That Rap music should be banned

well my opponent wanted LD so i assumed that he was experienced and knew all of the rules. in LD the Affirmative HAS TO PROVIDE SOLVENCY. I learned this is my first few months of learning LD so extend all solvency arguments because no argument was made except that my opponent didnt have to which as one of the basic rules of LD is that he does because in any debate you want to solve the problems you use as contentions and they need to be 100% solved if this is effective. Such as Kill one to save more the Aff saves more lives this is a 100% true statement and can be used as an entire contention so extend all solvency arguments. Value: Morality. this is a flawed value ideals on morality constantly change we thought it was moral to have black slaves 100 years ago but ideas on morality change so why have a value so arbitrary. Value Criterion: My opponent argues Hitler had in no way shared these Ideas however i stated Hitler was a Utilitarianist and no matter what he did what he believed comes out to a better outcome which is exactly what my opponent is doing and Util is no way to think because it is not moral which doesnt hold up morality or the principles of LD (cont 1) slang isnt a language I never stated it was i stated it was a different way of speaking. i was misquoted i did state it was LIKE a language not that it was so my opponents arguments do not match to my contention argument and extend my argument on solvency as stated before. (cont 2) again solvency is a given you must provide in every case extend this and well as advertizement promotes the following there would be no decrease violent video games that involve gangsters violent cartoons tabacco companies and almost any where you look sex is implied. so my opponents argument fails while he provides no solvency and my argument stands so this contention falls (Cont 3) Again solvency and the fact we disrespect women anyway i can promote hitting my sister to my sister but she will still be in favor of it so this contention doesn't stand and extend my arguments. Moving on to defend my own case . No arguments made on my value so my value is now accepted as the paramount value which means i should win this debate right now and nothing would be against it. I refuted the argument made on my value criterion and said freedom of expression was basically an inalienable right and said with my first contention and my VC never to take these away so since in the last round no argument was made about itmy value criterion is now the paramount VC ( Cont 1) as i stated before i can double refute the argument made on my VC and cont 1 because they are basically the same. (Cont 2) I did providee a warrant for this saying some deal with stress by listening to music. and second listening to music as a stress reliever is universal everyone likes their genre and listening to music is far different than drugs and sex is a beutifull natural thing and it is benefitial in it produces more people which is benefitial to society. (Cont 3) My opponent provides no argument as to how i stated hes only listening to what he weants to he is hearing exactly what he wants to hear and not the other side You should vote negative because my value precedes his my VC precedes his and my contentions have solvency and are more cleanly built as you can see. As you can see my value is the paramount value my VC is paramount and my contentions stand while his crumble so i urge and negative vote reminding my voters that my opponent did not go over voting issues.