Biological weapons are a fallacy

Pro does not seem to hold to their own 'numbering system', creating random numbers without actually addressing any points subsequently. I will address Pro's points using Pro's numbering of the previous round. But first of all: Rebuttals:1.) Hollywood is better evidence than the one Pro provided. Oh right, Pro did not actually provide any valid evidence whatsoever, nor did I 'use Hollywood' as evidence in any way shape or form. If Pro's understanding of 'Evidence' is a meme mocking Pro's lack of any credible evidence, while Con did provide evidence throughout the round, there is a major problem in Pro's understanding of the terms 'Evidence'. Furthermore, I most certainly do not need 'boost', as Pro still has not provided anything other than opinion as to why Biological Weapons are a fallacy.2.) How pathetic. Looking back at round one, I can be quoted stating "Merriam Webster defines it as: "a harmful living thing (such as a germ that causes disease) used as a weapon in a war".". So good job Pro for spotting this apparent 'corner' in a circle. Germs have nothing to do with this debate. A biological weapon can be a germ, but does not have to be. It can be any organism. A trained dog can be seen as a biological weapon. Are you proposing that trained attack dogs, which are effectively used as weapons, do not exist? 3.) Pro is pulling excuses and rebuttals out of thin air. This could go all day long, but in the end proves nothing. The question that I proposed, but that obviously was left unanswered, was that if apparently the besieged died of 'a lack of food' after 3 years, then why did they have the same symptoms as the besiegers, who catapulted corpses of diseased into the city, who once again had the same symptoms as the sick in the city. Strange, isn't it... It seems like the disease must have transmitted. But according to Pro that cannot be, because a lack of vitamins and food is not really transmittable.4.) Pro cannot even quote their own sources correct. This source states something about El Salvador and not Iceland. Just 8000 kilometers off, but who cares. Furthermore, this is in connection with the History Channel, which could be seen as one of the worst pseudo historical programs out there. Also, the source talks about the Dark Ages, which is called this because of denotation of the fall of Rome and the renaissance and seen as a time of scarcity of records and improvement and oppression by the Church.However, the most major misconception of Pro is that this caused the plague. The source states that the "Ilopongo volcanic explosion indeed triggered the chain of events that led to Dark Ages", of which the plague was a part, in a way explaining how and why the dark ages occurred, and not, as Pro assumes, that the volcanic eruption caused the plague. I quote "From there Dull and other scientists began connecting the dots, from the first recorded outbreak of the Bubonic plague — which lead to 50 million deaths – as well as the fall of the Roman Empire." as a means to explain why the dark ages happened. This source could be compared with an explanation of how the stock crisis happened, it is looking at an event (the period of the dark ages) and is analysing why this occurred. This has nothing to do with where the plague came from, as Pro assumes. Besides, the siege I provided was a mere 800 years after the volcanic eruption, I'm sure it's connected in an enormous, unimaginable way. 5.) Pro should take evidence serious and either refute it correctly or not at all. Quote correctly or not at all. I do not use colloquial language and most certainly will never use mentally degrading means of communication such as "lol". This displays Pro's seriousness in this debate quite clearly, not to mention the Pro provided opinion and not evidence. Besides, Pro seems to have resentment towards the Japanese for some reason, assuming they are stupid, yet cannot provide counter evidence to my claims. This means that until Pro can provide evidence that it is not as stated, Pro's opinion is trifling. Here another source supporting Con's first source regarding Chinese death toll (http://www.nti.org...)6.) Unbeknown to Pro, the Germans worked together with the Japanese on biological weapons during WW2, as well stated in Japanese-German relations, 1895-1945. This means that Pro's whole point is, once again, futile. 7.) Still better than Pro's evidence. Oh wait, there wasn't any.......... Also, insects are, as they are organisms, a biological entity, thus can be, as displayed by the definition of 'Biological Weapon', be the latter. Additionally, the review does not discredit the source in any way, shape or form. Finally, the most important statement of Pro in this round. While attempting to create an ad hominem argument, which is always flaw, Pro can neither use adequate grammar nor seems to have actually grasped what Pro is debating, in a debate which was made by Pro themselves. "I hope you all get a good laugh at my opponents pathetic attempt to justify biological weapons as a viable means of destroying an enemy.". Really? You just made a fool out of yourself. The title of this debate is 'Biological weapons are a fallacy'. This means that, according to Pro, biological weapons do not exist. Pro seemingly has just admitted that biological weapons in fact exist, but seems to think that this debate is about whether they are a viable means of destroying an enemy. I wouldn't care if they are or not. This debate is about whether they exist or not. And apparently they do exist. Conclusion:Once again, no evidence by Pro. The only source Pro posted was horrifically misquoted and unrelated. This means that all of Pro's rebuttals are worthless, as they are solely opinion and have no basis in fact. Furthermore, Pro does not seem to know what they are actually debating. According to the Debate title, this debate is about whether biological weapons exist or not and that they apparently do not work nor ever have been used. The evidence proves otherwise, yet Pro still clings onto an opinion based approach supported by no evidence and nothing else than circle jerk arguments. Kind regards, I am looking forward to the next round.