The United States should develop a missile defense system.

I will begin by saying that I have not been abusive at any time during the debate. The definition from dictionary.com is: using, containing, or characterized by harshly or coarsely insulting language. At no point have I used harsh or insulting language. I however feel as if I have been abused by opponent suggesting I have not tried to debate this topic seriously. I feel disrespected by the way my opponent has talked down to me. However this is debate and the feelings of the two people debating are a non-issue. So without furthur ado I will begin to break down his case. In his first point he stated that the only thing I touched on was the fact that the current system has everything to do with this debate. He also said I agreed with his proposition and justification. The fact is that his idea WOULD be a good idea IF there wasn't already a system in place. However it is common knowledge that a system is in place, making a second system (which is what he is proposing) completely unnessecary. I already covered his second argument (if you can call it that) in my first paragraph. I have not at any point in this debate been abusive. In his third argument he is still using harsh language by acusing me of abuse. This is probably his most important point in this round. Here is his definition of "a" Used before nouns and noun phrases that denote a single but unspecified person or thing: a region; a person. As you can see it denotes a SINGLE person or in this case thing. So to further understand the resolution I'll put the pieces together. He's saying the U.S.A should gradually usher in a single missile defense system on top of the current one. Meaning... He would like to see the United States having two missile defense systems. I ask you the question "Why build a second missile defense system when we already have one?" Here is an analogy of the situation. You are a single person living by themselves. You have a car so why buy a second car? would it be nice? yes, but is it really worth it to have two cars? no. You can't drive both of them at the same time so why have two? It is not financially sound. Considered the United States current economic state, a second missile defense doesn't make financial sense. What we have now is good enough to get us by, just like having one car is good enough to get you by. Then later he changes his position and says he would like to exchange the old system for a new one. Let me ask you a question, "How many times have we been hit by a missile?" The answer is none so obviously the current system gets us by. Right now the priorities of our government do not involve a NEW missile defense system. There are many more issues that the money used for a second system could be used for. In his last round he insults me by insinuating that I have not tried to debate the topic. I feel very strongly about the topic and believe that it is best for the United States and its citizens to have one system NOT TWO. There so many things that the money could be used for. New Orleans, our troops, poverty, improved living conditions, etc... I am disappointed in his lack of respect for me as a debater. Also in his last paragraph my opponent says that new argumentation is against the rules. I would like to point out that all my arguments in this round have defended my first statement that a second system is completely unnecessary. Furthermore he contradicted his own rule by adding the abusiveness argument that was not present in the first two rounds. My opponent is also attempting to tell the judge how to do her job by saying, "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." In accordance to his idea of abuse, he is committing the same crime. He is disrespecting the ability of the judge to judge the round by insulting her intelligence when he states how she is to judge the round. Also when he asks her to take my last arguments less seriously because it is my last argument is completely unfair. He was given the advantage to speak first and I have the opportunity to speak last. That is part of debate. Thank you to all who have taken the time to read the arguments and decide the outcome of this debate. I would like to especially thank Mr. Luke Cumbee, who has spent so much time putting together this tournament and allowing me to participate.