The United States should develop a missile defense system.

Again, I think it's unfortunate that my opponent refuses to put forth anything meaningful into the debate on this topic. I think at this point it's fairly clear how this is going to end up; but just to make sure all my bases are covered, I'm going to refute what my opponent HAS said with three major points: 1. Dropping arguments. The ONLY thing my opponent even began to touch on in my opening argument was my clarification that missile defense systems currently in existence are not part of this debate (which I will solidify later). This leaves my proposition and justification completely untouched. In debate (especially when you have as much time as this online forum allows you), a lack of refutation on an opponent's point means that, for the purposes of the round, you agree with what they had to say. So again, please flow through all of my Round 1 arguments. 2. Abusiveness. Since the point of the CON side is indeed to refute the truth of the resolution, it can sometimes be unclear whether any given attack on the resolution is abusive or just good debating. When an attack on the wording of the resolution is used as an excuse for providing nothing meaningful to the debate, however, it is rather clearly abusive. What my opponent has done disrespects the organizers of the tournament (who wrote the resolution, approved it, and gave it to the two of us to have meaningful debate on), myself (because I had no other choice than to challenge my opponent on THIS resolution, unedited, if I wanted to stay in the tournament), and the concept of meaningful discourse on issues. Furthermore, finding a loophole through which to avoid discussion on a topic is largely responsible for a great deal of what's wrong with America (see: Bill Clinton, Alberto Gonzales), and should not be encouraged. 3. Semantics. Generally speaking, in debate, consideration of semantics is a secondary issue, and is unacceptable as a sole line of reasoning on which to base a claim. But even if you accept the abusive sort of resolutional analysis my opponent has provided, a closer look at the wording of the resolution (and definitions of the key terms) shows that even the objections my opponent has provided are invalid. (All definitions are from the American Heritage Dictionary, Fourth Edition, as found on http://www.dictionary.com...) a indef.art. Used before nouns and noun phrases that denote a single but unspecified person or thing: a region; a person. "A", as this definition indicates, is an indefinite article (indef.art.), which "denote[s] a single but unspecified person or thing". In other words, in the resolution, "a" does not refer to any particular missile defense system that could be developed; rather, it leaves specification up to the PRO, as I noted and fulfilled in my Round 1 statement. There is thus a clear line of reasoning between the resolution and my clarification and proposal (beyond which point my case is untouched), based simply upon the definition of "a". deï¿½velï¿½op v. tr. To bring into being gradually: develop a new cottage industry. This is the relevant definition of "develop", and it will help me demonstrate my final point on semantics. This definition clarifies my point that the development of a missile defense system means the creation of a new missile defense system, /without regard to existing systems/. Furthermore, even if you believe we must consider existing systems, this definition responds thoroughly to the objection that I am promoting having two systems in place. The fact that we're talking about something "gradually" happening (see definition) means that in the time it takes the U.S. to develop the missile defense system, the government can decide what to do with the old one - keep it and use it to augment the strength of the new one, or scrap it entirely in favor of the new one. As a final note, I would like to point out that any new argumentation in the final round of a debate (that is, points that don't expand upon anything that has already been said in the debate) is generally unacceptable in both formal and informal debate. I have structured this final PRO statement around that premise; everything I have said here simply expands upon my Round 2 statement. Therefore, if my opponent makes a total about-face and actually attempts to fulfill his duty as CON, I would ask the judge to take his arguments less seriously than one normally would, since I have no chance to respond. I would also ask the judge to consider any such arguments to be yet another act of abusiveness on the part of my opponent. Thank you.