Resolved: The NSA should disclose zero day vunerabilities to relevant vendors

It seems that my opponent has unfortunately forfeited the chance for rebuttal. I will go ahead present mine and be looking to Pro response in the conclusion final round. Pro "These vulnerabilities compromise the cyber security of the US. Every second these potential breaches in our security go without action the risk of a cyber attack becomes more likely." My rebuttal as Con Vulnerabilities as in plural meaning beyond zero-days seem to me out of scope of this subject. There is a fine difference between zero-day and vulnerabilities of human stupidity, poor firewall configuration, disgruntle employees, etc". Those are vulnerabilities that compromise the cyber-security of US. Zero-days has low probability threat as I mentioned in my arguments, where Pro forfeited the rebuttal session. Again, there is a difference between compromise and Zero-day. Zero-day are commonly describe as "potentials" because it can happen, but most of the time it doesn"t. By fixing the vulnerability, it strengthens the security of the Internet against all attackers: other countries, criminals, and hackers. Wait, what strengthen the security of the internet against other countries, criminal, and hackers? Are countries, criminal, and hackers trying to harm and break the Internet itself? Countries and hackers are totally relying on the Internet. Ethical hackers are probably heavily relying on the Internet to make a living. Malicious hackers are relying on the Internet to break into computer remotely, and I am totally relying on the Internet to participate on this debate. Breaking the Internet by 2 groups of hackers is like a taxi man burning his own car. Pro "....the vulnerability becoming public and criminals starting to use." My rebuttal as Con OK.... When a product or service is in the market and are sold on the market, in it's simplest and purest explanation is accessible to the public. Zero-day vulnerability has HUGE market for anybody to purchase, especially our trustee vendors (this info is included in my argument references [3]). Who definitely should. Pro "Another source suggests that disclosing zero days and allowing them to be patched allows for a better, and more protected Internet." My rebuttal as Con Seems like source has oversimplify the writing on complex topic of technology. Now if this is so. if my household of 20 computers don"t update my software for 3 years where computer is filled with zero-days than 'The Internet' will be extremely slow as dial-up, eventually break, and die. Even if, I assumed 50,000 zero-days vulnerable computers are online now somewhere around the world which is very likely, I can tell you the Internet will still work, it's working. For the love TCP?IP, I am still running XP and Win7 box, not-patch, with probably lots of zero-days on my network and holy smokes my Internet still works. My point is: Zero-day exploit is not about protecting the Internet is about shutting access to computers whether they hold valuable data or not and whether it can access to control something of create value or not. Looking forward to seeing you in the final round and hope all is well Pro, cheers :).