The credit crunch is the fault of human worrying.

First, Pro is worried that his resolution will be attacked because people will use semantics to attack a badly worded resolution all the while knowing what Pro intended. The first round argument is poorly worded, but I will attempt to put the contentions in a more manageable set so I can refute them as I think I see his points. I am in no way attempting to reword Pro's contentions to fit my needs, but I have to make the contentions more manageable to address them properly. Pro's contentions: 1)We are in a credit crunch. 2)The credit crunch was caused by reluctant investors 3)The investors were and are reluctant because others are not investing and they think their investments will be for naught following the clique, "what difference will one person make". 4)Mankind refuses to work as a team; therefore, the credit crunch will continue. If Pro has issue with these contentions, he is certainly welcome to address this in the next round. I will number my rebuttals per the above list. Contention 1: Agreed. I will use this definition of credit crunch and I agree we are in one now. . http://en.wikipedia.org... Contention 2: This appears to be one of Pro's main contentions. Pro acknowledges the credit crunch has other causes but reluctant investors are the main one. I disagree. "The recent credit crunch was driven by a sharp rise in defaults on subprime mortgages. These mortgages were mainly in America but the resulting shortage of funds spread throughout the rest of the world. " . http://www.mortgageguideuk.co.uk... Economics Help goes further by laying a majority of the blame at the feet of the banks for poor decision making policies and bad loan practices. . http://www.economicshelp.org... This essay did not address the political pressure put on the banks by members of Congress, but this point does little to affect the Con position. Voters, I need only show that reluctant investors are not the main cause of the credit crunch, but with all sincerity, I cannot find that reluctant investors had any role in the cause of the credit crunch, period. From all appearances, the banks should have been more reluctant to invest. I welcome the Pro position to offer any evidence showing otherwise. Contention 3: If my opponent can show that reluctant investors are the main cause of the credit crunch, he must then show they are reluctant because they did not feel one person could make a difference and that other investors are not investing so they are not either. I welcome Pro to offer evidence to support this contention, as I cannot find any source listing these reasons for reluctance in investing. Investors appear to be reluctant because they have watched investments go down the tube due to mismanagement of their funds by now defunct companies. Here is a good article encouraging people to invest. . http://www.kiplinger.com... but he does not address the main problem, i. e. people have lost trust in the financial system and have not done so out of greed, but out of the adage of "throwing good money after bad". If reluctance was unreasonable, Pro may be on solid ground, but companies must now show they can properly manage others' money. Reluctance is not the cause of the credit crunch – it is the result of it. Contention 4: I have been very generous, but I cannot make heads or tails of this one. I ask Pro to clarify. At this point, the resolution cannot stand as Pro has not provided material to support his main contention concerning the reluctance of investors; therefore, the Pro position cannot hold in light of Con's argument.