[list]First note that with the exception of adv. 2-A, Andrea has provided no direct refutation on-case. She provides indirect refutation under the disads (which I?ll discuss below), but doesn?t respond to the merits of case. I?ll cover the dropped advantages first, and put adv. 2-A at the bottom.[/list]
[list]Extend the stress and economics links and the two nuclear war impacts. These impacts completely outweigh all her disadvantages; I save the freaking world.[/list]
[list]Extend the analysis on violation of the social contract, thus delegitimizing the government. This is a priori since you?re taking on the role of the USFG. Because I?ve proven that recognition of marriage is outside your jurisdiction, you must reject on face.
Next, extend the analysis that it?s dehumanizing to discriminate on sexuality, and that dehumanization is the worst impact ever, as it?s the root of all other impacts. I?ve already shown that this impact alone outweighs any other that can be brought up.[/list]
[list]First, she tries to argue that this is slippery slope, but:
[*]It isn?t. I?ve absolutely shown how non-heterosexuals are denied rights.
[*]She never explains why slippery slope arguments are bad.[/list=1]
Next, she asserts that equating homosexuality with bestiality is wrong, but this is precisely the dehumanizing rhetoric that I?m urging you to reject.
Put a kritik here:
[list=3]Andrea?s claiming that there?s some sort of hierarchy of sexuality, with bestiality at the bottom. But remember my analysis in the PMC: to discriminate based on sexuality is wrong. Her claim that only certain sexualities are privy to rights is similar to the claims that were made when blacks and women were simultaneously aiming for suffrage. Rather than recognizing that all people ought to have rights, Andrea seems insistent on saying that only certain sexualities do. Cross-apply all my dehumanization impacts right here.[/list=3][/list]
[list]At the top, Andrea claims that marriage will not exist post-plan because less than 40% are done in a religious setting. But there?s one fundamental flaw in her logic. Extend the analysis that marriage can still operate in ?whatever ceremony? people wish. This means that marriage wouldn?t be restricted to religious ceremonies, and effectively kills the link to all ten D/As.
Next, group all ten of her D/As. They?re all saying that marriage is beneficial, but:
[*]N/L: I maintain (and she concedes) in my last speech that ?Most of these alleged benefits come simply from being in a relationship, and are not intrinsic to marriage.? Relationships still exist, so you see all the benefits Andrea claims.
[*][strike]Indict: I found the source of Andrea?s 10 D/As. It?s an article entitled ?Making the Case for Marriage?? from Brigham Young University…at their School of Family Life. Nice, unbiased source.[/strike]
[*]Turn: Being in a stable relationship is better than being in an unhappy marriage. Unfortunately, marriage is antithetical to creating a stable home environment. Marriage counselors are finding that the reason why marriages fail is because of the structure of marriage itself. People get bored in the marriage, take their partner for granted, and conflicts arise.
[*]Look to her internal links. With the exception of #7, there is no warrant whatsoever behind her claims. She just asserts them as true. This means that 60% (9 out of 15) of her off-case positions rely on assertions! This is terrible for debate:[/list=1]
A. Encourages shallow debate. When debaters fail to provide warrants behind their claims, the debate quickly becomes tantamount to the infantile reasoning of ?Huh-uh!? and ?Uh-huh!?
B. Shatters debatability. Since I?m given no reason why her arguments are true, how can I possibly refute them?
C. Time skew. It puts me at a disadvantage because I?m taking the time to actually respond with warrants, whereas she just spits out assertions at rapid rates.
D. Moving target. At any point, she can claim that my arguments don?t apply because the hidden warrant is different from what I?m refuting.[/list=3][/list]
[*]Empirically denied: The government?s done contentious things in the past, and it?s never resulted in the complete shut down of government. Most recently, the USA PATRIOT Act upset ?conservatives, liberals, republicans, democrats? and numerous NGOs, but this didn?t shut down the government.
[*]N/U: People are already growing more disillusioned by government. If there is any backlash, it?ll occur independent of plan.
Turn: Andrea argues that 1,050 governmental programs rely on marriage. When we dissolve these useless programs, the government will become more efficient and will more effectively resolve the problems Andrea outlined.[/list=1]
Negative Rights D/A:
N/L: The Bill of Rights protects negative rights (i.e., things the government and other citizens cannot do, in order to protect people?s freedoms).
[*]N/L: I?m not restricting any rights. If you want to get married, fine. But the government has no business defining which marriages it?ll choose to recognize and which ones it won?t.
[*]Turn: Andrea claims that protecting negative rights is a violation of the social contract, but?au contraire?the government?s key obligation under the social contract is protection of negative rights. (E.g., the freedom to kill is taken away in order to protect everybody?s right to life.)
Turn: Rights restrictions exist in the constitution in order to protect others? rights. E.g., one person?s right to hold slaves is eliminated in order to protect another person?s right to liberty. Andrea concedes that the government?s definition of marriage will always create discrimination; thus, the government mustn?t define which marriages are legitimate and which ones aren?t?in order to protect everybody?s rights.[/list=1]
N/I: She gives us no conceivable harms.
[*]N/L: People can still enter contracts in order to achieve all the benefits of marriage outlined.
[*]Turn: Having 1,050 rights and benefits to look after is no easy task! I make the courts more efficient by removing the useless laws. Cross-apply my analysis on how Andrea needs to show one benefit from these laws. She?s failed. There?s no reason for them, and having them only impedes efficiency.[/list=1]
edited by Catbert after POO