It is morally justified to purge, (annihilate) a city with a level 4 infection outbreak.

I thank the con for posting his response. I would first like to address the resolution and how i stay true to it through out the debate. My opponent says that i have somehow dropped the format of the debate, also dropping arguments and having a messy case, etc. We are arguing that RESOLVED: It is morally justified to purge, (annihilate) a city with a level 4 infection outbreak. We can assume that my BoP is that doing this action is morally acceptable, simple enough. Now by examining my case we can also see that i meet my burden. I effectively prove from a teleological standpoint that we are saving more lives. I stay within the resolution. Now onto conceding/having a messy case. By looking at the round 2 posting, i specifically picked apart and attacked each point of my opponents case, also restructuring my own. By saying i dropped some arguments tells me that if anything, he hasn't read my round 2 posting thoroughly enough. Again on the point of me having a "Messy" Case. However i am confused. I attacked each part of his case in order, and had no text wall. Ultimately i just have to say that this is just a rude attack in general with no warrant. First he says that i conceded that some of the diseases i mentioned have been eradicated. Now i did agree that for the most part that smallpox has been eradicated. However it is the only disease we have managed to eradicate thus far. He also states that "The Ebola drug has only been tested on monkeys, but it was used on a human [1] successfully as a last result." If you scroll up to his first round constructive you will notice that the "but it was used on a human [1] successfully as a last result." was never in his case. Not only is it a new argument that should be overlooked he provides no evidence showing how it has worked on a human. He states that i assume that these diseases are magical and can defy quarantine, however i only state that an attempted quarantining would increase the chance of it getting outside. He over-exaggerates my claims and is mostly just rude on that account. You can cross-apply this argument to his Defense Proposal and MC arguments. His argument about the utilitarianism of lives states that not everyone in the city is infected so i will kill more people than i save. However he dropped my argument about disease spreading outside the city. Even if there is a quarantine, mistakes can be made. And these mentioned diseases are very flexible in their ways of travel. He dropped my arguments about how we would be throwing money away by quarantining, and also dropped my argument on how it is immoral to make people suffer horrendous deaths. The following are statements from the con. "Back Plague argument is dropped. Because of advances in technology, it is virtually impossible for another outbreak like this. Pro cities the Spanish Flu, but this outbreak occurred in 1918, before the methods I suggested were discovered [6]. Influenza is not even a Level 4 Biohazard, the problem was poor public health measures and not infectiousness [7]." "Natural rights dropped. If we think people have a right to life my position is automatically more moral than Pro's. It is more utilitarian anyway." Wait a minute....if i cited an example and then argued about something, did i drop it? Of course not. I supplied efficient attacks/arguments for everything. I don't have to give you an example just read my case. However since my opponent simply said "dropped", that means he didn't attack my argument on natural rights. Which means that in the end, he was the one who dropped it. My opponent states that i do not understand these diseases and they are not as potent as i described. He provides absolutely no evidence for his claims that these diseases are not that potent. Final statement by the con. "Pro doesn't even understand his own resolution. He says it isn't about ethics (despite the fact that the resolution says it is) and then that he's arguing from teleology, which he doesn't bother to justify. Pro's whole argument is just an unorganized mess of assertions without no moral arguments or references to real science, which makes it hard to even debate." When did i say it wasn't about ethics? All in all this is a false claim. Also, my moral arguments are based around how we shouldn't make the infected people suffer, and protecting people outside the infection zone. Voting Issues 1: Drops Dropped my natural rights argument. "My opponents way of controlling the outbreak only delays the inevitable and brings even more pain among the infected who have to go through the horrific stages of the disease. It is morally justified to put these innocent people out of there misery, then make them suffer for nothing, which is what will happen by trying to quarantine the city." Dropped my throwing money away argument. "Next my opponent argues that thermobaric weapons are too expensive, and not that effective. However the alternative is not as cost effective. Quarantining, and treating infected citizens is only delaying the inevitable. The disease is incurable at this point in our medical knowledge, and in the end quarantining and an attempted treatment is literally just throwing money away. Also the longer we try to quarantine the much larger risk of the disease escaping the city will be. As it is not limited in it's ways of traveling." Dropped my military argument. He states that "Pro cites other US atrocities and notes that such things have been done before. However, eradicating a domestic city would elicit a much stronger response than dropping herbicide on a foreign country." Doesn't refute my attack only stems out to say it would create a large reaction. In the end, the main point was ignored. Drops argument on how disease could potentially slip through quarantine. Tries to justify by saying that diseases are not magical. However neither is quarantine. And there is always room for mistakes as we humans are imperfect. 2: Fallacious claims By reading my opponents case you will notice he throws out several false statements about my case. Whether it is saying i dropped something that i really didn't. or saying i said something that i really didn't. (Look at arguments above). 3: "Assumptions" My opponent often rudely states how i think that these diseases are magical and can get through quarantine. However i only argue about the risk we are taking. My opponent shows terrible conduct throughout the round. My case was basically misconstrued. 4: Conduct My opponent often arbitrarily calls my case a mess, and makes untrue statements about my case. Conduct in the end has to go to the Pro. 5: Impact Calculus The impact in my case is that in the end by not purging the city, we are risking way more human lives. My opponents main impact is to protect those that are not infected. In the end i solve for the end of infected people's suffering and i end the spread right there. I now give it to the con.