TT2 Expert Final: U.S. militia groups pose a greater threat to our national security than do FTOs

First and foremost, I'd like to congratulate bsh1 on making it this far in the tournament. Much as he has achieved this before, and even won before, I think it's a massive achievement with all of the fantastic competition we've had. Second, I am again honored to be debating a venerated veteran of the site. I have a lot of respect for bsh1 and his debating prowess, something I know he'll bring in spades to this debate. I hope I am up to the challenge, but most importantly, no matter how this ends, I hope to make this debate one to remember. With that, let's take a look at the topic and build the standard upon which this debate should proceed. The full topic, as written by bsh1 (and thanks to him for the suggestion) is: "Militia groups within the United States pose a greater threat to our national security than do foreign terrorist organizations." I will provide the necessary definitions. Militia group: This seems best defined on Wikipedia: "a group organized for the stated purpose of defending its rights and property against a tyrannical government." In this case, these groups would be founded and based in the U.S., and be engaging in paramilitary actions that threaten the security of those in the U.S. in the process. http://en.wikipedia.org... For an accurate, if a tad out of date, listing of all militia groups compiled in 2013, the Southern Poverty Law Center provides an extensive list, with all 240 militia groups marked with an asterisk. http://www.splcenter.org... Greater threat: Greater means increased by comparison, threat means being a likely cause of damage or danger. More on this as I get into our burdens. National security: Let's go with dictionary.com: "a collective term for the defense and foreign relations of a country, protection of the interests of a country." In this case, the focus is mainly on defense of a nation's interests, which means physical protection of its people and property. http://dictionary.reference.com... Foreign terrorist organizations (FTOs): Defining this can be somewhat nebulous. Best to go by the definition provided by the FBI for international terrorism: "Involve violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that violate federal or state law; Appear to be intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and Occur primarily outside the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S., or transcend national boundaries in terms of the means by which they are accomplished, the persons they appear intended to intimidate or coerce, or the locale in which their perpetrators operate or seek asylum." So any group that fits these definitions could be considered a terrorist organization by U.S. standards, though for the purposes of this debate, they must fit this definition and specifically be a credible threat to the U.S. itself. http://www.fbi.gov... To apply the definition most specifically and reasonably, I think we should have an accurate list detailing who is viewed by he U.S. government as an FTO. Hence, this list from the Department of State will serve as the main determinant for whether a group fits this definition adequately, though any probable additions would also be included. http://www.state.gov... As for the burden of proof, I'm going to make this as fair as possible and set the burden at entirely equal. It is my burden to show that FTOs present a larger threat to national security, as it is Pro's burden to show that U.S. militia groups present the larger threat. In the unlikely event that the two appear to present the same threat, I would advocate for a tie rather than for the vote to go to me. I feel that is the most equitable way to handle this debate. This is a fact debate (as neither of us is presenting a policy, nor are we arguing a value), which means it will be won by whichever one of us presents sufficient evidence/warrants to show that the threat is larger on our side of the debate. It is worth recognizing that it is neither of our burdens to show that the side we are arguing against presents no threat whatsoever; our burdens are to compare the dangers of the two, and weigh them against each other, knowing that both present obvious dangers. The structure of the debate will be as follows: R1: Acceptance, clarifications R2: Opening arguments R3: Rebuttals R4: Rebuttals R5: Rebuttals and conclusions With that, I eagerly await my opponent's acceptance, and encourage him to clarify anything that is unclear at this stage.