Wierdman's Debate Tournament-The Occupy Wall Street Movement will/has had an affect on the world
| Started: | 11/28/2011 | Category: | Politics |
| Updated: | 1 year ago | Status: | Post Voting Period |
| Viewed: | 1,749 times | Debate No: | 19535 |
 Pro In today's debate I will be advocating that the Occupy Wall Street Movement will/has had an affect on our world. This debate is not about whether the movements are just but will it have a positive or negative affect. For clarity here are some definitions: affect-make a difference to world-all of the people, societies, and institutions on the earth Occupy Wall Street Movement-movement by any individual advocating against social economic inequality that claims to support the movement or joins in on the actual marches In order to win the debate I as Pro must prove that the Occupy Wall Street Movement will most likely or has had an affect on anywhere in the world. Con must argue as to why it will not/why it has not. Structure: Round 1-Acceptance Round 2-Cases Round 3-Rebuttal Round 4-Final Rebuttal/Conclusion I look forward to a very interesting debate, Cobo.  Con Occupy Movement- The first Occupy protests to be widely cosidered Occupy Wall Street in New York City then Occupy San Francisco, both taking place on September 17, 2011. By October 9, Occupy protests had taken place or were ongoing in over 95 cities across 82 countries, and over 600 communities in the United States.As of November 26 the Meetup page "Occupy Together" listed 2,668 Occupy communities worldwide Occupy Wall Street Movement-Occupy Wall Street (OWS) is an ongoing series of demonstrations initiated by the Canadian activist group Adbusters which began September 17, 2011 in Zuccotti Park, located in New York City's Wall Street financial district. The protests are against social and economic inequality, high unemployment, greed, as well as corruption, and the undue influence of corporations—particularly that of the financial services sector—on the american government. The protesters' slogan We are the 99% refers to the growing difference in wealth in the U.S. between the wealthiest 1% and the rest of the population. Please notice the two different definitions I wish the affirmative good luck |
 |
|
Pro Due to the fact that I am very busy with schoolwork and finals is around the corner, this case will be pretty brief. I apologize to the voters and strongly urge them to vote on conciseness, not length or complexity.
My opponent contests my definitions by saying that we are only referring to the movements in New York however he must realize that the cause of all the occupy movements were in fact inspired by the Occupy Wall Street Movement (OWS). Thus any movement with “Occupy____” should be considered however for the sake of the debate I will refer only to OWS, unless my opponents accepts it in the next round.
Let me remind the voters that all I have to do in order to win the debate is display how the OWS movement has had an affect on the world. If at the end of the debate some of the affects still stand, I have won the debate.
C1: The Occupy Wall Street Movement has had numerous negative affects on America. Numerous people have been arrested, injured, and several have been pronounced dead ever since the Occupy Movement has began. While the very motive to protest and rebel against that 1% was to fight for their individual liberty, they have proven themselves at times to become out of control and excessive. More than 4,200 arrests have occurred since the movement began. [1] The movement has also led to more than 100 injuries [2] and 8 deaths [3,4,5]. If one would thus deny that these are not “affects” then I question what the definition of affect is as I supplied earlier. Keep in mind that not only do the arrests, deaths, and injuries have an affect on the people who were in the unfortunate circumstances but the families and police. In Robert Schlesinger's article The Incoherence of the Wall Street Movement, he states “But the thing about protesting against 1 percent of the population is that mass actions end up having deleterious effects on the 99 percent. In the case of lower Manhattan, it's having a negative effect on the neighborhood still trying to recover from 9/11.” [6] Numerous sexual assaults have occurred as well. After several weeks of occupation Occupy Wall Street protesters had made enough allegations of sexual assault and gropings that women-only sleeping tents were set up [7].David Park was arrested for a sexual assault that occurred in Zuccotti Park on October 8. At the time of the incident, Park had numerous warrants for his arrests. Tonye Iketubosin who worked as a kitchen helper was charged with an October 24 sexual assault of an 18 year-old fellow protester. Prosecutors believe he is responsible for an assault on another 18 year old woman. [8] Thus the OWS Movement affects people's sanctity and the neighborhood around them due to the damage and constant revolting on Wall Street. Keep in mind these movements are occurring constantly for the 99% will not rest. C2: The Occupy Wall Street Movement has had numerous positive affects on America. The amount of positive affects that occurred are endless and I will provide several just to solidify the contention. The OWS has had a positive affect on credit unions. The UVA Community Credit Union says over the past month, it has noticed that more and more customers are closing their accounts with the big banks and becoming credit union members.[10] The OWS Movement has lead to countless of other occupy movements and has caused millions of Americans to question authority. Is it perhaps just that 1% own more than a third of the wealth? An October 13 survey by TIME magazine found that 54 percent of Americans have a favorable impression of the protests, while 23 percent have a negative impression. Many Americans are behind the movement and support the rise of the majority. The very fact that you and I and so many people in this country know about the OWS Movement in itself is an affect. Again, an affect is merely a change or a difference. Due to the fact that so many of us have a change in our knowledge for we now know of this movement is an affect. How could one argue that such a movement that has had affects on America and all the Occupy Movements that have started and the global impact are not affects?
C3: The Occupy Wall Street Movement has had affects on the world globally.
I'll explain the third n the next round for I am running out of time and am very busy with school but I am eager to hear my opponent's case. Thanks and I urge a PRO ballot.
Sources:
Con In today's debate, I feel some points some points need clarification Clarification point 1- The definition of affect affect-to act on or change in Example:Cold weather affected the crops. [1] My opponents definition of affect is slightly warranted but this definition is better for the round. With this definition we can measure the resolution. Clarification point 2-The Area of Affect This debate is meant to focus on all countries in the world. Not just one of all two hundred and four countries. Doing that shows that Occupy wall street will have an affect on the world. Now abiding by my opponents definition of world and mine of affect which is "all of the people, societies, and institutions on the earth" So my opponent must show OWS has cause all of the people, societies and institutions on the earth to change. Example Claim 1 OWS caused most of the worlds lawmakers to remake their economic system. Example Claim 1 OWS caused deaths in one country Now even though we would question the validity of each of these claims, the first claim at least follows the area of affect. Clarification point 3-Burden of proof To win this debate my opponent provide sufficient warrant for their position. He is the one supporting his claim and if any doubt in his arguments is found the the Con should win this debate. He should show how OWS affects the world and not just one country. The con just has to disprove the pros position. Clarification 4-Affect vs Effect It's actually pretty straightforward. You use affect with an a as a verb and effect with an e as a noun. Affect with an a means "to change," Effect can be described ad a sort of symptom Affect example The gun at point blank range affected his choice of words Effect example One effect of the cold was sneezing My Opponent commonly confuses these two words in his case. Opponent's case C1-The OWS Movement has had numerous negative affects on America. My opponents main arguments for this contention is that because of Occupy Wall Street many people have been arrested or many people have been injured or many people have been killed. People are being arrested because they are not obeying the laws. With my opponent source about the 4,200 arrests. It shows that these arrests were throughout and not centered on occupy wall street but on other occupy divisions. According to the article on 200 people have been arrested in New York as part of OWS. With his second source about 100 injuries I could not read it or translate it using Bing or Google. Concerning his third source I could not find the direct article from the Washington post, but I did find an excerpt from the police saying the death is not suspicious and that a drug overdose might have been the cause of death[2] With his fourth source, I found the direct article which said[3] "A woman at the Occupy Vancouver camp died Saturday after being discovered in an "unresponsive" condition, police say. A Canadian protest organizer said it appeared to be due to a drug overdose. Lauren Gill, an organizer at the camp, said the woman apparently died of a drug overdose. The cause of death has not been determined but there is no evidence to indicate foul play, police said." And with his fifth source the article stated "The shooting is being widely reported as part of a dispute between two groups of people, although it is not known if it was linked to the protest." The main problem with these is that my opponent did not properly quote his sources. In only 2 of his first five did he state the direct source. These deaths are obviously not the cause of protesting, simply because ALL of these deaths happened when no protesting was happening. These article's also show that OWS was not directly responsible for any of these deaths. In fact for most of the sources is states that DRUG OVERDOSE was responsible for most of them. But for the rest of my opponent's sources he gets the words AFFECT and EFFECT mixed up Source Six excerpt "In the case of lower Manhattan, it's having a negative EFFECT on a neighborhood still trying to recover from 9/11." Please note that this in EFFECT and the resolution states AFFECT Source Seven The title of the article it's self is "Occupy Protests Seismic EFFECT" This article focuses on the effect and not what has OWS AFFECTED Source the eight You can see with this source that my opponent is starting to claim a cause-affect fallacy. The rapist had already multiple warrants so just because a sexual assault happened doesn't mean OWS caused it directly. He also makes a broad claim stating that the movement changes people's sanctity, but unless my opponent can prove a direct correlation between all these claims and OWS then these argument's are void. C2-The OWS Movement has had numerous positive affects on America. "Janine Williams, the vice president of marketing at the credit union, says a lot of that has to do with the credit union's great rates and the fact that it's member-owned. Williams says they noticed the increase when some of the big banks started announcing their new debit card fees. And she says she expects the credit union's membership to increase as more banks add those fees." This is an direct excerpt from my opponents article about OWS affect banks. Well if you look at the actual article it says the something completely different. People aren't switching because of OWS, they are switching because of the banks announcing new fees and the credit union has such great rates This is basically another cause-affect fallacy. The members would have switched anyhow so this argument is null an voided. To my opponents next source by TIME magazine an his talk about us thinking about the OWS movement is an affect. This is changing anything in the material world. Something we can see. And just because people are thinking about something does not mean it was directly cause by that event. Someone could have easily heard rioting from their office and discovered that it was OWS. Thus giving them an opinion of it. Unless you have a source stating the direct reason some C-3-The OWS Movement has had affects on the world globally. This argument should have been my opponent starting argument. Either my opponent did not focus on the resolution's question or he was really running out of time. Maybe this shows that my opponent can not show how OWS affects the majority of the world. My opponent acknowledges that he has future arguments in store. This is not normal debating procedure and should not be done. BUT, If my opponent does that then I would also like to reserve the right to release new arguments in the second round, IF he does. My Arguments C-1-OWS can not affect the world. Occupy Wall street is an event entirely in the US. My opponent himself separates OWS and any other occupy movement. The reason this movement started was entire because of the economic condition of the country. Not of any other country. If my opponent says that it can be done then he is basically arguing this. A-I'm part of OWS, and I believe that corporate greed in America is bad. B-So what about the rest of the world? A-Who gives a damn about the rest of the world. I came to change America C-2-OWS and any other movement are different OWS objective is in it's name "Occupy Wall Street". My opponent has failed to show how the can happening in another state let alone anther country. The Occupy movement people are all fighting for different purposes. Summary of the debate so far. My opponent has made next to no ground in his first speech which held many problems. 1.He did not follow the exact wording of the resolution and confused effect with affect. 2.He did not focus on the Area of Affect on focused on one county out of 204 3.He did not even show how OWS affected it's home country(The only country it can really affect) 4.He properly misused sources and commonly followed and cause-affect fallacy. Sources in Comments. |
 |
|
Pro I thank my opponent for his intent response. Let me note that if you wanted to counter any of my definitions, you should've countered in the first round which is acceptance so it is unjust to contort the debate dependent upon your necessity at this point thus your definitions should be discarded. Who is to say that it is to focus on all countries? All I stated in the acceptance round is that I must prove that it does have an affect on the world. There is NO indication in the resolution that I must prove all societies??? I should have already won the conduct point for my opponent contorting the debate to accommodate his needs. As we see again, CON is yet again contorting the debate! There was no indication in the first round that I must prove all countries! I clearly stated that all I must prove is that there is an affect on anywhere in the world and you accepted, thus you can not change the situation. Even if CON can disprove one portion of my argument, he has not won the debate by any means. If I have proven that the OWS movement has had an affect I win according to the rules, it's crystal clear. Con's response: Con seems to propose that I am confusing causation and correlation however as stated in the resolution the OWS movement pertains to anything within the OWS movement. Due to the fact that the OWS movement did have death and drugs involved, as long as it associates with the OWS movement it is therefore by definition part of the affect of the OWS movement. He is almost asserting no person(s) in any movement have any affect because they decided to do drugs/other things based on their discretion but that is still a part of the movement itself. This is not at all a valid argument against my contention by any means thus we can extend this across the flow. Con goes on to state that I have confused affect with effect?? Effects are not relevant to the debate. Regardless of what a title says that does not by any means prove my contention wrong. I don't see how this is valid by any means. Let's look back on my definition of affect as "To make a difference to". Due to the fact that the OWS movement DID make a difference to the people and their families, they did have an affect. Rapist response: Pertaining back to the first round, my opponent again assumes that OWS had to cause EVERYTHING. I refer back that anything PART of the OWS movement was valid grounds, so we can extend this across the flow as well. Let's use a metaphor to make it clearer for the judges: Billy bullied a kid until the kid cried. Now did Billy have an affect on the kid? Yes. But the deep underlying cause was not necessarily the kid, it was his parents beating him per se. Due to the fact that it was still the action of the kid that is part of the AFFECT of the individual. Response to Credit Union: I think my opponent forgets to read the whole underlying cause of the article. The article itself states "Occupy Movements Having Positive Effect on Credit Union" and in the context of the article states "Some of the Occupy movement's organizers are continuing to urge people to remove all of their money from banks and to place it into credit unions." The very reason in which they invested according to the article was because of OWS. The union itself was not the cause regardless of it's great rates. Response to changing the individual opinion: My opponent goes on to it changes nothing in the material world. However this is not the only criteria in which we use to determine the effect. Due to the fact that MILLIONS of Americans and people across the globe are aware thus it has made a difference to their opinions, even if it only pertains to their opinion about the OWS rather than economic inequality. As far as my third contention goes, I will not stand by it for the rest of the round. While I do think it has had a global impact, I have already proven that it has had an affect on America and that is all that is necessary. Opponent's Case: R1: Not changing the world. First off while I believe it has changed the world, there was no indication that I had to prove the entire world was affected, just a portion. Here's another metaphor to understand easier: A burglar broke into a house but got scared and then left. The only thing he did was break a window. Did the burglar have an affect on the house? Yes because the window is PART OF the house and anything that is part of the house (or part of the world) is valid grounds for debate. This was clarified well earlier in the debate and I don't see why my opponent does not understand. R2: OWS and other movements are different The very underlying cause and motive for the other movements to occur was because of the OWS movement. NO other movement would have been 'Occupy' movement if it wasn't for the OWS. Thus the OWS has affected universities, individual cities, etc. The foundation of all the movements is the OWS so yet again, this is valid grounds for debate. Conclusion: My opponent has numerous times gone against what was accepted at the beginning of the debate, thus giving me the automatic conduct point. My opponent is confused on the magnitude of the affect. There was no indication that the affect had to be large by any means. Due to the fact that America is part of the world (a very potent one) it is still an affect on the world. My opponent has established that it is minuscule for the context of the debate but there was no obligation for Pro as I to prove that it has an affect on the WHOLE world, just a portion. Thus I have sufficiently proven that it has had an affect on the world fulfilling my BoP. My opponent has not provided valid arguments against my contentions rather stating that I am confusing affect and effect and questioning the foundation of the debate that was already established in the very beginning. My opponents arguments are inherently question-beginning so the only viable vote right now would be for PRO. Con Now onto the debate Before we begin I feel as I must clarify further to my opponent and the audience Clarification 1-Definitions The only reason I gave a definition for affect is because my opponent was confusing the word effect and affect.(Which is why I also gave a definition to effect) Clarification 2-Area of affect As I explained in my first speech my opponent gave the area of affect himself. When my opponent defined "world", he defined it as "all of the people, societies, and institutions on the earth" So according to my opponent he himself is contorting the debate by not arguing what he was defined. Think about it like this. If we replaced the word in the resolution with the definition, would it still makes sense? Let's see I will be advocating that the Occupy Wall Street Movement will/has had an affect on our world. I will be advocating that the Occupy Wall Street Movement will/has had an affect on all of the people, societies, and institutions on the earth. You see? My opponent gave the Area of Affect himself. If he didn't want to argue about the entire world the he should have made the resolution specified to the United States(The Only area he tried to argue about). He could have made his definition into World-most/some of the people, societies, and institutions on the earth But he did not state that. Clarification point 3-Effect vs Affect The reason I defined both is simply because my opponent is mistaking effect for affects is the reason this is a clarification point in today's debate. Effect-When an event causes something new Ex-Causing people to think about something, death, Affect-When an event changes something that was predetermined Ex. Affect laws, Affecting societal standards Clarification point 4-Contorting the debate The Con never attempted to contort the debate. The reason I said you have to prove all of all societies, people, and organization was that is your definition of world. I was merely following your defintion in order to provide a way to measure if the pro was affirming or not. Secondly I provided definitions of Affect and Effect because of the confusion of my opponent with the two words. Now on to my opponents case Concerning the OWS involvement theory/Rapist Response- The main problem I had with this statement was how much the evidence caused a causatation-correlation fallacy. With any series of events you must prove that their was one event directly causing another. In this my opponent has failed to do so. He merely states. "....I am confusing causation and correlation however as stated in the resolution the OWS movement pertains to anything within the OWS movement. Due to the fact that the OWS movement did have death and drugs involved, as long as it associates with the OWS movement it is therefore by definition part of the affect of the OWS movement." First of all, the resolution states nothing about that. Your Definition might, but not the resolution Second let me provide the example as to why this is flawed 1.I attend school. 2.I do drugs 3.I overdose and die on the school campus. 4.This is an affect of the school. That is basically what my opponent is stating. Now even though you should question each statement furiously, this is the basic outline. If these are the basic details then my opponent asserts this kind of relationship. But this is flawed, simply because of the school did not do anything DIRECTLY to AFFECT the student to cause him to take drugs and overdose(According to the details, Now if the School directly gave him drugs the it affected the student) But just cause someone is there doesn't mean its the organizations fault Effects point/Credit Union point- In the earlier round, I stated how each source was bad or talking about the "EFFECTS" not what has been "AFFECTED". As I have pointed out he is only focusing on the EFFECTS. He basically admits it himself. "The article itself states "Occupy Movements Having Positive Effect on Credit Union"...."-My opponent Did you catch that? The word EFFECT....Even the article itself says its not changing Secondly,again, It says in the article that "Janine Williams, the vice president of marketing at the credit union, says a lot of that has to do with the credit union's great rates and the fact that it's member-owned. Williams says they noticed the increase when some of the big banks started announcing their new debit card fees. And she says she expects the credit union's membership to increase as more banks add those fees." So thus OWS, even abiding by your flawed Relation theory, was still NOT the cause for the people switching their banks. And also even if my opponent says this isn't true, this is an EFFECT not an AFFECT. Changing the individual opinion point- "However this is not the only criteria in which we use to determine the effect."-My opponent Do You see? Again, my opponent confuses Effect with Affect. But aside from that point I defined earlier that this new individual opinion was in fact a EFFECT. His supposed Ct.3 My opponent contention tag line was The OWS Movement has had affects on the world globally. In this Contention he was supposed to prove how it had affected the world and not just the united states. This further proves my attack that my opponent did not follow the resolution and is trying to wiggle his way out of the burden of proof the pro carries.. If my opponent believed in in constructive speech that he had truly prove how he OWS affected the world then why did he put this contention in for the future? Sources point- My opponent originally had ten sources. In my first constructive speech I proved how all of them were either A-Invalid B-Talking about effects My opponent drops all of these attacks on his sources, so his claims are unjustified without any proof My Case Ct.1 My opponent's only attack was that I didn't have to prove the entire world was affected, just a portion. My opponent had the area defined himself his first speech With the burglar example First of all how do you define house Imagine if you define it as House-all of the people, equipment, and infrastructure in a dwelling by human beings(The world definition in a home context) Thus if abide by my opponents example then the window did not AFFECT the actually house enough to warranted. Ct.2 I have to disagree with this sentence just because of grammar issue What I'm basically saying is that the Occupy Movement is an effect of the OWS movement.(Meaning they are something new, not something changed which is the connotation of affect) So they are different Reasons for a Con vote in today's debate 1.The main reason the I think you should vote con is the world issue A-Has my opponent followed his definition of world in order to prove his resolution side? NO B-Has my opponent even shown how the world knows of OWS?NO 2.The second reason is Resoluntional issue A-Has my opponent addresses the Resolution using his own terms?NO 3.The Involvement issue A-Since my opponent did not properly define OWS this lead to him not being able to tell whose is part of OWS. 4.Attacks on Sources A-My opponent ignored my attacks on many of his sources 5.Affect vs Effect This time my opponent says himself that he is focusing on the effects, not if OWS affected the world I wish my opponent luck in the final round. |
 |
|
Pro I think my opponent for his interesting response.
Rebuttal: RC1: My opponent again asserts that I must prove the whole world is impacted. Due to the fact that by definitions and principles which is what the voters should vote on, the U.S. Is a part of the world (and a rather prevalent one if you ask me) this is not relevant. There was no indication in the resolution that I had to prove the whole world is affected.
RC2: As I have established numerous times throughout this debate any Occupy movement is fair ground in today's debate because the very underlying cause and motive that drove all the Occupy movements was the OWS movement. All were inspired by the bravery and dignity that the OWS movement had. Thus this was as a matter of fact a huge portion of the cause and DOES have an affect.
Voting Issues: While my opponent can attempt to come across convincing by yelling NO after every statement I will provide complete justification as to why I have won the debate. For starters, my opponent's debate is completely semantical. His main arguments are the following: my sources are wrong because there is a difference between affect and effect, and I am not affecting the whole world. As I have proved “effect” is irrelevant in today's debate. As stated in the resolution the voters must determine whether or not has made a difference by definition. Thus even the smallest of differences sufficiently achieves my BoP. Moving on to the fallacious world argument my opponent presumptuously assumes that I must prove the whole world was affected. Even the smallest affects is still an affect by definition. While my opponent's arguments are entirely semantical and when you look towards my criteria you can come to the conclusion that I have provided sufficient evidence as to how it has affected the world. My opponent's arguments are yet again rather question begging and tries to contort the definition of affect throughout the debate. As far as my opponent's ground goes it's hard to determine whether anything has had an affect on the world. Thus the only viable vote would be a vote for PRO. Con Today the main points of the debate should center around the world issue. I would like to point out that this was"CLARIFICATION" points and not an attack, these points were intended to reach a clearer view of the opponent case. My opponent actually benefited my case by making stating that these points are heavily important and should be treated as attacks. The World Argument My basis of this argument is that the pro stated the area of affect himself When he defined the word "world" in his first speech then he was showing what area he had to prove. Again his definition of world is as follows. "all of the people, societies, and institutions on the earth" My opponent is trying to argue around this fact by stating no one said anything about him having to prove the entire world. The con's main problem with this statement is that it has the following problems and contradiction 1.If the pro didn't mean to prove their definition of world then why in their first speech did they provide a contention titled "The Occupy Wall Street Movement has had affects on the world globally." My opponent intended to show that later on OWS did have an affect on the world. If he had sufficiently prove this with his two accepted contention, then why include that contention in the first place? Why not just rely on his supposed contention that would uphold his Burden of proof? 2.Why didn't my opponent define the key resolution word differently? The key word in my opponent is ALL. When my opponent put that word he set the Area of Affecting. He could have eliminated the "all of" in his definition and used a perfect good definition of world would of follow as world-the people, societies, and institutions on the earth This would have actually won my opponent the round, due to his current arguing structure. But he did not look toward future argumentation Opponent's last speech "As far as my opponent's ground goes it's hard to determine whether anything has had an affect on the world." The pro admits that 'yes' it is hard to argue something around the whole world. Then why did the PRO pick the definition. Effect vs Affect This is a main point of today an a point that should flow con simply because my opponent never rebutted that I pointed out how his case had to do with "EFFECTS" and not "AFFECTS".(Again not an attack, but my opponent treats this as an attack even though this was a clarification point) My opponent can drop the definitions if he wishes I defined these new terms in order for my opponent to have a clearer understanding of the argument. If my opponent wants he can throw out the definitions from last round(After all, they were for his benefit and not mine) But ALSO talking about this point would be that of my opponents definitions If my opponent does not abide by his own set definitions in parameter, then we can consider his case null and void.(See contention 1 on why we define the resolution) Sources point Usually, whenever someone makes a claim they try to provide substantial evidence that the claim is true(Facts, sources, argumentation etc.) The pros sources and facts stated themselves that the all had to do with the "effects".(As evidenced by some of the article's names) This point was dropped and in his final speech my opponent only talks about TWO of his TEN sources. If these sours were great evidence, how come the pro failed to rely on them in both of his attacking speeches? School/drugs Fallacy My opponent is basically showing what is wrong with his argumentation in his second speech. Second speech he says "Due to the fact that the OWS movement did have death and drugs involved, as long as it associates with the OWS movement it is therefore by definition part of the affect of the OWS movement" I gave the example of "1.I attend school. 2.I do drugs 3.I overdose and die on the school campus. 4.This is an affect of the school." My opponent responded with "The premise obviously is very flawed and non-correlative" So thus my opponent is showing that "yes" his original premise was not a entirely sound argument. BUT then he gives a new premise that follows A-The school itself is not a start of an action or force that is apparent. It's merely a school, like any school. B-However lets say there was a group of kids that were doing drugs. Let's call it Occupy Drugs Movement C-A member of the group decides to rape a woman based on his personal decision D-this is still an affect of the group First of all how was this an affect of the group? Did they encourage him to rape? Was this group not drug-oriented and rape-oriented? How is this even possibly an affect of the group? The pro is making sweeping generalizations about certain groups causing certain events I would also like to see how OWS affected the rapist choice in any kind of way. Is OWS leaning into a direction that would support this? I think not according to my opponent description of them. My Case Ct.1 The key point to defining the resolution is knowing exactly what you are arguing for. The definition is the exact way of measuring the debate(Without use of a criterion) and to show what the resolution is. Why follow the resolution if you don't know what you are arguing for? My opponent defined the resolution how he wanted to.(I hope he did) When he said "all of the people,societies and institutions on earth" This means All or Everyone, not just most but all. My opponent never clarified the area of affect, so when I decided to show a falw in his argumentation he decided not to follow his side of the resolution based upon his OWN definition.(See world point) Where in my opponent's definition or the resolution does it say "MOST" of the world had to be affected. This is my opponents main attack on this contention. My opponent is trying justify his claims by inserting words into his definition. That's why we define the terms to set up the area. Ct.2 How has my opponent proved this? Never, has my opponent gave a source that OWS caused all other Occupy movements. He merely stated it. I would also like to insert that my opponent has not listed any actions of the OWS, so how are we to judge if they are "brave" and "dignified" Opponents voting issues My opponent has provided no justification for his claims( fact, reliable sources that pertain to affecting etc.) My case is semantical around his definition, so I fail to see how this is abusive or a voting issue. Effect is relevant because many of my sources state they deal with the effects and not how OWS affected anything. I would also like to ask if my opponent had a criteria or not?(I have not seen one throughout the entire debate and this is the first time my opponent is saying something about it, but if there is then this point can flow pro) My Voting Issues 1.My opponent has not follow his resolution to uphold, by ignore the rest of the world(I would like to point out that the US is not the largest or the most populous in the would, so it s not close to the majority) In this he has decided to not even argue the resolution and just argue on country. He has done this by not even following his definition then calling my case "semantics" because I just pointed out what he mentions as the "Area of affect" 2.My opponent has not shown in any way how OWS has even affected the people part of it 3.My opponent does not argue with all of his sources to show his points(He throws out eight) 4.My opponent shows that he is trying to prove effects I would like to thank my opponent's and the judges for their time. |
 |
| cameronl35 | Cobo | Tied | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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: | 3 | 0 |
The resolution doesn't directly state it, but your definition does and since you are defining the resolution then it does state it.
and I was talking about how you definition of world says all, they key word bro.
When you put in that then you have to adress all of those things in your definition.
Example.
toys-all of the gadgets,gizmos and gobstoppers
Resolution-I will have an affect on the toys
So if you only talk only about the gizmos in a certian area of toys,then you have lost
BUT, if you address them all then you win.
If the definition of world would have been
"the people, societies, and institutions on the earth" then you would have won by a blowout.
Because you don't have to prove all, just any
"Occupy Wall Street Movement will have an affect"(Not grammatically correct, but okay)
He put in the world stuff..