Jan/Feb LD Resolution

My opponent sadly misrepresents and misunderstand how my arguments function and how they link, and thus he's going to be losing the round today.On Ontology:He says that we must take action to prevent harm to life. He's not sufficiently responding to Campbell or my case. My case specifically talks about how suffering causes us to realize who we are in our finitetude and to find meaning in life. Any action to reduce this suffering would lead to the ruining of the value of life, thus causing greater harm to life.His second argument is that people will take action regardless of the outcome of the debate. This is exactly what my case advocates to change. My case advocates for a stance of no actions being taken, thus preserving the value of life by not changing the natural flow of suffering in the world. This argument is non-responsive to my case. On my opponent's turn:Regardless of what my opponent is saying, my case clearly says that altering the NATURAL FLOW of suffering results in a ruining of the value of life. By killing the abuser, we ALTER the flow of suffering. It can't be more simple than that. The turn doesn't apply. But to respond to my opponent's two points.1. The examples I gave were the NATURAL suffering of the world. These things ought not change. In so far as he is reducing suffering by ending the process of abuse, he is invalidating his claim that he links into the natural flow of suffering because HE IS ALTERING IT. I repeat, it can't get more simple than this. 2a. Nowhere in my case do I say that the natural flow of suffering is prohibited. I'm actually advocating that we KEEP the natural flow of suffering, while killing the abuser, whatever added suffering that may momentarily cause, would be temporary because once the abuser is dead, the amount of suffering is DECREASED, thus ruining the value of life. Thus, HE CANNOT LINK INTO suffering. The turn doesn't apply.2b. All my opponent does is restate the above point. So refer to the above refutations.So Long is cleanly extended to be a reason to vote con. On suffering must have a brightline:Refer to the argument I give in my case that explains exactly WHY suffering DOESN'T have a brightline. To put a brightline on suffering means that once we reach that brightline, it is impossible for us to suffer more which isn't true in the slightest. There will always be room for more suffering. It is impossible for us to not be able to suffer. Thus, it would be an arbitrary brightline that is just not true.This argument is clearly refuted.On deadly force not being deadly:The pro changed up their argument in the middle of the debate. This is highly abusive for me because then he can just change his argument to something that my arguments don't respond to any time he wants, thus making the debate highly unfair. Hold him to his original argument that deadly force causes death. Do not let him be abusive. Since deadly force will cause death, the turn still doesn't apply.On aff makes suffering flow better:I guess I have to reiterate again. IT IS IMPOSSIBLE FOR THE PRO TO LINK INTO SUFFERING SO LONG AS THEY ARE AFFIRMING THE RESOLUTION. By ending domestic violence, we reduce the suffering of the world, thus ruining life. He never responds to this point, but instead concedes it. This is going to be a game-over mistake for my opponent. Now to the specific points:1. Refer to my argument that suffering can't have a brightline. Putting a brightline on suffering implies that at some point, we can no longer suffer, which just isn't true.2. No warrant as for why. All he literally says is "it turns". So all I have to say is no, it doesn't. No, it doesn't.3. Refer to the debate on Ontology.Thus, the NC is cleanly extended as a reason to negate. He can't link into the flow of suffering, thus making his turns not true. Thus, the NC functions as a clean turn to my opponent's case since they are ruining the value of life, something that my opponent advocates is something important. In so far as he's doing this, it's an easy vote for the con. AC:On Clarke 1:Regardless of whatever hidden warrants he wants to fabricate, the 'patriarchal society' only exists in male FANTASY as per his card. He never responds to the arguments that fantasy is different from reality. The arguments against his card were never responded to. You can extend them both to cleanly take out this card.On Clarke 2:My opponent's only real response is I don't know how the card functions. But his explanation of how the card functions is EXACTLY WHAT I RESPONDED TO. My only argument against this card wasn't a no warrant card (I did make this, and he still provides no warrant for it). He never responds to the no link argument OR the no impact argument. All three can be cleanly extended to take out this card. On Clarke 3:This hidden point that my opponent supposes is made in this card actually isn't there. Feel free to read the card yourself. There is absolutely NO WARRANT as for why what he says is even IN the card, much less why it's true. My argument still stands and takes out this card easily.On Clarke 4:I do realize that it talks about deterrence. I never refuted that it did. My argument was that it gives no warrant as to why this deterrence is even TRUE. Thus, it still lacks a warrant.The turn still applies because a) I'm winning off of the NC and sufficiently proving that by affirming, we reduce suffering and ruin the value of life and b) the turn still applies because when the abuse ends, there is no longer a confrontation of death, thus he still ruins the value of life. The turn stands. This card is easily taken out. On Clarke 5:1. He still provides no warrant as for why taking action ends domestic abuse. I may stop one or two domestic violence cases, but that doesn't end domestic violence as a whole. His card isn't saying what he wants it to.2. He concedes here that the aff reduces suffering. He gives no warrant as for why one form of suffering is better than another, while I advocate that suffering as a whole ought not be reduced. So far as he's reducing suffering in any way, he cannot link into suffering. Thus, you can still extend this argument to take out his responses on the con case. This card is easily taken out. On the underview:1. If every situation of domestic abuse ISN'T different, then my opponent must defend that calling my girlfriend a skank and a man brutally beating his wife to death with a baseball bat are EXACTLY THE SAME. Since they are not, this argument against self-defense still stands.2. His cards don't say what he's trying to make them say. Read the cards yourself. There's no warrant as for why deadly force is self-defense. Using non-deadly force is clearly self-defense, but my opponent is not proving how DEADLY FORCE meets self-defense, which is what the resolution implies. Thus, extend out Rosin as an answer to self-defense and how the aff fails to meet it. Thus, the underview is cleanly taken out.On the abuser forfeits their rights specifically:1. He gives no warrant as for why this is true, only asserts it to be so.2. If someone loses their rights when infringing upon someone elses, then it would be justified for the abuser to turn around and kill the victim when the victim tried to kill the abuser, thus infringing on their rights.3. All people inherently have human rights. Jack Donnelly explains:[1] Human rights are, literally, the rights that one has simply because one is a human being. Human rights are equal rights: one either is or is not a human being, and therefore has the same human rights as everyone else. They are also inalienable rights: one cannot stop being human, no matter how badly one behaves. And they are universal rights, in the sense that today we consider all "human beings" holders of human rights. Thus, everyone will always retain their human rights. His argument that the abuser loses their rights just isn't true. So this round breaks down simply. My opponent isn't doing enough work to prove his case. He doesn't link into suffering. So vote con.Source is in comments.