Society is Getting Worse

I've taken the liberty of looking through actorgurl's rebuttal, subtracting of course, the unnecessary and constant pleads to the Judge in an attempt to make my argument look bad because I skipped over a few minor details she barely examined herself and not giving specific information links that any 6th grade history textbook would provide (in it's entirety all this constituted nearly 60% of her argument). She has also made the claim that because I have skipped over them that I must 'logically' completely agree with her entire point. This may scare other's, but I have looked over her debate very carefully and noticed a similar trend, being that she has done close to nothing, besides a very small rebuttal on the topic of slavery, to argue specifically against any of MY points. I would suggest to the reader to re-examine her round 2 arguments, and you will see it. So by her own logic, this would mean that she completely agrees with all of my positions. However, she will most likely object to this, thus meaning that she doesn't think her own rules apply to her, and therefore, not to me. If she concedes to this fact, then I will drop the minor subjects of pet food, a rudeness statistic, and the links I will provide to my sources, although I had taken for granted that they were common knowledge by now. Now then, if my defense of that borderline ad hominid attack is finished, I will continue. Since my opponent seems obsessed with sources, here they are: For slavery: http://www.historyworld.net... On early schooling: http://www.pbs.org... On new energy sources, which does mention oil dependency as a cause for its research: http://ec.europa.eu... And early houses: http://www.pilgrimhall.org... As for a list of items that have passed the tests after importation, just go to your local shopping center and look for any of the thousands of items that say "Made In China". As long as your list is, I'm fairly certain mine greatly outweighs yours. 1) Rudeness - As I mentioned in round 1, my position is that society is getting better, so it had to improve from something. I have not over looked her rudeness statistic, but think it irrelevant. People can think things all they want, there are thousands of statistics to prove this. The simple fact remains that while people can worry all the want about bumping shoulders or bad language, but the point is that today's rudeness is drastically better than the past. My specific example, slavery, is the BEST example of this. My opponent claims that slavery was not rude. That is news to me. Oxford defines rudeness as: 1 offensively impolite or ill mannered. 2 referring to sex in a way considered improper and offensive. 3 very abrupt: a rude awakening. 4 chiefly Brit. vigorous or hearty: rude health. 5 dated roughly made or done; lacking sophistication. 6 archaic ignorant and uneducated. Can my opponent really claim that in no way did the American slave system not exemplify ANY of these traits? For more info specifically on this subject, here is Wikipedias take on it: http://en.wikipedia.org.... I defy you to again say slavery was not rude. Because it seems you will not acknowledge any of my rebuttals without an unnecessary and excruciating amount of clarity: crisis - it was just a descriptive word, relax, there was no need no waste 109 characters fighting it. Egypt - so the slavery of entire generations of Jews to a life of literal backbreaking servitude is not rude at all? Everything else - see first paragraph. 2) Stupidity - Again, you over dramatize the actions of a few dimwits to mean a whole society is a pack of morons. Legal proceedings have progressed (which also helps our society from a time when there was little to no justice at all) and so people have more freedom to sue others for whatever the cause. Because a minority of people don't know how to properly use things, companies are forced to put on warning labels. Before 1 persons dumbfounding deed was done, there were no labels because the peoples intelligence was taken for granted, meaning everyone knew everyone else was smart enough to handle it. The only reasons that a testicle label on vacuums (which if I was arguing from your standards, would call you out on not providing a specific reference) and on McDonalds coffee cups are only there because of 1 idiot person, not an entire society. Like I said, every age has stupid, ignorant people. Such as Vlad the Impaler, Hitler, followers of the Spanish Inquisition, and for America, those like John Wilkes Booth and Charles Mason are a few examples. Spilling coffee on your lap and warning labels are hardly anything next to the things these individuals have done to others. So Peoples stupidity, while still around, has greatly improved. So to answer your final question, although in reference to the judge: Yes, I do think this is an overall smart country, testicle warnings are the least of our worries. And again, I have given evidence that our people in general are smarter than those in the past, though actorgurl did nothing to contest this. 3) Government - On Pet Food - another greatly exaggerated worry. At least it was caught in the end. Also by your own standards, I'll need you to provide a link of recalled pet foods. I looked through the link you gave, and there is no such list there. Until you do, this argument is dropped in my favor. On Toys - Like I said above, for all those we catch, and as your own evidence shows, we've caught many, there are at least 10 more brands that pass having met all safety requirements. Most Chinese companies do realize this potential problem as well. One owner actually hung himself after discovering the news that lead had been fund in his toys. They know the risks, and have passed new laws on lead use (http://kdka.com...). So we, and they, continue to care about toys. My example of cars was to show that the government does care about the peoples safety as far as products from both outside and inside of it go. You didn't argue against it so until you admit your faults, I'll assume you concede this point as well, but still allow you to present your case. 4) Gas - I do watch the news, and just for you watched CNN all day. Not once did they mention gas prices causing even one person to lose their home. They did talk about the economy hurting and downsizing (like all civilizations have and still do), but nothing about gas prices causing homelessness, which one would think might be a major story. So until you provide hard evidence (all you've given so far is speculation), this is also dropped in my favor. And you still haven't challenged the other methods of fuel and energy that I discussed, so, you know he drill. How are people losing their homes? - the drop in retail, personal financial debts, etc. But not gas prices. 5) Living Conditions - Since everything you've said is wrong or, at least, over dramatized, your theory is not correct. Peoples homes now are far better than a colonial home. If you've ever stayed in a real cabin (and I have) you will know this to be true, even on summer nights. So actorgurl, you have 1 last round in this tournament debate to actually, well, debate. I suggest you not waste it, as you did in round 2, on finger pointing to the judge. Remember, if you concede that you have not specifically addressed any of my arguments (as you haven't), thus by your own rules, meaning you completely agree with them and my position that Society has gotten and is getting better, also leading to the conclusion that you admit utter defeat, then I will drop my worried-about-rudeness statistic, pet food rebuttals and some of the links. Otherwise, I think I'll keep them, and still point out that you have not contested my points at all. Don't open Pandora's box unless you are prepared to face the consequences.