Eastern Europeans Should be Purged

Rebuttals: Rather ironically Con begins his argument by stating that he would not actually be "completely" against a purge, which clearly contradicts his position. It's on Con in this debate to argue exclusively against what I'm proposing--not perhaps support it a little or acknowledge that it could be beneficial for society; which affirms my argument. Additionally, saying that an all-out purge would "be wrong on so many levels" isn't providing an objective reason as to why it should not take place. Whether the purge is morally right or wrong is irrelevant to the debate, and Con is required to argue from an impartial standpoint and outline valid reasons for against. In my opening argument, for example, I listed population control--and the positive impacts a decrease in population would have on the environment, as well as poverty in Eastern Europe and the prevalence it has in certain countries/areas. Which [as stated] would be the ones "purged" and hit by nuclear bombing. Instead of actually presenting an opening argument of his own, Con has pretty much moved straight to rebuttals, which are specifically meant for round two and clarified as so in the debate premise. Anyway, I'll continue with my own rebuttals. Con further states that in deploying nuclear bombs in the eleven countries I've listed [the top ten most poorest and Poland] that I'll somehow "be killing everyone in Eastern Europe", which of course wouldn't be the case. Eastern Europe is an extremely large region with millions of people living within its borders, so the entire Eastern European populace would not be killed. Especially those from countries which aren't included the eleven that I've specified. It is primarily the poorest areas of the region, and mainly those in rural parts, that would receive the nuclear bombing. More well-developed Eastern European countries such as Russia are not in the list. Admittedly men, women and children would be killed, but this is again *only* in the places that would be directly hit. Cons best point so far is that these countries [though he originally misunderstood exactly what countries I meant] are in alliances with certain nations, and that their nuclear bombing would essentially warrant an all out war between NATO. However, because these particular countries would not be directly threatened themselves it's unlikely that they would proceed to take any real action in the wake of such bombings. After the attacks would be committed, it would be made explicitly known that no other countries would be faced with nuclear and the bombings themselves were a one-off, made not to invite any war or conflict between nations. The price of using more nuclear and then it escalating into a full-scale conflict [in which billions could be killed] would be a good enough deterrent for most nations in not taking any severe action. Once more, the places targeted would not be important or key economic areas but merely populated parts of the countryside and exclusively poor areas. Con mistakenly states that that Russia would be attacked with this nuclear, though as I've demonstrated in this argument, they would be formally excluded. Now regarding Cons third point about causing major distrust among the people, this is again invalid--as is the comparison with Hitler. Mainly because the attacks would be an an extremely quick process, and not something that is gradually built up over time through dictatorship and propaganda. No other bombings, whether nuclear or otherwise, would be proposed either before or after these specific attacks and this would absolutely not be part of an organized plan to oppress people and/or minorities. Rather, we are merely talking about a purge of a population that is deepened in poverty. Con concludes his argument by saying that it [my contention] may be "a good or great reason", which as I've argued in the beginning of this round, more or less affirms my case.