Resolved: Failed Nations pose a greater threat to the US than stable nations

I would like to begin by refuting my opponent's case, then move on to rebuild my own. I will begin by attacking my opponent's defintions. Firstly, my opponent stated that the definition of a failed state is one in which is in a state of anarchy or is on the verge of falling into anarchy. However, this is a completely faulty definition for multiple reasons. For one, my opponent has no source for this definition. He could basically be making up whatever his heart desires as a biased way to support his own argument. Secondly, this would mean that though every single citizen in a country is dying of starvation and living off of nothing, just because this nation has a totalitarian form of government, it is a stable nation, which is completely illogical. Thirdly, while communism is seen to be the ideal form of government, in fact, true anarchy (order in anarchy) is the absolute ideal form of government. As stated by Henry David Theoreau in Civil Disobedience, "That government is best which governs least"; and I should like to see it acted up to more rapidly and systematically. Carried out, it finally amounts to this, which also I believe, — "That government is best which governs not at all"; and when men are prepared for it, that will be the kind of government which they will have." With my opponent's definition of a failed nation as a nation in which is in a state of anarchy, any country that is acheiving the true sense of anarchy is a failed nation. Either way, the definition I provided in my opening speech has a source and is the basis in which nations are ranked from failed to stable by the Failed States Index, which is the most reliable source for the categorization of nations from failed to stable. Secondly, my opponent once again "pick and choose"s his definitions by categorizing North Korean and Iran as a completely different title of a "rogue state" and though these countries may fit his definition of a rogue state, these nations also fit the definition of a failed nation as I stated in my opening speech. And not only are these nations failed, but they are some of the worst failing countries in the world, with North Korea being #17 in most failed nation and Iran being #35. I will now move on to attack my opponent's points. In refutation to my point that their first contention does not solely apply to stable nations, my opponent stated that North Korea was unsuccessful and there are hundreds of Chinese and Russian bots currently in military systems. However, not only are China and Russia not counted as stable nations by the Failed States Index (both are warning/critical), but judging from the fact that the cyber infrastructure of the United States and its military haven't collapsed yet into mass hacking havoc, these Chinese and Russian attacks haven't worked either. My opponent is giving situations in which the United States, a country with ridiculously advanced military and technology resources, isn't capable of combating cyber threats. If these countries, whether stable or failed, are attacking us in cyberspace and haven't succeeded yet, this only proves that these threats are unimportant because the United States is able to combat them so easily. My opponent also keeps with his speculative situations of China and its possible impact on the economy. However, with globalization, something called "utter mutual annihilation" has come up in world economies. The debt that the United States has to China (which isn't only with China, the United States and many other countries have debts to one another, it's an unquestionable fact of global economy) shows how dependent the United States and China are to one another. If China were to decide on a whim to force the United States to pay back all the money they owe, the United States would lead to a depression, which would also lead China, a country whose economy is dependent on profit from exports to the United States, going through an equal, or worse depression. I will now move on to attack my opponent's refutations. As to my opponent's first retutation, just as I stated earlier, his "revised definition"s do not hold any water. These are definitions that he himself have decided on, these are not the same as definitions defined by large research organizations, such as The Fund for Peace, and have an infinitesimal amount of reliability to them. With the mentality my opponent is using by providing with his own definitions made by his own biased opinion, I am basically allowed to say that a "failed nation" is a nation in which the cat to person ratio is less than 1, which makes absolutely no sense, but hey! I think it's right so who cares what anyone else says? As to my opponent's second refutation, yes, Nazi Germany was a larger military threat once it became a "stable" nation and obtained more military resources. However, the contention states that failed nations are more susceptible to influence by extremist leaders. Pre-WW2/post-WW1 Germany was completely unstable: its economy was failing, its government was nonexistent and its citizens were desperate for a Plan B, which is why Adolf Hitler so easily came into power and manipulated the minds of the Germans into believing that the Western World was the reason as to why Germany was in such a great economic depression, therefore they must gain revenge on the Western World (and somehow Jews). If Germany had been stable at the time, these people wouldn't have been desperate for a crazy extremist leader such as Hitler. He also stated that my Taliban/al Queda/9/11 example was not valid since firstly, Afghanistan is a stable nation in his opinion, and there were no Afghan citizens who took part in the 9/11 hijackings. However, first of all, Afghanistan is the #7 most failed nation according to the Failed States Index of 2009, therefore it is one of the worst failed nations. Though my opponent may argue that in HIS definition, Afghanistan is not a failed nation, again, I must highlight that this is my opponent's OPINION. Second, while the 9/11 hijackers weren't Afghans, Afghanistan (and other failed nations) provide a training and breeding grounds for terrorist groups such as al Queda. The fact that these people weren't native born Afghanis only further proves my point that FAILED nations provide a home for terrorists that stable nations can not. If these terrorists were mostly from Saudi Arabia, then why is the Al Queda based in Afghanistan? Because the extremist beliefs of Al Queda wouldn't be accepted in a stable nation such as Saudi Arabia. What this debate comes down to is whether you would like to say that stable nations, which are defined by the CON in possibly (if not probably) biased terms, and their small, speculative threats that are threats posed by both failed and stable nations are a larger threat to the United States than the extreme and current military threat failed nations such as Afghanistan and North Korea are presenting to the United States right now. P.S. "CON" is a title for the con side.