Resolved: The U.S. should rejoice over the death of Osama Bin Laden (2)

My opponent has asked for a time extension, so this will be for his last round post. ==His (Con) Observations== 1. Death vs. Good Opponent: Different between warranting a celebration and should rejoice --> My opponent is miss contextualizing the use of "warrants." When I say that X warrants a celebration I am saying that X is why we should celebrate it. He is playing awful semantics here. Opponent 2b: We celebrate X for X and not for what it produces --> The two arent mutually exclusive and both can exist at the same time. We can celebrate something for both itself and/or what it produces. We can celebrate a birthday because a kid has become a year older or we can celebrate VE and VJ day because it is the reason that bloodshed has ended, namely what it produced. In terms of my case, I am saying the externalities are enough for the US to celebrate. He drops this argument, and only responds to half the objection. Extend it, and dont let him respond to it since I have no other round to respond. This should mitigate cleanly his observation, but to go on: Opponent 2a: Wine argument --> My opponent is trying to set up a false dichotomy by using an obscure example about wine --> The way he sets up the argument is misleading. We WOULD celebrate wine because people like it. Why do people like it? Well multiple reasons, taste, possible intoxication, etc. These are all ends that wine produces. If wine didnt have a positive externality there would be no reason to celebrate it. --> Changing the purpose of the 10th of May is a non-seqitur from the example. That would just be an arbitrary date to celebrate win. Not analogous to the Osama example Opponent 2c: I agree we should celebrate what the death represents but not the death --> As mentioned in my last round, death was the necessary and prerequisite component. It would have been impossible to achieve X without Y. ==My (Pro) Case== C1: Justice Opponent: not talking about externalities, like justice --> XA - false dichotomy and not mutually exclusive argument outlined above. As such, yes, we are discussing externalities as well. Opponent 2: Yes, death is necessary for justice to be achieved. But it doesnt change the tragedy of death. --> You can vote Pro right here. He has conceded the argument that death is the necessary and prerequisite component. And dont let him try and retract this concession, since I have no round to respond. His only argument is thst it doesnt negate the tragedy of death. Well (1) I outweigh, he never responds to the substance of this contention, as such he concedes it (rule: drops are concessions, and this applies to the other drops before this). The substance argues that the magnitude of the crime of 9/11 demands that justice be fulfilled. As such, even if you think its a tragedy that Osama has died, the need for justice outweighs the tragedy of death and thus calls for celebration. (2) Death in this case isnt a tragedy because all he says is that well death is a loss of life, but that really never answers my objection that death is highly dependent on agency. Agency would determine if death is good or bad. C2: National Security Opponent: not debating externalities --> XA my response about non-mutual exclusivity. --> Again, you can vote Pro here as well, he ignores the substance of the argument and by dropping the substance has conceded it. By killing Osama we have highly disrupted the command and control structure of Al Qaeda. His death was necessary for this, as such we should celebrate it because it has led to much more national security. C3: Psy. Warfare A) Demoralization Opponent: Enemies can view this as a bunch of narrowminded people who feel rather than think --> Non-responsive. As long as I link to the effect of deterrence, then celebration has helped the war on terror. It doesnt matter how they view it, just that they see the fact that US citizens WANT to KILL terrorists, no matter if it takes 7 days or 7 years. Opponent: large survey can be used --> Permutation - do both. The Pro would can do both the celebration and doing a survey. Two arent mutually exclusive. Permutation gives Pro more offense at this point --> Not as psychologically impacting, and why would most people in the Middle East have access to US specific polls? The footage of the celebration has already been played withint he Middle East --> You can vote Pro here as well. All of my opponents responses are either non-responsive or non-unique (no comparative advantage) to the Con. By celebrating the death we can demoralize the enemy and gain a military advantage. B) Moralization Opponent: You can support and not celebrate --> And as I said this support would be silent in comparison to outspoken rejoicing and celebration. The death was something that compelled people to celebrate in time Square, and thats where the moralization will come from. Not just my opponent and I liking that Osama is now gone. Opponent 2: Can celebrate other things --> XA - death as necessary and prerequisite (which he has dropped). --> Permutation - do both. We can celebrate multiple things at once. ==His (Con) Arguments== 1. Plato Opponent: I dont need to look for esoteric meaning, since the wording is there --> This links directly into the Kritik. By saying he doesnt need to exacerbates the criticism of the kritik. He is using a quote from Plato, which Leo Strauss argues writes in esoteric language (refer to wiki synopsis). My opponent just threw out some quote by did not analyze that quote first for esoteric meaning. Thus, my opponent is misusing classical philosophy. He has dropped and thus has conceded the substance of the Kritik. Opponent: No analysis needed, quote speaks for itself --> Yes analysis is needed, he cant just say Plato says so, so its right. Analysis and warranting is needed to make a quote substantial in a round. I could post ant post-modern quote about death being meaningless, but that wouldnt make the quote right. I would need to explain and warrant the quote to make it meaningful. 2. Death isnt good Opponent: I actually made the Romeo and Juliet analogy --> Even though this is true, he never responded to my analysis about death and agency. This can be easily be XA'ed to the Romeo and Juliet analogy: (1) his analogy assumes agency because death is bad because it kills good people who can do good things. This would not apply to bad people doing bad things, thus death in this case could be celebrated because it prevents future evil, like terrorism. (2) It would be nice if people worked together but agency still applies. Thats not how it is. Osama and Al Qaeda doesnt care about diplomacy or getting along. They want to kill our citizens and cause terror. Dont let my opponents naivete persuade you about terrorism Opponent: Dont bad people suffer the same losses --> Yes, thats why it is good. The losses depend on agency and/or the results of that death --> Your analysis of death itself is completely unwarranted and dependent on skewed semantics. --> Again, he completely disregards the substance of my response, and only took specific sentences to discuss. Refer to Rd. 3 which talks about agency and death and existence. 3. Alternatives Opponent: celebrate evil disappearing not the evil doer --> Again, this doesnt make sense. The death of the evildoer was the necessary component for the disappearance of that evil. Itsbecause of the evildoer that the evil was possible in the first place. Opponent: I mentioned bigger and grander --> He cant just makeup an alternative that doesnt exist, whereas I do gain the advantages of the huge celebration tat occurred because of his death, such as the demoralization argument. ==Voters== 1. All my contentions give clear reason to rejoice and celebrate. Moreover, in each case he dropped critical substance which is a concession. 2. Nowhere to vote Con. Everything can be permed (done in the Pro world as well) or is non-responsive. Thx for a great debate!