Biological weapons are a fallacy

1. My numbering system is only used for the purpose of differentiating my points, it has nothing to do with my opponents responses. My opponent can use my numbering system as a reference to make it clear which point he is addressing. 2. My opponent has used the title of the debate as his only source of what the topic is about. It is clear from the first post details, that the debate is more about the effectiveness of biological weapons then it is not about whether biological weapons exist or not. Every fool knows that biological weapons exist, that is except my opponent, who assumes that this knowledge is somehow secret and known only to a few informed individuals. Thus, my opponent is playing a deceitful game of pretending that the knowledge of biological weapons is a secret. Thus, my opponent is trying to derail the debate by using technical trickery. It is clear that my opponents whole premise is illogical and can't be maintained using fair play and evidence. It is deceitful and counter productive to use the title of a debate as the only source of the arguments area of concern. This is because the title is just an advertisement of the debate and should not be used as a self contained and source of the debate subject matter and area of discussion. 3. My opponent claims that trained dogs and dolphins can be viewed as biological weapons. Very true, and have been used many times in battle. But, how effective are these weapons? Answer - They are appalling bad and ineffective weapons. They are generally uncooperative and have as much chance of killing their own soldiers as they have of killing the enemy soldiers. There was the anti-tank dog which was used by the Russians in World War II. (40,000 dogs) https://en.wikipedia.org... Excerpt from article - 'The first group of anti-tank dogs arrived at the frontline at the end of the summer of 1941 and included 30 dogs and 40 trainers. Their deployment revealed some serious problems. In order to save fuel and ammunition, dogs had been trained on tanks which stood still and did not fire their guns. In the field, the dogs refused to dive under moving tanks. Some persistent dogs ran near the tanks, waiting for them to stop but were shot in the process. Gunfire from the tanks scared away many of the dogs. They would run back to the trenches and often detonated the charge upon jumping in, killing Soviet soldiers. To prevent that, the returning dogs had to be shot, often by their controllers and this made the trainers unwilling to work with new dogs'. Thus, we can see that biological weapons are an ineffective and stupid idea. In a battle situation, the dogs are too scared to run to the tanks and mostly run back to their owners who have to shot them to save their own lives. lol 4. Ref 3. Quote -'The besieged and the besiegers both died of the same disease'. Reply - Well, that's just speculation. In those days, nobody even knew what a disease was or where it came from. Even doctors today, don't understand what causes disease, so how could people understand hundreds or thousands of years ago? My view - The besiegers and besieged both were vitamin deficient because they had both used up all the surrounding resources and were running out of food. Thus, they both became diseased due to a lack of vitamins. 'Germs are the result of a disease, and are not the cause of it'. (Antoine Bechamp) Note - My opponent is mixing up the siege with the dark ages. These are two separate issues, but they have the same basic cause which is vitamin deficiency. The siege was an artificiality caused famine, whereas, the volcanic activity was an unavoidable global phenomenon. 5. Ref 5. The Chinese government is one of the most corrupt government's in the world. Yet, my opponent is quite happy to use the Chinese government as a source reference though. Well, any reference that refutes my evidence has to be a good reference, eh! lol I expect my opponent will be quoting Kim Jong-un as his next reference! lol 6. In summing up. My opponent seems to want to win the debate by default by claiming that the title is the only source of the debate topic issues. Thus, he is a lazy debater who doesn't like to fight on fair grounds but prefers to find legal loop holes to win a debate. He shuns logic and misquotes my references many times. My opponent is running out of ideas and evidence and has resorted to skulduggery to win the debate.