April PFD Topic

My opponent has conceded that we both have the burden of proof, and provided the equally true statement, that it is fair to use the firs two speeches as constructive , and the last speech as a final focus. That said My opponent still has a burden of proof; he has done nothing in the way of proving his stance in his first speech and unless he does so in this last speech, The Pro will win by default. That said I will start with my opponent's case, go to my own, and finish with some voters. Con- 1. a. There is no warrant here; making an argument like this with-out any logical explanation, or a piece of evidence is completely and utterly abusive. We must not accept it. b. My opponent claims these impacts of poverty, dehumanization, and war; but he never proves these impacts or even mentions why he has such impacts. c. Again my opponent makes a good claim; but he has no warrant to back up this argument. The extent of his logic here is a small amount of analysis, but the conclusion her derives is non-sequitar; thus it has no impact in this round. 2. a. This is not true; this statement is based completely on assumption, despite the fact that I have already proven otherwise in both my constructive speech, and my attacks on my opponent's case last round. b. It still doesn't matter my opponent is still picking and choosing what organs he deems okay, and which organs he deems as bad. These people whom are donating their organs are already dead; there is nothing to worry about, all of their organs are equally useless to them, and equally lifesaving to another person who needs the organ. c. Absolutely not; the money can be used to help with funeral costs ( a huge benefit to the poor my opponent claims are being taken advantage of ), it can be given to the family of the deceased as a bit of financial security, or it could even be used to pay off a debt that this person owes. 3. a. You absolutely have to make a link, and you must also make this burden reciprocal; otherwise you skew my grounds of debate, and hurt my over-all chances in this debate. If it where a simply question, you could have asked it in the comments section for clarification. b. I have done plenty of research on this resolution; yet you make this claim with-out a source to back it up. This argument is completely abusive and falls. c. Extend my attacks on C2 c. Pro- 1. Again he must make this burden reciprocal; He never proves that people aren't willing to donate with financial incentives present; thus he imposes a burden on me he doesn't meet himself, and her loses all impact here. as for his attack on my my statement regarding that numbers of organ donors going up; first of all I already prove this when I say that it is within human nature to want to gain monetary value. 2. I never said he claimed organ donation to be taboo; it it however a false belief that exists in the status quo. This was one one of my constructive arguments, he never argues this. And again, his contention three is not a reciprocal burden to himself, thus it loses all it's impact. 3. My opponent provides no attack here whatsoever. Finally, I want to point something out; the entirety of the attacks my opponent has made on my case are simply cross-applications of his own contention three. Something that he openly admits isn't even actually a contention, but a question to me. Thus he makes utterly no attack on my case. Whereas both his constructive, and his extensions, have no warrant. He provides no logical analysis, nor does he provide any kind of empirical evidence. He simply makes claim, after claim, with no content to any of it. You absolutely, and utterly cannot accept his prior speech as viable; you must vote Pro in this round. I look forward to the final focus.