This House Believes that Mining cause more harm than good

All right I would like to start by apologizing for the forfeiture. I looked at the 'time remaining' and read 8 hours where there were only 8 minutes left. Please believe me when I say I was extremely baffled when my notifications read that I had forfeited one of my debates. Once more I do apologize. I do still however believe that it did not cost me this debate. The reason of this belief is that my opponent has the burden of proof and he never justified this burden. I constantly remind the voters that the resolution is not to debate whether mining causes harm; I need not show that mining causes no harm. The resolution is a comparative one where one is to debate whether mining has a greater harm than good. My opponent never, not once makes this analysis as I did in my speech. Now allow me to start by presenting my counter-refutations (I should note that my opponent's style is most irritating): 1. As I mentioned that the life threat is decreasing by the day. My opponent provides no counter analysis to my analysis of how this risk is necessary and humans take it everywhere. Should people no longer donate organs? Should we no longer go outside for the risk of catching infection? Now my opponent says life is precious, I could not but agree. So tell me to save (only possibly) the lives of a few people (less than 15 (see above argument for sources)) should we sentence all those who are ill to death? In one year, according to the United Nations World Health Organisation, there are three hundred million (3, 00, 000, 000) surgeries that occur in one year[1]. This is the recorded number. If mining was to stop, or if humans would not mine metals then we would not have metal to make surgical equipment. 2. The same situation applies to technology. we would not (as I mentioned in my original argument) have any MRI's to detect cancerous fats, or to detect cysts. We would not have lighting, or electricity, or medicine, or anything really. To save a potential fifteen people you would doom the entire world to a miserable life. More than 600 Pakistani's die because they do not have access to fans and air conditioners in the blistering 125 F heat. In 3 days alone 74 people died[2] because of the heat. So to save a minority you would kill the majority? 3. My arguments about country economy, and how mining is the sole means of survival for certain countries was never tackled by Proposition. I had mentioned Chile a country which is struggling to become better by using mining. Another country we can use is Greenland, it does not have independence, and bases its economy on its mining production. It is believed that mining will allow them to generate enough money to become a free country.[3][4] 4. My analysis about jobs and how many people in Pakistan, Chile, even American and Afghanistan survive because of their mining jobs was never tackled. My opponent seems to assume whoever become a miner will automatically die. That is not the case one bit, however those who become minors do earn a great much more and can survive and sustain their families (see original argument for sources) So you see I deserve to win here and now because my counter arguments stand, also since certain arguments were not tackled they must now be assumed true regardless. My opponent needs to substantiate his claims. Now onto some of the counter-refutations (my opponent may write a very long speech but he in fact has copy/pasted from different sites, while he mentions these sites, his argument then is only one: it causes environmental harm. He provides no solid analysis but just different types of environment harms. I will therefore only write a short peace where I answer how firstly this does not out way the good, and secondly companies now remake the land they used for mining.): 1. The process that I am taking about is called land rehabilitation[5]. Now here is the interesting part, mine rehabilitation actually 'establishes land use values equal or better to the ones before'[6]. The land is actually better than it was before after mining, the animals that lived there are reintroduced, and trees are made up, and even artificial lakes. Some mining spots have even after rehabilitation become popular picnic spots. Please read the sources [7][8][9] as they are the most important. Source 7 actually shows the trees and pictures after 14 years of work. I don't see the need to delineate the entire process here but it can be found in Source 8. The argument provided was that land is misused, I have shown sufficiently that this is not the case. [1]http://www.who.int... [2]http://www.khaleejtimes.com... [3]http://www.euractiv.com... [4]http://www.foreignaffairs.com... [5]http://en.wikipedia.org... [6]http://edont.org.au... [7]http://www.fao.org... [8]http://www.alcoa.com... [9]http://www.nswmining.com.au... [10]http://www.dmp.wa.gov.au... Faithfully Yours, Ajab.