Wierdman's Debate Tournament-The Occupy Wall Street Movement will/has had an affect on the world

Again Con defers back to the affect vs. effect argument however this is not necessary. Sorry, but we are not in grammar class here folks. The point of this debate was to determine whether the OWS movement has made a difference, and it has. The World Argument:Con yet again presumptuously assumes that I must prove that the whole world must be hit by an affect. If the resolution said: The OWS has/will have an affect on the WHOLE world, then yes I would have to prove that. However just as I explained earlier. A robber breaks into one portion of the house then leaves. The fact is, the robber still had an affect on the house. It's crystal clear to the voters by now that I do not by any means have to prove the whole world. Just because the definition of world consists of all institutions/people does not mean that I must prove all. Referring back to the house argument. Let's say the house was defined as all rooms in the house. Would the robbery not be an affect on the house? Effect vs. Affect again. .. It's quite ironic how Con provided a completely new and opposing definition of mine in the third round. This should yet again have won me the conduct point. I still defer back to my old definition of affect which is to make a difference to. Thus we can come to the conclusion right here that I have fulfilled my BoP. School/Drugs Fallacy:The premise obviously is very flawed and non-correlative. The school itself is not a start of an action or force that is apparent. It's merely a school, like any school. However lets say there was a group of kids that were doing drugs. Let's call it Occupy Drugs Movement. A member of the group decides to rape a woman based on his personal decision, this is still an affect of the group. To assert that two irrelevant things coincide in the way that they are an affect would of course be flawed. Due to the fact that the people are members of the movement that is leading in a certain direction, this is an affect of the movement. I think this argument has already been solidified earlier and it would be worthless to try to explain yet again. The point is because the individuals pertain to the movement that is an affect of the movement. A Familiar Friend: Affect vs. Effect:I think I'd be rich by now if I got a penny for every time my opponent deferred to this as his potentially main argument. Jokes aside, Con asserts that the VP stated that a lot of it has to do with the companies credit union rates. Of course the VP would be boasting about her own company! However when you comparse the article you realize that the OWS did have a huge role in the rates, so I urge Con to read again. He admits that it is an effect, however I really want this to be discarded. It made a difference, therefore it is an affect by definition. I am not able to justify the global argument due to lack of time. I surely could perhaps in another debate, for it has lead to many other movements but I don't need to prove it here. There is no indication in the resolution that I must and thus we can discard this as well. 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.