The Japanese Whalers are immoral and deserve the Sea Shepherds' actions.

>(The Whalers have only used non-lethal force so far.) They have used lethal force and it is on camera. They have thrown steel bolts golf balls they have even shot at Paul Watson as shown in the episode "Boiling point." You cannot deny that shooting someone is "Non lethat force." >(Ok, then. Substitute knife for baseball bat.) No this will still cause harm the tactics used by the sea shepherds are only comparable to those of spider man who never harms the criminal but leaves them in spider webs in his wake. The sea shpeherds have never thrown anything that COULD cause harm to the whalers cellulose powder is about as dangerous as orange juice. >(So what? Humans created rights. Humans have free will and reason. Non-human animals do not. Thus, they do not have rights.) My opponent conceded that Humans are animals thus why should some animals have rights over others. That is prejudice thats like saying "Only whites should be president because they are superior." this is immoral because obviously prejudice is not moral and is immoral. >(This point is void. I have already proved why humans have rights, and animals do not.) Again humans are animals my opponent fails to distinguish that he dropped this argument if he should further fail to distinguish this i will. >(This point is again void. My opponent is trying to show immorality by comparing killing of humans with killings of whales. I have already proved why humans have rights, and animals do not.) He needs to diversify his arguments because I have taken one down i have basically taken down all arguments that argue humans differ from animals. >(Completely fallacious.) No warrant or impact not a complete argument thus htis cannot be looked at. Cont 6 ok well then the Japanese whalers are not the strongest we dropped the A bomb on em before so lets resume with that. All of my opponents arguments are one sided flawed ideas if only the strongest truly prevail then we should take over japan. Contention 2 Since my opponent has accepted the people are animals whales ought to be treated with the same rights. If whales had to option to kill us would we want them too? no, which is why we need to stop killing innocent beings. Contention 3 We will wipe a species off the face of the earth should this continue. My opponent says well because we haven't officially domesticated them what should matter. we domesticate beings to keep them from becoming extinct. Whales are on the extinction list. Our generations will not be able to see whales should this continue and to see that species wiped off the face of the planet because a couple of people could not comply with the risks being taken. Its like a child playing with his dads gun then he becomes an orphan and cannot survive because he cannot raise himself. My opponent is not taking responsibility so i shall add a burden. Since murder is unjust why should we allow another member of the mammalian family to die. the sea shpeherd's have never harmed a single japanese whaler. Yet they have sustained casualties such as haing a gash beneath the eye, bruises and had paul watson not been wearing his bullet proof vest he would have died. Surely the Whalers are unjust in thier violence. Ok whale blood aside all of my human killing scenarios are completely relevant to this case. The whalers are spilling human blood while the sea shepherds do not surely this is not appropriate even by the oppositions case. This round was won by me from stage 1. My opponent failed to provide a Value or a Value Criterion. This round is based on 1. Whose value was better in terms of gain. which i have since there is nothing to compare to. 2. Who upheld their value best which i did because the opponent had no value to uphold. 3. whose value criterion best achieved the value. Mine since my opponent had no value criterion in which to uphold the value. Thus you must vote affirmative