Resolved: Just governments ought not persecute victimless crimes.

Good try neg, but this round is going affirmative because a few things are skipped in the rebuttal speech. Look in the underview. I state: "If there is no CP text presume the US status quo as the counter advocacy." And the negative does not have a counterplan text. Thus, the arguments about "oh a just government wouldn't do this!!!" are IRRELEVANT. Neg tries to respond to this by saying it limits intellectual discourse, but it doesn't at all. Neg could have still had a counterplan (with the miniscule requirement of having a counterplan text), so I'm not limiting anything at all, merely giving us a world to compare to if there is no counterplan. Otherwise affirming is impossible since neg can shift out weighing and offense, killing clash and destroying critical thinking. It is unfair to have nothing to compare to - that is common sense, and Neg's refutation doesn't apply, so this argument still stands. Plus, just governments don't actually exist so there would be no education. I am preserving intellectual discourse because of this. A lot of the neg refutations just ignore aff evidence by saying the government isn't just. But this is obviously wrong since without this to compare to we can't have a proper round. We CAN'T evaluate anything without a neg world to compare to, and just governments don't exist. Plus, to recall something I said last speech (remember, no new arguments this round), we are not comparing a world with victimless crime to one without. We are comparing a world where it is prosecuted to a world where it isn't. So the arguments about recidivism can be ignored since there won't be any crime at all if we don't call these things crimes! My opponent then says a just government will reform instead of punish users. First of all this is more abuse of the whole just government term. We don't know what a just government would do, so we instead look to the US, and my opponent does not defend the US status quo at all. And like I said in my last speech, ending the war on drugs and reforming prison is simply better than doing only one, and a permutation of the two plans still affirms the resolution. Then, on the economy contention, my opponent once again says a just government wouldn't do it, but because of the dropped argument in my first speech, this refutation is irrelevant. Would the US mess up its economy by jailing all these drug "criminals"? No, so the contention still stands. Once again, any time my opponent says "A just government wouldn't do this" or something along those lines, ignore that because his refutation to my argument doesn't hold up. So now let's wrap up. My opponent's responses are based on a false refutation to something I make in my very first speech! Once you ignore all of these "a just government wouldn't do this" arguments, which are basically versions of the No True Scotsman Fallacy, my opponent's case just falls apart. (The No True Scotsman Fallacy basically says that you can't make judgements about anything because you don't know what true version of that thing would do.) I prove that prosecuting such offenses costs far more money and creates more crime than letting these people be. I also showed that it ruins the economy, clogs up the legal system (there is NO response whatsoever to this argument, not even a No True Scotsman one) and prohibits people's ability to enjoy themselves (there is also no response to the underage sex argument since my opponents arguments only apply to drug crimes). My opponent only says that the "crimes" are bad, but this is irrelevant since criminalizing these things causes them to happen more often and prosecuting them wastes even more resources and ruins the economy. And why don't we reform the system and make these victimless crimes no longer crimes? All my arguments, and thus all my responses to my opponent's arguments as well, stand once you ignore the "just governments wouldnt do this" fallcy, and thus, you have to affirm. Thank you.