Resolved: The United States of America needs a Missle Defense System.

First off, the Pro didn't satisfactorily adress my arguments on round 2. I attacked his Inherency 2 argument by pointing out that there is no reason to believe that the US is in any real danger of an attack by any of these countries. Instead of proving his point with evidence, he merely asserted that there was danger, and mentioned a terrorist attack. In Policy debate, we can't trust the assertions of the debaters, we need evidence. My opponent failed to bring evidence supporting his assertion, so we can't trust it.Under Solvency, the Pro didn't adress the arguments I made, and only brought up more "advantages". I'm sure you can see the problem of this. For one thing, I pointed out that he couldn't solve for the problem he brought up in Inh 1, and he didn't address it. I'd like to reiterate, if the Pro plan can't solve for it's main harms, we don't need it. And the Pro needs to demonstrate a need. Secondly, a main point of my Solvency argument was that his evidence under Solvency was actually Advantage evidence, and that it doesn't matter how many advantages the plan brings if we don't have a demonstrated need. Rather than address either of these points in his last post, my opponent simply added more advantages, which I will address later. Under the evidence I brought up earlier, my opponent wrote limitedly.Ground-based missile defense systems a high-priced failure.My opponent briefly addressed this, showing evidence that seemed to say GBMDS could only cover certain, limited areas. This supports my own argument, saying that both GBMDS are high-priced (to cover a significant area) and are not the best solution. I think it is clear from both my and my opponent's evidence that we do not need a ground-based missile defense system. So the remaining option for Pro is a Space-based missile defense system.Space-based missile defense systems unnecessary, expensiveMy opponent only addressed this argument on one point: that of expense. He claimed that his evidence that supposedly said the systems were inexpensive was from a later date than my evidence, so was more reliable. However, his evidence did not say that at all. It didn't address whether or not SBMDS were expensive or not. It did say that "the MDA does not provide baseline budget numbers as other major defense programs do. Nevertheless, by reviewing individual contracts, GAO estimates that MDA contractors overran budgeted costs by $152.4 million in fiscal year 2008." Since my opponent didn't show how SBMDS are not expensive, my evidence saying they are stands tall in the debate. So we can see that these systems are, in fact expensive. And since that is true, it makes no sense to add to the 152.4 million redline, especially when I showed with the same evidence that these programs are unnecessary. And that brings me to the main argument in this evidence. The evidence specifically said that these programs were unnecessary. Although I've already shown how my expense argument holds true, it doesn't matter if it was a dollar a missile. It's still unnecessary. And the Pro needs to bring up specific evidence saying there is a real need for this, or he doesn't fulfill his resolution. It's that simple.Now I'd like to address the new evidence brought into the round by Pro. He brought up "Advantages" that said the Aerospace industry would grow. First of all, this growth is already happening and is not a result of the affirmative plan. This is not an advantage. The evidence is very clear that this growth is already happening now, or is projected to happen under the status quo. These are essentially useless Inherency points, not Advantages. Again, the Pro needs to prove a need. He has not done so. He hasn't shown that the US needs a missile defense system. He is not fulfilling his own resolution, or solving for his own harm. He hasn't satisfactorily addressed any of the Con points. As a result, Con should win the debate.