Occupy Wall Street

Throughout the debate our stances and reasons were completely different. My stance (Pro) was that there needs to be a movement with public awareness in America. This was my grounding point in round 1; I suggested that the OWS movement has actually helped with public awareness, and it has, if people know about the movement then public awareness has been achieved. However Con would show clearly later that the direct intention for the reason was for publicity, popularity and ratings, at least as far as the public can conclude. Con also said that the movement had vague reasons and a lot of violence; we can safely argue that the violence was done by extreme ignorant, bigoted, uneducated, hateful, bitter people that wanted to hurt the government or at least authority figures in some way. Later I argued that even though the movement may have been started with bad reason, it has a large following regardless of what has happened. I also suggested that violence is going to occur anyway and by no means do I condone or advocate this, for some reason Con used this to suggest victory over part of his debate. However I would have to disagree on the premise that asking an opinion or stating a fact doesn't prove your argument to be true. Only that the statement is involved; with in ANY movement, we see violence. We see violence with the most peaceful kinds of people in the world currently over in the Middle East. There is a sect of Buddhists that is beheading Islamic followers. The rest of the Buddhist community does not condone this, and this doesn’t prove the movement of Buddhism to be bad or dangerous; it shows the uneducated and hateful people with any community. In round 3, Con made a statement saying “Now, I am not arguing that this movement should be abolished, but we must see that this needs to be closely observed and there are some that need to be jailed. I AM arguing that the Occupy Wall Street Movement is harmful and does way more harm than good. “ He is correct that it has done harm, but he is completely misinterpreting the potential it has, as well as how powerful public awareness is. This movement also shows us how potent bad leaders are. I do not agree that this movement has completely done more bad than good as it is completely subjective and based on perspective. I will say that simply making a public statement can do more help than bad. Con also says “My opponent brings up Austalia as an example. It is said to be a Penal Colony full of Criminals, but this is simply not true. The main reason that they were a "Penal Colony" full of "Criminals" was that many of them were actually Irish POWs from the Brittish conquest of Ireland. That is one of the reasons that the steroetype of the Irish is that they're criminals. Just a fun fact for you there. ” Just to be clear, I was referring to the lack of public awareness of the history of the indigenous communities we have in this country. If it was not for public awareness, we would still not be aware of the crimes committed to these people all of those years ago. As a result of these crimes, they were treated as animals, made into slaves, not given the right to vote and up until the 1970’s were allowed to legally be shot. Public awareness saved these people and public awareness can change the course of the next generation. The funny thing about my argument is that we can see the problems within a public organisation because of the awareness, we can see the problems up close and personal within the OWS movement because of what they are pushing forward. “My opponent wants to change Occupy, but the thing is that Occupy Movement currently is dead. We can see that there really isn't be used as a mission for good while we can see that the Occupy hype is practically over and we would need a new movement to make a change. You can't revive Occupy Wall Street. ” – Con Why? All they have to do is go up against something worth fighting for, they already have the name, they would be fine. In conclusion, without a public awareness movement with potential, the media can portray what they like, how they like it. If we want change we need to realise how important it is, how needed it is. I gave the example of the indigenous community in Australia; another thing about that movement is the amount of uneducated people that are within it fighting for freedom and rights for their people. Most of them don’t know what they are doing or what they are fighting for, and I have no doubt that if lead astray they could essentially fight for anything, but they are not because their leaders are positioned correctly. Public awareness is the most powerful source the civilian community has left.