The US should prohibit the import of all goods derived from the Amazon Rainforest.

Since my opponent did not put forth constructive arguments of his own, I'll just refute his refutations and build on my own case. P1) My opponent refutes this by saying I haven't proven that banning imports will help in part A of his refutation. Well, the Amazon Rainforest is a FOREST. A forest is made out of trees, plants, and animals. Right now, the trees are being cut down (for mines and/or lumber demand), plants are being burned (for the same reason), and animals are dying (because their homes are gone since the trees and plants were their homes). When this happens, we say the forest is being destroyed. When this stops, we say the forest is preserved. Why are the trees being cut down and why are the plants being burned? It's because the demand for precious metals, lumber, and other goods from the Amazon are in high demand. Who is the biggest importer of goods from the rainforest (as I've already stated in the previous round)? The US. What happens if the US stops importing? Demand goes down because the Amazon's biggest importer isn't importing anymore. According to logging company Plum Creek Timber, when there is less demand for wood, logging rates go down. So since banning imports makes demand go down, we can conclude that banning imports will help stop deforestation (cutting down trees and burning plants). If the forest is not being cut down, this means it is preserved and saved. So, the conclusion of this chain of logic is that banning imports will preserve the Amazon Rainforest. See the chain of logic? This will be elaborated on further in the round. Also, in part B of his refutation, my opponent states I need to prove that the pros of banning outweigh the cons, but he fails to provide ANY examples of the harms of prohibiting WHATSOEVER. Thus, my opponent's refutation is invalid and my point stands. P2) My opponent refutes this basically the same way as he refuted my first contention. It's basically the same exact refutation, so I won't keep repeating my refutation for this point. Please refer to the refute above, thanks. P3) My opponent refutes this by saying I have no evidence to prove that banning imports will help protect the Rainforest from deforestation. However, in my 3rd contention (and in the refutation above), I clearly have proven the correlation between banning imports and the impact on deforestation. As I've stated before, Europe has placed a ban on some goods from the Amazon, and the impact was significant. Although the impact was not as big as it would be if the US banned imports because the US is a bigger importer than Europe, and Europe hadn't banned ALL imports, all the same, the correlation is clear. There's evidence and clear reasoning. My opponent cannot continue to refute all of my points in this way. My opponent also lists a few fallacies he claims are made in my argument. I'll go on to refute these. 1) "Assumption that people are the primary cause of harm to the rainforest (may be probable but without evidence this is not absolute)" I've proven REPEATEDLY both in this round and in the previous that people ARE the biggest cause of harm to the rainforest. Loggers are the people who clearcut the forest. Miners are the people who unleash toxic chemicals into the ecosystem. Farmers are the people who burn the plants to make room for ranches. I've brought up numerous pieces of evidence to prove this. Please refer to the previous round's first and second contentions. Also, I'll be bringing up more evidence and reasoning on this point further in the round. 2) "Assumption that minimizing deforestation by humans will make a significant positive impact on the rainforest (may be probable but without evidence this is not absolute)" Again, this HAS already been proven. Please refer to the previous round and previous refutes. Again, I'll be elaborating more on this later in the round. 3) "The assumption that the US is the primary contributor to the deforestation of the rainforest (possible but without evidence this argument cannot be made)" It is almost laughable that my opponent has managed to overlook all the evidence I've already provided on this. I'll restate some of my evidence here: "According to the World Preservation Foundation, the US is the largest importer of tropical hardwoods at more than 20 million cubic meters a year." This proves that (literally restating the evidence) the US is the biggest importer of wood from the Rainforest. "According to the Census Bureau, the US is almost 5% of the world's population... According to USA Today, 79% of all our wooden household items come from the Amazon." 5% of the world's population is about 300 million people. 79% of the wood found in these 300 million peoples' houses are from the Amazon Rainforest (again, practically restating the evidence). As I've proven in a previous refute, when the US stops importing, all this wood will not have to be obtained from the Amazon. This mean that demand goes down. What happens when demand for timber and lumber goes down? Deforestation slows down or stops. 4) "The assumption that the US hasn't already made every effort to prevent deforestation of the Amazon" My opponent accuses me of having no evidence while he hasn't provided a shred of statistics or evidence to justify his claim. Furthermore, it's an obvious fact that the US hasn't made "every effort." We haven't banned imports yet. This point is thus invalid. 5) "Not taking into account the potential negative societal and international impact with making such a restriction" Seeing as my opponent has not even given me any potential negatives for me to refute, I'll just make some pre-emptive rebuttals to possible negatives: 1. People might lose their jobs A. Instead of holding a job that works for destroying the rainforest, they can simply get a job REBUILDING it. B. People are dying on their jobs because of the burning they have to do, the toxic emissions from mining, etc. Would you rather have jobs -- or lives? Is it worth it to DIE for a job? 2. People (who live in the rainforest and sell goods to the US for a living) might lose money A. These people are having their homes CLEAR CUT and BURNED DOWN. So, should we value their actual homes or their money? 3. The economy might suffer A. It is actually better for the economy if it's not based off illegal trades because illegal trading makes it unstable. 4. Medicine from the Amazon will be lost A. We can ban all imports now and focus more on rebuilding the rainforest. Once the rainforest is more stable, we can start allowing more imports on stuff like medicine, but less on wood. Besides, if we don't ban imports, these medicinal herbs will be gone by 2050, so we need to protect them by banning them now. Now I'll move on to elaborate on my own contentions. P1: The effects of mining in the rainforest is disastrous. Area deforested by mining may seem relatively small, but given slow forest recovery & the concentration of mines in selected areas, small-scale gold mining is expected to reduce local forest cover & ecosystem services by several times. World Resources Institute: Between 1976 and 1980, miners had destroyed about 1000 hectares in the Amazon. Not only does mining cause deforestation, it also pollutes rivers, streams, & other water sources. Conservation Biology: Streams near mining sites have elevated amount of aluminum, iron, & potassium, & in some parts o/the stream, they even found mercury. Rainforest Mongabay: Not only are mercury compounds toxic, but highly bioaccumulative, meaning that mercury concentrations increase up the food chain. Top predators, including otters, birds of prey, & ultimately, humans, will have the highest levels of mercury in their systems. Mining in the rainforest has to stop, & we can stop it by prohibiting all imports. P2: We need to minimize deforestation in the Amazon Rainforest. Right now, as we speak, the rainforest is losing several football fields' worth of trees. That includes over 700 species of trees and more than 1500 species of higher plants. National Rainforest Foundation: The Amazon provides more than 20% of the world's total oxygen. The Amazon is our world's carbon sink, where Carbon dioxide is removed from the atmosphere. Deforestation & burning increases CO2 emissions, thereby increasing greenhouse gases & global warming. National Rainforest Foundation: The burning of forests in the RF has already led to a 6% increase in global warming over the past 10 yrs. NASA: If deforestation carries on like it does currently, half o/the rainforest will be gone by 2030. Natural News: From 2000 to 2005, Brazil lost more than 150,000 square kilometers of forest, an area larger than Greece. Deforestation will not be going down anytime soon unless the US does something. P3: Banning imports from the Amazon will help protect & preserve it. Doesn"t it make sense that if the US is importing tons & tons of timber and other goods, once we stop imports, all the deforestation & mining will slow dramatically? Many other countries are already cracking down on imports from the Amazon. Cool Earth, a UK charity for rainforests: A new legislation to halt illegally logged timber imports was passed by the European Parliament on July 7th by a massive 644 to 25 vote. Quote, "Now we just have to persuade the USA to follow suit," says Matthew Owens, the director of the charity. The USA is falling behind on the race to save the Earth, with Europe miles ahead of us. We were supposed to be the role model of the world, but here we are, failing at our job. We can no longer continue to make excuses for our failure to protect one of the Earth"s most valuable rainforests. Now is the time to act.