Justin Bieber should be killed and forgotten.

Last round, will try to make it count. 1. I've already accepted that JB uses resources. We all use resources. Eating an apple is consuming a natural resources. My opponent has been dishonest here, and refused to flush out his logic. He claims JB consumes resources, and should therefore be better off dead. When I try to extend this premise, he cries foul and says I am deviating from the resolution. In reality, I am simply examining his logic. Eating any kind of fruit, berries, fish or meat is consuming resources. If consuming resources was grounds for being better off dead, then we should all be. Rational people do not believe that simply consuming resources makes one better off dead. This point has been both noted for its widespread applicability and my opponent's inability to accept the broader picture of his claims. 2. Love of JB does not take away from love from each other. There is no fixed amount of love in the world. There is absolutely no evidence Pro can claim here to suggest that loving JB leads to (or replaces) a loss of love between family, friends, etc. Additionally, it is entirely possible that in being united in hatred at a common enemy (Bieber) more love is created among the haters. People bond over hatred of things (Republicans, environmental calamities, taxes) all the time. It's very clear that JB has created both love and hate in some indeterminate amount. It is impossible to make the claim that JB has created more hate than love due to a complete lack of evidence and an inability to measure those qualities. Again, my opponent's point falls flat once faced with critical thinking. I knew this point would confuse my opponent. The fact is, when one's rights are violated it is overall WORSE for the world. Killing is not simply an amoral act of "deletion" but an immoral act of an injustice that in Bieber's case will never be fixed. The world is directly worse off, because the life of an individual has ended unjustly. Was the world not "worse off" after the Rwandan genocide because the pain those victims faced has simply vanished? If the Rwandan genocide was simply forgotten, would the pain of its victims be utterly negated? I think not. This world is not simply our own momentary pleasure and pain. It involves the amount of pain and suffering given to us through history, and the more than is give to humanity the worse off humanity as a whole is. Again, it is more than just the balance of our momentary pleasure and pain. Then again, my opponent has not really defined what is "better for the world. " It is entirely clear that hate is justified and even good in certain cases, like hate for a brutal dictator. Or "hate" towards the idea of enslaving your fellow man. The quality of "hate" is not unconditionally bad. Again, I feel this point has been utterly demolished and I would again like to stress that the simple act of rights violation makes the world a worse place. An individual is an end unto himself, and with inherent self worth. 3. It would be helpful to read the first two rounds of this debate as a joke, because that's how both writers conceived it. The heat did not really get "turned on" until round 3, and given that Pro's third point has been irrevocably damaged he now rejects my logically sound argument made in R3 because he knows there is no answer he could give. I can't say anything more here. 4. See point 3. My opponent knows there is no good answer. The debate went like this: I was joking the first few rounds, and my opponent knew this and responded with weak rebuttals that somewhat addressed the prompt. However, as the debate became more serious Pro refused to abandon his flimsy arguments and instead entrenched himself with them. By round 4, he would not even address my rebuttals to point 3 and 4 because he knew his points were weak. In a last, desperate grasp for air my opponent compares Bieber to Stalin. He denies the importance of rights, and tries to frame it as +/-. Even if this is true, given the millions that Bieber has helped raise for charity my opponent has never suggested that Bieber has created something like "millions of dollars worth of hate. " Thousands of poor people have been directly helped by Justin Bieber's charity efforts, and thousands more will likely be as Bieber matures. Moreover, my opponent never clearly defined what is good and what is bad for this world. In doing so, he throws out concepts like "hate" as bad - even though hate is a perfectly natural and even healthy reaction to some events of people. It cannot be called unconditionally bad. FDR created some amount of "hate" in leading America through WWII. By now, the audience should begin to see how flimsy Pro's arguments were. He refused to address my concerns to his first point, threw out buzz word like "hate" to make his second point, not grasping that Bieber has also created some amount of love and that the amount of love and hate cannot truly be compared. He failed to adequately address my 3rd and 4th points in his final statement. In conclusion, Pro failed to describe what a "better world" really is. I began this mission in my third response and will expound it on a little here. When moral rules are broken, the world is "worse off. " My opponent cleverly tries to detach the issue of morality to this conversation, because if morality is brought up the uphill battle becomes even tougher. I don't know how else my opponent would measure a "better off" world. If one person with a "goodness value" of 0 is killed and forgotten, is the world basically unchanged in how "good" it is? How about 1,000? My opponent tries to frame it as +/-, but never cares to define "good" or what a "better world" really means. Even if the debate is framed in +/- none of my opponent's points would outweigh his large charity efforts. I suggest that moral violations - regardless of to what extent they are "forgotten" make the world a worse place. Lastly, due to Pro's insistence on extending his principles ONLY to Bieber, one must wonder if those who consume resources (all of us), create hatred (anyone who has been in an fierce argument or hurt someone), exist and in doing so take away from spelling time (again, all of us), and were once thinner, weaker adolescents (ok, this one only applies to males) would make the world a better place by being dead. This would have been an interesting argument, but Pro refused to follow his own logic.