The advancement of technology only leads to the harm of our habitat

I'm sorry for the delayed response. But let's jump right into it.I can agree with most of my opponents definitions, but his definitions for lead and only are a bit vague so i will provide better definitions.lead- to serve as a channel foronly-inevitably, although unfortunate or undesirableWith this the resolution becomes interpreted like so:The (Improvement) of (the application of scientific knowledge for practical purposes) (inevitably, although unfortunate or undesirable) (serves as a channel for) the harm of (the human races') (Environment regarded as home for organisms).Alright now to his Contention 1. He states that my argument does not focus on on how technology currently effects habitats. Yet I fear he must read the resolution over. These can still be provided to be cases that lead to harm on the enviroment. Further more, he goes on to focus on how technology will affect the future. Finally, I've also stated how they currently affect the enviroment. Thus my argument stands.On to his Contention 2. I did not see how this was an attack on me, but I will provide a response. First, our habitat means the Earth in total since 1) Human influence extends into habitats not inhabited by humansand 2) Human habitat is influenced by habitats not inhabited by humans. Under this, the purpose of this resolution is to state that technology only leads to harming a habitat, any habitat one can choose, not only a specific habitat. Thus, the Con has the burden of proving one example where tecnology does not create harm towards any habitats. On to his arguments. His first argument. The physical product is considered technology due to the fact that its technology put to use. Therefore, I limit this debate to applied technology. The example he gave sadly is extra resolutional because it only benefits the inhabitants, not the habitat. My observation states that living organisms can be an extension of the habitat, but it must also show a change towards the habitat itself. Since this example does not do so, drop it.His second argument. Con only states it will lead to harvesting other planets for Ore. One must remember however that this requires creating shuttles with Earthern Ore(harming the habitat) and the harvested ore will be used to create more technology which will lead to the harm of habitats. His urge to focus on current technology will make the audience realize that all current technology is harmful to a habitat. Thus you vote Pro.The alternative argument can be dropped, because the Con has the BoP that technology solely leads to benefits without any harm occuring. Since he has not done so within this argument nor throughout his case and rebuttals, you clearly denote that the Pro is winning. His "taking technology away" point is extra resolutional since the Pro only seeks to prove that technology leads to harming the habitat.My observation stands that a habitat includes animals. Yet the point was to state technology not only harms a habitat, but it harms animals as well. Therefor, the opponent must link how an effect on animals leads to an effect on the habitat, because the overall goal is to prove how technology harms the enviroment. If he fails to do so, drop all arguments speaking on harming animals(and not the habitat).Voting PointsI am winning on the fact that: -Con never addressed my burden, thus he has not fulfilled it.-Con has not provided sufficient argumentation towards the Pro.-No refutation on the Pro means that the Pro is fulfilling his burden. ~Sources~ http://oxforddictionaries.com... http://www.merriam-webster.com..."influence argument" http://www.srs.fs.usda.gov... http://www.treesearch.fs.fed.us... http://www.srs.fs.usda.gov...