Counsels, Your Honor, Gud murniing.

~
Rebuttals kung necessary
~

The negative believes that it is practicable that the surviving speluncean explorers be
acquitted on the crime of murder on the ground that what they did inside the cave was
practicable in itself. To prove this argument, let us first recall the facts of the case. It is
undisputed that anxiety was early felt that they might meet death by starvation. It is
established already by the previous speakers that it is instinct that tells us to self-
preserve, which in this case, eat Whetmore. The negative, however, believes that self-
preservation alone does not justify murder. This leads to the foundation of my argument
that in order for the self-preservation to justify murder, there must be a pre-requisite that
the fear which led to anxiety must come from a legitimate source. I will call this fear as
legitimate fear. One can always argue the case of Commonwealth Versus Valjean. The
defendant here was indicted for the larceny of a loaf of bread, and offered as a defense
that he was in a condition approaching starvation. The court in that case refused to
accept starvation as a defense. By using narrow analogy, the affirmative will argue that
the principle in valjean is not applicable in the present case. While it is true in both
cases it is starvation that led the defendants to commit an unlawful act, however, in the
case of valjean, we cannot associate the fear of starvation to a legitimate source since
there are a lot of options to resolve this fear of starvation other than to commit larceny
unlike in the present case that there are no other option
. It is the extraordinariness of the situation that created the legitimate fear which led to
the cannibalism of Roger Whetmore. In summation, the negative believes that in this
case, it is not fear nor anxiety alone that justifies the murder, it must also comply with
the prerequisite that the fear must be a result of a legitimate feeling which was created
by the peculiar circumstances of the case. We therefore conclude that these defendants
are innocent of the crime of murdering Roger Whetmore, and that the conviction should
be set aside.