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

I would like to point out that this was"CLARIFICATION" points and not an attack, these points were intended to reach a clearer view of the opponent case. My opponent actually benefited my case by making stating that these points are heavily important and should be treated as attacks. The World Argument My basis of this argument is that the pro stated the area of affect himself When he defined the word "world" in his first speech then he was showing what area he had to prove. Again his definition of world is as follows. "all of the people, societies, and institutions on the earth" My opponent is trying to argue around this fact by stating no one said anything about him having to prove the entire world. The con's main problem with this statement is that it has the following problems and contradiction 1. If the pro didn't mean to prove their definition of world then why in their first speech did they provide a contention titled "The Occupy Wall Street Movement has had affects on the world globally. " My opponent intended to show that later on OWS did have an affect on the world. If he had sufficiently prove this with his two accepted contention, then why include that contention in the first place? Why not just rely on his supposed contention that would uphold his Burden of proof? 2. Why didn't my opponent define the key resolution word differently? The key word in my opponent is ALL. When my opponent put that word he set the Area of Affecting. He could have eliminated the "all of" in his definition and used a perfect good definition of world would of follow as world-the people, societies, and institutions on the earth This would have actually won my opponent the round, due to his current arguing structure. But he did not look toward future argumentation Opponent's last speech "As far as my opponent's ground goes it's hard to determine whether anything has had an affect on the world. " The pro admits that 'yes' it is hard to argue something around the whole world. Then why did the PRO pick the definition. Effect vs Affect This is a main point of today an a point that should flow con simply because my opponent never rebutted that I pointed out how his case had to do with "EFFECTS" and not "AFFECTS". (Again not an attack, but my opponent treats this as an attack even though this was a clarification point) My opponent can drop the definitions if he wishes I defined these new terms in order for my opponent to have a clearer understanding of the argument. If my opponent wants he can throw out the definitions from last round(After all, they were for his benefit and not mine) But ALSO talking about this point would be that of my opponents definitions If my opponent does not abide by his own set definitions in parameter, then we can consider his case null and void. (See contention 1 on why we define the resolution) Sources point Usually, whenever someone makes a claim they try to provide substantial evidence that the claim is true(Facts, sources, argumentation etc. ) The pros sources and facts stated themselves that the all had to do with the "effects". (As evidenced by some of the article's names) This point was dropped and in his final speech my opponent only talks about TWO of his TEN sources. If these sours were great evidence, how come the pro failed to rely on them in both of his attacking speeches? School/drugs Fallacy My opponent is basically showing what is wrong with his argumentation in his second speech. Second speech he says "Due to the fact that the OWS movement did have death and drugs involved, as long as it associates with the OWS movement it is therefore by definition part of the affect of the OWS movement" I gave the example of "1. I attend school. 2. I do drugs 3. I overdose and die on the school campus. 4. This is an affect of the school. " My opponent responded with "The premise obviously is very flawed and non-correlative" So thus my opponent is showing that "yes" his original premise was not a entirely sound argument. BUT then he gives a new premise that follows A-The school itself is not a start of an action or force that is apparent. It's merely a school, like any school. B-However lets say there was a group of kids that were doing drugs. Let's call it Occupy Drugs Movement C-A member of the group decides to rape a woman based on his personal decision D-this is still an affect of the group First of all how was this an affect of the group? Did they encourage him to rape? Was this group not drug-oriented and rape-oriented? How is this even possibly an affect of the group? The pro is making sweeping generalizations about certain groups causing certain events I would also like to see how OWS affected the rapist choice in any kind of way. Is OWS leaning into a direction that would support this? I think not according to my opponent description of them. My Case Ct.1 The key point to defining the resolution is knowing exactly what you are arguing for. The definition is the exact way of measuring the debate(Without use of a criterion) and to show what the resolution is. Why follow the resolution if you don't know what you are arguing for? My opponent defined the resolution how he wanted to. (I hope he did) When he said "all of the people,societies and institutions on earth" This means All or Everyone, not just most but all. My opponent never clarified the area of affect, so when I decided to show a falw in his argumentation he decided not to follow his side of the resolution based upon his OWN definition. (See world point) Where in my opponent's definition or the resolution does it say "MOST" of the world had to be affected. This is my opponents main attack on this contention. My opponent is trying justify his claims by inserting words into his definition. That's why we define the terms to set up the area. Ct.2 How has my opponent proved this? Never, has my opponent gave a source that OWS caused all other Occupy movements. He merely stated it. I would also like to insert that my opponent has not listed any actions of the OWS, so how are we to judge if they are "brave" and "dignified" Opponents voting issues My opponent has provided no justification for his claims( fact, reliable sources that pertain to affecting etc. ) My case is semantical around his definition, so I fail to see how this is abusive or a voting issue. Effect is relevant because many of my sources state they deal with the effects and not how OWS affected anything. I would also like to ask if my opponent had a criteria or not? (I have not seen one throughout the entire debate and this is the first time my opponent is saying something about it, but if there is then this point can flow pro) My Voting Issues 1. My opponent has not follow his resolution to uphold, by ignore the rest of the world(I would like to point out that the US is not the largest or the most populous in the would, so it s not close to the majority) In this he has decided to not even argue the resolution and just argue on country. He has done this by not even following his definition then calling my case "semantics" because I just pointed out what he mentions as the "Area of affect" 2. My opponent has not shown in any way how OWS has even affected the people part of it 3. My opponent does not argue with all of his sources to show his points(He throws out eight) 4.