Since we may each have come up with slightly different definitions for our keywords, let's use the following for the purpose of constructing this case:
Truth seeking: taking all the necessary means (i.e., steps) in order to discover the truth about a legal question.
Take precedence: to allow one goal to be pursued over another when the two goals conflict.
Privileged communication: allowing a person to refrain from testifying in a court because of the way in which he discovered certain information – such as through holy confession, confidential medical consultation, or another protected contact.
Should: a morally right action – an action should be done if it is morally right. “Should” means that it would be the best possible course of action, giving equal consideration to all people.
Good debaters, before they begin constructing a case, need to think about the issue from all angles. We do this by considering relevant questions. For this resolution, some things to consider are:
If priests or doctors don’t need to reveal guilt, how can detectives (and eventually the courts) find someone guilty of a crime?
Will potential suspects be able to escape punishment if confidants are not expected to come forward?
Will suspects decline to talk to psychiatrists and get help if they feel their records will not be protected?
Are there cases where suspects might lie to priests or psychiatrists?
Are there other individuals who may not have to tell the truth about a suspect who confesses to them? (suspect, spouse, significant other, family, etc.)
We can then use these to brainstorm the reasons we might affirm and negate the resolution. Let's brainstorm some "big idea" reasons for and against this resolution here. Review the ideas of your peers and choose the three that you think are the most compelling reasons for affirming this resolution. (Note: if you are one of the first to complete this task, please wait a bit for your classmates to catch up).