The advancement of technology only leads to the harm of our habitat

I am also sorry for the delayed response and will try to break down your rebuttals as thoroughly as possible. I can agree with Pros definitions although they seem to have gotten more vague than that of clarity, also changing none of my points.Channel: V Direct toward a particular end or objectSo lead would read asLead: to serve as a direction toward a particular end or objectOnly: inevitably(same as exclusively)Also seeing as this will come up laterBurden of proof: A duty placed upon a defendant to prove or disprove a disputed fact.[1]I fear my Opponent has failed to see the meaning behind my statements and I will elaborate.Contention 1My Opponent stated that Technology only Leads to the harm of our habitat, my first Contention was that of clarification If I push someone on the ground to prevent them from being hit by a boss, the harm I provided at the present was to prevent future harm which would benefit the person I pushed. For even more clarification if we dig minerals and resources to build green, renewable self replicating technologies it will eventually lead to the end of harming our habitat. Contention 2This certainly was not an attack or argument against Con but rather one of providing a definition for a future argument Contentions aren't the argument themselves but the facts/reasoning that supports an argument. Pro asserts that "Human influence extends into habitats not inhabited by humans" This alone does not prove anything, just because something has influence doesn't make it part of its habitat for example the mars rover influenced the surface of mars this however does not make mars our habitat. and "2) Human habitat is influenced by habitats not inhabited by humans. Under this, the purpose of this resolution is to state that technology only leads to harming a habitat, any habitat one can choose, not only a specific habitat." but by your Resolution "Our Habitat" you are in turn choosing a habitat because what is considered a habitat is solely dependant on what the organism is.(Refer to habitat definition) He also stated "Thus, the Con has the burden of proving one example where technology does not create harm towards any habitats." I argue that I have prove this point and that Con just disregards it without providing any logic to why it is discredited.Argument 1"His first argument. The physical product is considered technology due to the fact that its technology put to use. Therefore, I limit this debate to applied technology." Pro tries to wiggle out of my proof and only strengthen my argument, Yes the better offspring of the plant is a physical result of applied technology that has no Harmful or Negative effect on the habitat. "The example he gave sadly is extra resolutional because it only benefits the inhabitants, not the habitat." I would argue that the plant helps the habitat by increasing niche capacity, the plan or as Pro would call it Applied technology actually has become part of the habitat itself and has helped improve the habitat thus no negative effect is known. "My observation states that living organisms can be an extension of the habitat, but it must also show a change towards the habitat itself." The change is increased Niche capacity and more plant life to support the inhabitants. Again how successful a habitat is, is solely dependant on the organism, Further Clarification for Pro, A Flood would be a harmful effect on our habitat, but in turn be a positive effect for the fish, alligator habitat providing a larger niche, and surface area to live in, again habitat is completely subjective. Therefore this argument stands and no rebuttal from Pro has broken it down.Argument 2 "Con only states it will lead to harvesting other planets for Ore. One must remember however that this requires creating shuttles with Earthern Ore(harming the habitat) and the harvested ore will be used to create more technology which will lead to the harm of habitats. His urge to focus on current technology will make the audience realize that all current technology is harmful to a habitat." Again I believe Pro has failed to read his own resolution and my argument my point was one of potentiality, that not all roads lead to one conclusion as his Resolution would demand "The advancement of technology only leads to the harm of our habitat" My argument again goes back to the Bus analogy eventually the Harm will cease, only due to the fact that we are increasing technology now. Think of it like this now that we are so invested in technology it would be impossible to stop where we are at now and positively effect the habitat. This new argument is one of entropy if we continue as we are now with no advances in technology the habitat will surely be destroyed. However because technology advances we continue to get greener and cleaner resources, until one day that we will not harm the habitat at all. Pro ironically continues to argue the present harm of technology without looking at the potential success and harmony it can have in the future completely contradictory to his statement which focuses on the future. "His urge to focus on current technology will make the audience realize that all current technology is harmful to a habitat" I reiterate this point due to its significance not to my fault but to Pros, Pros urge to focus on current technologies harm will make people blind to the gifts it has in store in the future, I hope the audience realises this point.Alternative argument"The alternative argument can be dropped, because the Con has the BoP that technology solely leads to benefits without any harm occurring. Since he has not done so within this argument nor throughout his case and rebuttals, you clearly denote that the Pro is winning. "That is not the burden of proof, the burden of proof is for me to find one case that technology doesn't lead to the exclusive harm of a habitat and I have given 3, on the note of Pro dismantling my arguments and rebuttals one look no further than my points above." My observation stands that a habitat includes animals. Yet the point was to state technology not only harms a habitat, but it harms animals as well. Therefore, the opponent must link how an effect on animals leads to an effect on the habitat, because the overall goal is to prove how technology harms the environment. If he fails to do so, drop all arguments speaking on harming animals(and not the habitat)." A habitat by definition is what surrounds a specific organism so yes animals living within a organisms habitat makes it part of the habitat, this has no effect on any of my arguments whatsoever. Pro continues to try and throw multiple Burden of proofs on me when the resolution only calls for one which I have provided, Audience should note this paragraph is one of desperation not one of argumentation."Voting PointsI am winning on the fact that: -Con never addressed my burden, thus he has not fulfilled it.-Con has not provided sufficient argumentation towards the Pro.-No refutation on the Pro means that the Pro is fulfilling his burden. "If Pro was more focused on debating the issue at hand rather than trying to please the audience he would have brought more powerful rebuttals. I am not here to win arguments or debates but am here to voice reason and logic.Also I would note not to penalize me this round for lack of sources, this was due to the fact that no new points were introduced and it was a complete reinforcement of my original argumenthttp://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...