US policies established after 9/11 have substantially reduced the risk of terrorist acts on the US

I owe my opponent an apology, seeing as how we are not on the same page as to what entails a risk of terrorist acts. I would direct him back to the resolution, which says "the risk of terrorist acts on the US". Therefore, the risk I'm referencing is any hazard (1) that would allow terrorists to act against the United States. It's pretty straightforward, but since my opponent insisted that I provide a definition, we will assume that this definition stands. Since my opponent wrote that he does not need to prove that risk has increased, I thank him for conceding his sub-points A and B under his first contention. In order for these contentions to stand, he must prove that the risk of terrorist acts has been increased, and in order to do that, he must concede that there are indeed risks present...contrary to what he wrote in his second constructive essay. I will now move into his case. First, I would like to clarify that I never claimed U.S. policy and military action have nothing to do with each other. This is an underhanded move by my opponent, a logical fallacy I like to call "shoving words into someone else's mouth". Of course they are intertwined with each other. My point was simply that in order to prove the resolution, which deals with U.S. policies, my opponent must focus on the policies that lead to the action, not the action itself. Policy does not equate with action, as he claims, but only leads to it. Therefore we must throw out his first contention entirely. To address the bombing plot that my opponent claims is indicative of increased risk, I would like to provide an analogy that will negate many of his other claims as well. The statistics for teens who die in alcohol-related car wrecks are terrible. Sadly, no matter what, there will always be alcohol, and there will always be people who drive drunk. However, I think we can all agree that wearing your seatbelt will decrease your risk of dying in an alcohol-related wreck. Teens who adhere to local curfew laws decrease their risk. Teens who follow traffic laws decrease their risk. And both teens and adults who are deterred by laws from drinking and driving decrease their risk. So seatbelts, curfew, and laws are all responsible for helping decrease the risk of a teenager dying in an alcohol-related crash. Likewise, though my opponent is correct that people who wish the U.S. harm will always be present, our policies that have been implemented since 2001 effectively decrease the risk of terrorist acts on the U.S. Secondly, my opponent continues to claim that our domestic policies do not decrease the risk of terrorist acts on the U.S. He mentions again the possibility of citizen terrorists, but again, going back to my analogy, just because the potential for hazard exists does not mean that it does. This point is irrelevant. He then asked me to elaborate on my claim concerning Guantanamo Bay, which I will be happy to do. According to his own sources, 8% of Gitmo detainees are terrorists. Even though the percentage is small, it still proves beyond a doubt that the U.S. is reducing the risk of terrorism by detaining terrorists. Terrorists are killers, and when we can detain just one of them, that seems a substantial reduction when weighing American lives in the balance. My opponent pointed out that 92% of the detainees were not high-profile combatants, but they still could prove a hazard to the U.S. Therefore it's good that they are locked up. He also wrote that Guantanamo Bay is ineffective in detaining "the worst of the worst", but this is irrelevant. Who cares whether they're the worst or not? Every terrorism suspect we lock up is a reduction in risk. His third contention was that there are no proof of policies being effective. He mentions the Fort Hood shooting, which has not even been undeniably proven a terrorist attack. Even if it was such an attack, this was an act of domestic terrorism, which really cannot be applied to this resolution. Our own citizens attacking us is substantially different from someone on the outside attacking on an organized. Under my opponent's philosophy, too many things could be considered terrorism and it makes the resolution too broad. We should be content to debate the resolution as it was meant to be debated when it was written in 2007 when it was written. This protects the integrity of the debate and ensures that neither side has the upperhand. I will allow my opponent's backtracking and refusal to answer my questions slide. This only strengthens my case, as he offers absolutely no reason for an attack not happening. Resorting to accusing one's opponent of logical fallacies is not sufficient to prove one's point. Sure, point out my fallacies by all means, but answer the question. He demands that I outline exactly how U.S. policies have prevented an attack thus far, and I have done so. Our policies substantially decrease the risk of terrorist acts by successfully implementing military policy, domestic policy, and deterring terrorists from action. If my opponent has questions about why a similar attack has not occurred since 9/11, I would urge him to reread my constructive essays. I will now move on to my own case. My first contention concerned our military policies in Iraq and Afghanistan, and I mostly refuted everything my opponent had to say against these in my first paragraph. However, he does make a claim that the decentralization of Al-Qaeda. He claims that in fact, this decentralization will lead to more rogue individuals who are actually more dangerous. However, unless my opponent can provide specific examples or quotes from experts of this ever happening, there is no way for him to warrant this claim. As far as my evidence for domestic policies go, my opponent claims that I have only a quote to back up my claim that domestic policies like the Patriot Act substantially reduce the risk of terroist acts. I suppose he forgot that in my first constructive essay, I provided a link (http://www.fas.org...) to a government report that shows new policies since 2001 as being effective. That being said, the argument that a source such as a quote is biased is a weak and noncommittal argument. Rather than turning this into a debate of sources, I would urge my opponent to stick to the merits of my argument itself. I have already addressed the argument that terrorist acts still transpire. Just because they still happen doesn't mean the risk is not being reduced. As for the Fort Hood shooting, my opponent should have proven beyond a doubt with evidence that this was a terrorist attack, rather than a more random event. He has not done so. Please remember that new information may be introduced in the Final Focus round. My opponent still did not address my original third contention claim that new counterterrorism policies substantially reduce the risk. Pro has clearly won this debate. My opponents arguments are mostly based on hypothetical considerations. Vote Pro! Sources (1) wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn