Animal Rights Ought to be recognized in society

So two things that (apparently) need to be explained:First, the K is relevant and applicable to the debate resolution at hand. Three reasons for this:1. When we say that something "ought" to happen, we say that we are morally bound to take some sort of action. This means that the affirmative must advocate for some way to morally obligate us to respect animal rights. This means the K is relevant because I'm kritiking the ethics necessary for the affirmative to actually affirm the resolution, making the K resolutional. 2. When we say that something "ought" to happen, we assume that there are negative consequences that would result from having not done what we ought to do. For example, I might receive a bad grade on my final if I don't study like I ought to, therefore I ought to study. These notions of positive and negative consequences rest on further assumptions of good and bad i.e. making a poor grade on my final is a bad thing. The only way to distinguish between these good and bad things is through some sort of ethical or philosophical questioning, which is directly what the K is kritiking. 3. The K directly links to the implicit assumptions within the affirmative case about what good and bad is, saying that they make false assumptions that lack any kind of ultimate source or warrant to them. His attempt to try to advocate for the Ten Commandments is a) shifting the goalposts at the last second where I can't respond, which is insanely unfair to me because that was no where in his case, and b) still links because with God's death even the Ten Commandments no longer have the same source of ultimate significance that they had before. God existing would've given us reason to follow them, but now that he's gone there's no reason to necessarily say that they are the source of what we ought to be doing. Moreover, he's not arguing for the Ten Commandments because God said that they are true, rather because as he put it, they teach us some sort of "basic morality", which means that he's still linking to the K even if you buy his Ten Commandments idea. Because the K is linking directly to the affirmative case, to say that it's not applicable to the debate raises the question of is the affirmative relevant to the debate. If the only reason the K is relevant is because it links to the aff, and the K isn't relevant, that would mean that the case it's linking to wouldn't be relevant either, as it being relevant is the precondition that makes the K relevant. This puts people saying that the K isn't relevant in a double bind, either a) the affirmative isn't relevant and you negate on a risk of offense in solving for the impacts of Nietzsche 2, or b) it is relevant and you negate on the undercoverage of the K. Second, that quoting others to create the warrants and evidence is a reason to discredit the arguments I'm making. Three reasons this isn't true:1. This makes warranting any kind of argument impossible. Debate relies on outside sources of information for the construction of arguments. I'm no expert on Pro's life, but I'm fairly certain when I say that neither of us have the credentials and expertise to talk about animal rights and philosophy and how animals impact the ecosystem without relying on the testimony or expertise of someone else. This is true of literally 100% of debate. By saying that this is true, debate becomes a contest of who can throw out the biggest number of bare assertions, stripping it of any kind of value and turning DDO into the comments of Youtube videos of the comments on Facebook posts. 2. If this is true, then neither of our arguments have any kind of warrants to them. He cites outside souces as well, meaning that he's quoting the sources he cites. While he's not being as forthright with his quoting, the fact that we're both relying on outside souces and experts to warrant the things we're talking about means that if we're not allowed to do this anymore, then neither of our arguments have any kind of warrants to them. This means that either a) the debate becomes irresolvable, in which case you reject the idea entirely, or b) you reject the idea anyway and just evaluate the arguments normally. 3. Even if just block quoting other authors is a bad thing, which isn't true, it's not like I'm not making any kind of outside analysis of what I'm talking about. Literally the entire last round was me going through the arguments I make and extending them out and re-explaining them in my own words and then explaining what they mean in terms of the debate in my own words. So even if you don't like me quoting other people in my case, I go in the very next round and re-make the same arguments in my own words and make my own analysis. With that out of the way, we can continue to the debate proper. What this debate ultimately comes down to is he gives a lot of reasons why we ought to value animals and why respecting animal rights is the right thing to do and that all of these things will lead to a more morally good society and that all of these choices to respect animal rights are in the moral good. The K argues that his conception of morality lacks an ultimate source of significance and truth - why is his ethics saying that we should respect animal rights any more valid than my ethics saying that we shouldn't? His claim is that we can still do good things without God's influence in morality, that we can protect all these animals that are necessary to human survival and we can do all these really good things. My argument is that what he thinks is morality is actually moralism, a cheap opposite of morality that does the exact opposite of morality. With God dead and gone, with the ultimate source of any kind of moral truth gone from life, the reasons for why things are good and why we feel certain ways is gone. But those feelings still remain, this time without any kind of justification and source of validity (this is all coming out of Brown 1, by the way). This leads us to lash out against something, anything that these impulses tell us is "wrong", which in this case is animals not having rights. We throw ourselves at accomplishing this task, casting aside anyone in our way until it's complete, and then it's onto the next struggle, the next fight. Our lives become a constant cycle of fighting and struggling against something, even to the point where the only thing left to fight against is ourselves (this is Nietzsche 2, since he apparently can't find the warrants for why this impact is significant and the most important impact in the round despite me spending multiple rounds clarifying this). Even as we tear ourselves apart, moralism still has us believing that we're "doing the right thing" and "fighting the good fight", which means that even after we're all long dead and gone, those left will still continue to tear themselves to pieces, mentally and physically, all in the name of moralism (this is from Brown 2). The only way to escape this cyclical violence is to reject the assumptions made by the affirmative and to critique their modes of thought. This is the only way that we can actually craft a lifestyle that doesn't collapse into the harms of moralism (Brown 3).The big problem with this is that abosolutely none of this goes addressed at any point in the debate. The entirety of the K, aside from conceding to the link, goes 100% dropped.This has two implications on the debate:1. It really doesn't matter at this point that I didn't respond to his arguments about how respecting animal rights is a good thing and that protecting animals that are key to human survival is a good thing. The K is proving that the "good" my opponent is striving for isn't actually something we should be striving for, which functions a priori to his arguments. 2. It turns the arguments of his framework against him. His mentality leads to the destruction of all society as we war against anything and everything in the need to "progress" and "do good", meaning that the good ends he's trying to create within a moral society won't actually happen. In their last round my opponent spend their entire time re-hashing the same claims of "I don't need god" or "What's the warrant for this?" that I spent all of last round going over. I've walked you through Nietzsche 2 time and time again. The warrants from Brown 2 are literally right in the text and I've explained it with my own words. If my opponent still can't understand my argument, then there's not a whole lot more I can do for that. To Conclude:The K goes massively unaddressed. The warrants in the K show that the good ends he's trying to reach by giving animals rights aren't actually good ends. The ends he reaches by trying to appeal to a morality with backing ends up devolving society into moralism. The harms of moralism are infinitely worse than not giving animals rights. The only way to prevent collapsing into moralism is by negating and critiquing the morality he appeals to. And, don't vote me down for running this K. plz and thanks.