Resolved: Social abortions ought not be legal in the US.

Since this is my last speech (on this site, and in LD rules) I will simply do a line-by-line analysis and then go to some voters. Argument 1 --> This argument comes down to a standard evaluation. These were my three responses: First, since he never gave an opposing VC, my VC is the evaluative term. Second, even if you look to the "rights" argument, it still is inferior because rights come from human worth. Third, positive rights argumentation does not impact the resolution in so far as my structure determines the impaction. Argument 2 --> My opponenet makes a definitional flaw; my argument is as follows. First, since there is no universal definition of human-being, we must breakdown the word itself, and then come to a logical conclusion. Second, even if you buy my opponents given definition he still comes to a block on "potentiality. I.e. the potential to achieve those standards given in the definitions. Third, therefore my definition is superior. Argument 3 --> My opponent is making an extratopical argument. I.e. going beyond the stated resolution. The stated resolution explicitly states social abortions. Therefore, his argument is extratopical and non-unique. Argument 4 --> you can break my opponents argument down in 2 ways: First, if you buy my opponents argument about not knowing if it is really a human being, then we must look to a legal analysis. I.e. the presumption. To mitigate possible heinous crimes, the fetus must be presumed as living, just in case it is. Argument 5 --> Again, this argument is extra-topical. The resolution asserts social abortions. Therefore, it must be evaluated under that framework. However, furthermore, my opponent has absolutely no warrants. I.e. that the woman's rights do supersede, and why woman have those rights of governance. "A violent act should be weighed in accordance with the level of violence. A fertilized egg can feels nothing, therefore the level of violence is nothing" --> This is wrong for two reasons: First, if someone was numb all over, and then killed, you can infer from my opponents logic that that is not a violent crime. Second, my opponents logic leads to the fact that once a fetus develops a nerve system, then it is a violent act to abort. Argument 7 "Is it conventional in LD debate to talk to the judges rather than to your opponent?" --> Yes. "I have not idea how you came up with that, nor could I be expected to know." --> simple. you claimed that it is ok to abort so that the child would not grow up in a bad way, etc. Logic extension leads to the conclusion that it is ok to kill any child for that reason. Argument 8 --> I wasn't arguing extrinsic implications. I was arguing intrinsic moral downfall. E.g. slavery created a moral defarbrication. "I must admit I am fascinated by LD rules. Apparently one can completely fail to respond to an argument (6), not know how to look up a definition, and claim arbitrary nonsensical value criteria -- yet still claim victory. Interesting. I do, however, point out that a reasonable interpretation of Pro's offer "if you do not know LD and would till like to do it, I have no problem with that" is that under those circumstances reason would be allowed to prevail." --> Well, yes, under LD rules I must win because you provided no counter-value structure. Furthermore, you could have asked me for the rules before the debate, not my fault. And that note at the top implies that since it is LD, you can do it if you want, but all rules apply. [Voting Issues] Judges you can vote affirmative on the following issues: 1. Lack of counter value structure. 2. Presumption argument (made in this rebuttal) 3. Dehumanization For these reasons you can affirm. Thank you judges, opponent and readers.