Missile Defense

Con states, "So a missile defense system has zero ability to save lives and plenty of ability to blow us all up. " He says that this is because there would be other ways for terrorists and other threats to launch an attack, say via ships. While there is some merit to his claim, it does not effectively argue any of my points. Moreover, consider the fact that heart disease is the leading cause of death for women. Does that mean that women shouldn't take steps to prevent or treat breast cancer, simply because it is more likely that they will die from heart disease? No. Taking measures to prevent attacks that are large scale and entirely plausible (as I have outlined in Round 1) is both the government's right and responsibility, especially if they have the power to deter an attack and make citizens feel secure. Con has not argued otherwise in a competent and effective way. Next my opponent has attempted to depict me as a xenophobic communist. He uses the Personal Attack fallacy to falsely present his ideology, even mentioning my beliefs regarding a deity in order to attack my arguments in this debate. A personal attack is committed when a person substitutes abusive remarks for evidence when attacking another person's claim or claims. This line of "reasoning" is fallacious because the attack is directed at the person making the claim and not the claim itself. The truth value of a claim is independent of the person making the claim. After all, no matter how repugnant an individual might be, he or she can still make true claims. Thus, claiming that I am intolerant of people unlike myself is not only a blatant lie, but entirely irrelevant to this debate. I've already noted that I could argue this position from either the Pro or the Con side. To me, this debate is rooted in sport and competition - who can make the better arguments - not necessarily what I find to be morally appropriate. That said, Con continues to say that the government merely tries to instigate fear against anyone different. To an extent, I agree. And furthermore, mentioning the Military Industrial Complex was appropriate on the part of Con. However, merely name-dropping a term without at least defining it, let alone using it to argue against any of my 8 contentions, means that his weak arguments do not stand. You have to defend your claims; Con didn't. Furthermore, Con went so far as to argue against the existence of government and weapons in general. I strongly oppose the notion that the government should be eliminated (which is apparently his response to my Role of Government argument? ) due to my other point: the Social Contract Theory. What's funny is that Con notes, "The remainder of my opponent's arguments could as easily be from an anarchist point of view," when really he is the one making claims such as, "If we didn't have governments we wouldn't have any of the problems my opponent is afraid of, especially fear itself. " It seems to me that Con is not making any type of cohesive or consistent arguments whatsoever. Additionally, Con does not know how to properly form an argument. For instance, he states, "The benefits of scientific advancement from going to the Moon or Mars would far outweigh those of studying war if they were not trying to use space for military purposes also. " I can simply say Nay - I negate that - and this claim would have no merit, as it is not backed up by any facts, logic, reasoning or analysis.