A state has NO RIGHT to peaceably secede from America.

I apologize sincerely for the forfeited round. Things came up in my personal life and I simply could not find a sufficient amount of time to log onto debate.org for anything more than a quick post. However, I will show you that I win this round even without a round 4 speech.My opponent and I agree that "It was the burden of con to prove that "A" state had "SOME" right to secession whether it is a legal right or moral right."Now, I'm going to outline how I prove both a legal and moral right:Legality1. I win through the turn on my opponent's third contention. His only defense placed on this turn comes in in two ways:A. Cross-apply the differtiation of states and people.B. Quoting Article 4 Section 3 of the constitution.Now, I would like to make it clear that what I am about to do is not making new arguments in response to these claims, but cross-applying my previous arguments from earlier in the debate that he failed to respond to that undermine these assertions.A: My opponent claims in round 4 that I ignore this "very important debateable subtopic." That's a flat-out lie and I'm going to just extend my arguments on this subject that go cold-dropped in the round.1. My opponent never refutes subpoint 2 of my response to provision 2 in round 2 of this debate that "if the people express a right the State also expresses it." This is going to be daming for him as even if the state and the people are different, he never refutes that states express the same rights as individuals. This adds strength to my turn on contention 3 as he claims that the "statement [he] made earlier addressed to THE PEOPLE"B: 1. Extend the unrefuted Dorf evidence from round 3. This explains why states can withdraw from the Constitution. Before we can accept the 1-2-3-4 he outlines in round 4 we must evaluate the Dorf evidence. My opponent can't draw conclusions about secession being illegal in any sense while failing to refute an argument clearly stating that it is. There's no need for me to refute a conclusion that fails to address the evidence within my case.Natural Law1. Cross-apply my subpoint 1 answer to A under legality.2. Extend subpoint 1 of my response to provision 2 in speech 2: "Insofar as natural law applies to individuals it is the responsibility of the State to replicate the provisions of natural law." This goes unrefuted throughout the entirety of the debate.3. "Extend the cold-dropped subpoints 3 and 4 of my response to provision 2 that both independently prove that natural law applies to states." Not once in the debate did my opponent refute this.All 3 of these arguments explain why natural law applies in the same manner to states as it does to people, and even if it doesn't that states at least have the same moral rights as people. Now here's why I win a moral right to secession:4. Extend G. A. Cohen's argument from round 1 that: "[E]ach person is the morally rightful owner of his own person and powers, and, consequently, that each is free (morally speaking) to use those powers as he wishes, provided that he does not deploy them aggressively against others"Now, extend the analysis directly under that:"1. States have the power to secede.2. States have the right use their powers peacefully.Thus, states have the right to secede peacefully."Extend my subpoint 2 in round 3 directed towards the bottom of his speech: "Even if it would be impossible to peaceably secede, that does not mean a right does not exist to do so."Voters1. I win under legality on the turn. I have clear offense that goes unrefuted in this debate with unanswered defense on his arguments. My opponent fumbles around my arguments without ever directly attacking them, so the strength of link is always on my side.2. I win under natural law because I have proved that states are people morally equivalent, and even if they aren't they have the same rights. Combine this with a clean extension on autonomy and I have offense proving a right that is never refuted by my opponent.Thank you.