The advancement of technology only leads to the harm of our habitat

For clarification as well as an easier way to link the points, I will move down Con's layout.I don't see a link between the resolution and the burden stated, nor did Con provide any, so drop this point.Contention 1So my opponent gave an example of harming an individual to save him from the harm about to occur, which proves that, nonetheless, the action leads to the individual's harm. In the same way, harming our habitat to save it from harm, nonetheless, led to the habitat's harm. Thus, the Pro is winning this point. Contention 2The point of a contention is to contend(argue;rival against). Thus, this should not have been a contention, but an observation or analysis. Nontheless, it is being argued now so it shall remain as one. His refutation on my first analysis can be dropped since the idea that human influence extends into other habitats creates the understanding that humans can be found in places where they do not reside, turning this into their habitat. To his refutation of my second point, my point was stating that other habitats can be involved since human influence extends to them. Some examples include: human expansion, wildlife reserves, human actions towards harvesting resources. Thus, other habitats are included under the human habitat since human influence extends to those habitats. So "Our Habitat" involves others as well since human reach is quite vast as well as still growing. Thus, the Pro is winning this point.Argument 1Since the opponent wants to push this as a physical product (being the plant), then i shall show as to why this leads to harming our habitat. Note that 1)Our habitat involves areas of our influence ie:where we planted the plant. Also not that 2) other habitats influence our own. Furthermore, planting that very plant does several things: creates an imbalance in the soil pH, takes nutrients from other plants, creates an imbalance in the population, creates more competition not only among other plants but animals as well(to inhabitat the plant, recieve food from it, and etc.). Clearly, these can all be denoted as harmful effects on other habitats and thus, the eample is disproven as being an effective one. The flood point states habitat is subjective, yet we must refer to "Our Habitat" as the subject, so this point was clarified and since no further argumentation is left, the Pro is winning this point.Argument 2 I urge to focus on current technology as a prelude to future advancements. "Greener" only means using different resources with less side effects as an outcome of use. Being truly green means no side effects of using the item/object/material, yet it must still be harvested from some source "creating harm". Furthermore, as technology advances to influence other planets, those planets become a part of our habitat as they become vital to our survival. Thus, it becomes an extension of our habitat and its sole purpose would be to provide ores(causing harm to the extension of our habitat). Thus, the Pro is winning this point.Alternative ArgumentSeeing as my opponents examples have all been dropped, under either BoP, the Con is failing in upholding his case and again, you denote the Pro is winning.Its quite funny that Con throws away my next statement on the same grounds that I wanted to throw away his second contention. Clearly the Con must look to his own statement "This certainly was not an attack or argument against Con but rather one of providing a definition for a future argument Contentions aren't the argument themselves but the facts/reasoning that supports an argument." So disregard his point that he does not see it as an attack, because 1)he did so to my statement on his Contention 2 and 2)Its a BoP, it doesn't have to attack his arguments, it provides limits and goals the Con must achieve. So note it wasn't a "cry of desperation" as Con tries to persuade the audience, but rather a limit as to what my opponent can argue about as well as what he must further explain. The audience should note this unexplained dismissal as a cry of desperation since my opponent never argued it. Is my opponent admitting he can not uphold this burden?Voting Points"If Pro was more focused on debating the issue at hand rather than trying to please the audience he would have brought more powerful rebuttals. I am not here to win arguments or debates but am here to voice reason and logic." Another unexplained refutation that should be noted as the opponent agreeing the Pro is winning. He provided no refutation to my voting points, stated "he wants to voice reason and logic" which he clearly fails to do and thus you extend all my voting points and add these two:1)Con forfeits twice to the Pro2)Con clearly maintains flawed logic which he can not properly uphold and that has been disproven by the Pro.Due to this, you clearly vote Pro.Also note that this round was an extension of last round's sources, so please do not penalize me for this.