A fence should not be built around U.S borders, anywhere

Framework, Line by line, Separatism, Summary Note: I will not be separating any of the biggest issues from the line by line except for Separatism, which will come near the end. Darn the 8,000. FRAMEWORK My opponent agreed at the beginning of her R1 that my assessment of the resolution is true, and then goes onto refutes one aspect: Separatism. Since silent is consent and since she didn't attack any part otherwise, that means she agrees to the rest of my framework. This means that the value of Morality is the only thing that matters in the round. Jose Saramago wrote in his book Blindness that "if we cannot live entirely like human beings, at least let us do everything in our power not to live entirely like animals." I realize that we're all separatist to some extent, but my point is that we should do everything in our power to prevent us from being more separatist. My opponent has not refuted the warrants to separatism in my value criterion, so therefore my VC still stands as valid. As long as I reach the VC of Anti-Separatism, it links to Morality, and since morality is the value in this round, as long as I reach it then I win the debate. LINE BY LINE "His assumption" 1) All of the examples she lists are separatism. The basic belief of separatism is that we see others different from ourselves, so we can easily dehumanize them and therefore start conflicts. Militarism, military alliances and power all fit that description to the letter. Power and money are also separatist because people in power and the rich see themselves as different from, say, the homeless. And imperialism. It says "I'm better than you, so I'ma take your country over". Fits the description as well. "First" 2) Pocahontas didn't own this land; refer to "proverb" in R1. GAME OVER. "Second" 3) Just because in the status quo it's "true" doesn't justify anything. We are talking about how things should be, not how they are. This is true because the value for this round is morality. 4) Her arg just shows how we don't own this land. If we actually owned this place we wouldn't have to pay CONTINUOUSLY for it. I own my Papermate G-Force pencil; I don't have to pay for it. I own my iPod, I don't have to pay continuously for it. We don't "own" this land… we're more like renting it. From somebody that doesn't own it. Which means we don't own it. We just live on it. 5) Legality does not link to morality. We used to have slavery as a law. We used to have "Only landowning white males can vote" as a law. None of those are moral. "To prove" 6) The resolution doesn't specify timeframe, therefore anything she says that applies specifically to our current situation doesn't attack the principle of a wall itself and therefore the points won't matter. "First" 7) Money doesn't link to morality. 8) Argumentum Ad Populum fallacy. 9) Genetic fallacy. "They" 10) Just because I was yelled at as a kid doesn't mean I should yell at my kid. Same thing here; just because we didn't get it doesn't mean others shouldn't get it. "Additionally" 11) Minimum wage is nontopical. 12) Her last line is an Appeal to Consequences logical fallacy. "For now" 13) How bout let's not have wars? 14) She doesn't tell us how a wall stops drugs. 15) And she can't tell us, because that would be a new argument. 16) Do we even have a border with Afghanistan? "While" 17) She's bringing up all these points, trying to link it to a debate about a fence… and I think that's fine but she simply does not provide links and warrants. 18) Stop weapons from entering our country? http://www.iht.com... "Now, Building" 19) No link to VC of Anti-Separatism. So none of it matters. 20) No link to Value of Morality. So none of it matters. SEPARATISM "As you can see, securing our bo[r]ders is NOT about separatism." Hmm well let's see. Oh yes, this is the best way. I shall pull reasons for why it's ALL ABOUT separatism… straight out of her case. Ready? Start back at the top. "But the fact is that[…]this land is very much ours." We're separated from Mexicans and Canadians because of a freakin' line. This is one of the original issues of separatism I described in R1, called "nationality". "Illegal aliens" The examples only get better from here on out. Just look at the wording. We call people that aren't of our nationality – an arbitrary thing – "aliens". Et tu, ET? "Illegal immigrants[…]left and right?" How can something be "an American job"? How can a job be reserved for people of a specific nationality? It's just like denying black men to be in administrative positions…. Oh wait we do that all the time! "While Mexicans may generally be harmless (other than milking our economy dry)" Our economy? There is no economy that's specific to one nation. It's a global economy; nations all trade with each other. And then Nini says ‘generally harmless'. I don't know about any of you, but that makes Mexicans sound like INSECTS. What the f…. How separatist is that? "Our enemies" We don't see these "enemies" as human. If we saw them as human, we would think of killing them just as we would think of killing our grandma or our childhood friends – we simply wouldn't think of it. However, once our perceptions of others is not "us", but "them"… then atrocities can be justified. That is the horror of Separatism. And that is why we need to do everything in our power to prevent ourselves from being even more separatist. Here's how we start. Don't build the wall. SUMMARY Nini first agrees to my framework except for separatism, in which she refutes that there are other reasons for which wars are started. However, all of her examples ARE separatism (1) so I can link back into morality. Since she didn't attack the framework otherwise, the VC of Anti-Separatism stands. My case at this point pulls through, since she doesn't refute the warrants at all. She attempts to prove how we own this land, but the only thing she really does is show we pay the USFG for the land (4). This means though, we're renting the land from the USFG, an entity that Nini never mentioned. She cannot attempt to argue how the USFG owns the land either, as it would be a new argument (15). The resolution did not specify a timeframe, so any arg that does not attack the principles and values behind building a wall isn't topical (6). But since all of her points are from the Status Quo (3), none of it matters. The legality doesn't matter either, as legality does not define morality (5). Her attempts to appeal to your pocketbook should be ignored. Money does not link to morals (7). She does quite a few times in her case the fallacy Appeal to Consequences, which basically says "If the result of an argument sounds good, then it must be true." (12). Well, we all like pretty arguments. However, she simply does not warrant them (17). LEVELS 1) None of her arguments fly, as they are not warranted and many of them are fallacies. 2) The ones that fly have been knocked out of the debate. 3) Then they were hammered into the ground by "Status Quo", "Legality", "Money", and "Timeframe", as pretty much all of her arguments are about the present day and its issues. 4) The only hope she has left is to take out the framework of Value-Morality and VC-Anti-Separatism. But since all her refutations against it have been turned, the debate is then weighed on who links into Anti-Separatism best. 5) Nini claims that it isn't about separatism, but her points themselves say otherwise. 6) My sole contention clean extends throughout the entire debate, and links to the VC. 7) The VC links to the Value, which ultimately determines who wins the debate. I urge an affirmative ballot.