Violence provoking the act of murder.

Again, the con provides as to no answer to any of my arguments. That is an independent voter.Case:The con never answered this properly. Look back two sources 1, 3, and 4. Society should devote the problem of violence to reducing crime, because as of now there are a limited amount of resources, and attention to this problem they say there is. It distracts from the fact their narrative is clouded because the actor had schizophrenic behavior. The pursuit of the con is a moral agenda without any "practical" value. The fact that weapons are out there everywhere especially in the US has a big effect on how many people die, and that's proven many times. That's my third source.My fourth source proves that the narrative being driven after a schizophrenic individual.Capitalism:You can practically look at the last speech before the con's second extension of the same article.MESZAROS 6 SAYS WHENEVER YOU CONCERN YOURSELF WITH THE PROBLEMS OF VIOLENCE WITHOUT CHALLENGING CAPITALISM - YOU REPLICATE THE SAME HARMSTHE NARRATIVE OF THEIR ARGUMENT DISPLACES THE PERSPECTIVE TO CHILDREN AND BRACKETS THE DEBATE TO THE BENEFITS OF EDUCATION, THAT DOES MORE DAMAGE TO THOSE AFFECTED AND ALSO FLOWS TO THE SPANOS KRITIK. DIRECTLY CAUSES EXTINCTION.Repitition of the capitalism K from last speech:They link because their first speech talks about human rights are a necessitation and disregarded by media implications. They also use rhetoric to preserve life, as their last speech practically concluded. Coviello says that apocalypse is set out defined to a contagion through the perpetual threat of "destruction", that is of life.The implication of apocalypse shouldn't be evaluated. Zizek begins with: "What if we are "really alive" only if and when we engage ourselves with an excessive intensity which puts us beyond "mere life?"" When we are ready to take the RISK of challenging the dominant, we are ready.Now you should do nothing towards the con- our view of abstention is radical and the way we do it is better than contribution to the "visible [...] Empire" - the threat isn't passitivity, it's activity that masks the nothingness of the Empire.Spanos:You can practically look at the last speech before the con's second extension of the same article.Who am I? What am I? What about yourself, who may you be?The con concedes that ontological questionining comes first - and allows us to engage in this debate "space". Their refusal to acknowledge this colonial violence that their moral claims propose perpetuates a blindness and indifference to sociopolitical violence - including the pertained "violence" that media just might create. An interrogation of ideals must be the starting point for political change. The alternative is to refuse the exceptionalist logic of the affirmative and instead engage in an ontology of guerilla warfare. The Shanahan and Spanos evidence both indicate that this form of ontological opposition will expose the faults of dominant Western ideology and cause exceptionalism to self—destruct. The alternative is to refuse the imperialist logic of the affirmative in favor of an ontology of guerilla warfare. The Shanahan evidence indicates that Guerilla warfare as an ontology allows us to exploit the blind-spots in American imperialism by disappearing from strategic view through an unconventional re-thinking of what we know to be true.We propose that we start the debate by questioning U.S. imperialism and the atrocities it justifies. Only by questioning the ontology that allowed these policies to take hold can we challenge the “logic that America can do no wrong.” The Spanos evidence explains that this method for challenging with ultimately cause metaphysical thought to self-destruct. And now repitition from the last speech:They conceded this in their last speech. That means they agree you should do nothing in face of the con. It solves all claims of violence - because Western epistemology disregards the ontic - the ontic allows us to question who WE are in order to place ourselves in politics.Some part of their case card includes Holocaust deniers - but it is colonial/imperialist exceptionalism that allows for this. Without the alternative you produce a violence that allows things like the Holocaust itself. That's Spanos in 8.If violence is continued and as the con normalizes it as if it's a day-to-day thing: life never gains value, it just creates the condition for extinction. That's also Spanos in 8.Their conception of human rights and freedom is flawed- it also allows us to colonize the other especially in poverty- slavery is an empiric example. That's Burke in 7Spanos in 2000 wrote that attempts to avert crisis (i.e., school shootings) it just allows for the OTHER to be colonized, and have no say in the matter. Any history could show you that.ANY POLITICAL QUESTION SHOULD BE FOLLOWED BY ANSWERING WHO WE ARE- AND THEN CHALLENGING WESTERN THOUGHT