Distributive justice is a just economic system.

NEGATIVE CASE My opponent has AGAIN entirely ignored my entire case and thus conceded it. This alone is enough for me to win the round. Moving on. AFFIRMATIVE CASE Seabiscuit: "(1) It shouldn't be hard to find a passage in the 1000 page book that would be suitable for our purposes here. (2)But more over what he's doing is much more abusive than me making an argument that he didn't expect. If he doesn't have to warrant any of his claims because it is too difficult than I should be able to make any warrant less claim and it should be accepted as fact. (3) If he is not willing to debate subjects like liberty than why is he here in the first place?" FACT: (1) This point, like the rest of my opponent’s case, entirely ignores the point of the issue at hand (seems to be a habit of his). If he’s going to drop the comment, “You know Liberty, yeah, that thing the entirety of any successful society is based upon, that thing that America wouldn’t exist without? Yeah, it doesn’t exist. Just thought I’d mention that,” then the obligation lies with HIM to prove this impossibly absurd claim, not me to refute it. He must fulfill his prima facie obligations to prove his claims before I am obligated to address it. (2) This argument (and I use that term in the loosest sense of the word) is so utterly ridiculous and ironic I can barely keep from giggling as I crush it. He says that I simply haven’t warranted my claim because it’s too hard, and that therefore, if you accept any of my well-grounded arguments, he should be able to make any warrantless claim he wants and expect it to be accepted as the absolute truth. As I have pointed out before, I do not have to defend the existence of Liberty, firstly because it is an obvious reality that any fool can see, but also because my opponent has not fulfilled his primary obligation to prove its nonexistence. Furthermore, the laughable example my opponent gave of him being able to make countless warrantless claims and have them accepted as fact is EXACTLY WHAT HE IS TRYING TO DO. Round after round, literally since he accepted this debate, he has done nothing but make groundless, increasingly bizarre claims (e.g. Liberty nonexistent, Justice nonexistent, Morality nonexistent, no one owns anything, theft impossible, etc.), and expected them to be accepted without question, all while constantly and entirely falsely accusing ME of failing to warrant my claims. And so the question is: Will it work? Will you be deceived? (3) I am not debating liberty here because we are not here to debate liberty. I don’t know how many times I have to quote the Resolution, but I will do it again: “Distributive justice is a just economic system.” Thus the debate is and must be about distributive justice, not the existence of Liberty and Justice and so on. Therefore the idea that this debate should descend into unrelated ranting about Liberty is absurd. Seabiscuit: "Furthermore he dropped the Nozick card in his last speech, the only thing he has left is his Kant analysis which assumes that Kant is a property owner in the first place and, as I have said before there isn't any real concrete analysis that says anyone can own anything, and finally Kant has no intrinsic warrant on justice, just a large assumption that says the apple is mine and anyone that takes it is unjust, this is just an attractive, sophisticated, but baseless anecdote on the subject." FACT: I DID NOT drop my Nozick analysis in my last post. The very first thing I did in that post was extend my negative constructive case (which contains my Nozick analysis) and point out that my opponent has dropped it ONCE AGAIN. And so the claim that I only have the Kant analysis now is patently false. Also, considering the fact that all my opponent has done is drop arguments, it is surprising that he would bring up the issue of dropping arguments at all. He continues to ramble on about how I have not justified the existence of Liberty. Again, as I have said multiple times: I DON’T HAVE TO! It is rather my opponent’s responsibility to prove that it does not exist. To put it in terms of formal logic, he is committing the fallacy of Argumentum ad Ignoratium, Latin for “Argument from Ignorance.” To put it in simple terms, he is saying, “You have not proven Liberty exists, therefore Liberty does not exist.” This is akin to saying, “You have not proven Mexico exists, therefore Mexico does not exist.” Lack of proof for a thing does not in itself constitute disproof for the thing. Seabiscuit: "Even if you don't buy any of that I'm still winning on the argument that liberty, property, and morality are just temporal assertions in one particular time and place and have no legitimate grounds in terms of a real phenomenological argument. extend the Mayan, German, Native American analysis, which my opponent simply claims as a mistake on there (sic) part." FACT: I am surprised that my opponent actually makes this claim. It is inherent in his argument that Liberty does not exist, but most people would not come right out and say this because it reveals the scary implications of their theory. For example, if absolute, objective Justice and Morality do not actually exist, what’s wrong with rape? Or murder? Nothing. Genocide? Why not? The Holocaust? Who cares? 9/11? What’s the big deal? In short, my opponent’s entire case is based on a single assumption: anything goes. To accept my opponent’s case is to accept that I could kill all of you reading this debate right now and that would be just fine. [Just a warning to all you prospective Pro voters =)] CONCLUSION At the beginning of this debate, I laid out a coherent, logical, well thought-out case, proving beyond a shadow of a doubt that the distributive justice system is unjust. I proved that it violated the very foundational rights of Property, Liberty, Justice, and Dignity. I was, and still am, quite capable of defending each and every one of my arguments, and was looking forward to doing so. I anticipated an intelligent, informative, and interesting debate about an issue that is incredibly important to the nation, to the world, and to me. But it was not to be. To my dismay, I checked a few days later to find instead that my opponent had posted a blurb one-third the size of my argument, which completely ignored my entire case, not bothering to address my arguments but rather spewing random, superfluous pseudo-arguments of his own, often completely unrelated to the Resolution in any way. And yet, I continued, extending my constructive arguments in every round, reminding my opponent of his obligation to answer them, as well as spending much more space refuting his various arguments than he ever bothered to use articulating them. And yet, throughout the entire debate, my opponent acted as if my entire first argument had never existed, continuing to completely drop his previous arguments every round, instead offering a fresh batch of non sequitirs in each successive post. If you just read my opponent’s arguments, you would never know that my constructive case existed. In fact, you would not know that Justice existed either. Or Liberty. Or Morality. Or property rights. Or any other right for that matter. In summary, my opponent only wins this debate if man is a meaningless organic life form, entirely devoid of any value whatsoever, a right-less, pointless, soulless being serving the sole purpose of facilitating exploitation by its fellow organisms; enduring a worthless, futile existence, serving his miserable sentence of a hollow life on this insignificant rock hurtling with no purpose through dim space as empty as the souls that call it home. And so the question you must ask yourself before you vote is: is this the state of humankind’s existence? If your answer to this question is no, and I can only pray it is, then it is clear that the Resolution is false.