. Please give me an actual case in which jury nullification has been used to set a murderer free over and over again.

"now every thing could be okay, however majority chance is that when you let this person go that they will commit crime over and over, are you just going to keep nullifying the case?"

Also, do you realize that even on the off chance that a murder case was nullified, and the same man came back to the same court, that the chances of them nullifying it over and over, every time they committed the crime is absurd? A jury is made up of common, everyday people. You find me one common, everyday person who would want to set a convicted murderer or rapist free. Then find me a group of them, a big enough group to make up the majority of the jury. I can guarantee that you are going to have an exponentially hard time doing this. And to then find an equally rare group of people for each murder case that the same man is charged with, so that he may be set free time and time again. It's so highly implausible that I don't believe that it really supports your statement of jury nullification being a danger to society.

"yeah the government should be kept in check but jury nullification is not the act to use to do so."

Alright, if jury nullification isn't a way to keep the government in check, then what do you propose? Why is it not a way to keep the government in check, and what is a better way to do this?

"if it is thepeoples job to keep the government in line then how are the people to be kept in line?"

I think that I already kind of answered that question in your cross examination, but I'll answer it again. The people make local laws, and try and keep their community safe since they have to live there. No one wants to live in a dangerous, scary place, so citizens are going to try and keep each other in line simply to lead secure, comfortable lives. Through the laws they make, and this want for a safe community, the people keep the people in line, just as the people keep the government in line. I'm not certain that I fully understand the question you presented me with though.
Debate Round No. 3
lovedebate

Con

can you quote a source for your definition of crime or is this :"crime to be something against the law that inflicts mental, physical, or emotional trauma on another person (or animal too, I suppose), or on the person's property. "
just your belifes? because according to oxford, the definition of crime is : " An act committed or omitted in violation of a law forbidding or commanding it and for which punishment is imposed upon conviction", that is my definition of crime ,different from mine, no doubt. and it doesnt necessarily have to be a prison sentence, in some cases it is a mear fine.
this point, makes no sence, i am aware that you are in affirmation of jury nullification, but since the jury do make the decision and not the judge jury nullification is a useless act : "I'm aware that the judge doesn't make the decision and the jury does. That would be why I am in the affirmative position of this resolution. I'm arguing why it is just to have jury nullification, and unjust not to. Therefor, yes, a lot of my argument is based on the fact that it is unjust to leave all power to the judge, because I'm attempting to prove my point that jury nullification is just, and trying to say why lacking it is unjust. I'm sorry if I didn't make that very clear"
" Jury nullification isn't used for something like this, it's used in cases where the law itself is questioned. I suppose you could be thinking of something like the O.J. Simpson case, in which the jury ruled "not guilty", but that wasn't jury nullification, that was simply a bad jury ruling. There is a difference" really, can you back this point up, yes i understand the oj simpson case, but the resolution nor any of the sites that i have checked state any limit to how jury nullification can be used.
as for this point, i already explained that if some one commits a crime that they deserve to be punished, their case should not have been nullified in the first place. "Also, do you realize that even on the off chance that a murder case was nullified, and the same man came back to the same court, that the chances of them nullifying it over and over, every time they committed the crime is absurd? A jury is made up of common, everyday people. You find me one common, everyday person who would want to set a convicted murderer or rapist free. Then find me a group of them, a big enough group to make up the majority of the jury. I can guarantee that you are going to have an exponentially hard time doing this. And to then find an equally rare group of people for each murder case that the same man is charged with, so that he may be set free time and time again. It's so highly implausible that I don't believe that it really supports your statement of jury nullification being a danger to society."
and your point about it not being a danger to society, if harm is caused by it then it is a danger to society, and using the scenario that i used then those two people died didnt they?
what does keeping the government in check even mean? jury nullification would be keeping the judge in check, not the government.
Domino

Pro

"can you quote a source for your definition of crime or is this: "crime to be something against the law that inflicts mental, physical, or emotional trauma on another person (or animal too, I suppose), or on the person's property" just your belifes?"

It's a belief with a bit of factual backup, but I did say "I believe". I believe if you have a law that is wrong, then to force the people to it is unjust, and (ironically) unlawful. The definition from Princeton (and the one I usually go with) is "an act punishable by law; usually considered an evil act". That is the definition I use.

"since the jury do make the decision and not the judge jury nullification is a useless act"

If you took jury nullification away from the jury, then you would be taking away their right to truly have the final verdict. If they are not allowed to go against the ruling on something that they find morally wrong or unacceptable, then what is the real point of having a jury? They still have the final verdict, but they are bound by the same problem the judge is bound by. Like I said earlier in the debate, a judge may know a law to be wrong, but he still has to bend to what that law says. The jury is the way out of this and if you take that away, then you are taking away any possible escape from an unjust law. Therefor, it is not a useless act, because it allows the jury, the defendant, and the judge a possible loophole, so to say, out of a wrong law.

"the resolution nor any of the sites that I have checked state any limit to how jury nullification can be used."

There really is no stated limit, but there is the definition of what is considered to be jury nullification, which is, a decision by the jury to acquit a defendant who has violated a law that the jury believes is unjust or wrong. So, it isn't going to be considered to be jury nullification if the jury went against the judge's ruling on a murder case because, it wasn't that they disagreed with the law, they disagreed with the ruling. The judge may say that we have fact A, fact B, and fact C proving that Miss Valerie murdered her husband. Perhaps fact A is the motive or something, and the jury doesn't believe it to be a very good motive. Perhaps fact B is that her fingerprints were on the gun that killed Mr. John, but the jury believes that they are just from when she picked the gun up after finding it next to the body. And say that fact C is that Miss Valerie says she was in the shower when it happened, but their wasn't any water on the floor around the body, and the jury finds this to be irrelevant since the shower is far from where the body was, and the carpeting would have soaked it up. They aren't disagreeing on the fact that murder is wrong, they just don't believe she committed an act of murder. Jury nullification is when the jury believes that the person did go against the law, but the jury doesn't believe it to be a law that is right, and the defendant does not deserve to be punished. I suppose there could be a case where someone murdered someone, and the jury believes they did, but, unlike the judge, they don't believe they should be punished. Maybe they believe that their reason for murder was just, and in self-defense, while the judge, for some reason, does not. Or perhaps they believe that the defendant may have been under the influence of an outside pressure, or a type of temporary insanity. Or maybe they see something that the judge has overlooked in the case that proves the defendant not guilty. So, there's not so much a limit, as definition for what is considered to be jury nullification.

"and your point about it not being a danger to society, if harm is caused by it then it is a danger to society, and using that scenario that I used then those two people died didnt they?"

I've already said that I don't find your scenario to be very logical, nor do I find it a good example of jury nullification at all. Therefor, I don't believe you have really shown me the harm caused by it, which doesn't give me a reason to believe it is a danger to society.

"what does keeping the government in check even mean?"

Haha. I was thinking that myself earlier on. Both of us have used the term, but neither of us have said what it means. I suppose that it means to keep the government from gaining to much power, becoming oppressive, or growing tyrannical.

"jury nullification would be keeping the judge in check, not the government"

Like I've said over and over, what really controls the judge is the law, which (if we are talking a law on the federal level) is passed by the government. If you take jury nullification away, and the government has passed an unjust law, then the judge must abide by it, and there is nothing stopping that law. Therefor, the government has power over that judge, and nothing is there to stop that law, allowing the government to get away with any law they can manage to pass. Jury nullification keeps the government in check, because in the most essential way, the judge is representing the government since they have the authority over him or her.
Debate Round No. 4
lovedebate

Con

beliefs arent exactly valid in this debate, ld is a semantics debate not a beliefs debate, i chose a side and i back it up with my own definitions and argument.

It's a belief with a bit of factual backup, but I did say "I believe". I believe if you have a law that is wrong, then to force the people to it is unjust, and (ironically) unlawful

well so is getting high in ones bedroom and drinking in public, but that is beside, and i donot know that there are currently any wrong laws.

"morally wrong or unacceptable" murder, rape, stealing, and any other violation of the law is morally wrong and unacceptable!!!
if you commit a crime then there is punishment and if convicted you are ablle to appeal later on, but jury nullification
is "morally wrong or unacceptable" .

okay i understand circumstantial evidence, and if evidence doesnt necessarily prove a person to be guilty then the person should not be declared guilty inthe first place but if persay there was a witness to the crime (see scenario)
then this person has been proven guilty and there should be no way to get out of it (jury nullification)

i can understand not wanting the government to become like hitler or whatever, but the government to some extent need to ensure that the people are kept in check just as the government is.
what really controls the judge is the law, which (if we are talking a law on the federal level) is passed by the government. If you take jury nullification away, and the government has passed an unjust law, then the judge must abide by it, and there is nothing stopping that law. Therefor, the government has power over that judge, and nothing is there to stop that law, allowing the government to get away with any law they can manage to pass. Jury nullification keeps the government in check, because in the most essential way, the judge is representing the government since they have the authority over him or her."

i still am not convinced in any way that jury nullification is just, so how would it bu unjust to take it away?
democracy means government by the people, everyone in congress and or senate that pass laws are in fact people, americans, to be more exact, these people are put in senate by us to make the decisions for us, there for it is whatever they think is best, because we put them where they are in their position of power so if they pardon me , mess up then it is no doubt the fault of the american voters.

i think i a, now supposed to present voter issues
i only have one big one and that is that the opponent never has proven that jury nullification is a good thing.
i think that this is my last rebuttal so i ask you all to vote negative, and thanks to my opponent for debating this case with me.
"
Domino

Pro

"beliefs arent exactly valid in this debate"

I'm aware, I apologize, and, in the end, did I not give you my definition?

"i donot know that there are currently any wrong laws."

Fine then. No unjust laws right? Think of this, in certain states if, say, a woman's boyfriend is making meth, and she really has no idea of the fact that he's making it, she will still get thrown in prison. It's the law though, so it must be just, right? I mean, she obviously has to be lying, so why listen to her when it's not going to get anything done anyways.
Here's a similar case for you, a woman's grandson is living with her, since the boy's mother is going through college. The mother comes home to visit her son, and brings her boyfriend along. The boy's grandma says that it's alright for the couple to stay in the little trailer out front, so they do. Keep in mind that the grandmother never gave the child back to his mother, since the trailer was too small with just them inside. A month later, the couple is busted for cooking up meth. The police take the child away, even though the grandmother never was aware of her daughters crime, and never let the boy out of the main house. The boy is three years old, and is thrown into a couple different foster homes for the next two months. When the grandmother can finally get the boy back, irreversible trauma has been done from separation anxiety and the sheer shock of being taken away from the person who cared for him, by complete strangers.
Keep in mind that the USA Also puts more people in prison than almost any other country. Well that's just because we're so just here, right? We're getting all those murderers and wife beaters out of the system. Wrong. The majority of our prison sentences are from drug charges (mostly marijuana, or other similar drugs) or tax related problems. As I've said, income tax is not actually supposed to be a mandatory tax. It's a voluntary tax, that you go to prison for not paying. But that's justice for you. We also have one of the highest numbers of children in state custody, and the biggest amount of these are from cases where one parent was doing drugs and the other may not have even known.
Federal laws overriding state laws. That isn't how it's supposed to be, correct? There was one infamous case in which, an elderly woman of very slight build and was living in California. She had a prescription for medical marijuana and, as we know, this is allowed in the state of California. She had the prescription, and hadn't even left her house with large amounts of it. The police came (to her home), tazed her, and she was charged guilty under a federal law. Think of it, you are told that you can have this for your pain, and you will not be prosecuted by the state, but they can't stop federal agents from doing what they want to you. If that isn't a sign of things getting a bit out of hand then I don't know what is.
There is a similar situation with a law in Texas. There is a state law that lets you have a gun in Texas, if it was Texas-made, without having it under state mandates. Once again, federal law attempts to override this.
I believe that I have disproved your belief that there are no unjust laws.

okay i understand circumstantial evidence, and if evidence doesnt necessarily prove a person to be guilty then the person should not be declared guilty inthe first place but if persay there was a witness to the crime (see scenario)
then this person has been proven guilty and there should be no way to get out of it (jury nullification)
I've said this a few times, but I'll say it again. Your given "scenario" is illogical, and not once have you given me any backup for why a jury would seemingly randomly nullify a murder case like what happened in the scenario. Groups of people don't just sit there and say, "Ya know what, I don't feel very recognized, so I'm gonna nullify a murder case!" That is not what is done. I need at least one piece of evidence to even believe that something as outrageous as your scenario could occur. Without that I'm just left with some serious holes in my image of this case. For instance, why would the jury nullify something like this murder case which is so obviously wrong? No one is going to question that the law against murder is just and true, so they wouldn't be going against it because of moral issues. Therefor, it isn't keeping in tune with the definition of jury nullification, which is a decision by the jury to acquit a defendant who has violated a law that the jury believes is unjust or wrong. So, in this hypothetical scenario, would it even really be considered jury nullification? You tell me to back my arguments up with facts, and I certainly agree that I should, and am very sorry for the times I haven't done so. I ask you to back your argument up with real cases, or at least semi-plausible/ explainable ones, instead of a random scenario, with no motive, no explanation, and no real firm backing.

"i can understand not wanting the government to become like hitler or whatever, but the government to some extent need to ensure that the people are kept just as the government is."

And you believe this to be accomplished through jury nullification? Aside from taking away the main purpose of having a jury, I don't see that it really keeps people in check. How do you want to keep them in check? What do you want to keep them from doing? You aren't giving anything to the argument, you're just making a statement with seemingly no purpose (mainly since its just a statement without any type of support to push it).

In that same thinking then, a dictatorship is governed by the people, since that dictator is a person. When they say "governed by the people", they mean to say that it is governed by the general public. I've already covered the fact that the populace can't be fully represented in today's world, because of a variety of factors (refer back to my previous arguments). And on the other hand, say they act differently during voting than they do in office. Is that the voters fault? A person's mistake is only that persons fault, you can't blame it on the people who chose him or her. So, say that the person does err, should the people who put him or her there not be allowed to try and fix the mistake? So are the voters just forced to succumb to this person's mistake because they voted, and they made there bed, so they should lie in it? Shouldn't they be allowed to correct the mistakes if able to?

So I suppose it's time to wrap this up! I would first like to thank my opponent for debating with me, taking this matter seriously, and putting forth some good, and interesting points.
And my last conclusive points:
My opponent may not believe that I have proved jury nullification to be good (I suppose it is your job to decide that), but the opponent has never proved it wrong either.
The murder scenario that my opponents case was mostly based off of was illogical, and she refused to give me any example of a real case or elaborate any further. Therefor, I believe that her main argument is invalid, not proving her stance on the resolution. Her main point being left unproved, I believe that her argument has been rendered null and void.
Lastly, thank you to everyone who has read this, and to the voters, I hope that you vote for whoever did the best, whether it be negative, or affirmative!
Debate Round No. 5
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by lovedebate 7 years ago
lovedebate
i am not going to vote for myself because it is not right so if the opponent wins then good job to her
Posted by alto2osu 7 years ago
alto2osu
As an LD coach, I usually look for these specifically because I enjoy reading LD-style debate so much, but I have to say, this is, as a good friend of mine who sent this link to me put it, a train wreck. The Pro has no recognizable standards, his 1 isn't an offensive reason to vote affirmative, and doesn't bother to card or warrant any of his other arguments. The Con doesn't actually have a case. The Con has standards (sort of-- that's so not a real criterion at all), but no contentions. So, we are weighing justice as a product of the Con's advocacy, but the Con doesn't really have an advocacy, so...

Since the only way to award a double loss on this site is to remain tied when I vote, you have my RFD.
Posted by alto2osu 7 years ago
alto2osu
Wow...I never noticed that "nullification" was misspelled in the resolution. Does no one proofread things before finalizing them anymore?
Posted by lovedebate 7 years ago
lovedebate
i forgot to space that, "whomever" oops
Posted by lovedebate 7 years ago
lovedebate
okay, i think thatwhomever is right.
thanks nails for the help, i appreciate that
yeah, im sure about cross ex.
lets forget that sentence okay
if anyone has any questions about my case please ask them here in comments!
Posted by alto2osu 7 years ago
alto2osu
This sentence is a little bit tricky, since "whomever" is followed by what appears to be a verb:

"thanks to whomever *accepts* this case"

That may give the illusion that "whomever" is a subject, and should be "whoever."

However, since the actual verb of this sentence is "thanks," the use of "whomever" is actually correct. The target of the verb (imperatively conjugated) is "whomever" accepts the debate, making "accepts the debate" a descriptive phrase attached to the object of the sentence. Hence, "whomever" is the object of the sentence.

:D
Posted by Scott_Mann 7 years ago
Scott_Mann
Cross ex? On debate.org? Are you sure?
Posted by Nails 7 years ago
Nails
I thought 'whomever' was correct. Who = subject; whom = object. In the sentence it is being used as the object of the preposition 'to' such as in "to whom it may concern".
Posted by mongeese 7 years ago
mongeese
I proved that at one point.
Posted by wjmelements 7 years ago
wjmelements
"whomever accepts this case"

That's grammatically incorrect.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by belle 7 years ago
belle
lovedebateDominoTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by Nails 7 years ago
Nails
lovedebateDominoTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Vote Placed by Scott_Mann 7 years ago
Scott_Mann
lovedebateDominoTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by alto2osu 7 years ago
alto2osu
lovedebateDominoTied
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 
Vote Placed by Domino 7 years ago
Domino
lovedebateDominoTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04