REBUTTAL #1: STATUTE IS UNAMBIGUOUS

The affirmative side vehemently posits that the statute is unambiguous. That the statute can
only be considered ambiguous only when it is OPEN TO TWO OR MORE INTERPRETATIONS.
I believe that this argument is without merit.

First of all, the statute is CLEARLY AMBIGUOUS. NCSA Sec. 12 provides “whoever shall
wilfully take the life of another shall be punished by death”. The affirmative side has also
provided their meaning of the term “wilful”— which they define as something that is “deliberate,
intentional, or voluntary”. Now, if we abide by the affirmative’s line of argument and follow the
“unambiguous” law to its letter and disregard any further interpretations, then all who will take
the life of another— whether justified or not— is guilty of violating the said law and should be
punished by the capital punishment.

So, the man who wilfully killed his attacker, who is about to murder him in cold blood, is guilty
and should be punished by death. The police officer who defended millions of people in the line
of duty by wilfully killing a terrorist planning to blow up the central plaza is guilty and should be
punished by death. The executioner who is about to wilfully execute these poor, innocent
defendants is guilty and should be punished by death. The executioner who would soon wilfully
execute the guilty executioner is also guilty and should be punished by death, and so on. We
would probably lose half the Commonwealth’s population by the end of the month (joke).

This goes to show that the statute is CLEARLY AMBIGUOUS. It needs further
INTERPRETATION for it to function the way it was intended.

REBUTTAL # 2: NECESSITY IS NOT AN EXCEPTION

Another one of the affirmative’s unmeritorious arguments is that necessity is not a valid
exception of NCSA Sec. 12.

First and foremost, let us define the term “necessity”. Necessity is a by-product of desperation. It
is an act/acts that is/are considered the last and only resort to ensure the accomplishment of
something. It is a state of circumstances enforcing the adherence to a certain course. What the
defendants did in the present case is an act of necessity. It was the only recourse known to
them as they were trapped in a dark and desolate cavern without any form of sustenance. What
were they supposed to do? Eat rocks?

Abiding to that line of reasoning, the affirmative side would have us believe that it would have
been proper if the defendants just starved to death. That they should just wait for rescue no
matter how unreasonably long. They would probably be rotting corpses by then.

The affirmative also theorizes that to allow the defense of necessity would create a risk that
people may act precipitately, before the necessity is genuine. I once again find this argument
devoid of merit.

(If they cite the case of Valjean)

The affirmative claims that the case of Valjean applies to the case at bar. Let it be clear to
everyone that Valjean and the present case have different circumstances. In Valjean, the
defendant stole a loaf of bread to stave off starvation. The said defendant was not trapped in a
cavern with zero sustenance. He was still in a civilized society along with people who are more
than capable of helping him. There are options available to him like imploring for aid. Surely, at
least one in the millions of people inhabiting the Commonwealth must be merciful enough to
grant him aid for survival. Now, in the present case, there was no such luxury available. The
only option they had was to resort to cannibalism for sustenance else perish in a deep, dark
cave.

(If no Valjean, skip here)

The affirmative posits a rule to the risk created by allowing necessity as a defense: This is the
rule that ALL LAWFUL OR LESS HAZARDOUS OPTIONS MUST FIRST BE EXHAUSTED.
They said it themselves. Necessity cannot be used as a defense IF all lawful or less
hazardous options must first be exhausted. The present case has no other option! There
was literally no other way for these poor defendants to survive other than resorting to what they
did. This is why we vote for the acquittal of the defendants.

SPEECH PROPER: