LIBRT: The survivors should be found guilty of murder, and should face a mandatory death sentence.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Necessity Speech (4 Minutes of delivery)

Basic Statutory Construction dictates that when there is no ambiguity in the understanding
of a particular statute, there is no other remedy for the courts but to apply it as it is.

Ladies and gentlemen, we from the affirmative side believes that there is no justified
reason for the act of killing for the purpose of survival hence, we advocate for the conviction of
the Speluncean explorers.

Before we lay down our arguments on why we are for the conviction, allow me first to
define the motion so that we will have a clearer grasp of the flow of this debate.

This exchange of intelligent argument boils down to the following basic and simple
questions: Is the act of killing someone for the purpose of survival a justified act? Can anyone do
away with that act without facing legal consequences provided by both law and moral? And can
the unlawful mean justify the end?

This leads us to our two arguments on why it is necessary for the explorers to be convicted.

First, there is a need for us to convict them to be able to lay down judicial precedence.
It is but the moral obligation of the courts to decide on cases, even if there is absence of
judicial sources previously decided on similar and relevant matters.

Setting the instance at 4300 A.D., there is a clear fact that the laws during that time were
insufficient to properly dispense justice in extremes circumstances as such. The courts were then
only left to decide on the matter based on the provision specifically provided by the Newgarth
Uniform Statutes which states that whoever willfully take the life of another shall be punished by
death.

From the aforementioned provision, it can clearly be construed that the law is clear in its intention
to rightfully and justifiably punish its perpetrators which proves of the validity of the conviction.

Further, while the law may be clear in imposing death as a punishment for the act of killing
someone, back then, the judiciary have never laid down principles on how must cases like the one
being debated upon today be decided. That is why, your honor, we propose the policy for their
conviction so that once and for all, the court, in future instances, will have a justified basis in
deciding cases which are of the same facts as the one we have today.

Ladies and Gentlemen, and the members of the most august body, it is but important to
raise the argument that while the end may be justified, it does not support the idea that the means
could be achieved through unlawful actions. Otherwise, it would put the society in a total chaos
where anyone, just because of the idea of personal necessity, may resort to immoral and
prohibited acts for self-perseverance and survival.

Interestingly, in the case of Regina v. Dudley & Stephens decided in 1884, it was mentioned
that; killing an innocent life to save ones own does not justify murder, even if it is under extreme
necessity of hunger.

On to our second point; we believe that the conviction is proper so as to prevent people
from resorting to such extreme acts in order to live.

The world, as they say, is a jungle, where only the fittest survives. But that should not be
the case in a land where the law allows rightful and equal competition for survival. To perform acts
in order to survive at the expense of the other can never be a valid ground in order to acquit
someone.
 Ladies and gentlemen, if we allow this kind of act to pass just because it is justified by the
reason of state of nature or state of necessity, we are giving the society an avenue to justify
their immoral and uncivil acts in the future. More than anything else, this is but an outright
detriment not only to the judicial system, in general, but as well to the society, as a whole.

With these arguments, the affirmative reigns.

Beneficiality Speech

(Rebut first the arguments of the other bench before proceeding to this speech oy)

The outcry of justice must always be heard. It is but the cry of the society, seeking to improve the
justice system for everyone, no matter the cause that being Social Justice.

It is a time-honored principle that while the law may be harsh, it is the law.

Ladies and Gentlemen, it is the stand of the affirmative side that there are important benefits in
the conviction of the explorers primarily because it sets forth the hold of future juridical instances
where there are grey areas beyond the hold of the law.

Moreover, the affirmative believes that the ends, no matter how sentimental and justified as
others may see it, does not give anyone the authority to use unlawful means in achieving the
former.

Furthermore, we are for the belief that the ends does not always justify the means. To do
otherwise would be a total disgust of the existing legal principles regarding crimes against persons.

Importantly, it has been settled under the principle of Legal Positivism that the law is what it is,
rather than what it ought to be. It is free from moral consideration once it is enacted by the
sovereign authority.

Using the words of Justice Jose P. Laurel, he historically defined Social Justice as being Neither
communism, nor despotism, nor atomism, nor anarchy, but the humanization of laws and the
equalization of social and economic forces by the state so that justice, in its rational and objectively
secular conception, may at least be approximated.

Your honor, we are in the position of the conviction primarily because we see its importance in
the judicial system of the world. The striking of this decision for the conviction provides for a
prevention of future possible commission of the crime with the same reason, as accordingly being
justified.

Your honor, not to acquit the explorers give out a notion to the future generation that it is okay to
steal if we starve; that it is fine to rape if our libido is at a high-stake; and that it is acceptable to
kill any person just because he is a hindrance to ones desires in life.

At this point, let us paint a picture of the future. A picture where judicial crisis arise because state
of necessity validates ones unlawful acts. A scenario where the courts are bound to tolerate a
persons unlawful behavior just because natural law sees it as human nature. That is not the kind
of justice we deserve.

We from the affirmative ought not to see that kind of picture being painted. Instead, we must let
every stroke of the pen by the justices draw down the proper and right justice needed to be
established in order to achieve a more desirable society worthy of living for every citizen A
society that sees justice as a form of social equality, rather than social tolerance.

The effects of the conviction of the explorers for their unlawful act cannot be realized not until we
let justice do its part. For indeed, ones rights end when the right of the other begins.
Practicability Speech

According to a famous English Poet and World War 2 veteran Mr. John Ronal Tolkien, he once said
that Many who lived deserve death. And some that die deserve life.

Ladies and gentlemen, members of the most august body, equally-worthy opponents, as we
debate on the proposition, we are proud to affirm.

As a practicability speaker, it is my obligation to prove to the members of the house that the
policies being advocated by our bench can conveniently be done.

The entire point and rationale of this debate is simple; Let the gavel struck the block, so that justice
be served properly.

Your honors, we see that it is practicable for the conviction to be done primarily because we are
presented with two key factors in making it possible; first, we have the law. Second, we have the
courts wisdom and expertise in interpreting and applying the proper law.

Friends, indeed, we were taught that when the law is but crystal clear, we must apply it.
Unambiguity of a statute connotes a notion that the law transcends a clear and precise message,
therefore, both the justice system and the people must obey by it. To do otherwise is an outright
disrespect to the wisdom of the framers of the law, and the justice system itself.

Second, Social Contract Theory dictates that for law and order to prevail, everyone must submit
themselves to a higher authority. Here, ladies and gentlemen, we submit ourselves to the laws
prevailing in our land, and as the primary agency tasked to interpret and dispense justice, the
courts are left with no other means but to allow to do its part.

Justice in this sense means justice for everyone. Justice without seeing the moral side of imposing
it. Justice that is due for each and every individual.

Indeed, the justices and the members of the higher courts are granted both the mandate and the
duty to release orders of execution if it deems so necessary. Here, we strike at the outset the
necessity for the justice system to convict the accused explorers for the unlawful act they
committed, no matter how they try to advocate the justifiability of the reason for their action.

Your honor, we from the affirmative side believes that the right provided for every individual has
its own limitation. That alone sets forth justice in this world. You limit everyones right, so as to
assure that everyone gets the proper justice they deserve.

The law is clear. To kill someone exposes you to conviction and punishment by death.

In this debate, the affirmative wins!