Nov PF Topic

It seems like I didn't make a 4th round by accident ... so just waive this round. As the 2nd speaker technically, I will both defend against refutations made and to rebut some of what my opponent said.Let it also be noted that the neg exists within the status quo - if there isn't a reason to change the status quo (worded differently, if the aff doesn't meet some burden) then you must automatically assume neg.Rebuttals:C1. The government's sponsorship of providing services is a good example of how nations can prioritize the humanitarian needs of refugees over its national interests.Okay, so basically this entire contention is saying that because we have funded refugees before, we can continue to do so. That's not a reason to do something ... I can break both of my legs by jumping off of my roof and I am certain that someone has done this before, but that alone is not a reason to do so. C2. History has proven that we shouldOkay, and history has 'proven' that we should mass murder the Jewish people because it fits our agenda at the time - we aren't operating under a framework of "what should the past have done?", we are under the framework of what should the present do? Past grievances meddled with current and saying they are the same is misrepresentation of what is happening and what has already happened.C3. Human rights groups say we need toSo what? Obama can say that cheese pizza is the best - just because someone said somethng doesn't mean that we need to do something. Citing sources is different than explaining what is meant in those sources - your sources have no warrants, they just say X is true therefore we need to do Y in accordance with X without showing why X is true or why Y is a good thing.Defense:FW: No, my case was not meant to counter yours. The aff lives in a world such that life is saved for current and future life - this is bad because XYZ what I listed. I've had my debaters run this case at a local tournament while speaking first - I am not attacking you in my constructives.C1. The affirmation obsession with life and preventing death is a heteronormative stance on the way that we see the world.You cite some random 'Green' card saying that we need to do something in order to save life without warrants, Green just says that's how it is. You are saving life in hopes of saving life! That is exactly what is heteronormative because of what my author says! Then they cite Shibbaz 2007 saying that the common good of people is to live - and this I agree. But I am not advocating for an act of commission, rather an act of ommission (murder vs. ignoring death). Saving life is bad - but life in itself is good. Saving life for life is the fascism of the baby's face as one author calls it - and it is alienation.You are operating in heteronormativity because the idea of saving life for life is heteronormative ... you can't say it isn't because you never actually attacked my card, just said that some random Green or Shibbaz guys say differently (without any credentials on the topic, might I add).C2. Heteronormative stances like these cause violence by excluding the non-normalised queer and making him "Other".Okay, you cite Kant and I have no clue how that's relevant to my point that you are causing "Other"-isation. You say there are no "ifs" in humanitarian imperative, citing someone who made a philosophical claim against my real-world impact ... it just doesn't hold as much water as you are giving it. Whether or not you claimed that saving lives is heteronormative or not is irrelevant - the framework the aff world is working in is flawed because it is heteronormative. Saving life is bad - letting life end by nonintervention keeps dignity intact and conflict low because there is no "Other"-isation of the queer. YOU NEVER ATTACK THIS! The aff has just cited random people with no credentials on any of the topics at all listed (Green 2015 ... okay, so what? You put sources used but never actually put a [1] in your case wheresoever so how am I to know where what was said ...) - disregard all of his attacks. The aff case doesn't provide a reason that we need to change the status quo, just that we can ... easily, vote neg and stop saving life and attacking the queer for being queer. Thank you.