Wierdman's Debate Tournament-The Occupy Wall Street Movement will/has had an affect on the world

[1] My opponents definition of affect is slightly warranted but this definition is better for the round. With this definition we can measure the resolution. Clarification point 2-The Area of Affect This debate is meant to focus on all countries in the world. Not just one of all two hundred and four countries. Doing that shows that Occupy wall street will have an affect on the world. Now abiding by my opponents definition of world and mine of affect which is "all of the people, societies, and institutions on the earth" So my opponent must show OWS has cause all of the people, societies and institutions on the earth to change. Example Claim 1 OWS caused most of the worlds lawmakers to remake their economic system. Example Claim 1 OWS caused deaths in one country Now even though we would question the validity of each of these claims, the first claim at least follows the area of affect. Clarification point 3-Burden of proof To win this debate my opponent provide sufficient warrant for their position. He is the one supporting his claim and if any doubt in his arguments is found the the Con should win this debate. He should show how OWS affects the world and not just one country. The con just has to disprove the pros position. Clarification 4-Affect vs Effect It's actually pretty straightforward. You use affect with an a as a verb and effect with an e as a noun. Affect with an a means "to change," Effect can be described ad a sort of symptom Affect example The gun at point blank range affected his choice of words Effect example One effect of the cold was sneezing My Opponent commonly confuses these two words in his case. Opponent's case C1-The OWS Movement has had numerous negative affects on America. My opponents main arguments for this contention is that because of Occupy Wall Street many people have been arrested or many people have been injured or many people have been killed. People are being arrested because they are not obeying the laws. With my opponent source about the 4,200 arrests. It shows that these arrests were throughout and not centered on occupy wall street but on other occupy divisions. According to the article on 200 people have been arrested in New York as part of OWS. With his second source about 100 injuries I could not read it or translate it using Bing or Google. Concerning his third source I could not find the direct article from the Washington post, but I did find an excerpt from the police saying the death is not suspicious and that a drug overdose might have been the cause of death[2] With his fourth source, I found the direct article which said[3] "A woman at the Occupy Vancouver camp died Saturday after being discovered in an "unresponsive" condition, police say. A Canadian protest organizer said it appeared to be due to a drug overdose. Lauren Gill, an organizer at the camp, said the woman apparently died of a drug overdose. The cause of death has not been determined but there is no evidence to indicate foul play, police said. " And with his fifth source the article stated "The shooting is being widely reported as part of a dispute between two groups of people, although it is not known if it was linked to the protest. " The main problem with these is that my opponent did not properly quote his sources. In only 2 of his first five did he state the direct source. These deaths are obviously not the cause of protesting, simply because ALL of these deaths happened when no protesting was happening. These article's also show that OWS was not directly responsible for any of these deaths. In fact for most of the sources is states that DRUG OVERDOSE was responsible for most of them. But for the rest of my opponent's sources he gets the words AFFECT and EFFECT mixed up Source Six excerpt "In the case of lower Manhattan, it's having a negative EFFECT on a neighborhood still trying to recover from 9/11. " Please note that this in EFFECT and the resolution states AFFECT Source Seven The title of the article it's self is "Occupy Protests Seismic EFFECT" This article focuses on the effect and not what has OWS AFFECTED Source the eight You can see with this source that my opponent is starting to claim a cause-affect fallacy. The rapist had already multiple warrants so just because a sexual assault happened doesn't mean OWS caused it directly. He also makes a broad claim stating that the movement changes people's sanctity, but unless my opponent can prove a direct correlation between all these claims and OWS then these argument's are void. C2-The OWS Movement has had numerous positive affects on America. "Janine Williams, the vice president of marketing at the credit union, says a lot of that has to do with the credit union's great rates and the fact that it's member-owned. Williams says they noticed the increase when some of the big banks started announcing their new debit card fees. And she says she expects the credit union's membership to increase as more banks add those fees. " This is an direct excerpt from my opponents article about OWS affect banks. Well if you look at the actual article it says the something completely different. People aren't switching because of OWS, they are switching because of the banks announcing new fees and the credit union has such great rates This is basically another cause-affect fallacy. The members would have switched anyhow so this argument is null an voided. To my opponents next source by TIME magazine an his talk about us thinking about the OWS movement is an affect. This is changing anything in the material world. Something we can see. And just because people are thinking about something does not mean it was directly cause by that event. Someone could have easily heard rioting from their office and discovered that it was OWS. Thus giving them an opinion of it. Unless you have a source stating the direct reason some C-3-The OWS Movement has had affects on the world globally. This argument should have been my opponent starting argument. Either my opponent did not focus on the resolution's question or he was really running out of time. Maybe this shows that my opponent can not show how OWS affects the majority of the world. My opponent acknowledges that he has future arguments in store. This is not normal debating procedure and should not be done. BUT, If my opponent does that then I would also like to reserve the right to release new arguments in the second round, IF he does. My Arguments C-1-OWS can not affect the world. Occupy Wall street is an event entirely in the US. My opponent himself separates OWS and any other occupy movement. The reason this movement started was entire because of the economic condition of the country. Not of any other country. If my opponent says that it can be done then he is basically arguing this. A-I'm part of OWS, and I believe that corporate greed in America is bad. B-So what about the rest of the world? A-Who gives a damn about the rest of the world. I came to change America C-2-OWS and any other movement are different OWS objective is in it's name "Occupy Wall Street". My opponent has failed to show how the can happening in another state let alone anther country. The Occupy movement people are all fighting for different purposes. Summary of the debate so far. My opponent has made next to no ground in his first speech which held many problems. 1. He did not follow the exact wording of the resolution and confused effect with affect. 2. He did not focus on the Area of Affect on focused on one county out of 204 3. He did not even show how OWS affected it's home country(The only country it can really affect) 4. He properly misused sources and commonly followed and cause-affect fallacy. Sources in Comments.