resolved: environmentalists are stupid.

Definitions: Environmentalist- One concerned about environmental quality especially of the human environment with respect to the control of pollution. Stupid- Acting in an unintelligent or careless manner. Both come from Merriam-Webster. Turn your attention to my opponent's first comment: "this is true because who really cares about the earth and global warming?" I'd like to point you to what my opponent says immediately afterward: "i mean yes we should take of the earth". So, he essentially answers his own question, thereby refuting his own position by pointing out that he himself cares about the earth (and, implicitly, global warming). And, truly, since this is a question (meaning there is no evidence or argumentation), that he hasn't affirmed that "Environmentalists are stupid". However, since we've proven that he cares about the environment, he is essentially calling himself stupid; so, by turning his logic against him here, we clearly require a CON vote today. Also, he next says "i would like to just relax and help out some kids in africa that are starving." Let's go ahead and dissect this into two parts. First of all, the part about relaxation; this implies that my opponent is simply lazy or apathetic, yet once again this fails to prove how environmentalists are indeed 'stupid', so my opponent is not affirming with this argument. As far as the "kids in africa" are concerned, let me go ahead and respond to this in three ways. 1. If my opponent wanted to 'relax' as much as he claimed, he would not be interested in helping children in Africa; therefore, he is either a liar by giving us conflicting claims, or he finds helping people on one continent (Africa) more important than helping the global population (via environmentalism). So, either way you choose to take this comment by my opponent, you're still going to vote CON. 2. There are people starving right here in our own country, and a starving nation, coupled with the World Economic Crisis, is a very incapable aid-provider, especially to places like Africa, where money goes to local warlords and dictators as opposed to being distributed to the people. 3. If the environment is not protected, then it is likely that all aid to Africa will be nothing more than a money pit, not only sucking up resources during an economic crisis, but will only add to our troubles when we also hit a World Environmental Crisis. Finally, he says, "theres not much you can do about the hole ALREADY in the ozone layer." I'll respond in two ways. 1. Just because the ozone can't necessarily be fully repaired does not mean that environmentalists are stupid; the PRO provides you with no causal link. 2. The hole in the ozone layer is much like a cavity; while the cavity is a definite weakness in a tooth, extra care must be taken to ensure that the cavity does not widen or deepen, which would end up destroying the tooth; in the same way, care is needed for the ozone to ensure that both it and the Earth are not destroyed. So, because my opponent's attacks are completely unwarranted by logic, have no link to the topic that he himself provides, and hurt his position more than they hurt my own, a CON vote is the right decision.