The US Government should substantially increase investment within the African Continent.

I don't even know what to say. Jifpop just doesn't even respond to anything I say other than saying I'm using philosophy other than stats and then attacks my conduct. I guess just extend out my case as unresponded to. He doesn't respond to any of my responses to his case either, so you can extend those out as reasons why putting more investments into Africa don't work and are harmful to Africa. At this point I could just pass over the round in hopes we could actually have a debate instead of him just whining that I'm not debating how he wants me to debate, but in hopes of him actually making responsive arguments I'll go line-by-line through his last round to respond to his complaints. "Many even disprove his case, including this one. .. .. "Not so. Say that the quote you pulled from my case is contradictory just shows you don't understand what my case is arguing, so I'll explain it again: your arguments are advocating for a reduction in the world's suffering. This makes the assumption that suffering is something to be avoided and reduced/eliminated, an assumption that my case attacks. Therefore, my case proposes that instead of striving to reduce suffering, that we should just accept suffering and embrace it as a part of life and just live life instead of worrying about all the suffering in the world and spending time from our lives working to try and fix all the world's problems. In no way does that quote contradict the advocacy of my case. "My opponent has provided philosophical reasoning, and not practical reasoning, when I intended for this to be a practical debate. "Then my opponent should not have challenged me to a debate. Not only am I known for running philosophical arguments, but I'm also known for running THIS philosophical argument in more than one different debate. I've even used it in a live debate, and on other online debates on this website. There's absolutely no reason he shouldn't be prepared to argue against this argument. The fact that he isn't trying to argue against it, and is instead attacking me on a conduct level rather than a substance level, should show voters exactly how this debate is panning out, and who is winning the debate. "I'll just hope you have all seen that these philosophical tidbits are extremely unrelated to the actual topic,"Refer back to the first quote where I explain how my case relates to your case and the topic in general. It's far from unrelated. "I believe that attacking the way I argued is unfair. "I believe that attacking someone's conduct any expecting to actually win the debate is unfair, but you're doing that. Guess we've both messed up. "I sourced nearly every claim with statistics and facts. That is what a contention is. A truth,"Two responses to this one:First, this is entirely unrelated to my refutation. You can have twenty million statistics showing you that Africa is in a pretty crappy place right now, but still not have a reason why your arguments solve for the crappy-ness. You have yet to make any kind of argument for why, if we believe that your arguments are true, that you will solve for the problems in Africa. Until you do, my refutation stands. Second, Your entire belief of what a contention is is wrong, as well. A contention is an argument, a point that you want to suggest is true. This argument is made up of three components: a claim, a warrant, and an impact. Between those three are things called 'links' that connect the three to each other and make a smooth, logical argument. The link between your warrant and your impact is what I'm questioning in this refutation. "I'll put up a couple of debate violations you commited. .. .. "Group all of them together. Even if you buy these arguments, at best for Jifpop, this means you give him the conduct point and continue evalutating my arguments. All of these are arguments for why I have debated this debate unfairly, which is attacking my conduct. None of these engage my arguments on a substantive level, i. e. in terms of the actual debate in proving or disproving arguments. I'll respond to a few that I feel need to be responded to, but don't let him extend out one of these as a reason he should win this debate because none of them function as reasons he should win, rather reasons he should be awarded the conduct point. "False Premise:"Entirely false. The last two sources I gave in my previous round were filled with facts that directly refuted your contentions by saying that aid and investments supplied to Africa have not ever worked, will not work, and actually make the situation worse and are the cause of a lot of the problems. "Cult of Personality:"Entirely baseless assertion. If anything this sole argument should make conduct tied or in favor of me because not only does it attack me on a personal level, but it attacks others who aren't even participating in this debate on a personal level, which is far worse than anything I could've possibly done. "Playing on fantasies and fears:"One, he provides no actual examples of me doing this, only saying that I do it. Entirely baseless assertion. Two, this ignores a) the actual lines of logic that my arguments prove that he isn't even attempting to refute (it's like saying one plus one doesn't equal two without explaining why it doesn't equal two), and b) ignores the actual statistics my arguments toward the end of my previous round provide. "Straw Man:"Blatantly false. My case has a link to all of your investment arguments, insofar as your arguments are attempting to reduce suffering via solving the problems in Africa. It's not exclusive to humanitarian aid. To even point out specific points in his in each argument. .. Investment Two: Contentions Two and FourInvestment Three: Conclusion, specifically "will surely produce extreme amounts of revenues"Investment Four: Contentions Two, Three, and Four"Sunk Cost:"The problem here is you aren't arguing anything different than what's been tried in the past. You're advocating we do the exact same thing we've done in the past. So even if my source does say we should rethink things, the thing is you're not. Moreover, you're not understanding the way I'm layering the debate. The way this round works is really simple: my case functions apriori to your case as it's questioning the assumptions that your case makes (i. e. we should try to reduce suffering). If I'm winning on my case, which you haven't even attempted to respond to, then I win the debate because it doesn't even matter what kinds of arguments we make in terms of investing in Africa or not; if we shouldn't be trying to reduce suffering, and your case is trying to reduce suffering, then you lose the debate. But in the event I'm not winning on my case, then the responses against your case actually matter. "Political Correctness:"It's oh-so-hard to say everything I want to say in 10k characters when I use all but 35 of them. You only use a little over 3k characters for your round. Hence why I said I would expand on them more in this round, which I will. As that covers everything he said in his last round, I'm going to use this time to expand on the arguments I began to bring up previously. To expand on the second rebuttal I made in the previous round, there's numerous reasons why investing more in Africa hasn't worked. To begin with, we've already invested over one trillion dollars over the past sixty or so years, and there's been little to no actual benefit from the investment. (1) Take a look at this handy dandy graph as well From this we can see that as we invested more money into Africa, the actual Growth GDP per capita actually went DOWN. And when we stopped investing more money into Africa and investments went down, the Growth GDP per capita actually started to RISE again. So what does this prove? Investing in Africa doesn't work. If anything it hurts more than helps. (1)To expand more on my third argument, my source tells the story of what actually investing in Africa does: turns the native Africans into mere procreators because everything else that they could possibly do is being provided for free or at a massively reduced price from foreign competitors. (2) This just leads to entire dependence. When what they can get naturally is being bested by what's being provided from foreign sources, there's nothing else to do other than keep trying and failing to make your product successful or to just sit on your butt and wait for the next shipment of "aid" to come in. That's the very definition of dependence. With that the round breaks down really simply: First you're evaluating my case, which Jifpop hasn't put a single response to other than it's philosophy and that's not what he wanted to debate. Since next round is the final round and he can't respond to it then, you negate the resolution on the basis that we shouldn't be trying to reduce suffering, and since his case is trying to reduce suffering you instantly reject his case, which means you're voting con. But even if you don't buy my case, he's not doing enough work on his own case to show why his plans solve for all the problems that he's saying are going on in Africa right now. Since he hasn't provided that link for you, and he can't in the next round since no new rebuttals and arguments can be made in the final round as per his own rules, even if you buy his arguments he hasn't shown how they actually solve for the problems in Africa. Moreover, he hasn't even attempted to respond to my refutations to his case, which show in nice, easy to understand numbers that not only has his plan not worked in the past, but it's also made things worse, and is the cause for a lot of the problems in Africa. The layering there is really simple. To make it even more simple, I'll go ahead and explain where each and every point should be going. S/G - Tied. Conduct - In my favor. He's calling into question the integrity of the site as a whole, which is far more offensive than anything I've done. Arguments - Explained in my favor. Sources - Tied.