The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

plea bargaining ought to be abolished in the United States criminal justice system.

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  
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: 2/6/2018 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 972 times Debate No: 107648
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (2)
Votes (0)




For the person accepting this debate, We will use the following format

Round one-only acceptance
round two-state your case
round three-rebuttals
round 4-conclusions (new evidence brought up in final round is not allowed)

if evidence is used please cite your sources

This will be a public forum style debate for anyone with knowledge of nsda. Thank you. And I look forward to debating.


I don't do public forum, I do cross-examination but I hope to still have a good round. Good Luck!
Debate Round No. 1


Eleanor Roosevelt once said "Justice cannot be for one side alone, but must be for both." It is because I agree with our former first lady that I affirm the issue, plea bargaining ought to be abolished in the United States criminal justice system.
Plea Bargaining is defined by Harvard Law Review as - "an agreement between the prosecution and the defense whereby the defendant pleads guilty in exchange for a more lenient sentence, and a full trial is avoided."

I value Justice, defined for 2 key reasons. First, since this discussion is about how the justice system should function we obviously look to their overarching goal of justice. Second, justice is paramount in the individual actions of the justice system because it must dissolve conflict of rights in a way that gives each their due.

I offer up the following Observation of innocence. Instead of focusing on the entire aspects of plea bargains, lets us keep this debate about the innocent men and women being affected by plea bargain deals. Because the constitutional rights to fair trial listed in article III, Section 2 of the federal constitution, are meant to protect the innocent and imprison the guilty, affect the innocent and imprison them it is unjust. Therefore in order to win, the Negation must simply prove one point. That innocent men and women are not being incarcerated because of pressure to take plea deals.

My first point is that plea bargains are violating laws.

[ Garrison Law ; Law Firm; 2015 [Garrison Law Firm, "How a Plea Agreement Can Save Money and Time", September 3, 2015]
The right to trial by jury in a criminal case resides in Article III, Section 2 of the federal Constitution ("The Trial of all Crimes shall be by Jury ")
"The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority"

This means that EVERYONE has the right to a full and speedy trial. By allowing plea bargaining the constitutional right to a trial by jury is being taken away. And constitutional rights cannot be taken away. This is unjust.

Lynch, Timothy 2008; Cato Institute; "Plea Bargains Jeopardize Justice"

"Plea bargaining unquestionably alleviates the workload of judges, prosecutors, and defense lawyers.There is no doubt that government officials deliberately use their power to pressure people who have been accused of crime, and who are presumed innocent, to confess their guilt and waive their right to a formal trial. We know this to be true because prosecutors freely admit that this is what they do.... "
The opposition may argue that these people are willingly giving up their right to a fair and speedy trial by accepting plea bargains while knowing what they imply, but as my card proves, there is a dark side. And that is that people not wanting to do their job will pressure plea bargains on people being prosecuted in an attempt to lighten their tasks.

Plea bargaining violates the sixth amendment
[Dylan Walsh; New York Review of Books; "Why U.S. Criminal Courts Are So Dependent on Plea Bargaining"; May 2, 2017]
"Ninety-seven percent of federal cases are settled by plea bargain. State-level data suggest similar numbers nationwide. Though access to a public trial is enshrined in the Sixth Amendment, taking a plea forecloses that possibility. "This constitutional right, for most, is a myth.""

Plea bargains are being used unconstitutionally to not allow people to use their right to a fair trial

America is founded on the constitution and it is those laws and guidelines that give our government limitation making it so they don"t do whatever they want.Therefore plea bargains are UNJUST because they go against the constitution.

My second point is that plea bargains target minorities and the poor.
People of color are less likely to receive beneficial plea deals than their white counterparts " this results in higher rates of incarceration because defendants are forced to plead guilty

Tucker "17 [J.B.W. Tucker, 7-14-2017, "The Ultimate White Privilege Statistics & Data Post," Race, Racism and the Law, statistics-data-post-2?showall=&start=4]

Once arrested, blacks are more likely to remain in prison awaiting trial than whites; in some places, they are 33% more likely to be detained while awaiting trial than whites.[9] Then, people of color are routinely arraigned under stiffer, harsher charges than white offenders. While more than 90% of cases end in a plea bargain, blacks and Latinos are less successful at getting their sentences reduced via plea bargain . [33] According to a University of Michigan study: " [B]lack defendants face significantly more severe charges than whites even after controlling for criminal behavior (arrest offense, multiple-defendant case structure, and criminal history), observed defendant characteristics (e.g., age, education), defense counsel type, district, county economic characteristics, and crime rates. Unexplained racial disparities exist across the charge- severity distribution, especially at the high end. The most striking disparities are found in the use of charges that carry non-zero statutory minimum sentences."[34] Black men are nearly twice as likely to be arraigned on charges that carry a mandatory minimum. [34] A study in Georgia in the 1980s found that more than 20% of black defendants convicted of murdering white victims received the death penalty. However, only 8% of whites who killed whites and 1% of blacks who killed other blacks received the death penalty.

People of color, or other minorities, once they are forced into the plea bargain they often are worse off then they would be if they had been a majority. This is saying that many innocent people of the minority are getting horrible deals and serving time for crimes they didn"t commit.

The Factors of Reduced Sentences
Devers; Ph.D., 2011
Lindsey; January 24, 2011; Bureau of Justice Assistance; US Department of Justice
The majority of research on race shows that blacks are less likely than their white counterparts to receive reduced pleas

This means that even though plea deals are being offered to everyone, the deals are often unsuccessful for african americans and other races to get reduced pleas, making them spend more time in prison for things they did not do.
Justice IS NOT being upheld because different races are being treated differently in a court of law.

In summary, plea bargains are not only unjust, but unconstitutional and serve only for the personal gain of attorneys and to speed up the process of conviction. And are racially biased which leads minorities to having worse sentences from these pleas. It is because plea bargaining is Unjust and unright that I strongly stand on the affirmative side in this debate.


President Ronald Reagan said with much political wisdom "Government exists to protect us from each other. Where government has gone beyond its limits is in deciding to protect us from ourselves." It's due to the freedom former president Reagan tried to urge through his words that I think we must negate the issue.

I value liberty and more specifically the right to choice for one reason and personally disagree with the issue for another. My liberty argument will be the fact that we have the RIGHT to a trial. The term means you can waive your right to allow a choice, but the aff doesn't want to allow any kind of leniency due to this waiver. The reason I personally disagree with the topic is that I interned with a district court and I personally saw the court backlog that exists in this nation.

Also trying to limit the debate to only innocent people when talking about the justice system is abusive to the neg because everyone wants to help the innocent and if we didn't take the guilty into account, then we wouldn't have prisons because there would be no guilty people. I will go off my opponents and add my own. Even if you the aff has the right to limit the debate, then hopefully I'll be able to refute the evidence given by his speech.

Onto my first point of liberty, I would start by saying that the 6th amendment, specifically

"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial,"

it says the keyword right. The difference between right and responsibility is the choice you get. My opponent opens an autocratic door with a responsibility to do things rather than a right to. That's why the right to vote means you go vote if that's your prerogative, or you can not vote. Even if that isn't the best option, you get to make that option. It also applies to this case law. ( I would like to note that even though this is my value, it also directly refutes his first arguement.

My second point is the problem of court backlog.

The courts can handle the workload of cases right now.
Prost 15 (Sharon Prost, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
". We"re proud of the fact that we"re very current; we have virtually no backlog and are probably one of the most current appeals courts in the country, so we"d like to be able to keep that going. "

Increasing the federal circuit court"s workload would hinder current courts ability to guarantee IP protection
Kirk 06 " Michael K. Kirk, Executive Director of the American Intellectual Property Law Association, Chairman, Senate Judiciary Committee; United States Senate
"regarding the pending immigration reform legislation that would transfer jurisdiction over immigration appeals to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. We believe that such broadening of the Federal Circuit"s jurisdiction would seriously hinder the court"s ability to render high quality, timely decisions on patent appeals from district courts, and patent and trademark appeals from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. This runs directly counter to the present efforts of Congress to otherwise reform and improve this nation"s patent system. "

IP innovation and IPR protection is key to the economy
Bird, American Legislative Exchange Council, 12 " Tom Bird October 8, 2012, an intern for the International Relations Task Force. "Intellectual Property: The Innovation Economy"s Engine for Growth and Job Creation"
"protecting IPR was vital to encourage invention, creativity, and innovation, and the U.S. has relied on ingenuity to drive our economy ever since! According to the World Intellectual Property Organization over one-fifth of all patents issued in 2006 were granted by the U.S. Patent Office, and the U.S. Chamber"s Global Intellectual Property Center (GIPC) found that over one-third of U.S. gross output originated from IP-centered companies and accounted for 74% of U.S. exports. "

To explain what all this evidence says in a concise manner is courts can handle the current workload. The aff plan of getting rid of plea bargaining will cause a HUGE surge in cases that will distract them from handling patents. Not handling the patents will lead to an economic collapse because there is no innovation and invention in the United States.

Onto the arguement that plea bargaining targets minorities are the fact that the aff's plan will actually hurt minorities, especially in the black community hugely.

Alt fails. Their ontological framing of blackness dooms the alternative. Placing Blackness as oppositional denies it any existence independent of white supremacy and makes identity reliant on oppression
Pinn 4 " Macalester College Professor of Religious Studies
"ontological blackness"s strong ties to suffering and survival result in blackness being dependent on suffering, and as a result, social transformation brings into question what it means to be black and religious. Liberative outcomes ultimately force an identity crisis, a crisis of legitimation and utility. In Anderson"s words: Talk about liberation becomes hard to justify where freedom appears as nothing more than defiant self-assertion of a revolutionary racial consciousness that requires for its legitimacy the opposition of white racism. "

What this piece of evidence says is that if we continue to focus a huge portion of policies on bridging the race gap, then the whole black identity is based on being targeted. If this were to happen then it would turn and magnify his minority arguement because people would believe that our black citizens would be complaining to complain rather than because there is a significant issue.

To summarize my arguments
1. We need to allow a choice to be allowed rather then the autocratic door my aff opens my making the "responsibility" of trial rather than "right".

2. Courts can handle the workload now but if we add more to the problem, courts can't handle all of the patents they have to do. Without them going through patents, there will be drawbacks in innovation which leads to an economic collapse.

3. Him trying to help the minority ends up intwining the minority with oppression, making people believe there is no real racism issue. This lack of belief about the issue makes the problem even worse.
Debate Round No. 2


If my opponent was paying attention, i very clearly stated in my observation and my first point that, and I quote "incarcerated because of pressure to take plea deals." I never once said that it was a responsibility to not take a plea deal, but purely that plea deals are being forced upon men and women who are under trial and are led to believe this is their only option.
I will re-reference a piece of evidence I used in my case.

Lynch, Timothy 2008; Cato Institute; "Plea Bargains Jeopardize Justice"
Plea bargaining unquestionably alleviates the workload of judges, prosecutors, and defense lawyers. There is no doubt that government officials deliberately use their power to pressure people who have been accused of crime, and who are presumed innocent, to confess their guilt and waive their right to a formal trial. We know this to be true because prosecutors freely admit that this is what they do....

Again, what this is saying is that people of authority are trying to convince INNOCENT men and women that they need to take a plea bargain. Solely for the purpose of either making their job easier or "alleviating the courtroom workload."

Langbein, John H. Yale Law School 1979
"Our criminal justice system has become ever more dependent on processing cases of serious crime through the non-trial procedure of plea bargaining. Unable to adjudicate, we now engage in condemnation without adjudication. Be- cause our constitutions guarantee adjudication, we threaten the criminal defendant with a markedly greater sanction if he insists on adjudication and is convicted. This sentencing differential, directed towards inducing the defendant to waive his right to trial, makes plea bargaining work."

This goes against my opponents value. Proving that with the current plea bargain system, both my value of justice and theirs of liberty are not being upheld. How can liberty be upheld when people are being pressured into giving up their right?

And to combat what my opponent said about the backlog in court cases, our system is corrupt. I can fully support that we do have a surge of court cases and that it is definitely difficult to try them all. But going back to my value, we cannot sacrifice quality for quantity. Instead of convicting innocent men and women in an attempt to solve this, why not go to the root of the problem? Instead of focusing solely on the trial process, why not work on creating a society in which less people are commiting crimes?

And in order to rebuild my case after my opponents attack on my race point,

Racial disparity in the criminal system
Caroline Simon ; Reporter; june. 16, 2016,
(first name; "There is a stunning gap between the number of white and black inmates in America's prisons ", Business insider; june. 16, 2016)
A new study shows a large disparity between imprisonment rates for African-Americans, whites and Hispanics.The study, published by The Sentencing Project, a nonprofit that advocates criminal justice reform, looked at incarceration rates for ethnic groups in every state, using data from the Bureau of Justice Statistics.Here are some of the most striking findings: In state prisons, African-Americans are incarcerated at 5.1 times the rate of whites. Five states " Iowa, Minnesota, New Jersey, Vermont, and Wisconsin " have a disparity of more than 10 to 1. Twelve states have prison populations that were more than half black: Alabama, Delaware, Georgia, Illinois, Louisiana, Maryland, Michigan, Mississippi, New Jersey, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Virginia. Maryland has a prison population that"s 72 percent black. In 11 states, at least 1 in 20 adult African-American men is in prison. In Oklahoma, it"s 1 in 15. Latinos are incarcerated at 1.4 times the rate of whites. Disparities between imprisonment rates for Hispanics and whites are particularly high in Massachusetts (4.3:1), Connecticut (3.9:1), Pennsylvania (3.3:1), and New York (3.1:1)

This is proving that there is an obvious gap in the amount of people being convicted depending on their race. Again, in order to solve this problem, let us go to the root of the cause and try to alleviate contention between minorities and police! If we fight to take racism out of enforcing the law then there is no need for anything such as plea bargains that target minorities. Which I have proved with my evidence.

Devers; Ph.D., 2011
Lindsey; January 24, 2011; Bureau of Justice Assistance; US Department of Justice
The majority of research on race and sentencing outcomes shows that blacks are less likely than whites to receive reduced pleas.

Proving that even with plea bargains minorities are still getting targeted. Which again goes against my value of justice. Why are we using a system that is unjust and attacks people purely for being a different color? This goes against everything we believe as a society.

I would also like to state that you have no date on your race evidence, so unless you can show a proper citation, your whole point is invalid.

To summarize what I have said-

I have negated my opponents value of liberty, proving that liberty is not being upheld with plea bargains

That innocent men and women are being incarcerated because of laziness

My opponent values quantity over quality and wants to get more court cases done quickly than actually convict those in need of convicting.

And unlike what my opponent said, i have indeed proven that plea bargains are extremely negative for those of color.

Instead of focusing on getting through these trials fast, lets us work on the main problem. Creating a society in which crime is not so rampant so that every can be tried fairly.

I"d like to leave you off with an example of someone who actually is affected negatively by plea bargains. Proving that justice is indeed not being upheld.

Dervan, Lucian E., Edkins, Vanessa A.; The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology; "THE INNOCENT DEFENDANT'S DILEMMA: AN INNOVATIVE EMPIRICAL STUDY OF PLEA BARGAINING'S INNOCENCE PROBLEM"; Dervan"s Qualifications: Visiting Assistant Professor of Law at the University of Georgia School of Law and Assistant Professor of Law at the Southern Illinois University School of Law. Former member of the King & Spalding LLP Special Matters and Government Investigations practice group. Edkin"s Qualifications: Ph.D., Florida Institute of Technology, Department of Psychology; 2013
In Beatrice, Nebraska, the choice for Taylor was difficult, but the incentives to admit guilt were enticing.^ A sentence of ten to forty years in prison meant she would return home one day and salvage at least a portion of her life.' The alternative, a lifetime behind bars, was grim by comparison.^" After contemplating the options, Taylor pleaded guilty to aiding and abetting second-degree murder." Just as Taylor had decided to control her destiny and accept the certainty of the lighter alternative,she was innocent of the offenses of which she had been accused.'^ After serving nineteen years in prison, Taylor was exonerated after DNA testing proved that neither she nor any of the other five defendants in her case were involved in the murder.'*


1.Theory-The aff has dropped my theory that it is abusive to force the neg into only focusing on innocent people. It is due to this drop that I win the right to bring up guilty people as well as innocent.

2.Liberty-While I understand where the aff is coming from, he doesn't realize that he is taking the choice away. He is trying to abolish them from the United States justice system. Big blanketed topics have big blanketed effects. He is forcing a responsibility on every person in America to have to go through the justice system if they want to or not. He is saying that since you are pressured into it, that means it goes against liberty but maybe the aff isn't focusing on the correct problem. Maybe defense attorneys need to help there client. If a tool is used to hurt people, do we blame the tool or the user? Even if the aff wants to blame a very helpful tool, it is still the user's fault and that fact doesn't change just because we shift a light away from the issue.

3.Court Log-All the aff said is we should change society and focus on quality of quantity. He never focused on the fact that a lack of patents would cause the economy to crash. He just wants to change society without giving us any direction on how to do that. I think if he wants to propose impossible and outlandish ideas, he should have to have a suggested course or evidence. Just to recap, his two propositions is to one, change society and two, let the economy collapse to preserve quality over quantity.

4.Racism-I'm not denying that racism exists, I'm saying that trying to fix the problem causes the public to believe there is no race problem and minorities complain to complain. This leads to nothing getting done for decades or possibly a century. It also magnifies the racism that already happens. You're proving the point further by showing more evidence that says were targeting minorities.

To summarize my arguments,
Theory-Was dropped so allows me to involve guilty people.
Liberty-The aff is ignoring certain facets of the argument because they believe that taking away a decision helps liberty when it hurts it by definition.
Court Clog-Gave to alternatives, the impossible "change society" or allow the economy to collapse for "quality".
Racism-By making minorities professional victims, nobody takes the issue seriously leading to an increase in racism and nothing being done for decades.

For the security of liberty, the economy and minorities I urge a neg vote.
Debate Round No. 3


Yes, I have dropped your theory and you have won the right to bring up guilty people as well. But since you did not really in your second speech and cannot bring new evidence in your final speech, you have given up that right.

The format of this will be
-summary of debate
-what my opponent dropped
-what my opponent didn"t defend
-why I urge a pro ballot

So first off, in summary my opponent stands on the side of liberty, and I stand on the side of justice. My opponent claims that with taking away plea bargains that takes away the right to plead guilty. What my opponent doesn"t understand is that taking away plea bargains is not taking away the right to plead guilty, it is purely taking away the incentive for court officials to pressure a guilty plea, and taking away incentive for innocent people to plead guilty and serve time for what they didn"t do. Meanwhile I claim that plea bargains takeaway justice by pressuring people to give up their right to a trial by jury. My opponent did bring up that these people are willingly giving up that right, but then I proved that they are being pressured and forced into giving up that right. Which is unjust.

On that note, I will mention what my opponent neglected to/or insufficiently attacked me on.

Justice- has failed to prove that either, liberty is more important than justice or that justice is being upheld with plea bargains.
Plea bargains violate laws- has failed to prove that plea bargains are not taking away the unconstitutional right to a trial by jury. Only stated that it is a right, which I have proven that they are being pressured to give up that right. Which is unjust.
Plea bargains target minorities- stated that "trying to fix the problem causes the public to believe there is no race problem." What my opponent is saying is that instead of working to actively fix our countries racism problem, we should just continue to complain about it. While I am bring up ways to fix this problem and my opponent is completely ignoring those, claiming I did not tell how to fix it, just said we should. Which I will bring up in my attacks.

I will now mention what my opponent failed to defend against/what I have proven wrong.

Liberty-I have proven that liberty is not being upheld within the plea bargain system. Proving that with my opponents view point, neither value is being upheld.
Guilty- my opponent did in fact win the right to being up guilty men and women as well, bu since they neglected to bring up evidence, they cannot mention that in their final speech.
Right-I have proven that yes, a right to jury is in fact that, a right. But it is being taken away with plea bargains. My opponent wants to say that by taking away plea bargains we are taking away the right to not having a trial. But as I mentioned, it does not take away the right to not have a trial, it takes away the incentive to force plea bargains on people, and takes away incentive for innocent people to plead guilty.
Court backlog/economy- I have stated that instead of trying to rush through trials, or not even have them is valuing "quantity over quality." my opponent claims that this will lead to an economic collapse. But, I have stated another option, working to better society. My opponent claims I gave no plan to do so, but I in fact did. I stated that we should work to better increase the relations between minorities and our officers to try to stop the amount of minorities being falsely arrested. Because I did not go into much detail, I can not bring up much evidence to how to do this, but I will state that their are programs out there already trying to increase relations and are being quite affective.
Race- My opponent has stated that we shouldn"t try to fix the racist problem. Instead we should keep "complaining" so that people know it is an issue. IF WE WORKED ON FIXING IT, IT WOULDN"T BE AN ISSUE.

If you decide to vote negative on today"s resolution then you will be agreeing with violating the constitution, a constitution that was written to PROTECT the citizens of the United States, a constitution that is the BASIS of our ENTIRE country- if you decide to vote negative, you will be voting for a falling society. If you decide to vote negative you will be voting for all people of the United States to be treated differently, which is what is currently happening in the SQ, by voting for negative YOU WILL BE VOTING FOR THE FACT THAT RIGHT NOW IT IS OKAY FOR PEOPLE OF DIFFERENT COLORS TO BE TREATED AND DEALT WITH DIFFERENTLY IN OUR CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM AND THAT THAT IS INDEED MORALLY JUSTIFIED. But by voting for affirmative, you will be acknowledging that plea bargaining is a system that is flawed, it is a system that COMPLETELY violates the Constitution which is the entire BASIS of the United States today, by voting for the affirmative team today you will be voting for the fact that racism in the courts and justice system is COMPLETELY wrong and unjust and by voting for affirmative you will be voting for an equal America. In conclusion, voting for negative towards today"s resolution- Plea bargaining ought to be abolished in the United States criminal justice system.because it creates a flawed and unequal- overall morally unjust society- whereas voting for Affirmative promotes an overall more equal America.Which is why judge I respectfully urge you to vote affirmative.


Summary-The aff is valuing justice while the neg is valuing liberty. The aff said that justice is being violated by people being pressured into plea bargains while I said that people should have the option.

What my opponent dropped
1.Theory-Even if I didn't choose to use the fact, it still should be weighed on my side of a vote.
2.Economic Collapse-They didn't bring it up till the last speech and should be counted as a new argument and not viewed in any way. Also, the argument they gave is bad because he just says that we should cause fewer people to be in prison. This causes a surge in racism which I will explain in more detail in the racism point.

Arguments I have won
1.Liberty-Taking away choices does not uphold liberty. Any sense of political logic will tell you that. As I said, tools aren't the bad things, it's the people. He is opening an autocratic door by putting the responsibility of a trial on people. All he does is force a trial on everyone.
2.Plea bargains violate laws-I said the sixth amendment was a choice to use. I did attack him on it. It was mixed with my liberty argument because I'm saying that the reason it's not violating the law is that it's a choice.
3.Right-Same as liberty, the aff just wants to list more things so he can make himself look better. I feel it is a cheap trick but one I have to stoop down to with this argument so it's not a drop.
4.Court backlog-I know I said the economic collapse in an earlier portion and I don't want anyone to feel I'm repeating the same argument. He did attack the idea of court backlog, just not the impacts. On this argument, he wants to help minorities which I'll prove him wrong on in the final point, but I also proved that we have to balance quality and quantity. His focus on only quality will be the downfall of the American economy.
5. Race-This has been one giant missed argument on both sides. I don't think the aff understands my argument. I will re-explain it and we will let the judge vote if it was sufficiently explained. Minorities have been complaining of racism for a while. I'm not saying it isn't a problem, but I am saying people might feel it's getting old. People will believe minorities are just being professional victims rather than actually having problems and due to this, they will no longer try to help them. Racism will get worse and nothing will get done for decades because the aff frames minorities as a professional victim rather than a real problem that needs help. When you pulled more evidence in round 3, you proved the point by showing that people are trying to say that minorities are all victims. The best way to help minorities right now is to give it time.

If you vote aff, you will live in a world where you have government mandated responsibilities rather than rights.You have to own a gun otherwise your right is violated. You have to say things for your freedom of speech. You will see the economy collapse and nothing will be done about it because "quality over quantity". Not to mention racism will get worse than what it is because people will believe there is no issue. They will thing minorities are whiny and will be less willing to help them.

If you vote neg, you will live in an economically stable United States. Racism will stay at the level it is but is better than the worsening of the problem the aff would have happened. We can fix racism later on down the road but if we make any moves now, the problem will get worse. The best thing of all is you will still have rights. You can make choices about your own life rather than having the Bill of Responsibilities tell you what you need to do.

Thank you for this round Momo12345, and thank you to anyone who takes the time to judge our round.
Debate Round No. 4
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by hwp460 3 years ago
I was saying it was a new argument for you since you did not bring it up in your second speech. It's after the round. Good luck in voting!
Posted by Momo12345 3 years ago
you were the one who mentioned economic collapse in an earlier speech. It is not new evidence.
No votes have been placed for this debate.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.