Occupy Wall Street

Since this is the second last time I can pass off my opinion and research on this debate, I will be going over what you have said, and what I do and do not agree with. As you have made very valid statements throughout, it would be a crime not to address what you have said with respect. We are debating whether or not it is a good movement, although, since we have began this debate we have both (if not you, then at least me) have become a lot more aware of this issue, on why it is good, what the problems are and all around situations. Personally, I have come from an environment where if you don't speak up, you miss out, a lot of peoples opinions on world view are completely different, as you would expect. As a result, when a rule or regulation gets put through, everyone should have a say as to why they believe what they do, even if it isn't changed to the persons point of view. At least they get the respect they deserve by being a citizen who pays taxes and in some way, helps society. Since there is just so many points of view, I feel as if it is very liberating to see people join hands for one cause. Sometimes though, people are just ignorant and bigoted or they are intentionally either sabotaging or trolling the situation; or ... just uneducated. I am aware that this was started on a bad premise, based on lies, deceit and the intention for quick money and popularity. However, regardless of how it began, it should be what the drive is and what the potential is. Regardless of how bad it is, it has potential to be invigorating and liberating for the people if the time comes when the government does something the people do not like. Think of any movement like a protective shell, the bigger the group is, the less transparent the shell becomes, and the safer you will be. The accusations and crimes committed within this movement are unnecessary and unwanted by the majority. Most people that are in this movement are not in it because of how it began but because of the potential, and because of what they believe it stands for. There are problems, I do not deny this, there is ignorance, we can't avoid this. However, not one movement was perfect when it began; I don't want to be that guy that brings up Hitler... But look at Hitler and his movement, if his entire intention stopped at the German revolution to get out of English control, he would be viewed as a hero. A leader among leaders and a face to one day be revered. However it ended badly... I don't need to go into the details about that. This movement has the potential to go far just due to the numbers, the problem we have is a large mass of ignorant and uneducated bigots that have become an 'extreme' section of it, similar to the feminazis. If the group some how has order, and direction, it would be a movement of reverence and respect. The Anzacs in Australia and New Zealand are revered for the response, not the action. They literally lost the war, but it was how they finished as to why they are heroes to this day. If they ended how they began they would be a failure for us to see and no one would blink an eye other than the 1 minute of silence to salute brave soldiers. Instead, we are proud because of how our allies committed them selves to protect. If the government ever does something that needs to be stopped or needs to be turned over, not many movements can successfully say they have the capacity to do such things. But this movement has already established numbers, it just needs to establish direction and order. In terms of corruption and insincerity: "A few years after the movement began emails were uncovered that showed that those in charge of MSNBC were actually contacting the leaders of Occupy telling them to be as vague as you can." This is clearly not acceptable and there is no real defence for this. I am appalled that it began like this and I would be no advocate for it, if it wasn't already here. My only response to this is. Why not make the best out of it? It was manipulated for popularity and ratings, why can't we manipulate it for something good? It is now a dormant giant. "Contention 2: Goals are unclear?" No doubt. "Contention 3: Occupy State of the Union and the Violence" Not acceptable. "My opponent's ENTIRE opening case is negated as we can see that he has escentially dropped the entire case by the de facto point that my 2nd Contention escentially negated it." I would not say entirely, I was very busy and the argument was rushed, however I would say it has merit. I suppose it depends on how much we each trust the government; currently I don't trust them that much, I respect that they are aware that they need the populous, they also need to make sure security is at a maximum, as well as with current threats arising, such as terrorism and gang violence being very prominent; cops are becoming very aggressive towards civilians (not all obviously, but definitely a lot more has been recorded.) "My opponent then in his second round brings up the factor of education, but the fact is that it is not so simple in the US. I'm not sure who owns what in Australia, but a majority of the media is owned by the left." Australia media is owned by the Liberal / Coalition party. Feed the rich, conserve money, tax more to get out of debt. They hide anything that we may vote against that will lose money. "Now, I am not arguing that this movement should be abolished, but we must see that this needs to be closely observed and there are some that need to be jailed. I AM arguing that the Occupy Wall Street Movement is harmful and does way more harm than good. " I agree with you that justice needs to be applied, so far it has done some damage, in regards to public awareness though; rarely do you ever see change. I could argue the Chinese school massacre here, where the students were gunned down by military; in the eyes of the government, the students were doing a horrible thing, if an uprising took place in a communist nation, the numbers would destroy the leaders within moments. However, in the publics eyes, students were killed for standing up for what they believe in. It comes down to perspective. You could argue that this movement has done more harm than good, and you would be right... SO FAR... So far the movement sucks and it has done very little, it has no direction or driven leadership. It has been manipulated, fabricated from little to make money and ratings / popularity. If we look at the now, it's terrible. However, regardless, it has potential, it has numbers coming it; i.e... for a bad reason, non specific rubbish, but it pulled in people. If done correctly, it could make public awareness a whole new ball game. Public awareness is one of the hardest things to address and catch on, it took 60 years for the Aboriginal people to be as respected as they are today, most people are still unaware and show little care for what actually happened in the stolen generation. I was shocked when I found out, and was completely appalled. That is when I became an advocate for public awareness, I try and see the good in all areas of communication. It just seems that so many groups of people have unsuccessfully made an impact, now we see one doing something. Getting more people involved. If they get over this phase of violence and crime and lack of direction and leadership, it can go so far. If this movement was in Australia, we would see a lot of people understand what the Indigenous populous went through. As for your base argument, "Occupy Wall Street Movement is harmful and does way more harm than good." It's too early to tell, the direction and purpose of the movement in contrast to the change it has caused and how much damage has been done. So far... of course they haven't done anything. Neither did those chinese school students that are now dead. But they had potential. In summary. Yes, so far the movement has done more harm then good, but it can do a lot more good then harm in the future.