Rio Olympics 2016 Should be Cancelled

First, I'm going to acknowledge the less important issues:"My graph is 4 months outdated, not 3 years (like your economics argument) (. .. ) also 3 [you probably meant 4] months does not equal 3 years (so we're not even). " Are you implying that there is no way we could possibly be even because my source is older than yours, making it much more 'outdated'? That is absolutely absurd and here's why. Outdated (adj. ): no longer useful or acceptable [1]My source stated that Brazil's economy was improving by 5% every year (which is not true now). Your graph stated that the Zika Virus was continuing to grow exponentially, which I have already proved false. Therefore, they are both equally false and unacceptable- hence making us even by definition. "I would tone down on the adjective of 'severe'. "The word 'severe' was a direct quote from you (as I said in Round 1, all italicised words are quotes from Pro). No more needs to be said. _____Health"when a virus leaves your system, it rarely comes back. That's not specific to Zika"You're misunderstanding my point. What I stated in the previous round was that specifically Zika, does not come back at all unlike influenza etc. Once Zika passes, people become immune to it [2] (same source as in Round 2). "Zika still affects the woman later. "As I've already stated, Zika will most likely not affect future pregnancies. Here's another source (see source [3]). "Zika's symptoms goes down after 7 days, but the microcephaly does not [2]. "I cannot seem to find any related information in Pro's source labelled 2 to support his statement. All it says is that the Zika Virus only seriously affects pregnant women, which we already know. Methods of Zika prevention are sufficiently explained in both of my previous posts so I will not waste time in reiterating those. However, Pro seems to have conceded on this topic: he does not provide any argument- "this section of the debate would become subjective" despite my successful rebuttals to all his suggestions. CrimeJust to be clear, we are debating on whether foreigners will be safe in Rio and if the Olympics should be cancelled as a result. Crime occurs mostly in rough areas (common sense). Although crime rates in Rio are slightly higher than the average, tourists who will be arriving in Rio will most likely stay in decent hotels with plenty of security guards etc. The athletes on the other hand will be lodging in the Olympic Village where their safety is obviously highly considered. Therefore, it shouldn't affect them much and it should not be a reason to fear coming to Brazil. My source for Ireland's crime rates (rounded to the nearest ten) is included at the bottom [4], however, I don't think it is that important and relative to the debate. I only touched on it as an example. CultureAlthough you do not see the importance of the promotion of culture, I believe that it is a vital aspect and the Olympics could be Brazil's golden opportunity. As I stated before, hosting countries receive more tourism because of the Olympic Games for many years after. If tourists enjoy a country's food, scenery etc, then they will definitely return and also promote the culture of the country everywhere else. "A developing country like Brazil also doesn't have the ability to manage the Olympics successfully"What has this got to do with culture? EconomicsI understand your motives of cancelling Rio 2016. You believe that instead of investing on it, they should spend the money on developing their economy. However, that is definitely NOT the quickest way to generate revenue and that is where our opinions differ. If Brazil does not gain much profit from the Olympics, they will certainly be much better off than if it were cancelled. For example, let's say Brazil spends 20 million on preparations. With the Olympics, if the absolute worst occurred and they only gained 18 million (if every ticket does not sell out), that's still much better than your alternative plan. Regarding sunk costs, why let them occur when they could be easily prevented in the first place? "I never (. .. ) mentioned it to be feasible to cancel the Olympics at this time. "But you think it's a good idea that after years of training, hard-work and preparation for this year's Olympics, we should just cancel it for the thousands of athletes- not to mention all the booked flights etc. which would not only be a hassle for them to receive a refund, but to the Brazilian services who need the money as you've said. If your statement (above) was intended to imply that you do not believe it is feasible to cancel the Olympics at this time, then why did you even initiate this debate? _____Thank you for reading. Vote Con. Citations:[1] . http://www.merriam-webster.com...[2] . http://www.cdc.gov...[3] . http://www.nytimes.com...[4] . http://www.numbeo.com...