Technology is killing the quality of the human spirit.

This debate is stagnant. My opponents logic still is just that technology is how we are killing spirits, not why. Without the why answer, there is no causation, only manifestation. He does, however, attempt to demonstrate "logically" (note the quotation marks) that there is manifestation. First, I do not deny manifestation. Second, there is still no response to my second argument. Third, my opponent's assertion that facebook is not social (ignoring my social constructionism analysis) or that DDO is inferior to live debating is, unfortunately, just an unsubstantiated subjective opinion. You can't argue from opinion, and then call it logic! Fourth, appeals to what humans CAN do now are not logically equivalent to showing that humans are now lazy, simply because they have the ability to be. I have already shown they have the ability to be non-lazy, destroying this contention. Fifth, his argument labeled ABCD has three logical flaws: 1. It is not an argument for causation, but rather for manifestation 2. That laziness can only manifest through technology is clearly false - I can lie in bed all day, thus being lazy, and not die (though I'll be very hungry the next day). The question is one of frequency not existence 3. "Luxury of laziness" implies laziness is a luxury, when in fact as I have shown, it is a very important survival instinct Therefore I can only conclude that I have thought about and understood this much better than pro, as his arguments continue to be based on ignorance of my case. It seems to me that pro's whole case is based upon a false postmodern dystopia of emotional appeals about our present age. That's not a logical demonstration, in contrast to my logic (see above) that pro hasn't proven anything. The only other argument he has is ad hominum, attacking me because of my age. First, no it does not matter, it will always be a logical flaw. Second, even if it did matter, reasoning should always be more important than presentation, as demonstrated by my opponent's use of reasoning. Third, even then it does not follow that older people are necessarily better communicators. I have demolished people three times my age in debates, in real life. Still that is not an argument, that is a false appeal. That is ad hominum. What have I told you? I have shown how technology is not the cause of laziness. I do not contend that it is a mechanism of laziness (which is my opponent's whole case), but I argue that it is one of many mechanisms. Furthermore, I have demonstrated (and this remains wholly unrefuted by pro) that technology can in fact build all the human spiritual qualities which pro claims technology destroys. Again, the burden of proof is on pro to demonstrate (if I may use a medical analogy) that technology is the cause of death of the human spirit, not the symptom. Further he must refute my analysis that it can be the cure. He has done none of the above - not even made the vaguest attempt to refute my case, or even adapt his case, or even extend his case since round one! How then is it that he claims he has won this debate? By proving nothing, an affirmative team affirms nothing. Technology is not necessarily killing the human spirit. Pro has not excluded this and therefore cannot possibly win. That's how a debate works ... pro is bringing a claim but has not brought any evidence that I have not refuted or shown to be or be based upon a logical fallacy. Pro therefore has not substantiated their burden of proof. Please vote for the only team to actually bring you proper arguments. Vote for the team that is actually taking this debate seriously. That has actually put some effort into rebuttal. That has demonstrated a willingness to engage on the underlying question of the debate, rather than fringe issues and symptoms. Please, vote con. Pro won't add anything to his argument, and if he does, it will be too little, too late. This debate IS about causation, but even if it were not, my opponent's logic is entirely false. So although there are still two more rounds, this debate might as well end now.