A Dictator is exactly what America needs

I. Pro fails to provide rebuttals to my arguments. I raised two lines of argumentation in my previous round. The first was asking Pro to show how a Dictator would reduce debt. Since Pro is making the claim that a dictator would do so, he needs to provide proof or justification to maintain the validity of that statement. At this point, he has failed to do so. For this reason, I extend that argument as it currently remains standing unchallenged. If Pro is conceding that point, then he needs to say so - either way, he has dropped that argument and therefore allowed me to defeat his burden of proof, which he needs to keep intact in order to win this debate. The second was calling for my opponent to expand on what he meant by "Consumption Reform". Until he expands on it, there is absolutely no reason for this point to even be in the debate. It is moot. He has done nothing more than make another baseless claim and without providing proof or justification for it - it remains unproven. For this reason, I extend my argument calling for an expansion of meaning, as it currently remains standing unchallenged. II. "The nation is not what it once was. "This is a quote that I would not disagree with, as it is evident that this nation is not what it once was. Over the course of 3 centuries, we can easily see that many aspects of America are different from what they were when the country was first created. Unfortunately for Pro, this holds absolutely no relevance to the burden he has which is to show that "A Dictator is exactly what America needs. " Pro goes on a tangent that America is no longer a Christian Nation. What does this have to do with America needing a dictator? ! Seriously. Does anyone know? Pro tries to create some weird argument that "whoever charges us interest is saying that they are not our relatives. " Which, in itself, holds no ground in this debate. Pro needs to draw a connection between this statement and how it is relative to the resolution we are debating, otherwise, it is also a moot point and holds no place in this debate. Furthermore, he concludes that our "non-relatives, non-brothers, and debt-holders must leave the country. " Again, what does this have to do with the resolution? Pro needs to draw a connection between this statement and it's relevancy to the resolution we are debating, otherwise, it also is a moot point which has no place in this debate. III. Pro has done absolutely nothing to affirm the resolution. It is evident within arguments 1 & 2 that Pro has done nothing to uphold his BoP, nor has he in the slightest affirmed the position that American needs a Dictator. Pro has not shown how a dictator would be more beneficial than our current system of checks and balances. Pro needs to show that the executive branch, judicial branch, and legislative branch have no place in America. So far, he has failed to do so. On top of him needing to show that our current system of checks and balances is worse than having a dictator, he needs to show how having a dictator would be better than any other possibilities for America including a monarchy, oligarchy, anarchy, democracy, republic, aristocracy, and democratic republics. [1] So far, Pro has done none of the above. [1] . http://depts.alverno.edu...In conclusion,Pro has failed to provide rebuttals to any and all of my challenges. Pro has only done two things so far, he's made unproven claims and irrelevant arguments. Until he responds accordingly to every challenge I have raised against him, he has failed to prove his position, uphold his BOP, and affirm the resolution. I have raised challenges to each claim presented by him, and have shown why his arguments are both irrelevant and unproven. I now return the floor to Pro and thank the audience for their continued patience.