People have the mindset that one death is a tragedy but a thousand deaths is a statistic

Thank you for your response. Firstly, I fail to see the problem with my two thesis's. 1."People only react to a tragic death when there's a big story about it on the news or wherever, despite the same thing occurring all over the world daily on a vast scale." 2. "I feel as if the majority of people's mindset is set in such a way whereas an event such as a death is only reacted to if it's in black and white in front of people, through the news or media or whatever." Number 2 is essentially the exact same message as number 1, just written in a round-about way without me mentioning the idea of the "thousand deaths" but as I have already stated about that, it's unnecessary for me to state it again as it is essentially the purpose of the debate and in the title so it's not like I have changed the topic of the debate around just because I left it out, as a result of me stating it in the title and in my original thesis. It only leaves the debate in a state of obscurity if you unnecessarily try to analyze it in such a way instead of giving the clear benefit of the doubt. Also when I say "through the news or media or whatever", I don't see how me not stating anything firmly, as you say is really of utmost importance as the title of the debate is not "People have the mindset that one death is a tragedy but a thousand deaths is a statistic, because of a certain thing such as the news or media". I am just using this as an example. Nobody likes spending this amount on trying to clear up something like this on a debate instead of getting to actual important argument so I please ask you to focus more on trying to prove your con side (and I'll try and prove my pro side) rather than trying to look for cheap shots on every little sub-relevant thing that I say, when they're really not there. By taking things that I say robotically instead of humanly I feel you are obscuring the debate, with all do respect. Now, onto your points. In response to your toddler story, again I feel you are taking things too literally and robotically. Of course such a story is a complete tragedy and a tragedy for everyone involved in it and other people across the country and this is precisely my point, and the title of the debate. What's interesting is the fact that your source is from cbc news so from this we can deduce that the story was broadcasted and this is how most people would have heard of it. Yes I am specifically talking about people reacting, the parents,the children and the day care owners did indeed react and saw it as at tragedy, which shows that people see one death as a tragedy, which is half of my argument. I see what you are trying to argue but again you are taking what I say too literally. Obviously such people are going to see the event as a tragedy if they are there first hand to experience it but common sense (for lack of a better word) would acknowledge that I mean people who have not experienced the event and could not possibly know about the event without the use of broadcasting it, will react to it as a tragedy i.e. the general public. How many people that day who heard of the story thought "children die all the time everyday so that's a tragedy too", a very small minority I would say, if even any. Yes indeed, your story disproves one of my points but not if you take it into context of what I've just said. Either the onus is on you to acknowledge where the benefit of the doubt is obviously evident or it's on me to explain myself in a very high depth. It remains to be seen. Secondly, I am not necessarily always talking about a death with media coverage, that is not the title of the debate. If it was then yes, I would have no leg to stand on. I am using media as an example and was merely using it as an example in my opening statement. I see where you are coming from with the school massacre story overshadowing the one man being shot story however despite the truth in this, a school massacre is always closer to one death than one thousand deaths so where is the line drawn? Perhaps I am being too literal, ring any bells? (humour). However the actual title "People have the mindset that one death is a tragedy but a thousand deaths is a statistic" is a saying itself so again anything like this can be argued if it is taking in your manner of literalism and robotically. If I said "I could kill someone for a chocolate bar" I obviously literally don't mean I would kill someone. It all comes down to human knowledge of "give or take". Do you see the comparison between this and many of my points? Thirdly, how do you know that Africa would still be the more prominent story in the media? How many times to you think the situation in Africa is mentioned on a weekly basis? Not often, because the media are constantly looking for new stories, the child example that I gave would be a new tragic story. Despite it being hypothetical is irrelevant as are you discounting that such stories don't occur or that you have never heard of such a story occurring? However if you want an example I shall give you one. (http://www.dailymail.co.uk...) You are right, the topic of Africa is a tragedy but in comparison to a tragic single death? I don't think so, and here's why, (http://www.psychologytoday.com...). Now I am relating my points of view to a factual example. "In conclusion, in the midst of obscurity, I have provided evidence and factual examples that prove the opposite of my opponents thesis's", You have certainly proved that you are a very literal person but like I said, as I have cleared up a lot of things and given cited reference and examples now can you please focus more on the actual debate topic.