The United States ought to extend to noncitizens accused of terrorism the same constitutional due pr

Okay, so the first thing I would like to note is that my opponent drops literally every single one of my attacks except for two. All he addresses is my use of the word terrorist and how we're obligated because of the constitution. This means you can cleanly extend the two arguments I gave as an overview to his case. This is going to mean a number of things for the round: a) My opponent is not proving a moral obligation, or even a moral good. At best, he's proving a legal good. But saying that what is legal is what is moral is a) the is/ought fallacy. Just because it is legal doesn't mean it ought to be legal, and b) utterly ridiculous. That's like saying if murder were legal or protected by the constitution we would be a nation of serial killers. This means you literally cannot vote pro off of the aff case, since he's not proving a moral obligation. b) You prefer the negative's framework in this debate as I'm the only one discussing the ought part of the resolution. This means we have to look at this debate through the lens of the leviathan. Also, my opponent even conceded the entirety of my case, even specifically stating that he won't address the details of my case. And since the only thing he tried to refute was my rebuttals, you can cleanly extend all of my case. This means that: a) We evaluate the round based on who is better preventing the state of nature, which means you have to look to the leviathan. b) The Ripstein evidence is true. This means that 1) my opponents arguments as to how the contract gives a moral obligation are false because non-citizens don't consent to the contract and thus we are not obligated to give them these rights and 2) even if he's proving its good to extend them the rights, that only makes it permissible, not obligatory, which is the aff burden. Now, lets look at the two things he did respond to. Lets start with my cross-application of the Ripstein evidence. He says because I use the word "terrorist" that I'm not actually debating the resolution and thus all the arguments I've made are invalid, however: 1. This isn't actually responsive to my argument. Even if you exchanged terrorist for non-citizens accused for terrorism", the argument would still be the same. 2. Really? Because I use the word terrorist in my argument EVERY SINGLE ARGUMENT I've made this debate is invalid? Ridiculous. 3. Even if his "response" is true, it's outweighed by the fact that he actually conceded the Ripstein evidence, which means that you prefer my argument since it at least as a risk of offense. So you can extend that rebuttal across. This means that because they never consent to the constitution, that we can never be legally obligated to give them, which negates his entire contention level argument. Then his second response is talking about how his case proves a moral obligation, however this is just him restating his contentions and he never actually refutes or even addresses the arguments that say that it doesn't prove a moral obligation. Since he's just re-asserting already refuted arguments, you can ignore that response. Again, the debate breaks down really simply. His arguments aren't proving a moral obligation, meaning at best he's only proving permissibility, and he dropped literally my entire case. He's just not doing enough work to affirm the resolution and I'm extending clear reasons on the AC and from the NC why we aren't obligated which means it's an easy con vote.