Technology is killing the quality of the human spirit.

"Technology makes people lazy" is indeed the topic, as laziness I have defined as the opposite to the quality of the human spirit. I would like to thank my opponent for his curt responses, and ask that he refrain from ad hominum attacks in future. What this is really about, I think, is the difference between a manifest laziness and causation of laziness. My opponent has no analysis at all that the cause of laziness, and therefore the loss of the human spirit, is technology, and he refuses to engage with any of my points on this issue. Yet what he describes is how people use the options given to them by technology to manifest their laziness. There is a difference. I think, therefore, that I win this debate by default. My opponent must prove that technology is killing human spirit, not that people are using technologies in ways that show their spirit is killed. If you look at my argument in round one, I in fact prove my point. To this my opponent has only one response - that "regardless" of whether it's human nature, technology helps us be more lazy. Yet what we are arguing here is causation ("technology IS killing"), not whether technology helps us to manifest what I have argued is a confounding variable - human nature. If you read argument two, in my opening round, you will see plenty of analysis that technology is a double-edged sword: one can use it "spiritfully" and vice versa. I do not deny that some use technology instead of mental exercise, and you do not deny that technology is used by some (I would argue all) as mental exercise. Therefore the point is moot at best, and somewhat irrelevant to the proposition ... and yet you have the burden of proof to show that technology is an expression of laziness manifest. Even if it is, remember, this debate is about not the manifestation of laziness, but the causation. This isn't about "fun" or "options" - choice only allows us to manifest a desire that pre-existed, not create desire. Ultimately, my opponent's argument has therefore little to do with his own topic. So what did my opponent give you? Well, he generalized a generic youth (and pretended I was such a generic youth). Then based upon this subjective interpretation he hypothesized a scenario and told us his hypothesized outcome. Finally he called that "logic and intelligent reasoning." I prefer to call it "daydreaming." In fact I do not suppose that I know how anyone else would react without technology. I, too, can hypothesize, but what is the use in that? I for one (if I am a generic youth - if, even, there is such a thing!) would sit down with my friends and play Dungeons and Dragons, or perhaps chess. I would debate with my friends and chat with my family. Is my spirit any more "killed" if I play Dungeons and Dragons or Chess over email? Is online debate or facebook really more harmful than physical debate or chatting? If so, that's what you need to substantiate. I'm afraid that a hypothetical scenario won't cut it. What it really comes down to is why we are lazy, not how we are lazy. Until my opponent engages with the real issue in this debate, I think the outcome is clear. He has the burden of proof, he has failed. The motion has fallen.