Violence provoking the act of murder.

OverviewFirst off, the opponent dropped everything I said, and again argued to add more onto his case. Don't let him bring anything up in the past speeches including mine, and is a reason to just vote Pro. You have to evaluate every part of the debate.CaseSo the article he puts out establishes a narrative of a school shooter: Michael Carnael. My best interest is to discredit this.In my first attempt, let's also note that Carnael was also delusional - he reported sightings of hallucinations he called "the danes". The article also reports "wanting to bring a gun to show-and-tell while in kindergarten, then use the weapon on anyone who didn't like his presentation -- a plot that never came off." [4]That was before the 90s. Now extend my previous article: 1- Violence fluctuated very differently during that period. The later half of the 20th century even showed reduce societal violence. This should be preferred because it was a long time study, versus one that reacts three years later. The article concludes that: In a press statement Ferguson notes that the media narrative surrounding violent video games and youth violence may be due to the “limited amount of resources and attention” that society can devote to “the problem of reducing crime”. He adds, however, that if the wrong problem is identified, it may "distract society from more pressing concerns such as poverty, education and vocational disparities and mental health." Ferguson writes: "This research may help society focus on issues that really matter and avoid devoting unnecessary resources to the pursuit of moral agendas with little practical value." Now, extend source 3: the weapon instrumentality effect increased the death rate and degree of injury. That turns case.Sources4) http://www.wdrb.com...Capitalism CritiqueThey conceded this in their last speech. That means they agree you should do nothing in face of the con. It solves all claims of violence - because capitalism subjects all to this Otherization.They link because their first speech talks about human rights are a necessitation and disregarded by media implications. They also use rhetoric to preserve life, as their last speech practically concluded. Coviello says that apocalypse is set out defined to a contagion through the perpetual threat of "destruction", that is of life.The implication of apocalypse shouldn't be evaluated. Zizek begins with: "What if we are "really alive" only if and when we engage ourselves with an excessive intensity which puts us beyond "mere life?"" When we are ready to take the RISK of challenging the dominant, we are ready.Now you should do nothing towards the con- our view of abstention is radical and the way we do it is better than contribution to the "visible [...] Empire" - the threat isn't passitivity, it's activity that masks the nothingness of the Empire.The Aff is concerned with solving fleeting , conjunctural crises, which are inevitably recurring features of the fundamental structural crisis of capital. Error replication is inevitable, and our impacts outweigh Meszaros, 06 (Istvan, “Structural Crisis of Politics,” Monthly Review, September, Proquest, Accessed 7-11-09, PAK)This card is saying that in the way that they try to repair the violence perpetrated by media will just cause the same violence and probably strengthen the same violence, i.e. error replication. The CON displaces the perspective of those most violently affected by the plan – they bracket the debate to certain benefits while erasing the ecological violence done against the periphery – turns case and causes extinction Bryant 95 (Bunyan, Professor in the School of Natural Resources and Environment, and an adjunct professor in the Center for Afro-American and African Studies at the University of Michigan, Environmental Justice: Issues, Policies, and Solutions, p. 209-212 SpanosThey conceded this in their last speech. That means they agree you should do nothing in face of the con. It solves all claims of violence - because Western epistemology disregards the ontic - the ontic allows us to question who WE are in order to place ourselves in politics.Some part of their case card includes Holocaust deniers - but it is colonial/imperialist exceptionalism that allows for this. Without the alternative you produce a violence that allows things like the Holocaust itself. That's Spanos in 8.If violence is continued and as the con normalizes it as if it's a day-to-day thing: life never gains value, it just creates the condition for extinction. That's also Spanos in 8.Their conception of human rights and freedom is flawed- it also allows us to colonize the other especially in poverty- slavery is an empiric example. That's Burke in 7Spanos in 2000 wrote that attempts to avert crisis (i.e., school shootings) it just allows for the OTHER to be colonized, and have no say in the matter. Any history could show you that.ANY POLITICAL QUESTION SHOULD BE FOLLOWED BY ANSWERING WHO WE ARE- AND THEN CHALLENGING WESTERN THOUGHT