Jan/Feb LD Resolution

I'll defend my case, then rebuke his.Ontology must be followed by taking some type of action...1. There's absolutely no warrant for why this is true. He's just asserting it out there hoping to get some kind of vote off of this.2. Taking no action is exactly what the neg is proposing here. By taking no action, we allow the natural suffering to flow naturally. So the whole re-entrenching argument just doesn't make any sense.. Turn: Suffering happens in all actions we take1. This just isn't true. Unless my opponent wants to defend that buying flowers for your girlfriend causes suffering or that having a birthday causes suffering, or other hypothetical situations such as that, then this turn just isn't true.2. Even if it is true, I'm going to be outweighing on the amount of suffering because a) he takes actions to change the flow of suffering which prevents us from achieving trandencentalization and b) by killing the abuser, the suffering of the women is decreased, which prevents her from finding the value in life.So at this point, Long can be extended clearly. There must be a bright lineRefer to my argument in my case about why suffering doesn't have a brightline because it would then assume that people, after some point, could no longer be able to suffer which just isn't true. It went conceded in the last speech, so this sufficiently answers back his argument here.We will only stay in a cycle of doing nothing1. This, again, is exactly what the neg is advocating. 2. Again, he gives no warrant as to why actions make us value life. And so far as I'm winning on Long, actions do not make us realize what life is, but suffering.Confrontation of death is not definiteThis argument makes no logical sense in the slightest. All he's doing is throwing out random, blippy arguments that aren't legitimate arguments hoping to get some sympathy from the voters. So don't buy the turn. The aff makes suffering flow better1. No warrant as to why domestic abuse victims will kill their abusers 100% of the time. This is a totally false assertion on the part of my opponents.2. This isn't even responsive to the argument I'm making. This has nothing to do with what society views as permissible, but on how suffering ought to flow.3. This just isn't true. By allowing women to kill their abusers, the abusees' suffering is ended or, at the very least, decreased, which changes the natural flow of suffering. Only doing nothing, which is what the neg advocates, will allow suffering to flow naturally, so he doesn't link here. no one can ever tell the abuse that one has gone through except for the victimI'm not advocating for a way to measure suffering (if so that would entail there was some form of brightline, which would contradict my case). The fact that they are experiencing suffering is enough to bite straight into the neg. The confrontation of death is greater in the Aff than in the Neg.This isn't true. By allowing them to kill their abusers, they end the confrontation with death. By doing nothing, as the neg advocates, the confrontation with death continues. This argument is easily refuted.So since I'm winning on literally ALL the arguments on my case, I'm still meeting my burden. This can be extended.By allowing the victim to end, or at least decrease, the suffering they are experiencing by killing the abuser, they fundamentally ruin the value of life. This still turns the AC since the AC advocates that the oppression caused by domestic abuse is bad. My case talks specifically about how this oppression and suffering defines life and thus, since he's trying to end this oppression, he ruins the value of life.Now to go to the AC:Off D.A. Clarke 1:1. This specifically references male FANTASY. But I would like to point out that fantasy is very different from reality. In reality, there are plenty of men out there that would like to be dominated sexually by a woman. 2. There's a difference between the fictional scenarios proposed by porn companies and the real world. This is a missing internal link in my opponents case, which makes the card irrelevant to discussion. Off D.A. Clarke 2:1. This doesn't link into his first contention at all. All this card does is list ways to prevent crimes from happening, but this doesn't entail that society fails to deliver on these methods.2. There's no warrant for why any of this is actually failing to be done. Anyone who pays attention to the news will see stories of people who shot someone in self defense or someone who lost their job for molesting someone under them (i.e. priests losing their jobs for molesting little boys during Sunday School in Boston?). And we teach people that crime is bad by jailing those who commit crimes. So there's no reason anything this card suggests is true.3. There's absolutely no impact to this card. Even if this card was 100% true, he gives you no analysis as to why this actually matters in the round. Don't let him stand up in his next round and give you some B.S. reason. Off D.A. Clarke 3:We agree on punishment via the judicial branch of the government. Their job in court is to decide on court cases and decide on sentancing of those found guilty. So we have a way as a society to decide on who deserves what punishment. Off D.A. Clarke 4:1. No warrant. All it does is assert claims without actually backing it up with any substantial reasons why this is true.2. TURN: Ending domestic violence ruins the value of life. Cross apply the negative case as a warrant for this argument. Off D.A. Clarke 5:1. This is exactly why the AFF doesn't cause suffering to flow more naturally. So you can extend this as an answer to the arguments he placed against the negative case. By using deadly force, we are subtracting suffering.2. No link as to why this ends domestic abuse. I might prevent one or two more murders, but that doesn't mean domestic violence is stopped as a whole. Group the underview, since it's essentially a third contention for self defense: 1. Even if self-defense justifies lethal force, it's impossible to know whether self-defense was truly necessary or not in the situation. Since every situation is different, applying an overarching moral rule to it just fails entirely.2. TURN: If self-defense is true, then the abuser is justified in killing the victim when the victim tries to kill the abuser. In other words, the abuser can then claim he was acting in self-defense and kill the abused person and get away with it. This will always outweigh because self-defense thus fails to protect the life of those who are abused, thus failing to meet his criterion.3. If self-defense were true, then any murderer could claim he acted in self-defense and get away with it, relying on complex psychological analysis to prove whether or not that actually felt threatened - analysis that is in no way falsifiable. 4. Self-defense negates because deadly force fails to fall into the category of self-defense. Cathryn Rosen explains[1]:The amount of force employed by the defender must be proportionate to the threatened aggressive force. If deadly force is used to defend against nondeadly force, the harm inflicted by the actor will be greater than the harm avoided. Even if deadly force is proportionate, its use must be necessary. Otherwise, unlawful conduct will only be justified when it inovlves the lesser harm of two harmful choices. If countering with nondeadly force or with no force at all avoids the threatened harm, defensive use of deadly force is no longer the lesser evil of only two choices. Alternatives involving less societal harm are avaiable. In many cases it may have been possible to avoid the unlawful conduct altogether.Since using deadly force to respond to domestic violence fails to meet these criteria, either a) don't buy self-defense and ingore the underview or b) vote con off of self-defense.Vote con. [1] Rosen, Cathryn Jo. The Excuse of Self-Defense: Correcting a Historical Accident on Behalf of Battered Women Who Kill. The American University Law Review. 1986.