All Ginger Kids/Adults should be killed.

NOTE: In this round, I shall be making use of the tags provided in the following thread: http://www.debate.org... [b]RE: Burden of proof [/b] In the beginning of the previous round, my opponent stated that I not only have to prove my side is correct, but that I also have to disregard all our morals and codes of ethics. Lets not get too far ahead of ourselves. This is merely an attempt by my opponent to shift the burden of proof. The burden of proof belongs too the side which is positing a claim. Since my opponent is the instigator, he is in fact positing (or rather instigating, if you will) the claim in the topic, thus possesses the burden which he speaks of. As the contender, I merely [i]need[/i] to successfully object to his arguments in order to win (doing any more than that is technically unnecessary for me). [color=blue][b]1) The instigator accuses me of revising the topic[/b][/color] My opponent claimed that I've misinterpreted the topic since my understanding of the word "kill" is false. He bases this on the [i]feeble[/i] notion that not all death in the world is inflicted by something. However, this is entirely false as this is suggesting that not all death in the world has a cause. For everything effect, there is a cause. Ergo, all death in the world is in fact inflicted by something. For example, even when looking at the instigator's example, it's pretty clear that the person in questions death was inflicted by natural causes (poor health to be specific). Even when looking at suicide (death which is inflicted by oneself directly), homicide (death which is caused directly by someone else), drug overdoses (just like suicide), it is pretty clear that all of these are in fact inflicted by something else. This just goes to show that all deaths are in fact considered to be killings. Now there is label which all deaths are not given and that is "murder." If I were to make the same argument in favor while basing it on murder rather than killing, my opponent would be correct to object. [color=red][b]2) The instigator accuses me of failing to address arguments which he didn't actually make[/b][/color] The instigator seems to have a problem with me not having committed the straw man fallacy in the previous round; he claims that I haven't addressed ideas such as "killing is immoral" or "it would be unjust to kill the gingers since many gingers live on to do great things." However, I did not bother to address these ideas since my opponent didn't actually bring them up and that the argument I have made compromises these ideas while upholding my side of the resolution (in other words, I have taken the path of efficiency). Indeed, my arguments does not challenge morality or place a limit on the amount of good gingers (especially "ginger" women who I may have crossed "paths" with. yowza. :D ) have done. As far as not having defending the bigoted sector of society, I've done just that (although to be honest-- it is has been well acknowledged that this entire issue from my opponent is simply the result of joking and nothing more serious than adolescent teasing in schools). They wish for gingers to be killed and I've provided in an argument in favor of this. For you see, both myself and the bigots happen to agree with the same result. It's just the means of reaching this result which we may possibly disagree on that are different. If anything, my position caters to the bigots while giving them a means of favoring their position in a way which won't make them outcast to our society (or at very least, not upset my opponent) [color=purple][b]3) Gingers should not be killed or else we shall be no better than nazi germany.[/b][/color] Not at all really. If we go by my argument, it is simply insisting upon the status quo (in which all gingers [and all other humans for that matter] are eventually killed). This is not in cold blood nor is it constant unjustified slaughter. It is simply a natural process. If we are going to start claiming what arguments we should be making, then my opponent should be arguing in favor of immortality as it is the only legitimate argument which can be used against my position. As it stands, his current argument does not negate the argument which I've provided, unless my opponent wishes to insist that this long known inevitability is in fact immoral (which I gladly invite him to prove). And that'll do it for now. Later. :D