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

Due to the back in forth Banter I will provide further explanations for why my case is true and why Pros resolution is false.My first point is that my opponent is arguing an absolute truth, an absolute truth is impossible to prove because one can not know how something was effected in the past or the future, making arguing such a resolution impossible, to do so would mean Pro would have to have known every possible reality, every possible outcome and every possible source which is itself theoretically impossible.[1] Pro has tried to get another easy win(See eradicating humans will end human suffering) which will not allow him to do. Pro argues with statements that seem to be impossible to win but I have shown in this debate that Captain Kurt was right it is possible to win the impossible scenario, also note that I have refused to use illogical semantics to twist the original meaning. As Pro would say Thus Con is winning.Contention 1Contention One only served as a loose analogy the point was that Pro cannot know every possible outcome of every situation, One action that doesn't have to be harmful such as a push can lead to the best possible outcome for a habitat.Contention 2Pro clumsily tries to though away my argument by saying that our sphere of influence makes everything our habitat, The definition of habitat doesn't read "The sphere of influence that is effected by the organism is its habitat" what the Pro is slyly trying to do here is change the definition of a habitat. The definition accepted read as "A particular type of environment regarded as a home for organisms" Our sphere of influence doesn't make anything else our home, so in this Case my argument still stands and our current habitat or home is cities, buildings, and all things created by technology. Please do not be fooled by his very sly tactics.Argument 1Pro assumes that I am talking about planting a plant when I only stated Cross-breeding to elaborate further that would be taking pollen form one plant and taking it to another, no planting occurred at all. On the soil pH I would refer Pro to a research paper conducted by Ray Dybzinski · Joseph E. Fargione · Donald R. Zak Dario Fornara · David Tilman. They discovered that Plant variety actually positively effects the soils increasing fertility.[2] Now as for the Flood analogy I thought this was simple, imagine we are the crocodile for If we expand our Habitat by destroying others habitat it is a positive effect on our habitat Pro does not deny this in fact he agrees with it only pointing out that we are the subject "The flood point states habitat is subjective, yet we must refer to "Our Habitat" as the subject, so this point was clarified and since no further argumentation is left, the Pro is not(made a slight change here thought it was needed) winning this point."Argument 2Pro tries to derail argument two by saying lets focus on current technologies so I will do so, Scientists have recently discovered a fungi's that Eats plastic, this is a completely green applied technology that has no negative impact on the habitat and actually reduces landfills.[3] Also I would like to note that taking seeds from a fungus has no harm at all as Pro will try to argue. "Furthermore, as technology advances to influence other planets, those planets become a part of our habitat as they become vital to our survival. Thus, it becomes an extension of our habitat and its sole purpose would be to provide ores(causing harm to the extension of our habitat). Thus, the Pro is winning this point." This argument is invalid for one reason there is no life on mars at all, If we do finally start mining on Mars and humans are their mining will still have no negative effect on our habitat because nothing there is alive to be harmed other than humans that only receive positive benefits from this transaction, please feel free to read the definitions.Alternative argumentPro asserts that my Bop is there to keep me in check and gives me boundaries, I ask the voters to look no further than the Resolution that gives me no such restrictions, my only burden of proof is disproving the resolution that is it, no matter how much Pro would like to change that due to his arguments.As the voters can clearly read the series of events from Top to body we can all deduce that Pro thought this was going to be an easy win, when I posted by First argument I caught him off guard his first move wasn't to try to disprove my arguments but rather throw them out because they proved him wrong, when I showed him that he couldn't throw out the arguments because they were completely valid we all saw how he tried to discreetly change the definition no habitat and add multiple burden of proofs. Pro stated that I had an unsupported claim that he was here for an easy win even though you can tell by reading every single argument he has to add thus pro is winning, I am fully confident that the voter can decide who is winning on their own accord and not have Pro tell them t who to vote for. I stated I'm not here to win I'm here to voice reason and show logic, and Pro stated I have failed to do that but I argue I am the only one here who voices reason and logic Pro stumbles on argument points, tries to randomly change unwanted definitions, and has to constantly remind the audience of why he will not win this debate. I have not forfeited at all to pro in fact not a single one of my arguments has been credibly refuted. [1]http://fatfist.hubpages.com...[2]http://cedarcreek.umn.edu...[3]http://digitaljournal.com...