Human suffering can be ended with the elimination of the human race

I ask for the fourth rebuttal (not the next but the last) my opponent just write "I urge a Con vote" as to keep an equal number of rebuttals. For the benefit of those reading, i will post my refutation in this format: analysis of cases, examination of rebuttal, voting points, then burdens.Analysis-Neg-First, let my opponent's definitions carry through his case. His first contention states i contradict myself by attempting to end suffering through suffering. It seems he missed my point about the instantaneous death. First brief suffering is not necessary to achieve my method(no suffering can be possible), and second, even if it were, I seek to end long term HUMAN suffering (even if brief suffering is necessary). It is the ends that justify the means. And since the end is no suffering, that brief suffering is excused. Furthermore, his focus on this contention shifts from the resolution to why life should be lived. Since this makes up a great bulk of this contention, his first contention can be dropped. His second contention is completely extra resolutional since it does not tie into HUMAN SUFFERING, the only type of suffering that should be focused on. Since my opponent clearly address suffering BESIDES human suffering, this argument is dropped by default. His third contention only outlines that human suffering can be beneficial, but in no way addresses how my method cannot end human suffering, so drop this point as well. His fourth contention also remains extra-resolutional since it deals with a subject other than human suffering, so this is dropped by default.-Aff-First off, my observation persists since my opponent showed no refutation. Second, my definition of human stands since the opponent seems to show no refutation to this either. Move to my point in which i present my argument. My opponent gives an argument only to my point of "ends justify the means". The rest of my case still stands, including the main idea stating that eradicating the human race leads to an end in human suffering since no one is alive to experience that very human suffering. Thus i extend my entire case on the premise that it main and sole idea was never addressed.ExaminationMy opponent continuously overlooks the idea that the brief suffering experienced would lead to an eternal end of human suffering. He also seems to only tie his first contention into his rebuttal, clearly dropping the other three. And since his rebuttal is a summary of his first contention, all my attacks directed towards the contention will be directed towards the rebuttal and vice versa. Furthermore, my goal does not mean an individual has to live to see the end of human suffering, i just contend that without the human race, human suffering can not persist (clearly showing i've achieved my goal). The "other ways to end suffering" is extra resolutional since alternatives do not demean the effectiveness of my chosen method. So drop all these points, carry the drop on his first contention to his rebuttal, and note my opponent is left without an argument.Voting Points-The main purpose of the Pro was never addressed by the con. He only lists arguments as to why killing is wrong and not why i can't achieve the end of human suffering through eliminating the human race.-My opponent failed to address the core of my case, leaving it virtually unharmed.-I've dropped every contention of my opponent.-The drop on his first contention ties over to his rebuttal. You can then extend that drop and state his entire rebuttal is dropped.-Con never stated that my method was not effective in achieving its goal, so i urge the vote automatically be given to the Pro.-Without a case to base his arguments on, the Con should automatically lose since he has no way of refering back to his contentions to dispute me.Burdens-The burden the Pro faces is that his method is effective. Since this was never disputed, then the Pro clearly fulfills his burden.-The Con has to present clear arguments as to how my method does not achieve its goal. If he fails to do so, the vote must automatically be given to the Pro.-The Con must link his case to proving how the Resolution can not achieve its goal. If he fails to do so, the Pro is automatically given the vote.-The Pro has no burden relating to suffering other than human suffering. If the Con continues to focus on such suffering, he does not address the resolution and the Pro is automatically given the vote.I urge a Pro ballot and await my opponent's response.