The US is responsible for the majority of death amongst Native Americans

For my first rebuttal, I will first consider your main argument that you presented. One of the strongest differences between my main argument and your main argument in the 2nd round, is that you have likely made one assumption that I arguably have not. You seem to have assumed the definition of a "native American" whereas mine is merely a belief. Though, should you be held at fault for that? Not really, as that coheres to the general modern usage of the term and so is understandable, but is still considerably something your main argument lacks. In your main argument, you seem to be viewing responsibility as a "cause" in terms of how you are explaining it, and not whether or not Europeans should feel "guilt" as you have mentioned in your last comment. Considering your perspective of your main argument, why should they feel "guilt" if they indirectly killed them through disease? Is that not irrelevant in terms of who was the most responsible as the cause for the majority of deaths? For your rebuttal, why is my belief placed into your context of belief? That seems confusing. "...death of people born before and after Native Americans with European descent?" I am guessing that you are referring to the aboriginal race. Also, if you use the term "NON EURO native Americans" in my context of belief, then you are also implying those with African descent, and that is irrelevant to both mine and your main arguments. We as debaters for this topic, could arguably not reach a common ground for the topic since we have different perspectives of the topic, and therefore, the debate itself can be deemed as inconclusive. However, that does not imply that the arguments themselves are faulty. Would you call a person born in the modern US who is not of aborigine ancestry a "native American"? Likely not. Most people would not since people of aborigine descent that are born in the US in a modern setting are seen as the "native Americans", however, in terms of the definitions individually of both words, that is definitely a paradox. Even though that person does not have aborigine ancestry, they would still be considered a native with those terms. What I am arguing can be virtually considered as a critique on certain aspects of modern society"s common terminology, especially in regards to race, except that it is in the context of this debate topic. As to conclude, I am mostly in agreement with my opponent"s final statement of how we mutually conclude opposite answers and yet, both are arguably coherent to the debate topic. So then, the voters should simply decide who was the most "convincing" in relation to the arguments in general. Although, I guess I would still be very happy if I received a tie, considering what the topic statement I am advocating is. It was a very tough topic to configure an argument as pro that would not be utterly false in my opinion, since they teach people as young as those attending elementary school to automatically disagree with this sort of topic statement because they learn about "native Americans" as the aboriginal race and consider their downfall as a large population to have been caused by the diseases of the Europeans. As a disclaimer, I am readily aware of how such an argument is true since the Europeans are indirectly responsible, as the cause, for the "majority" of American aborigine deaths. Thank you again, for this challenging debate Leprechaun. I do not state that in an offensive manner. My intent is more of an amiable manner.