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

Who is to say that it is to focus on all countries? All I stated in the acceptance round is that I must prove that it does have an affect on the world. There is NO indication in the resolution that I must prove all societies? ?? I should have already won the conduct point for my opponent contorting the debate to accommodate his needs. As we see again, CON is yet again contorting the debate! There was no indication in the first round that I must prove all countries! I clearly stated that all I must prove is that there is an affect on anywhere in the world and you accepted, thus you can not change the situation. Even if CON can disprove one portion of my argument, he has not won the debate by any means. If I have proven that the OWS movement has had an affect I win according to the rules, it's crystal clear. Con's response: Con seems to propose that I am confusing causation and correlation however as stated in the resolution the OWS movement pertains to anything within the OWS movement. 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. He is almost asserting no person(s) in any movement have any affect because they decided to do drugs/other things based on their discretion but that is still a part of the movement itself. This is not at all a valid argument against my contention by any means thus we can extend this across the flow. Con goes on to state that I have confused affect with effect? ? Effects are not relevant to the debate. Regardless of what a title says that does not by any means prove my contention wrong. I don't see how this is valid by any means. Let's look back on my definition of affect as "To make a difference to". Due to the fact that the OWS movement DID make a difference to the people and their families, they did have an affect. Rapist response: Pertaining back to the first round, my opponent again assumes that OWS had to cause EVERYTHING. I refer back that anything PART of the OWS movement was valid grounds, so we can extend this across the flow as well. Let's use a metaphor to make it clearer for the judges:Billy bullied a kid until the kid cried. Now did Billy have an affect on the kid? Yes. But the deep underlying cause was not necessarily the kid, it was his parents beating him per se. Due to the fact that it was still the action of the kid that is part of the AFFECT of the individual. Response to Credit Union: I think my opponent forgets to read the whole underlying cause of the article. The article itself states "Occupy Movements Having Positive Effect on Credit Union" and in the context of the article states "Some of the Occupy movement's organizers are continuing to urge people to remove all of their money from banks and to place it into credit unions. " The very reason in which they invested according to the article was because of OWS. The union itself was not the cause regardless of it's great rates. Response to changing the individual opinion: My opponent goes on to it changes nothing in the material world. However this is not the only criteria in which we use to determine the effect. Due to the fact that MILLIONS of Americans and people across the globe are aware thus it has made a difference to their opinions, even if it only pertains to their opinion about the OWS rather than economic inequality. As far as my third contention goes, I will not stand by it for the rest of the round. While I do think it has had a global impact, I have already proven that it has had an affect on America and that is all that is necessary. Opponent's Case:R1: Not changing the world. First off while I believe it has changed the world, there was no indication that I had to prove the entire world was affected, just a portion. Here's another metaphor to understand easier:A burglar broke into a house but got scared and then left. The only thing he did was break a window. Did the burglar have an affect on the house? Yes because the window is PART OF the house and anything that is part of the house (or part of the world) is valid grounds for debate. This was clarified well earlier in the debate and I don't see why my opponent does not understand. R2: OWS and other movements are differentThe very underlying cause and motive for the other movements to occur was because of the OWS movement. NO other movement would have been 'Occupy' movement if it wasn't for the OWS. Thus the OWS has affected universities, individual cities, etc. The foundation of all the movements is the OWS so yet again, this is valid grounds for debate. Conclusion:My opponent has numerous times gone against what was accepted at the beginning of the debate, thus giving me the automatic conduct point. My opponent is confused on the magnitude of the affect. There was no indication that the affect had to be large by any means. Due to the fact that America is part of the world (a very potent one) it is still an affect on the world. My opponent has established that it is minuscule for the context of the debate but there was no obligation for Pro as I to prove that it has an affect on the WHOLE world, just a portion. Thus I have sufficiently proven that it has had an affect on the world fulfilling my BoP. My opponent has not provided valid arguments against my contentions rather stating that I am confusing affect and effect and questioning the foundation of the debate that was already established in the very beginning. My opponents arguments are inherently question-beginning so the only viable vote right now would be for PRO.