Tweet at him with this . This kind of 2000 ' s beauty needs to be seen <| sep |> I feel sorry for people like you who are so desperate for attention . <| sep |> NO SLEEP TIME <| sep |> I just sobbed like a baby when the old lady lets the fox out into the woods . I avoid that film because I worry it ' ll make me cry again and I am in my late 20 ' s ! <| sep |> I once revived my warframe as the operator after an attack from a sentient and I still don ' t know how it happened . So I ' m thinking maybe your warframe died . <| sep |> How do we know it ' s Logans child and not the Wookie one night stand ? ?<| sep |> If you are reading util against a Deont presumably Kantian framework , then you respond in two ways . 1 st Util is a better frameworkmoral system than Kantianism . There are a number of arguments people use for this , ex . Util is more realistic , most people use util , Kant can ' t resolve rights conflicts which makes it useless etc . If that is true , then we reject the deont framework for the util framework . 2 nd Argue that the contentionlevel impacts of the Aff are compatible and can impact to the deont framework . This is extremely difficult to do given the differences between the two , but if you can show that the actions of the aff are what any rational person would universalize and they always also treat people as ends , then the aff impacts equally well under either framework and then just outweighs . A framework NC structure is pretty simple . ValueValue CriterionContentions . The value is should be justified by reference to the resolution , the value criterion is justified as a means of accessingcontrolling access to the value and the contentions impact to the VC .