be it resolved that the national debt be repudiated

This incredulous vessel shall first reinstate all arguments made in round two and then counter all made by pro in round 3.Ignoring, or refusing to repay, debt is in and of itself ignorance of a government to the duty that they must fulfil. A government's role in a country, as I stated in round two, is to pay off the debt that they owe to not force the owed nation to engage in violent war in anger at the injustice.Also, as I stated in round two, when you take a loan from a bank, you pay it back or end up in prison (or otherwise have your furniture taken from you to make up for it). This is only possible in a place where there is a government keeping the justice in place. Since there is no particular 'world government', although the UN is very close to being one, the world has no set code of justice. Thus, there is no one to 'arrest' a country when they don't pay back debt on time and choose to ignore it, instead the only single option a nation has then is to use military force to get the money back. The reason is that democratic means of getting a debt paid back do not work if it is being repudiated buy the state which owes it (in essence they are completely refusing to repay it altogether).The final point I raised, about the inherent danger of nuclear warfare being engaged, was that it is quite likely that country's will use methods so violent as the world wars if they truly are completely ignored and refused repayment of debt (which is the exact definition of repudiation).All points were unsuccessfully rebutted. The first two being totally uncontested and ignored altogether.All that is left is to counter pro's rebuttals, re-instate my own and then to sail to victory."How much money exactly do you think Pakistan has been lending out exactly?"Though irrelevant to ask an answer shall be given. It is over $63 billion http://www.brecorder.com..."Con's claims are exactly the sort of hyperbolic nonsense that surrounds this discussion."False, offensive and unwarranted." We better do what he says or nothing short of nuclear wear and the death of humanity will result!"Pro has bowed down to his master and accepted the truth."Wow! It is exactly this sort of brazen hysteria which surrounds this issue."Absolutely, and there is good reason to be hysterically in favour of the con side of this debate for it is the hysterically correct one."Instead of a reasoned debate we get "bow down to our side, OR THE ENTIRE WORLD WILL BE ENGULFED IN A NUCLEAR HOLOCAUST"False. It was reasoned."Such outrageous assertions make one question whether anything Con says in their entire argument is true."The answer it yes."Russia and Pakistan don't even own the debt."This is so untrue. USA currently owes Russia $155.2 billion. Pakistan was a legitimate claim but irrelevant.Source: http://chartsbin.com..."Of course there are countless nations which have repudiated or are repudiating their debt through non payment in the third world."They have no choice but to repudiate it. We are speaking of countries who have the choice choosing to refuse repayment of debt."Of course people benefit from inflation, otherwise it would not occur."So idiotic I needn't explain why." Inflation benefits debtors at the expense of creditors because the debtors get to pay back creditors with money that is worth less."And therefore, they have to pay more of the money to make up for the increased conversion rate (not sh*t Sherlock). It is really a silly claim."The political class, those who are most intimately connected with the state, for example bureaucrats, politicians, companies that specialize in procurement, they all get the money first and can spend it at it's original pre-inflation value."What does this have to do with the resolution?... Oh that's right. Nothing."Taxes are terrible for the economy but this is of secondary importance."Taxes save an economy from recession. This is not even of secondary importance because IT HAS NOTHING TO DO with the debate."They[taxes] are immoral."Sure... I mean saving an economy is so immoral... Not."When you advocate that the debt not be repudiated, you are advocating that people be taxed."This is the most nonsense of pro's entire debate. They are unrelated."It is far more immoral to tax people who had nothing to do with the spending of the money, in order to repay it, than it is to simply repudiate the debt."Oh sure so not paying back what you owe someone is morally superior to doing what you have to do to pay it back *snickering emerges at the back of the class*"Con has completely failed to make an argument"I think you mean pro has.In conclusion, con wins.Con rebutted all that pro raised and countered all of pro's rebuttals successfully. Con also had all of its points 100% unsuccessfully attempted to rebut by anything other than straw-picking at 'morality' and straw manning a debate of inflation and taxes.