“We hosted 43 test events in Rio with 7,000 athletes (...) We had 4,300 [Zika] cases in April, which fell to 700 in May and there will be another significant reduction in June or July, and in August it will be very close to zero. All the mechanisms of prevention and protection are guaranteed. I would say to any athlete, to any visitor planning on coming to Rio, you do not have to worry, Rio and Brazil have prepared for this moment.” 
Rio Olympics 2016 Should be Cancelled
Debate Rounds (4)
Round 1: Opening Arguments
Round 2: Rebuttals and Further Points
Round 3: Rebuttals and Further Points
Round 4: Finishing Statements
The state of Brazil is currently depressing. For being the most developed nation between Mexico and Argentina, the crises surrounding Brazil will most certainly impact the world, regardless of whether the Olympics takes place or not. The health of Brazil is currently jeopardized, the economic situation of Brazil is in a free-fall and the crime rates of Brazil have been steadily on the rise with no help from the riots all across the nation. My priority in this argument is to convince that the cancellation of this year's Olympics would be in the best interests of the world, not just Brazil.
The current Zika virus that is engulfing South and Central America is extremely contagious via mosquitoes. The entirety of Brazil is occupied by mosquitoes which harbor no discrimination from whatever country you may be of as you're attending the Rio Olympics. The rise of Zika in Brazil is growing exponentially  and the easy form it uses to get around in the tropical city of Rio will be beyond devastating. It does not take an expert to analyze the situation and cataclysm it will provide for the world if the Rio Olympics isn't cancelled.
Brazil is still not fully finished with the building projects for stadiums and is pouring all the money they have into the Olympics. If Brazil stops now with the stadium building then they won't lose as much money if they attempt to finish the construction. It is necessary for Brazil to preserve every cent they have as they need the money to initiate stimulus to combat the growing recession and the possibility of an economic depression . Brazil should not be hopeful of recovering from their economic crisis soon as analysts predict with all the money sunk into compensating civilians for imminent domain in order to make room for the unfinished stadiums that won't profit, even with the rest of their income, it would prove a serious challenge to return to Brazil's former status as a leading BRICS nation.
The rioting and looting that has occurred in protest for a divided nation on ousting Dilma, whether Temer is a proper candidate for interim replacement, and the fiscal irresponsibility the government has created a smoke screen and window of opportunity for violent crime to flourish and once again dominate the streets of Rio . The ongoing protests and massive violent crime waves rising in Rio will prove a serious threat to tourists. As Brazil is busy siphoning funds from other departments such as domestic police to combat national instability. Focus on gang wars in Brazil are fading and mass murders are solidifying.
A graph to visually show crime rates (Above)
Since Brazil currently needs their funding to combat more severe problems, the already neglected problem of mass violence in Rio will prove to be fatal in more ways than one to the incoming tourists for the Olympics.
Obviously, Brazil is not going to profit from the Olympics and will save themselves a lot of international shame if they cancel their Olympics instead of allowing incoming tourists to have a first-row seat in the current dysfunctional state of Brazil. It would highly benefit others to not risk a guaranteed chance of coming home with Zika as a souvenir than an Olympics medal, a scarring injury from violent protesting, or worry of an economic plummet.
Thank you Pro! I would just like to say to the voters that I have not negated any rules as Pro kindly allowed me to post rebuttals in the first round. With that being said, I wish my opponent good luck- I'm sure it will be a very interesting debate.
Italicised words= quoting my opponent
Underlined words= directly quoting from a named source
Firstly, I would like to remind everyone that Rio de Janeiro was not chosen carelessly or at random. The International Olympic Committee (IOC) organises the Olympics  and is in charge of assigning the hosting city each year. In making such an important decision, the IOC has to study in detail, the economic benefits of the Olympics to a city, the size and suitability of the venue and the capabilities of the government/people of that city .
"Brazil should not be hopeful of recovering from their economic crisis soon..."
That is actually quite different to reality. Brazil is one of the fastest growing economies in the world, growing at a rate of 5% per year over the past ten years . Yes, I agree that the Brazilians are spending a huge amount in preparation for the 2016 Olympics right now but the amount of revenue that will be made from this event will no doubt boost their economy. It is estimated that for every $1 USD invested, $3.26 will be generated until 2027 . This will hugely benefit Brazil's economy meaning more money to invest in the development of infrastructure, health and education. Improvement to Brazil's economy means that employment will rise and the high-standard education implemented as a result will ensure that crime rates and robbery fall dramatically. If the Brazilian government were to quit their preparations for the Olympics, they would:
1. Make a loss because they invested on partial building for no reason.
2. Lose a vital opportunity to gain the money essential for the development of their country.
Unfortunately, I am unable to view Pro's source labelled 2, which was suppose to support his/her point that "It is necessary for Brazil to preserve every cent they have as they need the money to initiate stimulus to combat the growing recession and the possibility of an economic depression ." However, I have already made my point clear: it is NOT necessary for them to preserve every cent. That is not the quickest way to develop an economy. They must invest as much as they can on something that has already been proven successful to other countries , in order to "combat the growing recession..."
Regarding the Zika Virus, I am going to prove how this problem can be easily solved. Zika is a mild illness involving a mosquito bite from an disease-carrying mosquito. Symptoms may include red eyes, joint pain and headache and a maculopapulor rash. Symptoms generally last less than seven days . It is usually mild and unnoticeable. However, if passed onto the fetus of a pregnant woman, the baby could be born with defects (microcephaly). As of now, there are no vaccines.
1. Brazil could warn pregnant women of the risk beforehand as their babies are the only ones who will be seriously affected. However, the following can prevent it:
2. They could distribute free condoms to prevent the spreading of Zika (as it can be spread through sexual contact).
Promotion of Culture
There are very few international events that attract as many tourists to a city as the Olympics. For example, in 2012, 698,000 overseas residents completed a visit to the UK  for the Olympics alone. The culture of the hosting country is promoted as tourists visit their museums, restaurants, historical buildings, concert halls etc. This will also increase future annual tourism for the country and will ensure that it continues to develop and blossom.
As you can see, Brazil will definitely gain from the Olympics not only by earning money and aiding their economic development but also by promoting their culture. Therefore I really don't see why Rio 2016 should be cancelled.
Thank you for reading. Vote Con.
I thank my opponent for accepting this complex debate.
Rebuttal to IOC
These are my rebuttals to your arguments against my points. To begin, the IOC chose Rio well before the crises started to happen in Brazil. Well before. Rio de Janeiro was a very fitting city to host the Olympics at the time of choosing, although, today, if the Committee had to re-choose, they would not choose Rio.
I don't think you paid attention very well to my argument of Brazil being in an economic recession. Your source backing up your claim of Brazil's 5% growth is severely outdated. It's from 2013. Brazil's current economic status is the lowest of the BRICS nations, and in such a decline, their GDP growth is negative and has been since late 2015 . With the fact that your economics argument is 3 years out of date, it is de facto useless.
I'm sorry that you couldn't see my second source, it works fine for me. It would have really helped for you to see my second source because it is from June 2016, and is my exact argument to your hollow case of Brazil's former 5% growth rate.
What I meant by "preserve every cent" is to use it for stimulus, and not to finish the Olympic construction planning. I believe in stimulus, and it's necessity to inhibit growth, especially for how necessary Brazil needs it.
The symptoms for males and non-pregnant women from the Zika virus is minimal. If you know anything about viruses, though, is that they don't leave your body without some sort of immunization by a vaccine. It is also incredibly hard to make a vaccine for viruses as they constantly change forms. An example, is the flu virus . The contagious rate of Zika is exponential, and the fatality rate it has for newborns is globally altering if it hits the world in an intercontinental level which Rio will be the gateway for. Zika can be sexually transmitted and (like I said), because it is a virus, it doesn't die after a week. It stays with you for your life or until it is vaccinated which is a very long process. A hypothetical example is if a lady who acquired Zika in Brazil, came back to Norway, had a baby in 2022, chances are it will have microcephaly. If you'd like to see a visual graph of the contagious rise, I've provided one below.
As for clothing, Rio's temperature year round is very high . It is 26 degrees Celsius when hottest in the days of August. The stadiums that Brazil is building for the Summer Olympics will be outside and air conditioning will barely reach the Olympic tourists. Repellents don't always work and usually don't last 12 hours during the time that of Olympic events. Not to mention, Rio is a tropical city and sweat will destroy the repellent chemicals on peopl's skins, combined with the clothing you suggested in the hot city of Rio.
I'm sure that the tourists would love to see the culture of crime, gang violence, and common shootouts in Rio which has risen exponentially like the graph I provided in my first round had shown. (Speaking of crime, you never gave me a rebuttal for my argument in the first round which I'll assume you had none for?) Brazil has culture, it definitely does. Although, I'm hinting that currently, with the mass protesting, rioting, and the current anti-foreigner sentiment many Brazilians are feeling for having their money and land taken by the government only to find it mismanaged in a scandal  and all else surrounding Brazil, maybe they could wait some time later to visit.
Considering you missed one of my arguments and did not see my source backing for the economics, Brazil has many reasons to cancel their Olympics event. Culture is the weakest argument for the Olympics as economically and internationally, Brazil will suffer if they don't stop before the Olympics start. People have already gotten the memo, and not as many tickets as predicted or needed to actually profit has been sold . The attendance rates for Rio will be an all-time low in the Olympics, that is if there will even be an Olympics.
 http://riotimesonline.com...# & http://www.nytimes.com...
Thank you Pro.
"If you know anything about viruses (...) is that they don't leave your body without some sort of immunization by a vaccine."
If you know anything about the Zika Virus is that:
1. Once somebody has the virus in their system, they will most likely be immune to it for life .
2. Zika is only inside someone for seven days and after that, it leaves their system forever .
Therefore, your example of a Norwegian woman passing on the virus to her fetus 6 years after is completely false.
The main damage caused by Zika is microcephaly. I have already suggested the distribution of free condoms in order to prevent the virus from being sexually transmitted. Many men (including athletes) who are attending the 2016 Olympics have already frozen their sperm just to be extra safe, so that could be an a good option.
"As for clothing, Rio's temperature year round is very high (...) 26 degrees Celsius.."
I think that is a very weak excuse for pregnant women not to wear long-sleeved clothes. Firstly, they could wear cool material such as silk and secondly, as you know, the women of Dubai have to cover their whole bodies every day and the temperatures there averages at 41 degrees Celsius  during the summer.
"sweat will destroy the repellent chemicals on people's skins"
Extra-strong antiperspirant sprays such as 'Odaban' can easily solve this problem. As for repellents not working, I specified EPA-registered products which are strong and durable. Permethrin-treated clothing is another addition to my previous list for women on how to prevent the Zika Virus.
"The rise of Zika in Brazil is growing exponentially"
I'm afraid your graph is "severely outdated". It only states till February- "it is de facto useless". L. Picciani, Brazil's Sports Minister stated:
You sound like somebody who has had tons of experience of being robbed/witnessing a crime in Brazil, specifically Rio. Please enlighten me.
"I'm sure that the tourists would love to see the culture of crime, gang violence, and common shootouts in Rio"
In Ireland, the crime rates are 60% which is unbelievably high considering that it's a developed country. However, during my 15 years of residence here, only one of my relatives/friends actually experienced a crime (which was merely a robbery).
Within the top 50, Brazil’s most violent cities are mainly in the north, far from the Olympic city of Rio de Janeiro .
I assure you, once you're careful, you should be quite safe. The figures look more shocking than they actually are.
Also, as I mentioned in the previous round, with the amount of money earned from the Olympics, the Brazilians will be able to improve their security and the crime rates will reduce dramatically in the coming years.
I apologise for my slightly old link but I suppose that makes us even regarding your outdated graph.
"I believe in stimulus, and it's necessity to inhibit growth, especially for how necessary Brazil needs it."
I think that is a very narrow view on this situation. Just to reiterate, as it seems you have completely ignored my statements from the previous round, if the Brazilians were to quit their preparations for the Olympics, they would:
1. Make a loss because they invested on partial building for no reason.
2. Lose a vital opportunity to gain the money essential for the development of their country.
I think that their investment on the Olympics is very clever and an effective way to improve their economy. Would you rather €30 now and some useless half-finished buildings or €300 in two months as well as future income ie.tourism?
"maybe they could wait some time later to visit"
A country does not get the privilege to host something like the Olympics every day.
Due to the character limit for this debate, I have to finish. Rio 2016 should NOT be cancelled as it will be a huge step to improving Brazil's economy which as you mention, is at risk of recession.
Also, since there is only 6 weeks left to the Olympics, do you honestly think it's feasible to cancel it when thousands of people have already booked their hotels, flights etc?
Thank you for your argument, Con.
If you know anything about wording and reliable sources, your source does not back up your statements on health.
1. It's well known that when a virus leaves your system, it rarely comes back. That's not specific to Zika, that's all viruses. I also said that the only way Zika can be non-fatally removed from your system is with a vaccine which is predicted to be a lengthy process.
2. Your Rompers source is the internet equivalent of a tabloid. Neither Rompers or it's link to CNN and Gupta's analysts confirms the life expectancy of Zika in your body . It remains dormant after 7 days, it doesn't die. The links to back up their statements also stops at CNN and has no back-up afterwards whatsoever. Zika's symptoms goes down after 7 days, but the microcephaly does not . My Norwegian woman example is not fallacious, by the way, one of my sources listed speaks of the later time that Zika still affects the woman later.
The free condoms suggestion is good, although, the main transmission form of Zika is through mosquitoes  and no repellent is ever guaranteed.
As for the rest of the repellent and clothing suggestions, the facts have been established and it would depend on hypothesis to further the argument and this section of the debate would become subjective.
My graph is 4 months outdated, not 3 years (like your economics argument). I would tone down on the adjective of 'severe'. 3 months wouldn't render my argument useless, because the graph still proves the number of people in Brazil that have Zika from the exponential rise Zika experienced.
In Ireland, there is no where near as much crime as the unfounded number you are providing without sources. In fact, source number four explains much otherwise . Your number of 60% is also not based on any other denominator. Do you mean that 60% of people in Ireland commited violent crime, are victims of violent crime, witnessed violent crime? Rio de Janeiro on the other hand is an exceptionally violent city for any city in the world . The reason other cities have higher crimes rate in the north is because the police aren't moderating them as much as they're supposed to. Rio is a metropolis, a significant amount of security would be dedicated to protecting them but are not doing a good job. You also did not partake in reading some of my articles on crime as one of them has a clear example of how bad crime is in Rio. Assuming you still won't read, let me quote. "Just days ago, armed men attacked Rio’s largest public hospital, successfully freeing a drug kingpin. " .
As I mentioned in the previous round, with sources, if Brazil continues wasting money on the non profiting Olympics, they will lose more money if they continue progressing than instead of cancelling the Olympics as a whole . Otherwise, combating crime with your unfounded profit hypothesis is still only an assumption while the absence of profit regardless of the Olympics continuing or not is guaranteed.
You don't need to apologize for the source and also 3 months does not equal 3 years (so we're not even).
My stimulus comment was a statement of me agreeing with you. If you called it a narrow view, your calling your own economics argument a narrow view.
I didn't ignore your argument, I disproved it with the chronological factor that rendered it useless. You, on the other hand, did not listen to the reasoning or source that backed my argument with the ticket sales and absence of profit guarantee [also 7].
A developing country like Brazil also doesn't have the ability to manage the Olympics successfully when they're dealing with 3 major crises and a guarantee of a loss of profit [ also 7].
I never said or mentioned it to be feasible to cancel the Olympics at this time. Although it's definitely easier to cope with refunding the people then being labeled an international fiasco for having unfinished stadiums (which they don't have the time to finish anyways) , exponential crime and an economic downfall. As for the recession, since there will be no profit, there needs to be a preservation of any cent in order to combat the recession.
Thank you Pro!
First, I'm going to acknowledge the less important issues:
"My graph is 4 months outdated, not 3 years (like your economics argument) (...) also 3 [you probably meant 4] months does not equal 3 years (so we're not even)."
Are you implying that there is no way we could possibly be even because my source is older than yours, making it much more 'outdated'? That is absolutely absurd and here's why.
Outdated (adj.): no longer useful or acceptable 
My source stated that Brazil's economy was improving by 5% every year (which is not true now). Your graph stated that the Zika Virus was continuing to grow exponentially, which I have already proved false. Therefore, they are both equally false and unacceptable- hence making us even by definition.
"I would tone down on the adjective of 'severe'."
The word 'severe' was a direct quote from you (as I said in Round 1, all italicised words are quotes from Pro). No more needs to be said.
"when a virus leaves your system, it rarely comes back. That's not specific to Zika"
You're misunderstanding my point. What I stated in the previous round was that specifically Zika, does not come back at all unlike influenza etc. Once Zika passes, people become immune to it  (same source as in Round 2).
"Zika still affects the woman later."
As I've already stated, Zika will most likely not affect future pregnancies. Here's another source (see source ).
"Zika's symptoms goes down after 7 days, but the microcephaly does not ."
I cannot seem to find any related information in Pro's source labelled 2 to support his statement. All it says is that the Zika Virus only seriously affects pregnant women, which we already know. Methods of Zika prevention are sufficiently explained in both of my previous posts so I will not waste time in reiterating those. However, Pro seems to have conceded on this topic: he does not provide any argument- "this section of the debate would become subjective" despite my successful rebuttals to all his suggestions.
Just to be clear, we are debating on whether foreigners will be safe in Rio and if the Olympics should be cancelled as a result. Crime occurs mostly in rough areas (common sense). Although crime rates in Rio are slightly higher than the average, tourists who will be arriving in Rio will most likely stay in decent hotels with plenty of security guards etc. The athletes on the other hand will be lodging in the Olympic Village where their safety is obviously highly considered. Therefore, it shouldn't affect them much and it should not be a reason to fear coming to Brazil. My source for Ireland's crime rates (rounded to the nearest ten) is included at the bottom , however, I don't think it is that important and relative to the debate. I only touched on it as an example.
Although you do not see the importance of the promotion of culture, I believe that it is a vital aspect and the Olympics could be Brazil's golden opportunity. As I stated before, hosting countries receive more tourism because of the Olympic Games for many years after. If tourists enjoy a country's food, scenery etc, then they will definitely return and also promote the culture of the country everywhere else.
"A developing country like Brazil also doesn't have the ability to manage the Olympics successfully"
What has this got to do with culture?
I understand your motives of cancelling Rio 2016. You believe that instead of investing on it, they should spend the money on developing their economy. However, that is definitely NOT the quickest way to generate revenue and that is where our opinions differ.
If Brazil does not gain much profit from the Olympics, they will certainly be much better off than if it were cancelled. For example, let's say Brazil spends 20 million on preparations. With the Olympics, if the absolute worst occurred and they only gained 18 million (if every ticket does not sell out), that's still much better than your alternative plan. Regarding sunk costs, why let them occur when they could be easily prevented in the first place?
"I never (...) mentioned it to be feasible to cancel the Olympics at this time."
But you think it's a good idea that after years of training, hard-work and preparation for this year's Olympics, we should just cancel it for the thousands of athletes- not to mention all the booked flights etc. which would not only be a hassle for them to receive a refund, but to the Brazilian services who need the money as you've said. If your statement (above) was intended to imply that you do not believe it is feasible to cancel the Olympics at this time, then why did you even initiate this debate?
Thank you for reading. Vote Con.
Thank you Con, for your argument.
To quickly put aside our argument of the relevancy of my graph compared to yours, (Refer to source 2 of the previous round), the source states "more than 1 million people have contracted the virus (In Brazil)". If the virus did not exponentially rise as shown by my graph, only a quarter of that number would have Zika. The economics graph wouldn't be relevant to the recession as the recession is the product of the decline, not the rise.
(of something bad or undesirable) very great; intense .
I made an equation to the difference between 4 months and 3 years which I believe would apply to severe.
[1 Month = *Approximately 30 days] & [4 months = *120 days] & [3 Years = 36 Months] & [36 Months = *1080 Days]
The rough difference in percentage rise from 120 to 1080 days is 800%.
I didn't misunderstand your point. Zika is a virus just like influenza. Zika either remains dormant or goes away like Influenza. When a virus leaves your body, it is natural and in no way special (To Zika or any other pathogen) for your body to develop an immunity. It's one of the most commonly accepted concepts in the studies of Biology . The only thing I pointed out wrong with your argument was the form in which the virus 'left' your body. Your source didn't provide back-up to your argument that the virus actually left. My source was able to provide the foundation that Zika simply remained dormant after the next 7 days. The CDC website would also show whether the virus would leave or not, and it doesn't state the expulsion of the virus from your system, only when it becomes dormant .
Your source number 3 of the New York times regarding when the virus leaves your system was unanswered. Q&A of numbers 10 and 15 in your article did not say whether the virus leaves your system nor did it say whether they become dormant meaning your source isn't very helpful to either of us in terms of our arguments.
My source number two from round 3 regarding microcephaly had stated multiple times of the proven lasting period for microcephaly to still effect infants even when Zika is dormant . I will quote the primary statement from the source in order to make it easier for you to analyze my argument. "The rapid spread of the Zika virus has prompted Latin American governments to urge women not to get pregnant for up to two years." is in the first sentence. To break it down, it means these governments recognize the lasting effects of Zika inside the body even when the other symptoms aren't present.
I have not conceded my argument on the clothing and methods of repelling mosquitoes on that topic. Unless you want to create an experiment on the hypothetical effectiveness of your method suggestions, there are no sources that will provide either of our arguments any foundation. If we continue to argue our points on method prevention then the argument will become subjective as our perspectives are too specific to back-up with external sources. It will simply be subjective and not prove as progressive to our debate.
Just to reiterate, Rio crime rates are not "slightly higher than average", they are well beyond average. Doing simple mean and range math from these statistics I found on a trusted safety source, the average is at High, or at 75.92 . I highly recommend to see that source as it is extremely effective in my argument.
The safety of the Olympic athletes are virtually guaranteed, but the tourists coming in to Rio are the majority and the ones in danger. If you refer to source five in this round, the commentary that helped in providing those numbers from persons that actually ventured to Rio, they resided in high star hotels in the coast of Rio where the Olympics will be taking place.
I do see an importance in culture, although, as I argued before, with the combination of all these factors against the continuation of the Olympics, I'm afraid culture is a weak argument. Besides it being a 'weak argument', it is subjective and you can't exactly use a foundation for it other than opinonation. Your quotation of my statement is that culture sharing is the least of Brazil's arguments against cancellation.
You keep refusing to see my argument that finishing the stadiums will result in sinking the loss of profit for Brazil even more. If they continue with the construction projects they will still lose more revenue that continuing with the sales. Due to character limits, please refer to my previous arguments which you must have skimmed over as it is the same argument against your point, now.
Nothing is feasibile in economics, although, the routes taken in order to avert more devestation may be easier to handle than the others. You know well, why I initiated this debate, and regarding on how easy it is to fix the problem, is not the reason why I started the debate.
Thank you for this wonderful debate!
DUE TO CHARACTER LIMITS, SOURCES ARE IN COMMENTS
Thank you Pro.
"I made an equation (...) The rough difference in percentage rise from 120 to 1080 days is 800%."
I don't want to waste anybody's time on this irrelevant topic so I will be brief:
1. Pro called my source "severely outdated". I did not deny that and proved how one of his sources was too, "outdated".
2. Pro argues that my source was more "outdated", making us uneven. Seriously?
3. How outdated something is, does not depend on the actual 'date' (see Round 3) but in fact, how severely off the information is. For example, which is more outdated, the belief that 'the heart was the centre of all thought and emotion' (4th century B.C.) or the belief that 'sea monsters exist' (16th century)? They are both equally false and therefore equally outdated.
"I didn't misunderstand your point. Zika is a virus just like influenza"
One sentence: There are a lot of different types of viruses with their individual properties .
(*Note*: sources 1-3 describe a few different types of viruses, while source 4 states this exact fact.)
" "The rapid spread of the Zika virus has prompted Latin American governments to urge women not to get pregnant for up to two years." (...) governments recognize the lasting effects of Zika inside the body even when the other symptoms aren't present."
Actually, you misunderstand your own source. The government are urging women not to get pregnant for two years not because they are afraid that the Zika Virus would still be 'dormant' in their body . They are really in fact, only worried because the current Zika breakout means that there could be high chances of having the mild virus without even knowing it. Therefore, women who want children may not know if they have Zika and as a result could cause microcephaly. However, it will definitely phase out after two years as it is decreasing dramatically already  (same as Round 2).
"I have not conceded my argument on (...) methods of repelling mosquitoes"
Most of my suggestions of preventing Zika are well-supported. You tried to refute them with your own opinions which I have already responded to. Besides, even if there was a slight subjectivity, it is our duty as debaters to convince the other.
Obviously all the people from your source labelled 5 will report about the dangers of Rio. If they didn't experience crime, why would they be on the website in the first place? That's like wanting to know how much time teenagers spend getting ready for school and asking an all-girls' school only. Both are pretty biased and display propaganda.
Actually, since we're on this topic, here is a comment from your source labelled 5:
"Just came back from Rio (...) I'm just going to say, common sense !! (...) Rio is (...) one of the best cities I've visited (...) regarding crime, you have favelas and you have dodgy places but surely you will find out where not to go before the trip. The place is no different then other MEGA Cities like Paris, London or NY if you shouldn't be going to particular neighbourhood, don't go. Using public transport is very safe both metro and Buses (if you show the drive were you're going he will let you know when to leave the bus. I will defo be going back to Rio and if you're thinking about safety in this place, don't..you will be perfectly fine"
Culture is not a subjective issue, it is common sense and absolutely vital. To reiterate (again), countries that have held the Olympics have had an immense increase of tourism in the years after (sources  and  in Round 1). Why do tourists visit a country? To learn about their culture (food, buildings, history etc.)
"You keep refusing to see my argument that finishing the stadiums will result in (...) the loss of profit for Brazil"
You have not specifically proved that Brazil would benefit financially from cancelling the Olympics in comparison to not cancelling it. Even if they are better off cancelling it, they will not have the crucial increased tourism in the long-run.
"regarding on how easy it is to fix the problem, is not the reason why I started the debate"
I said "feasible" not "easy". The resolution is 'Rio Olympics 2016 Should be Cancelled'. As the proposition, you need to prove why it would be good to cancel the event now despite the fact that there is literally only about a month left.
"I never (...) mentioned it to be feasible to cancel the Olympics at this time."
I don't understand what you are trying to say. Is it feasible or not because that would determine whether you are negating the motion.
In conclusion, Rio 2016 SHOULD NOT BE CANCELLED as it will have many benefits for Brazil economically and from all my points, rebuttals and sources throughout this debate, I don't see a reason why people should 'fear' going.
Thank you for reading. Vote Con!
I'd like to especially thank Amedexyius for this interesting and engaging debate! Win or lose, I think we have both benefited. I for one, now know the term "de facto"!
(Sources in comments also)
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Sashil 3 months ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||3|
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.