Nations Should Act With Military Force Against Countries That Execute Homosexuals

Given that Pro has forfeited the final round, he has forfeited the debate. My arguments stand. However, I went through the effort of preemptively writing my closing arguments so I'll post them anyway. If my arguments have already convinced you to vote for me, then vote away. If you're still on the fence, then feel free to read my following arguments:1. I've already made my arguments as to why my opponent can't argue for non-militaristic solutions when his resolution is predicated on a militaristic solution and I see no reason to reiterate myself, so I'll just copy&paste the following two quotes and leave it up to the voters to decide if the argument presented supports or contradicts the resolution;Resolution: Nations Should Act With Military Force Against Countries That Execute HomosexualsPro's Argument: "We may be able to avoid war with many of them through negotiations. "The question is, does this argument support this resolution? If yes, then my opponent has an argument. Granted, it's an argument that he hasn't actually backed with anything other than his insistence that it can be done, but he would have an argument nonetheless. If this argument does not support the resolution, then my opponent has argued against himself and therefore argued for my position. One more;Resolution: Nations Should Act With Military Force Against Countries That Execute HomosexualsPro's Argument: One element of this effort could be to educate people in those countries where it is currently a capital offense or even just taboo but where historically before European contact it was tolerated about their own history. Ignoring the fact that my opponent has not sourced this claim and therefore may very well have just made it up, does it support the resolution? That is, does removing the need for military force by convincing these people that they actually do tolerate homosexuality (somehow) support the claim that military force should be used to make homosexual tolerance compulsory in these countries? Is so, then my opponent has an argument to the extent that he had an argument in the example above. If not, then Pro has defeated his own position. 2. My opponent's argument has 4 parts to it. Keep in mind Pro's resolution when reading these.1. We can negotiate with these countries to avoid the need for military force2. We can convince them that they actually do tolerate homosexuality to remove the need for military force3. We can exploit and escalate ethnic conflicts within Africa and the Middle East to our advantage in a war4. We can lie and exaggerate atrocities committed in Africa and the Middle East to illicit outrage in the international community in order to gain militaristic supportUp to this point I have argued and shown that points 1 and 2 contradict Pro's resolution, but there's a larger problem here. Not so much as a single one of these arguments fulfil Pro's burden of proof. That is, none of these arguments explain or justify exactly why nations should use militaristic force against countries that execute homosexuals. 1 and 2 offer alternative solutions to military force and 3 and 4 attempt to explain how we could effectively use military force, but none of them justify why we should. The closest my opponent comes to answering the "should" question is, ironically, in round one where he says "We would not tolerate a nation that executes Jews, or any other religion. We would(n't) tolerate a nation executing people for their ethnicity or their race. Why should we tolerate nations that execute people for being gay? " -- Here my opponent claims that it is hypocritical to oppose oppression of Jews without opposing the oppression of homosexuals. While this may be true, the use of military action in one example of oppression does not justify the use of military action in all examples of oppression and so my opponent's argument requires further development. Since my opponent has squandered his opportunities to do so in favour of arguing against the infeasibility of war, he has failed to fulfil his BOP. My opponent has made a fatal error by assuming all he needed to do was argue against my points. I can argue that military force is not what we should do by pointing out the infeasibility of such a war as if the success or even actualization of such a war is shown to be impossible then I've shown that military force is not what we should do, even if we can ethically justify it. However, my opponent needs to both argue for its feasibility and show that it is in fact what we should do a priori. Without so much as attempting to offer justification as to why we should invade these countries, it is completely irrelevant whether such a war is feasible. The resolution is that, "nations should act with military force against countries that execute homosexuals". Therefore, my opponent must justify why we should do such a thing before arguing that we could do such a thing, while all I have to do is debunk Pro's argument for either one. Pro had the BOP and was therefore required to both defend his position and refute my points. Not attempting the former and failing to do the latter simply doesn't cut it. ConclusionGiven that my opponent has failed to so much as attempt to fulfil his BOP and worse yet has argued against his own resolution, it is clear that his case has not been proven and therefore he has lost this debate.