No Standard Moral Law is Free of Conditionality

I would quickly like to ask that for his fourth round (not the next one, the last one), the Con should not make a rebuttal as to be fair and provide an equal number of rebuttals. I'm not sure exactly how forfeiting goes as to who wins, so i just ask that he write the words "I await the vote and urge a negative ballot" for the last rebuttal. Just for the benifits of those reading i'll do definitions of terminology, an analysis of both cases, then examination of refutations, then provide an outline voting points/weigh the cases, then burdens. Terminology Autonomy-freedom of an individual to choose John Locke's Freedom- the ability to do as one pleases as long as on does not infringe upon another's rights QoL-Quality of Life Security- the value of keeping one's self free from harm(practice involves self defense) Sanctity of Life-The value that all life is sacred Right to Life-the idea claiming that an individual has a claim on lifeAnalysis -Neg- Alright lets clear a few things up. First off I find that your contentions have little link(if at all) to the resolution as well as my case. All you seem to do is argue about how conditions are bad. Yet overlook tha main idea that i assumed was imperative in the neg case: That there actually is a moral law free of conditions. The fact remains is that i only need two simple argument to deter your entire case:-those examples do not follow moral conditions-you recognize that conditions exist and only set forth immoral examples, giving the ballot to the Pro.It seems completely illogical to uphold morality with contentions that outline immorality. Furthermore, you attempt to prove that achieving QoL will achieve morality, yet never tie in as to how moral conditionality disproves QoL. So the entire Neg case is based on no link to the resolution. -Aff- My (P1) sums up the idea that moral conditions are based on the situation. The clear link remains that moral conditions are based on the conditions present, tying real world practice with morals (leading to pragmatism). I also provide a case where the hypothetical imperative exists.On to my (P2). Okay, so my (P2) basically states that upholding moral laws without conditions can create the misuse of a value meant to be moral. I also provide an example for this which clearly outlines where a moral condition must be used to avoid promoting tyranny and harm. Yet, if one reads further into my example, one can realize that moral conditions are also utilized to avoid a conflict of moral values in the sense that one can define moral permissibility as having a greater obligation to a more numerous amount of moral values. I'll elaborate in the examination.Examination On to my opponents refutations. First he misinterpreted my Value Premise(Value Criterion). Pragmatism is the link between practice and theory. This ties into my Core Value of conditionality(a dependance on hypothetical imperatives). On to the "what we think is right point", moral conditionality is formed on what the moral law permits or seeks to achieve. For example, if one were being attacked, one would have the right to fight off the attacker to preserve one's own life (even at the cost of the attacker), because the values of autonomy, John Locke's freedom, QoL, and security create a conditionality to Right to Life. These values allow an action to be deemed morally permissible to avoid a conflict of morals. In turn, this conditionality is not what we think is right, but an action taken to the obligation of more moral values. Tie this in to the refutation of my (P1) to interpret that my opponent agrees with with my contention by not providing an argument, only restating it and saying it fails because its based on morals. THAT IS WHAT A MORAL CONDITION IS, AN ACTION BASED ON MORALS. On to his attack on my (P2), he makes a costly mistake of URGING TO OVERIDE THE MORAL VALUE OF SANCTITY OF LIFE AS WELL AS RIGHT TO LIFE!!! He admits that one must act on moral permissibility and forfeits to the Pro. But moving further, he only states there is no such thing as moral tyranny but never proved why this is so and he again admits we must look to moral conditionality in his "right from wrong" point. Voting Points-My case is left untouched -My burden placed on the Con was never answered -His case falls -HE ADMITS I'M RIGHT MULTIPLE TIMES -All of his refutations fall -My examples stand as proof that moral conditionality exists in all values-I further elaborate as to how no moral law is free of conditions-Even if his case were to remain, there is no tie to the stance that some moral are free conditions WeighingYou can deduce that I am winning this debate on a logical perspective, on the stance of my case, and the strength of it. On a logical perspective, I clearly define that no moral law is free of conditions, reaffirm that with the idea that moral conditions are necessary to avoid a conflict of moral laws, and turn my opponent's refutations into Pro points. Meanwhile, my opponent is left with a case that doesn't address the issue, refutations that only proove im right, and severely flawed logic that doesnt define a negative stance. In fact, the main weighing issue is the that my case remains solid as well as reinforced while my opponent is left with a distruaght case, laying in a clutter weak points.Burdens -The first burden is placed on myself. That burden is that i must prove that all moral laws have conditions. Since i have successfully fulfilled this, i urge a Pro ballot. -The Con still has the burden of proving that there is indeed a moral law free of conditions -An additional burden is placed on the Con to disprove my examples. If he cannot to do so, a Pro ballot is urged. -My final burden on my opponent is to link his case to the resolution. If he can not do so effectively, then the Pro wins todays round by default, because the Con has no premise to stand on and only refutations with nothing to tie to.