Living on the island of Manhattan is one of the most dangerous places to live in the United States

Pro established his burden. My opponent will show that nuclear terrorism is a direct threat to Manhattan. Pro cited political positions from President Obama, Mr. John Kerry, and Ex-President Bush. All of the associated quotes are anecdotal. They are politically loaded warnings, not evidence. Positional statements do not create proof, they establish an opinion. My opponent should be focused on proving that Manhattan is under direct nuclear threat. ------------------------------------------------Pro established that if a nuclear terrorist attack occur in the United States, the location that would do the most damage would be New York City. Rebuttal: If New York gets hit with a Nuclear weapon, it would indeed cause mass destruction. However, if New York was hit by a meteor, it would also cause mass destruction. As would a tidal wave from an Atlantic earth-quake. Simply citing the destructive power of a catastrophe does not make it an imminent threat.My opponent must be able to prove that Manhattan is under direct nuclear threat. Perpetuating the horror of the event doesn't make it more imminent. It simply seeks to arouse panic. ------------------------------------------------ Pro established: With its population, influence, and 'capitol of the world' status, New York makes for a prime target. Not incidentally, New York is one of the likely cities for a nuclear terrorist attack to occur. Living in Manhattan is essentially a death sentence if a nuclear bomb with high-yield goes off anywhere in the borough. Even a small nuclear bomb like a suitcase nuke could devastate Manhattan. Rebuttal: A fine example of Argumentum ad Metum [2]; a rudimentary logical fallacy. An appeal to fear is a Red Herring, an irrational argument that "attempts to arouse the emotions of its audience in order to gain acceptance of its conclusion." Consider, a nuclear suitcase bomb does not exist. [1] The Hollywood dramatization is a far cry from contemporary nuclear technology. My opponent has completely deviated from reality. ------------------------------------------------Pro stated: First off, let it be understood that the technology to build a nuclear bomb is not complex. Rebuttal: Profusely incorrect. Plutonium enrichment requires an incredibly sophisticated reactor, which in itself is a marvel of modern engineering. The cost, material and training required to operate such a device requires an impressive vault of resources. It's certainly not within the reach of cave-dwelling Jihadists in the Afghan mountains. Uranium enrichment is likewise a sophisticated process. Simply mixing up a batch in your Al-Queida EasyBake oven is far from reality. In fact, the Stanford Nuclear Threat report stated that "it would be difficult or impossible for a terrorist group to carry out these activities, at least without host government support. Even with government support, such activities are likely to be detected from abroad." [3] ------------------------------------------------ Pro cited: "Various experts estimate the chances of a nuclear detonation in the next 10 years at somewhere between 10 and 30 percent." Rebuttal: That estimate is Global, not local. Additionally, the estimate favors a nuclear showdown between Iran and Israel, not Al Queida and Manhattan. The tension between the two states is so profuse, the CSIS performed a strategic analysis on several nuclear scenarios involving these two middle-eastern states. Israel, in case you are wondering, is estimated to survive the nuclear scrimmage with far less casualties. [4] ------------------------------------------------　 Conclusion: My opponent has furnished an excessive amount of illogical arguments, some of which where direct appeals to emotion, while others are flat out untrue. If my opponent seeks to fulfil his burden, I would urge him to seek substantial evidence to support a direct nuclear threat against Manhattan. 　 http://usatoday30.usatoday.com... [1] http://www.fallacyfiles.org... [2] http://iis-db.stanford.edu... [3] http://www.ynetnews.com... [4]