Nov PF Topic

Rebuttals: Okay, so basically this entire contention is saying that because we have funded refugees before, we can continue to do so. That's not a reason to do something ... I can break both of my legs by jumping off of my roof and I am certain that someone has done this before, but that alone is not a reason to do so. As seen, we can see that helping refugees has been successful as said from my Richard 2014 cards, so what I am implying is that we should continue to do so as it has shown high amounts of successful outcomes. Okay, and history has 'proven' that we should mass murder the Jewish people because it fits our agenda at the time - we aren't operating under a framework of "what should the past have done?", we are under the framework of what should the present do? Past grievances meddled with current and saying they are the same is misrepresentation of what is happening and what has already happened. As you can see, my opponent has compared to the extremities. He is comparing my need to protect life to the Holocaust. This is not what I am saying. What I am saying is that there have been examples in Africa and Nigeria where refugees so desperately needed the food and other things. So what I am implying here is that we need to save these people. So what? Obama can say that cheese pizza is the best - just because someone said somethng doesn't mean that we need to do something. Citing sources is different than explaining what is meant in those sources - your sources have no warrants, they just say X is true therefore we need to do Y in accordance with X without showing why X is true or why Y is a good thing. This is not what my sources are saying. My sources are saying that since people have a need for resources, and JEN has successfully provided such, then as seen, we should continue to do it. Let's go on to her other rebuttals. You cite some random 'Green' card saying that we need to do something in order to save life without warrants, Green just says that's how it is. You are saving life in hopes of saving life! That is exactly what is heteronormative because of what my author says! Then they cite Shibbaz 2007 saying that the common good of people is to live - and this I agree. But I am not advocating for an act of commission, rather an act of ommission (murder vs. ignoring death). Saving life is bad - but life in itself is good. Saving life for life is the fascism of the baby's face as one author calls it - and it is alienation. You are operating in heteronormativity because the idea of saving life for life is heteronormative ... you can't say it isn't because you never actually attacked my card, just said that some random Green or Shibbaz guys say differently (without any credentials on the topic, might I add). Ok. You think that my view on saving life is heteronormative. It is not. I am only stating that we need to treasure human life as it is the most important value. I am not saving life in hopes of saving life. What I am doing is that I am trying my best to save life. Human life is the most important value in today's debate. You have still not exactly proven why national interests are more important than life. If you say that my saving of life is bad, which you have done? What do you do? You still haven't proven. Okay, you cite Kant and I have no clue how that's relevant to my point that you are causing "Other"-isation. You say there are no "ifs" in humanitarian imperative, citing someone who made a philosophical claim against my real-world impact ... it just doesn't hold as much water as you are giving it. Whether or not you claimed that saving lives is heteronormative or not is irrelevant - the framework the aff world is working in is flawed because it is heteronormative. Saving life is bad - letting life end by nonintervention keeps dignity intact and conflict low because there is no "Other"-isation of the queer. YOU NEVER ATTACK THIS! The aff has just cited random people with no credentials on any of the topics at all listed (Green 2015 ... okay, so what? You put sources used but never actually put a [1] in your case wheresoever so how am I to know where what was said ...) - disregard all of his attacks. The aff case doesn't provide a reason that we need to change the status quo, just that we can ... easily, vote neg and stop saving life and attacking the queer for being queer. Thank you. I did not cite random people. I have cited people. If you have a problem, please check the sources I always posted with websites. I attacked this with many things. I said it was good that we should save life as an important value and that we should see that many national NGOs have done so to save the life, and we should continue because of the success. Now, people, let's take a big picture. If you can't understand, basically voting for aff will give an amazing world, where human life is valued the most, and that we are saving the common good. If you vote for negative, you will be not saving human lives and letting them suffer. I have consistently proven that human life is the most important value in this debate, which it still is. So with these reasons and many more, you should vote for the aff side today. Thank you. `TheResistance