The US Government should substantially increase investment within the African Continent.

Two things to bring up:First, my opponent went and extended the debate whereas the rules clearly state that we both had to talk about this and agree to it before saying that we would use round 4 for more arguments. He never did talk about it with me, nor did he ever "reserve the power" anywhere to extend it single-handedly. In terms of the rules for round structure, his entire last round can be read as a "thanks for debating!" message. But even if you want to evaluate them anyway,Second, my opponent brings up a whopping five new contentional arguments in the final round of the debate (more than he made in the entire rest of the debate). And it wasn't as if he even didn't have space to put them, either. He only used 3000 characters in round two and 6000 characters in round three. This means that instead of using the combined 11k characters in the rounds where bringing up new contentional arguments is fair and legitimate, he waits until the last round, where we aren't even supposed to be making ANY arguments at all, much less new ones, to bring up more contentional arguments than he's made in the entire rest of the debate. I don't think I need to explain how underhanded and unfair that is. None of his new contentional arguments should be evaluated. But just so I can have some kind of response to them in case you do want to evaluate them...All of them still bite into the harms of my case insofar as they're reducing the amount of suffering in the world. This leads me to a response that my opponent brings up that shows that he's, once again, not understanding what my case is trying to say. So let me be crystal clear:My case is saying that any kind of reduction of suffering if bad. That doesn't just include humanitarian aid. This includes all of the positive economic impacts that my opponent is trying to extend off as untouched (even though they aren't untouched, he just hasn't really responded to anything that I've said). I even took the time out to point exactly where in each of his contentions that linked to my case, and he just ignores it. So insofar as I'm winning on my case (which I am since he hasn't even attempted to respond to anything about my case so far), I'm winning the debate because if my case is true, you instantly drop all of his arguments as my case functions on a higher level. What do I mean by this? All of his arguments, from sending to aid to Africa to earning the US more money rely on the assumption that without these we would be worse off (i.e. we would suffer more) and thusly to reduce that suffering we experience, we should take these actions. My case attacks that assumption, that we should be reducing suffering at all, rather we shouldn't be trying to reduce suffering. And since I'm winning on my case and showing why we shouldn't be attempting to reduce suffering, then it doesn't matter how much money we could make if we invest in Africa, the harms of reducing suffering will always outweigh. Also, just as a side note, I find it extremely humorous that my opponent is continuing to insist that he isn't arguing that we should invest money into Africa, while saying that we need to build military bases in Africa and build businesses over there, and that's all totally going to be 100% free. But outside of that...This debate becomes super simple to evaluate as a voter because my opponent has done literally nothing in this debate other than complain. This is how the round breaks down.First, you look to my case because it's questioning the assumptions that his arguments make. If my case is right, then his arguments don't have the opportunity to become right, because the assumptions that they rely on to possibly be true are refuted. You notice that he hasn't made a single response to my case throughout this entire debate, other than the fact that it's philosophy and not statistics. You say "Oh, wow he's conceded the entirety of Con's case! That's a stupid mistake on his part!" and vote con right there. But if you want to look further than that, you can go to the responses I make against his case, specifically that a) none of his arguments showed how actually investing into Africa would fix the problems going on in Africa or would actually lead to benefits in the US. He's just saying that x possibilities could happen, so we should take y actions, without showing you the link that says y actions will lead to x benefits. You also look at the stats that I provided you that show as investment into Africa went up, the GDP decreased and then as Investment declined, the GDP increased, which shows that investing into Africa has a NEGATIVE affect on Africa as a whole. Then you can also look to the argument that I make that explains how investing into Africa only exacerbates the problems that the population of native Africans are experiencing because it eliminates any possibilites of internal growth, making them entirely reliant on foreign goods and aid that they can't do anything for themselves anymore, which kills any kind of growth or positive impact that the affirmative could have. You look at this and say "Wow, those were unresponded to as well! What has pro been doing the entire debate?" and vote con there as well. Pretty simple.Since I have 4k+ characters left, I'll go ahead and explain where each point of the seven points should be going and why.Spelling/Grammar - Tied, anyone who actually votes on this thing is probably just looking for an excuse to strategically vote, anyway. Any grammar mistakes Jifpop or myself may have made were so minor as to not affect coherency.Conduct - You're giving me conduct for two different reasons. One, Jifpop insulted the integrity of the site when he said that "You are certainly more popular among senior members, and I wouldn't be suprised if some vote for you no matter what", which insinuates that the site as a whole is dishonest. Two, Jifpop spends the vast majority of his final round making brand new arguments that he had plenty of space to bring up otherwise, which is incredibly underhanded and unfair. Arguments - I'm winning this debate because one, my case is unrefuted and it shows how reducing suffering is bad and something we shouldn't be doing, which is what his arguments are trying to do, and two, none of the refutations I make against his case and arguments as a whole have been responded to, and each of them are disproving that by investing in Africa we're making any kind of positive impact, which means that not only am I winning on my side of the debate, but I'm winning on his side of the debate as well. Maybe if he didn't spend more than half of the time he actually debated (10k characters total) responding to my arguments instead of complaining (5k characters spent complaining), he would've actually had a shot at winning this debate...Sources - Tied, although if you consider source bombing a fair reason to deny someone the source points I would say that in that instance I'd probably earn the source point.Aaaaaand that's all I really have to say. Vote con! ^_^