The Olympic sewage swim should be stopped

AveI'll be making my case in this round.ObservationsO1: This is not a video debate. I wanted to cross everything out of video, but I missed on. This is not a video debate. The debate is a null voting debate too. If any votes are not a tie, they will be reported, and removed (unless it is a concession). This is not a video debate, so you don't need to surrender.O2: I'm mostly going to use New York Times as a source of the debate.FrameworkMy framework will be centered around Utilitarianism. In merriam webster, the definition is, "the belief that a morally good action is one that helps the greatest number of people [1]. Jeremy Bentham, which is the founder of Utilitarianism defined Util. as, "as the aggregate pleasure after deducting suffering of all involved in any action [2]." He was talking about more of the quantity than the quality, and later on, John Stuart Mill expanded more, not only the quantity, also the quality of pleasure. How can we weigh this? I think it is of happiness. Augustine said, "all men agree in desiring the last end, which is happiness [2]." All of these people said pleasure, or happiness to define utility, and the moral action is basically happiness, and happiness helps the greatest amount of people. Therefore, my framework will be weighed on happiness, and the thing that brings more happiness will be it. I will be making arguments based on this. I will be weighing the happiness of the marathon swimmers.Pro's caseMy framework says that if I prove that the Olympic sewage swim does not bring pleasures, I win. If my opponent shows that it brings happiness, he wins (though it is a null vote.)Let's give you a experience of the Olympic sewage swim. Fernando Rosado, who is a expert at water quality at Brazil said that the virus levels 1.7 million times of a California Beach, considered hazardous. He says that it was very likely to get infected in the waters [3]. Kristina Mena, a expert in risk management says that athletes who ingest 3 teaspoons of water will get a 99% chance of getting infected [3].This easily shows the risks and the danger in swimming in the waters. You can get highly infected in these waters, and this is dangerous, therefore this is not showing any happiness. Lynne Cox, who is the author, who seems like a swimmer says that no one should swim in these waters, and says many people agree. Lynne Cox is good at identifying this because he wrote many books. And, because many people agree that we should not be in these waters, this is not giving any happiness. If we ban these waters, then we don't need to swim in the Brazil sewage, and that will bring happiness, because if you swim, you do not get happiness, so if you don't, logically, you will have happiness. Therefore, happiness goes to my side, and please vote for Pro.Con will probably say that we can always clean the waters, but this won't happen. There are less than 100 days for it [3]. This will not work, because the Brazilian National Olympic says they need 8 water treatment plants, and last year only one was made, so it will be 8 years, and 8 years and 100 days have a big difference. Even they conceded that they can't clean it. A secretary said, "It's not going to happen.", and if you see my statistics, that's right.ConclusionI've shown that the waters are very dangerous, and it will not bring happiness. The news article says that if Brazil can't clean, they have to move. I've shown they can't clean the waters, therefore, please vote Pro!!!!Sources[1] http://www.merriam-webster.com...[2] https://en.wikipedia.org...[3] The International New York Times, April 31st, The Olympic sewage swim, by Lynne CoxTherefore, Vote PROVale