Resolved: On balance, PETA has done more desruction to all living things (Read Full Res. Below)

I apologize for forfeiting a round, but I haven't lost any ground in the time I was gone. You still have just as much reason to negate as you did before the round I was absent in. I apologize to all of the viewers of this debate, my opponent has conceded all his offensive arguments (except for Prop 2) and made a false, biased claim about utilitarianism, and, at this point, can't possibly win unless you believe his biased, one-sided, false claim about utilitarianism and vote off of that while closing your eyes to all of the multiple offensive negative arguments. I expect that my opponent's lack of clash and diversity makes this round far less interesting than I intended it to be. Let's go down my opponent's speech: Overveiw: "My opponent misinterprets my logical arguments as a way to confine this debate to one specific format, however, he is mistaken" Okay, prove it. Oh, you can't AND it's too late in the debate to do so? Looks like HE'S wrong. "...my opponent has not made one argument for the merits of PETA..." Let me say this again, I AM THE NEGATIVE. I SIMPLY NEED TO PROVE THE AFFIRMATIVE FALSE, THEN I WIN. I don't need unique reasons to negate, I just need to prove that the affirmative is wrong. If the resolution was inverted: "Resolved: On balance, PETA (the US non-profit organization known as People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) has had more positive impacts to the well being and moral statures of all living things than detriments" then I would need to provide unique reasons. "we do see that PETAs influence on the passage of legislation such as proposition 2 in California will contribute negatively to the humans in society, who, under under utilitarianism, are placed at a level of more value than animals. When we have no positives of PETA present, and a risk of a negative, we have to err pro." At this point, he concedes all of his arguments except for Prop 2. I'm not going to waste any more of my limited space repeating my arguments. He has ignored them, read my previous speeches. The important thing to know here is that THE OVERVIEW FALLS. Useless rant 1: "As a judge you have to ask yourself "what does this resolution mean"? When the resolution could easily be reversed..." TOO BAD THAT IT ISN'T. The resolution is the resolution, not whatever it might look like in the mirror. Please re-read the rules you agreed to. This statement is false and must be dropped. "I have constructed an argument illustrating how PETA has caused for a negative impact..." And you 1) Dropped it, 2) ignored my in-depth attack against it. This statement falls. Useless rant 2: "He quotes this rant about how bad chickens are living now but the argument fails on multiple levels....We have to remember that the decision we are making is based on utilitarianism." As much as I want to yell, copy, and paste my earlier arguments, I trust you as a reader/judge to look at what I have said, as well as the fact that I NEVER CONCEDED TO UTILITARIANSIM, and that I DID NOT SAY I DID, and that I STATED WHY WE CAN'T USE UTILITARIANISM. My opponent clearly missed this, and, like I said before, he cannot impact to ANYTHING except for his biased interpretation of utilitarianism. His claims fall, again. AAA Quote: Don't buy what my opponent is trying to do, which is take someone's words WAAAAAAAAAAAY out of context. This quote has nothing to do with support nor opposition to Prop 2. You will know that the AAA was in extreme support for Prop 2 if you do your research. Prop 2: "Prop 2 will raise prices for Californian consumers" Too bad that that increase is lower than 50 cents per chicken strip. He doesn't state how "high" these prices are because he doesn't want you to know how DEVESTATINGLY LOW THEY ARE. "animal agriculture contributes nearly 90,000 jobs, $126 million in property taxes and $590 million in income and sales taxes to California every year" Cool. So, are we going to loose any of those jobs, or raise those taxes or cause any significant impact? NO WE AREN'T. Here are my opponent's Key Voter Issues: "1) Prop 2, which was fronted by PETA, actually caused for worse living conditions for chickens living in California. Which if you reject the util framework wins me the round based off strict interpretation of the resolution." This is false for many reasons: A) There is no evidence, moreover, none presented in this debate that infer or prove that Prop 2 hurt chickens B) In fact, Prop 2, as proven and clarified by both parties above, was designed and made to make chickens lives better, which means that we can turn this and show that in actuality, Prop 2 positively impacts chickens, thereby making Prop 2 a reason to Negate C) This is a warrantless claim that should be dropped on-face just for this reason "2) [Prop 2] illustrates the raise in food prices brought on by prop 2, hurting humans, which outweighs the betterment of animals (according to util) which does not even exist in this situation." This is false for even more reasons: A) To buy this claim, you must instantly assume that Humans > Animals, which we have agreed not to do in this debate. He contradicts himself AND breaks the rules. B) I have proven that the price is miniscule at best C) Even if you did buy that Humans > Animals, is a life described in my previous speech worth less than 45 cents?! D) Utilitarianism does NOT mean Humans > Animals E) The only way that this argument can be accepted is if you bought his B.S. util definition and ignored all of my speeches Here are the real things that you need to look at during this round: 1) All of the arguments my opponent initially presented were dropped by him, and Prop 2 was just proven false 2) He has just repeated himself and ignored my attacks 3) The only way my opponent can win is under a completely wrong definition of Utilitarianism 4) I win under any and all fair framework, more importantly, I win under the resolution