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

Now onto the debate Before we begin I feel as I must clarify further to my opponent and the audience Clarification 1-Definitions The only reason I gave a definition for affect is because my opponent was confusing the word effect and affect. (Which is why I also gave a definition to effect) Clarification 2-Area of affect As I explained in my first speech my opponent gave the area of affect himself. When my opponent defined "world", he defined it as "all of the people, societies, and institutions on the earth" So according to my opponent he himself is contorting the debate by not arguing what he was defined. Think about it like this. If we replaced the word in the resolution with the definition, would it still makes sense? Let's see I will be advocating that the Occupy Wall Street Movement will/has had an affect on our world. I will be advocating that the Occupy Wall Street Movement will/has had an affect on all of the people, societies, and institutions on the earth. You see? My opponent gave the Area of Affect himself. If he didn't want to argue about the entire world the he should have made the resolution specified to the United States(The Only area he tried to argue about). He could have made his definition into World-most/some of the people, societies, and institutions on the earth But he did not state that. Clarification point 3-Effect vs Affect The reason I defined both is simply because my opponent is mistaking effect for affects is the reason this is a clarification point in today's debate. Effect-When an event causes something new Ex-Causing people to think about something, death, Affect-When an event changes something that was predetermined Ex. Affect laws, Affecting societal standards Clarification point 4-Contorting the debate The Con never attempted to contort the debate. The reason I said you have to prove all of all societies, people, and organization was that is your definition of world. I was merely following your defintion in order to provide a way to measure if the pro was affirming or not. Secondly I provided definitions of Affect and Effect because of the confusion of my opponent with the two words. Now on to my opponents case Concerning the OWS involvement theory/Rapist Response- The main problem I had with this statement was how much the evidence caused a causatation-correlation fallacy. With any series of events you must prove that their was one event directly causing another. In this my opponent has failed to do so. He merely states. ". .. .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. " First of all, the resolution states nothing about that. Your Definition might, but not the resolution Second let me provide the example as to why this is flawed 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. That is basically what my opponent is stating. Now even though you should question each statement furiously, this is the basic outline. If these are the basic details then my opponent asserts this kind of relationship. But this is flawed, simply because of the school did not do anything DIRECTLY to AFFECT the student to cause him to take drugs and overdose(According to the details, Now if the School directly gave him drugs the it affected the student) But just cause someone is there doesn't mean its the organizations fault Effects point/Credit Union point- In the earlier round, I stated how each source was bad or talking about the "EFFECTS" not what has been "AFFECTED". As I have pointed out he is only focusing on the EFFECTS. He basically admits it himself. "The article itself states "Occupy Movements Having Positive Effect on Credit Union". .. . "-My opponent Did you catch that? The word EFFECT. .. .Even the article itself says its not changing Secondly,again, It says in the article that "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. " So thus OWS, even abiding by your flawed Relation theory, was still NOT the cause for the people switching their banks. And also even if my opponent says this isn't true, this is an EFFECT not an AFFECT. Changing the individual opinion point- "However this is not the only criteria in which we use to determine the effect. "-My opponent Do You see? Again, my opponent confuses Effect with Affect. But aside from that point I defined earlier that this new individual opinion was in fact a EFFECT. His supposed Ct.3 My opponent contention tag line was The OWS Movement has had affects on the world globally. In this Contention he was supposed to prove how it had affected the world and not just the united states. This further proves my attack that my opponent did not follow the resolution and is trying to wiggle his way out of the burden of proof the pro carries. . If my opponent believed in in constructive speech that he had truly prove how he OWS affected the world then why did he put this contention in for the future? Sources point- My opponent originally had ten sources. In my first constructive speech I proved how all of them were either A-Invalid B-Talking about effects My opponent drops all of these attacks on his sources, so his claims are unjustified without any proof My Case Ct.1 My opponent's only attack was that I didn't have to prove the entire world was affected, just a portion. My opponent had the area defined himself his first speech With the burglar example First of all how do you define house Imagine if you define it as House-all of the people, equipment, and infrastructure in a dwelling by human beings(The world definition in a home context) Thus if abide by my opponents example then the window did not AFFECT the actually house enough to warranted. Ct.2 I have to disagree with this sentence just because of grammar issue What I'm basically saying is that the Occupy Movement is an effect of the OWS movement. (Meaning they are something new, not something changed which is the connotation of affect) So they are different Reasons for a Con vote in today's debate 1. The main reason the I think you should vote con is the world issue A-Has my opponent followed his definition of world in order to prove his resolution side? NO B-Has my opponent even shown how the world knows of OWS? NO 2. The second reason is Resoluntional issue A-Has my opponent addresses the Resolution using his own terms? NO 3. The Involvement issue A-Since my opponent did not properly define OWS this lead to him not being able to tell whose is part of OWS. 4. Attacks on Sources A-My opponent ignored my attacks on many of his sources 5.