Kim Jong-il was a fine leader to the people of North Korea.

Looking back at Kim Jong-il's history and life, it probably is safe to say that we do not know much about him and his history. Probably until we find more information after North Korea opens up would we be able to find some good thing about Kim Jong-il that was not influenced by the media of his government. I would hate to admit it, but due to our limited knowledge from the censorship from the North Korea country, this debate would definitely side more towards the negative side, that is the con side. There is a severe disadvantage, I realize, to the pro side of this argument. First of all, your main argument in the second round has all been rebuttals to my arguments. I do not know whether or not those rebuttals are part of your case, or you have no original arguments of your own. That being said, theoretically speaking in a Lincoln Douglass debate, you have no case, all I have to do is defend my own case, and you can't make any more new contentions since we are in the rebuttal period. But then again, we are not really debating in a Lincoln-Douglas style debate, so this argument may or may not be useful according to interpretations. Secondly, one of you sources come from wikipedia, which connects to the human rights argument. I have checked this and for the human rights section, there are points in there where citations are not listed, which may or may not be true. Although I prefer wikipedia as a general information source, personally some information may be deviated from its original source. Possibly in your next argument you can list other sources needed to support your arguments. Thirdly, a major flaw in your own argument is the lack of source for the many strong arguments you put against my case. I have checked your sources, and all of it validates about 50% of your whole case. I wonder if the information you put in there is valid. I would like to think that they are legitimate, but until they are sourced, they can be considered made up information (not that I am accusing you of making up information since your whole argument states that I am making up my own information, I am just asking for your sources.) Now coming to my own case to defend it, I would like to reiterate some of my arguments. First of all, nuclear weapons is essential in the evolution of an army. Having nuclear weapons in a country would create the MAD (Mutual Assured Destruction) situation with all other countries in the world. The MAD situation allows North Korea and its people to be protected by other countries with nuclear weapons. This nuclear weapons project also creates fear in other countries, which protects itself from some lower-class countries. Also, if the American were to invade, the North Korean army would need to fight a defensive war, which was a tactic that has shown throughout the years to be an effective position in the event of a war. So this expands my argument that nuclear weapons would help South Korea in a military element. Secondly, Kim Jong-il's personality cult was not as extreme as his father's. In a sense, he has inherited his father's personality cult. This inheritance may have not been 2 way, but possibly in Kim Jong-il's defense, he had to continue the personality cult of his father in order to please his people. People have been anticipating the new successor, so Kim Jong-il had to please his people. This shows the sign of a good leader in order to act on the expectations of his own people. Additionally, foreign aid is a useful tactic that allows the government to feed its people while working on different projects that could benefit its country. Relying on foreign aid is not a bad thing, since it can prove effective in rebuilding a country. Kim Jong-il at least allowed foreign aid to come in, rather than not issue it at all. That decision at the very least shows good leadership. In conclusion, your arguments are strong, but they are missing some reliable sources, making them useless unless they are fixed straight away. Not having original argument of your own allows me to win this debate by only defending my own case and not focus on your arguments. And finally, if you interpret actions in another way, you can see that Kim Jong-il's tactics were necessary and proper for his country as a whole. Sources: The ones from my first argument