Breathing should be Illegal

Con has failed to apologize for her egregious conduct. This not only demonstrates the absolutely deplorable nature of her character, but it also is the equivalent of rubbing salt into my wounds -- I am truly on the verge of psychological breakdown. Lend me your support, O voters! Have no mercy as you punish my malicious opponent with torrents of Pro ballots, thereby demonstrating your support for me and aiding me in my recovery from this emotional trauma. Thank you :)Onto rebuttals!R1) DEATHSJust because I condoned the deaths of the voters doesn't mean that I should be punished with a loss. After all, the voters are very reasonable & understanding people, and surely even *they* support their own deaths after reading my incredibly cogent arguments in favor of mass-extinction. Furthermore, the sort of retributive punishment which Con advocates is very bad, in accordance with one of the oldest proverbs in the book: "an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind..... except for the last remaining guy, since there's no way he'd let a bunch of blind guys take his eyes" -- I just so happen to be that last remaining guy, and with the authority of my exclusive vision, I pronounce the Law of Non-Contradiction to be null and void. This means that it *is* okay to punish Con for her conduct, but simultaneously not-okay to punish me for my advocacy.R2) WEEDING OUT THE WEAKSince super-humans would still humans, it is obvious that the phenomenon I was referring to here is microevolution, which is perfectly compatible with the Bible according to the esteemed sir doctor professor Ken Ham phD. Either way, the Law of Non-Contradiction is no longer in effect, so "contradictions" don't really matter anymore. Under this section, Con also introduces her only positive argument against the resolution -- the observation that if breathing were to be made illegal, we "would lose the intake of air, which eliminates half of one of the greatest people in the world, Airmax." However, what Con fails to realize is that this still leaves the "Max" part, which stands for "maximally great being". Since a maximally great being is necessarily omnipotent, "Max" could easily re-generate "Air" sans breathing, thus fully restoring himself. Anyways, Airmax is a Jew, so it's arguable that getting rid of half of him wouldn't be all that bad.R3) ENVIRONMENTAL HARMSCon is completely in the wrong here. I received a score of 5 on both my AP Biology and AP Environmental Science exams, and considering that the currently-accepted minimum standard for being labeled a scientifically reputable source is having glasses, it is safe to say that these qualifications make me a more credible source than approximately 300% of scientists. With my scientific authority, I proclaim that dead bodies do NOT produce carbon dioxide. I am right and Con is wrong. Moreover, I provided a fancy graph, whereas Con did not, and that is reason enough to believe me over her. R4) SHUT UPCon's rebuttal might have worked if she were dealing with a normal person; however, I do not identify as being among "everyone", and thus I am not included among the morons. As per usual, I am the exception. This is clearly affirmed via 9Space's Law since I vanquished Thett3 in battle (see C8). That is a significant feat because Thett3 is widely regarded as a god, and he has visited us non-corporeally to demonstrate this to be the case -- "I will use my classical proof of godlike powers. As you read this sentence you will feel an itch somewhere on your body, I caused it. If you are still not convinced, as you read *this* sentence you will think of your mother. I planted her image in your mind" [1].R5) THEFTThe fact that my opponent forgot to address this argument demonstrates that she is probably a moron, and that everything she says from here on out should be presumed to be false. R6) INCREASES SUFFERINGCon asks for more clear evidence that suffering is good. Of course, I will oblige that request.Zaradi:"everyday experiences reflect a neoliberal ethos operative within ... every aspect of our ... lives ... consequences that are dire for many and dangerous for ... all ... the central aim of neoliberal governmentality is the ... production of ... conditions conducive to ... Homo economicus, ... neoliberalism strives to en-sure that individuals are compelled to assume market-based values in all of their judgments ... Neoliberal Homo economicus is a free " atom" of self-interest who is ... responsible for navigating the social realm using rational choice and cost-benefit calculation to the express exclu-sion of all other values and interests. ... His analyses of "government" ... bring together the government of others ... and the government of ... self ... on ... one hand, the biopolitical governance of populations and, on the other, the work that individu-als perform upon themselves ... C is the alt - Vote negative to reject the disciplinary power/knowledge of the aff-only this personal rejection can create an ethical subject that resists biopolitical control. Each act of micro-resistance is key.... the ef-fects of subjectification produced at the level of everyday life through the specifically neoliberal "conduct of conduct" recommend that we recognize and invent commen-surate forms of critique, ... and ethical subjectivation that constitute resistance to its dangers... resist disciplinary power matrices and carve out a space for self-empowerment and creative choice. ... freedom entails a movement from resistance to ethics to political action. Resistance, ... involves the revolt of the body against the normalizing effects of disciplinary biopower. This critical resistance, ... is channeled into an affirmative ethical project concerned with self-care. The rejection of an imposed identity and a set of norms becomes the impetus for fashioning one"s own ethical code and conduct. The ethical agent becomes a political actor in joining struggles that seek to alter power relations ... The battle is joined at the local and microlevels by countering norms with norms and techniques with techniques. ... if, ... ours is a time of cultural postmodernization... "Symbolic order creates ... intelligibility through ... "having" ... and "being" ... Every effort to establish identity within the terms of this binary disjunction ... returns to the inevitable "lack" and "loss" ... and mark[s] the incommensurability of the Symbolic and the real. If ... understood as ... culturally universal ... it makes sense to ask: What ... signifies what ... in this ... crosscultural affair? This question, ... is posed within a frame that presupposes a ... dichotomy within ... the ... displacement of the subject. ... [for example] the sexes ... reveal the speaking "I" as a masculinized effect of repression, ... but whose very coherence is called into question by the sexual positions that it excludes in the process of identity formation... "The ... plasticity of language, ... resists the fixing of the subject position as masculine. ... A woman cannot use the first person "I" because as a woman, the speaker is "particular" ... the invocation of the "I" presumes the capacity to speak for and as the universal human: ... the speaking subject ... "reappropriates language as a whole, proceeding from oneself alone, with the power to use all language." ... This privilege to speak "I" establishes a sovereign self, ... speaking establishes "the supreme act of subjectivity... the loss of " epistemological ground for " morality " does not quash the moral impulse itself. " what form does this impulse take when it has lost its lodging in an abstract principle and vision of the good .. . " ? It is when the telos of the good vanishes but the yearning for it remains that morality appears to devolve into moralism " at this point that one finds moralizers standing against much but for very little, adopting a voice of moral judgment in the absence of a full-fledged moral " vision. " the moralizer refuses the loss of the teleological and becomes reactionary: clinging without logical ground to the last comforting frame in the unraveling narrative " Despite its righteous insistence on knowing what is True, Valuable, or Important, moralism " marks both analytic impotence and " aimlessness " the moralizing injunction to act, " might be read as a symptom of " paralysis in the face of radical " disorientation and as a " hysterical mask for the despair that attends such paralysis. " a life force flattened into a passive or paralyzed stance toward the world turns against life as it turns against itself; " it paradoxically evinces precisely the nihilism, the antilife bearing that it moralizes against in its nemesis "" [2][3][4].If my opponent cannot understand how this leads directly to the conclusion that suffering is good, then I don't know what to tell her -- the message is *extremely* clear. I suppose the lack of basic reading comprehension is to be expected, given that Con's a moron (see R5). C7) THE BIBLEThe only thing Con objects to here is the logical validity of my syllogism. However, she does so literally just after acknowledging that logic is more or less irrelevant here. Thus, dismiss whatever points Con raised. I maintain that the syllogism is prima facie illogically valid via modus ponens tollens ponens zmikecubens.C8) I AM ALWAYS RIGHTExtend the discussion under R4. I am smarter than Thett3, and am therefore always right.== CONCLUSION ==As always, I keep my offer to my opponent open -- she may concede at any time. [1] http://www.debate.org...[2] http://www.debate.org...[3] http://www.debate.org...[4] http://www.debate.org...