The United States government would possibly be responsible for disaster or catastrophy

"Basically, I defend that The United States government is trying to achieve a highly undesirable living condition for its citizens and empower themselves. "^ This is what Pro said he would argue in favor for in the very first round. Pro's attempt to change the resolution in the very last round just goes to show how even HE recognizes how poorly he has argued his case thus far, as evidenced by the dropped arguments listed near the bottom. "The United States government is the the ultimate possibility for chaos, disaster, and destruction upon the United States, and possibly the world"Things that could and are more likely to reign chaos and disaster on the US and the world:- Global Warming- A Super Virus or Bacteria that triggers a pandemic- Meteor strike, eruption of a super Volcano like Yellowstone, or other catastrophic natural disasters- Artificial Intelligence in computers- Scarcity or loss of resources such as water and farmable land. - Rise of an authoritarian leader hellbent on war (See WWII)There are a far greater and ever prevalent list of things that could wreak chaos and destruction upon the US and the world then the US government, which currently could only barely even pass a budget on the Department of Homeland Security . http://www.cnn.com... "instead tries to make a debate into a battle of insults. "If you could have posted even a single competent argument, or even one sensible sentence, without making a complete imbecile out of yourself, then I would have had something to work with. Sadly though this wasnt the case, and you have only succeeded in killing more brain cells in this debate then alcohol has in the past 5000 years. List of arguments Pro has argued that he has failed to defend or just outright dropped:1) Pro dropped the argument that spending on the military benefits far more than just those who actually make money from military spending.2) Pro dropped the argument that a strong US military benefits the people of the US and the people of closely allied countries to the US3) Pro dropped the argument that the US does not invade third world countries for their resources, failing to provide more than a single example (Iraq) which he also dropepd4) Pro fails to provide any evidence that the US gets even a significant share of Iraqi oil, when all evidence suggests it doesnt5) Pro drops the argument that the US immediately silences all those who speak ill of the US government6) Pro fails to provide any evidence for how the US was behind the deaths of Robin Williams and Michael Jackson7) Pro drops the wildly stupid claim that people who mention the Constitution are put in danger8) Pro drops the argument that the US government cant be behind ANY of the conspiracy theories he has advocated sicne it couldnt even cover up Watergate. 9) Pro fails to prove that the US government has planted subliminal messages all around us10) Pro fails to prove that the US government is somehow trying to get rid of minorities11) Pro fails to acknowledge that the US government has done loads to try to improve the lives of its citizens, including minorities12) Pro drops the argument that police in riot gear =/= the military13) Pro drops the argument that the police by far are a benefit for US citizens then a harmful influence14) Pro fails to support his claim that everyone who speaks out agains the US government is labeled a terroristPro has failed across the board to argue his stance, even going so far to try to change the resolution of what he was arguing for at the very end of the debate, like a common coward. Nearly half of Pro's sources are complete crap, and the other half dont even support the wild and unrelated claims he was trying to support in the first place.