Resolved: The execution of Muammar Gaddafi by rebel forces was justified without a fair trial

Before doing my rebuttals I would like to clarify some things.1. I did not constitute a new contention in Round 4 about the mysteriousness of this issue. In fact, I mentioned this in Round 3, without any objection from my opponent. It appears as though he accepted at that time because he thought that it would not mean anything. However, he went against it later on as it showed that it makes his case invalid.2. The reason why I did this is because the murder of Gadaffi is very mysterious and not fully known about. Anything that is not fully known about must be taken in with skepticism. However, for the purpose of this debate, it would make logical sense if we assumed the "most likely" position. My opponent has in fact already assumed the "most likely" position when he, in Round 2, stated " Ergo, in accordance with international doctrine, we can only reasonable presume innocence with regards to such an event". It is found in Contention 7. Also, when debating a action of mysteriousness, there is nothing else to do other than assume the most reasonable and likely position. Since nothing is clearly known, we must logical infer what most likely happened. I urge the readers to take this point into account. Rebuttals CrimeMy opponent is basing this contention of a non-logical presumption. First of all, legally, a crime has occurred even if there isn't a criminal. (1)Also, note that criminal investigation divisions are responsible for investigating criminal acts. (2) Their purpose is to find the criminal, by investigating the already occurred crime. My opponent's arguments is based on the fact that a crime can only be crime, if there is a criminal. This is wrong because:1. Of the aforementioned reasons constituting the legality of crimes and criminal departments.2. Also, I have to point out that if nobody has stepped forward, then a crime can be logically assumed. The only time that a "crime" is considered a "crime" is when the crime is justified, and if there is an official criminal. Neither of these apply in this debate. Therefore, this action is a crime. I have shown significant evidence as to why the crime was not justified, and that there is no official criminal. Human Rights ViolationAccording to the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights(3):"Everyone has the right to life"Regardless of whether the crime was justified or not (it wasn't), Gadaffi had his life taken away without a fair trial. Therefore, the rebels violated international doctrine. The UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights is international doctrine. The rebels violated this doctrine by taking away the "right to life" of Gadaffi without a fair trial. The rebels violated international doctrine. ConclusionAs this debate draws to a close, I would like to reiterate on some things My opponent has tried to claim that Gaddafi's death may have been justified because of several reasons. I have rebutted all of these. In essence, making his case moot. The rebels violated precious International Doctrine such as the UN "right to life" and "right to a fair trial". Therefore, his execution was not justified by international doctrine. My opponent has made the illogical presumption that something cannot be a crime without having a criminal. This is false, as I addressed earlier. We must take a "most likely" approach in dealing with this issue. Thank you for this informative debateVote CON(1) . http://www.cliffsnotes.com...(2)http://www.police.london.ca...(3)http://www.un.org...