The intentional ban on hunting whales shoud be lifted

Thank you for your arguments as well, you've proved yourself a good debater and has made this challenging. 1. My argument for the weighing mechanism is we consider and address all groups' problems equally. You seem to think I come at this from a utilitarian standpoint, but I am not necessarily saying we view all the people as people with equal problems, but rather the groups as equal. This is a better weighing mechanism than yours, because we take into account the voices off all minorities while you do that with just one minority. 2. Me explaining this is completely fair. You have 5000 characters to explain why yours is better and instead of doing that you wasted them on explaining why you can't explain why yours is better. This argument should be disregarded off. Now the CP 2. Yes it does. There is no abuse with resolution, because your opponent has the full choice to accept it or to not accept it. If you made a resolution only about the Makah that's no abusive, because no one HAS to accept the debate and if they do they fully accept what they will be debating. It's a similar instance. You gave me an advantage with the resolution and all I'm doing is taking advantage of it. That's not abuse, and if it's anyone's fault it's yours so you should be given no lenience. 3. a. The biggest logical fallacy here is the MMPA does no harm to the Makah if we give the Makah the right to whale. By doing this we are not erasing any history and are in fact helping preserve it. b. You have given no warrants either so this argument should be disregarded off. Again, if we restore the Makah's right to whale which my CP is suggesting the MMPA is restoring the Treaty of Neah Bay and is not erasing any history. c. By restoring the Makah's right to whale we are restoring the history of the Treaty of Neah bay. You have not proven or given any logical argument as to why restoring their right to whale is erasing history and not restoring it. d. This DA is hypocritical because you say that the CP erasing history because we are restoring the Makah's right to whale. That is what your entire argument is trying to do, therefore the entire DA really doesn't make any sense and should be disregarded of. e. I did not drop that this is a huge solvency deficit. I did not drop it because I stated and proved that we are not erasing history. Whales DA 1. The example of Algae should be disregarded of because algae and whales are so incredibly different. You're partially right, some species do come close to extinction and then rebound. But even more species go straight to extinction and never rebound. The species that go extinct are often species that are hunted to extinction. If Gray whales continue to be hunted they will likely end up extinct. 2. That's really not true. While it is true the article mentions there are other issues like disease and food shortage it does not say that they will certianly drive the gray whale into extinction so Pro's argument here is pure speculation. If you read this quote here: "More than 40 years later, a new report shows that the law has been effective: It not only prevented extinctions that seemed imminent, but also helped some species bounce back in strong numbers, researchers say." You will see that the article clearly supports my claims that the MMPA has helped prevent species from going extinct. Pro has done nothing to combat this so you can conclude that the MMPA has, in fact, helped marine mammals. 3. The date of disappearance refers to in the area. The evidence has not disappeared. The vast majority of your claims with the DA are pure speculation and you have no evidence for any of them. Onto case 1. This argument is based on the History Erasure DA, but I have given plenty of reasoning as to why that DA is irrelevant. The CP solves for all of Pro's offense, because all of it is based around the Makah's right to whale. My CP gives them exactly that, therefore Pro has no offense because I solve for all of it. 2. That's not what I said at all. I said you don't come close to solving what you claim to solve for. You claimed that by giving the Makah the right to whale you rhetorically solve for all instances of colonial violence. My argument is that doesn't mean anything, because you aren't actually solving for anything. 3. By making a plan to restore the native's right to whale this isn't true at all. I am completely taking the native voice into account. 4. The reason I say your offense is overblown and ridiculous, is well, because it's overblown and ridiculous. I am not saying racism is not relevant, but claiming that giving the Makah the right to whale solves for all racism against the natives is ridiculous. 5. The DA outweighs because if it's impact happens everyone will be tremendously effected. Your impact effects a small amount of people while my impact effects everyone. Pro does not win the round, and I should because of the CP solving all of his offense and the whales DA. Truly great debate.