Apathy is not a f****** ideology!

It's fine, I can understand that real life takes precedence; still, you make it sound like debate is insignificant when you say 'I do have much better things [to do]...'; I like this activity very much, however. And while I am arguing with you, I am debating for the voters, since I am trying to convince THEM, not you; if I could convince you, there would be no point in debating. So please, first of all, don't call me arrogant, and don't insult the judges; that inherently makes your yourself arrogant for assigning us such labels; second of all, this is yet another batch of personal attacks that you are using; finally, this personal assault, voters, takes no place in the round. I simply thought that I ought to defend my integrity as a person and as a debater by covering this. Now then, I am arguing against the idea that apathy is not an ideology; obviously, poking holes in your side of the case is going to help me accomplish that goal, especially since you have not answered any of the arguments which I have presented. Also, it is not difficult to look up an internet definition of terms for the purpose of debate, so, again, please refrain from using personal attacks, especially when I am only attempting to better the quality of this debate. Additionally, I don't think that being apathetic degrades the Moral Worth of humankind; regardless of the ideology of a person, every human life has Moral Worth. And, since this is a question, I will answer no; I am not scared that there are hundreds of have lack of concern for life; especially when the number, as you claim, is only in the hundreds, compared to the billions of other people on earth. Finally, again with the Ad Hominem attacks, I don't look down my nose at you at all; it is because I respect you and this topic that I took the CON side of this debate; also, I do not believe that my argument is stuck up; you are entitled to your opinion, but saying that to me in a debate round is both irrelevant to the topic and outright disrespectful; do not forget that you are the one who posted this topic; you should have been prepared for any potential arguments. And, as far as this debate is concerned, I do not think that it is 'pointless' at all. Through debate, we learn, we grow, we gain a lot; if you want to insult this debate, especially on a topic that you created, please, feel free, but when you find some relevant arguments, please post those also. So, voters, you can vote on either my (CON's) unrefuted arguments in my last post, or you can vote on the constant personal attacks and outright insults that my opponent makes. If you need a copy of my last post for reference... "My opponent has forfeited his first rebuttal, so let me go ahead and briefly crystallize a couple of the key points I made during my last post. 1. My opponent fails to warrant his claim that apathy is not an ideology, choosing instead to attack apathetic people, thereby setting up a double standard in which he claims they are narrow-minded, when he himself is guilty of the same behavior. 2. Extend through that not everyone is going to be passionate about maintaining society, and that this sad truth must be accepted, not insulted; in fact, the PRO advocates that the lives of apathetic people should be taken. In conclusion, allow me to outline the positions of both sides in this debate: PRO: -Ad hominem attacks -senseless slaughter -lack of proof of the resolution CON: -Acceptance of truth -encouraging people to get active in society, as opposed to killing them -more than adequate proof of my side of the resolution If the PRO has any further arguments to make, he is now free to do so." For the sake of logic, reason, and the spirit of debate, please give this round to the CON.