our government should be completely replaced

Oh baby, the copy-paste is real...A'ight. We got from here ("Obama has been in office,") to about here ("fromhttp://cnsnews.com...;) as his own actual text. The rest he just flat-out copy-pastes the text from the articles, providing no actual analysis or explanation of what's going on. If I wanted to debate the people who wrote the articles, I wouldn't be on here. Hold his blatant use of control-c-control-v against him. But let's respond to everything anyway. "Obama has been in office, increasing from $5,749,916,000,000 at the end of January 2009 to $11,825,322,000,000 at the end of January 2014"First, no impact. Even if our debt (that's what the increase is talking about, for those of you who can't decipher what he's actually talking about from what he typed (actually I take that back, it wasn't even his own text, it was just really incoherently copy-pasted) and what he meant) has raised, he's not making any kind of actual argument off of it or telling us what it means or why this actually matters. Secondly, even if this does matter, it doesn't actually have an impact. That's just showing that, at best, Obama's a sh*tty president. We can't even impeach him off of that.Thirdly, even if we could impeach him off of that, it wouldn't justify replacing the government wholesale, rather just something we could use to replcae Obama with someone who doesn't spend as much."A Border Patrol official who was removed ...his departure was greeted as a positive step by those same advocates."First, there's no impact to this again. He gives us no reason to think that this matters nor what to do with this as a judge. He just copy-pastes the article and drops the mic, like his job there was done. Not quite bud...not quite...Second, there's not even a way for this to actually impact the debate. One horror story doesn't mean we scrap the government. It's relevancy entirely is questionable. And I'm not even gonna bother responding to the Constitution quote since there's absolutely no relevancy there either. I'd rather get to the fun stuff: the list of ten reasons he copy-pastes."the U.S. government does not fulfill its purpose"First, this is literally a bare assertion with no warrant to back it up. Second, saying it doesn't represent the will of the people when it's the people who choose who are in power is silly. "By guile and deception, ... but powerful control mechanisms."inb4 illuminatiFirst, no warrant again. I would say it's literally him just asserting this to be true, but it's not even him saying it since he's just copy-pasting it. Second, there's no reason to believe this either since it would fundamentally not be in their interest to screw with the citizenry. Not only is it their job to protect us and to promote our wellbeing, but the Consitution gives us clear legal pathways for correcting the corruption, meaning that we have no reason to believe they would even do this.Third, the claim itself is entirely unverifiable since if he's right then there won't be any way to actually prove it since they're lying to us in the first place. The claim inevitably just boils down to "conspiracy rah rah illuminati rah rah just trust me politicians are stealing from us" without a single shred of proof. "The government is controlled by a cabal"Did I call the illuminati thing, or did I call it? Another day, another bare assertion with no evidence whatsoever. Actually, screw going through each of these individually. None of them have the slightest bit of a warrant, nor the slightest bit of an impact. If the current administration is as corrupt as he's trying to make it out to be, that still doesn't justify doing away with the entire structure of our government, rather just replacing the people in office with people who aren't going to scam us. Even if you buy literally 100% of his unwarranted, copy-pasted, conspiracy-nut bullsh*t, he still doesn't win the debate because at best it means we just impeach Obama and virtually all of the Senate/House and start from scratch, not redo the entire structure of our government. Nor does he answer my concerns from the previous round, namely what are we replacing it with? Are we replacing the illuminati with hitler? Are we just leaving a massive power vaccum around for any person with enough authority and tyrranical control to fill at his own leisure? He provides no alternative, so there's no reason to believe that there's a better system than what we have going right now.I'm passing it back over to him, hoping for an actual argument this time.