Violent defense of the unborn is a legitimate tool to end abortion.

Preface: As this is the final round, I shall not make any cases, rather I shall make only counter-cases. Counter-Case:Polls and The Right to a Trial. Pro starts by attempting to say that I ignored all of his polls, except for the one where murder is less. In fact I actually mentioned all of them when stating that his polls only show how the phrasing can change the outcome of the poll. This references all the polls. After this I went on to mention the final poll, as it is the one referenced when Pro stated most people thought abortion was murder. I have already shown that Pro attempted to twist the polls to his benefit through misrepresentation. Pro simply attempts to repeat his claim, in no way attempting to refute my counters. "My opponent declares "everyone deserves a trial" while completely missing the point that abortion itself is the taking of a human life without a trial." Pro says this, but ignores that this in no way is how the legal system works. By this system, we can simply kill a criminal without trial. Why should we? Their victims suffered without trial. And according to Pro, we don't need to give them a trial because they never gave their victim a trial. But in the real world, you get a trial, no matter what you have done. Whether you've given the other person a "trial" doesn't cost you the right to a trial. Counter-Case II: Acts of those in the past. Pro spends this part of his argument making substantial mis-comparisons. First of all, the resistance against the Germans was an insurrection against a occupier {1} that has broken an incalculable numbers of war crimes (as opposed to abortion, which is not an international crime). {2} As for slavery, most of those who acted in violence for the slaves (outside of war, which is a major factor to be considered), were persecuted by the law. Though a few might say they were heroes, they are rarely treated as such. The true heroes were those who acted non-violently in order to secure the freedom of slaves. {3/4/5} A more proper modern variation of the true heroes would be those who work to save the unborn through offering to adopt. Pro mentions that history is "replete" with another example. However most of these would have explanations, or are simply cases of hypocrisy (which becomes common as we view the past). Ultimately as Pro fails to mention any other ones, I cannot explain them, as each example would be obviously different. Counter-Case III: Semantics Pro starts his final paragraph by attempting to discredit me through the use of simple semantics. Violent defense is still "violent", given the nature. One could replace all my references to lethal violence with non-lethal violence, and my arguments would still stand just as strong. So the changing from murder to maiming doesn't alter the validity of my cases. Pro ends his round by stating that these actions don't constitute vigilante "justice", but rather defense. This isn't the case at all though. Non-Justice "Defense" would be someone pulling a knife on you, and you fighting back. Going to his house to paralyze him because he once pulled a knife is not defense, it is justice. To aid to my case, the definition of defense is "resistance against attack; protection". {6} It in no way reference a "moral right or duty" (which I've in a prior round pointed out is a dangerous (and possibly hypocritical) concept when used to justify violence). Therefore Pro is using an unsupported definition. Pro has ultimately ended this paragraph by saying I've missed some distinction, when in truth that "distinction" was created through improper redefinement. By his definitions, there is no such thing as "vigilantism", as they can simply claim it's "defense" of others, rather than "justice". Counter-Case IV: Shifting the Goal Post This is a small point, and thus will not be a long Counter-Case, however I feel I should give it it's own place simply to emphasis the point. "violent defense does not constitute murder or even necessarily the taking of life." This quote obviously comes from Pro. Now I will point out that the resolution isn't about "non-lethal violent defense". It is about "violent defense". Pro never iterates the point in his opening round. And in fact all his examples were blatant killings. Pro can not attempt to discredit my arguments by saying that not every example might be killing. His resolution includes killing, therefore he must defend it also, otherwise he fails to fully affirm the resolution. Pro can successfully defend all the non-lethal examples, and still fail to affirm the resolution because it includes lethal examples (some of which, again I say, he brought up). Conclusion: Violent Defense of the Unborn is Not a Legitimate Tool to End Abortion. I end this debate by pointing out that Pro has largely failed to counter my arguments, and has made little effort to truly refute my counters. Pro's sources have been few, and from sites with overwhelming bias present at every step of the way. His entire last round held no sources, and therefore any claim made in that round by him is unsubstantiated. He has largely made his points through use of unapologetic semantics play, and misrepresentation of my own arguments. Near the end, Pro attempted to shift the goal post to discredit my arguments. But no, as the resolution includes killing, my arguments stand. Pro has failed to counter me (usually dropping cases), and failed to defend his points. As such, I can only leave by saying Pro has failed to Affirm his Resolution. Sources: 1] http://en.wikipedia.org... 2] http://en.wikipedia.org...3] http://www.history.com...4] http://www.pbs.org...5]http://en.wikipedia.org...6]http://dictionary.reference.com...==Unitomic==