It should be legal to take large snakes across state lines

It seems my opponent has entirely dropped my main argument showing the necessity and justification for the Lacey Act. Thus, I extend that argument as it currently remains standing unchallenged. I would also like to point out that in Pro's failure to rebut my main argument, he has ultimately failed to negate my key challenge which should result in a loss since Pro needs to overcome every challenge in a debate that aims to change the status quo. I will now present rebuttals for the selective arguments Pro chose to present in his final round. I. USARK lawsuit Pro contends that if it was easy to obtain a permit - that USARK wouldn't be suing the government. However, Pro provides no evidence showing that obtaining permits is the reason why USARK is suing the government. For all we know, they could be suing them out of spite or frustration. Perhaps they are simply suing to stir up further controversy or to bring more media exposure to their cause. There could be any number of reasons and without clarity and evidence from Pro there is just no grounds upon which to justify such a claim. Furthermore, the case itself has been getting pushed further and further back, including the fact that three different judges have now been assigned to the case only to end up transferring it to another judge. [1] Without any forward motion in such a trial, there is no conclusive evidence saying who is right and who is wrong. In other words, until the case is settled, there is no reason to believe that USARK is the one in the right here. For all we know the case could be tossed out tomorrow due to USARK having no real case. Therefore, arguing that the law is wrong because it's being challenged does not mean that it's actually wrong. We won't know such things until the court passes judgement, and until then, this argument fails to carry any weight in affirming Pro's position. It's literally a moot point until the case is settled. II. Bad Science Oddly enough, while researching the USARK case I came across a lot of articles who also use the term "bad science"... I'm almost tempted to compare Pro's first round to some of these articles to see if he just plagiarized it from another source, but I won't. Ultimately, pro argues that the "bad science" is information gathered from The Discovery Channel and other media sources. The problem here is Pro's faulty assumption that a government agency that's been around since the 1800's would actually rely on television shows to base their judgements on. It's one of the most absurd assumptions I've ever seen here on DDO. First off, Pro gives no evidence showing that they based their judgements off of television shows. That's key because without such evidence Pro's entire argument falls flat. Secondly, it's already known that they've sent their own people into the environments to record and send back the data they gathered first-hand. This is evident by the fact that they actually have their regional headquarters located in the Everglades itself [2] which is operated by their Florida branch. Ultimately, it's evident that Pro's claims about the basis of their judgements is wildly inaccurate. I've now given evidence showing the fact that the FWS not only has a regional headquarters located in southern Florida, but also that they rely on their own people and data, rather than Pro's assumption that they rely on the discovery channel, which is ludicrous. III. YouTube video Now it seems that Pro is relying on someone else to make his arguments for him. Regardless, he presents this video with the intent of showing that there are some sources more trustworthy than animal planet. I couldn't agree more, and that's exactly why the FWS doesn't rely on such media outlets, and rather rely on their own experts in the field. In closing, I have now presented rebuttals which serve to defeat each point raised by Pro in his final round. My own argument remains standing unchallenged. Due to my opponent failing to provide any evidence to support his claims, as well as his failure to negate my own argument as well as rebuttals, I urge a vote for Con. Thank you. Sources [1] http://www.kingsnake.com... [2] http://www.fws.gov...