LIBRT: The survivors should be found guilty of murder, and should face a

mandatory death sentence.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Beneficiality Speech

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

His Excellency, equal-worth opponent, ladies and Gentlemen, Good Evening!

Ladies and Gentlemen, at this point, let us paint a picture of the future. A picture in
where a judicial crisis arises just because the ‘state of necessity’ validates one’s
unlawful acts. A scenario where 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 one’s desires in life and where the courts are bound to tolerate a
person’s unlawful behavior just because natural law sees it as human nature. Is this the
kind of justice you like? No. That is not the kind of justice we deserve.
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.
It is a time-honored principle that while the law may be harsh, it is the law. (Insert the
law thing)
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. We are for the belief that the ends do not always justify
the means. To do otherwise would be a total disgust of the existing legal principles
regarding crimes against persons.
As in dealing with the statute, so in dealing with the exception, the question is not the
conjectural purpose of the rule, but its scope. Now the scope of the exception in favor of
self-defense as it has been applied by this Court is plain: it applies to cases of resisting
an aggressive threat to the party's own life. It is therefore too clear for argument that this
case does not fall within the scope of the exception, since it is plain that Whetmore
made no threat against the lives of these defendants.
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 one’s desires in life.
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, one’s rights end when the right of the other
begins.