I negate the resolution,

Resolved: In the United States criminal justice system, truth-seeking ought to take precedence over
attorney-client privilege.

First, to better parameterize this debate I offer the following counter definitions

(Insert aff definitions i.e. truthseeking, and those not already defined)

Ought: Used to indicate duty or correctness New Oxford American Dictionary

Precedence: The condition of being considered more important than priority importance, order or rank.
New Oxford American Dictionary

These counter-definitions set the position of the negative case, which is a full negation of the resolution
presented above. It is necessary that the negative take this position, for no praxis will stem from this debate
if truthseeking and attorneyclient privileges are debated exclusively. Without praxis or at least an
imperative for change, will be vacuous and redundant.

Second, we will further elaborate on the negatives position by establishing the framework.

Because the current United States criminal justice system is inherently oppressive to minorities and citizens
of ethnic, racial backgrounds, the reform, change being argued by the affirmative has no solvency.

LEGAL STRUCTURES REFLECT THE INTERESTS OF THE DOMINANT
IN SOCIETY THEREFORE LEGITMIZING OPPRESSION
Eric K. Yamamoto, Professor of Law, William S. Richardson School of Law, University of Hawaii,
MICHIGAN LAW REVIEW, February, 1997, p.842
What Krupat and others describe is the oppressive way law sometimes operates as a discursive
strategy backed by force. It starts with the assessments of cultural difference and the
marking of inferiority upon the racialized minority. It then inscribes an inferior
identity into a legal text - defining Indians as wards of the government - that then
legitimates paternalism - requiring Indian acceptance of the subordinated identity
of "dependent sovereign" - or negation - removal. In this manner, law operates as a
"cultural system that structures relationships throughout society, not just those
that come before courts." As a cultural system, law sometimes inscribes and reproduces liberatory
ideas and group images. Often, however, it reflects dominant interests and fosters
structural "oppression less by coercion than by offering people identities
contingent upon their acceptance of oppression as defining characteristics of
their very selves." Law is experienced in this fashion by racial minorities as
injustice, not because of any particular hostile legislative enactment or court
ruling, but because of the systemic oppression it legitimates.


As Professor Yamamoto indicated in the card above, the inherent oppression perpetrated by the criminal
justice system legitimizes oppression on a social realm, which leads us to the next piece of evidence by
Professor Richard Delgado,











BACKLASHING AGAINST CIVIL RIGHTS PROVE LAW WILL NOT
CHANGE SOCIETY
Richard Delgado, Charles Inglis Thomson Professor of Law, University of Colorado, and Jean
Stefancic, Research Associate, University of Colorado School of Law, WILLIAM & MARY LAW REVIEW,
WINTER, 1995, p.182
Reform through law alone, as we mentioned, is apt to have little effect, because legal
decrees succumb silently and painlessly to interpretation and other forms of cultural
weight. Even when, as happened with the civil rights revolution of the 1960s, legal reform
operates in concert with broader social forces to produce undeniable and much-needed
gains, resistance is apt to set in at some point. Consider how today we no longer talk in
terms of separateness as an inherent injury, of black schoolchildren as victims, or of
racism as a harm whose injury "is unlikely ever to be undone." Instead, we speak of the
need for formal neutrality, of the dangers affirmative action poses for innocent whites, and
of the need for black Americans to look to their own resources.

Therefore the comparative debate between truthseeking and attorney privilege is irrelevant for any actual
praxis to come forth. The entire resolution must be negated.

With a counterinterpretation of the resolution already established, we move the negative value for this
debate.