With John McCain, the highest chance of World War III will be upon us.

What is so extremely frustrating with reading your arguments over again is that it's clear that you haven't read my arguments. You make several claims that I don't address the issues when you have challenged me on them, which is simply a lie. Either you are intentionally lying or are mistaken. Because of that you are still using faulty reasoning and coming up with invalid conclusions. I will address all of them. You may go back and check if you wish. I highly encourage all the readers of this debate to double check as well, skim if you had just read the previous rounds in this same sitting. My opponent claims that the arguments have been "spread out so quickly" that each argument holds any weight. Each argument that I broke down was in response to his and was properly addressing his "points" It may be HIS points that don't hold much weight and because of me showing that, I could see why he wouldn't want to talk about them. Here are a few of them. Foremost, he says that I haven't explained about who is a greater chance. That is untrue, I stated TWICE in my last post about what I called the "peg argument". The entire power grabbing game in Europe and Asia and later the rest of the world, started while the United States was isolationist. Long before John McCain came into the picture. Any action that John McCain is taking is because he has proper foresight and knows exactly what the situation is between the nations of the world and their interaction with each other and the United States, which I will show a in the next few paragraphs. Also, as I pointed out in my last post concerning Iran, Israel would attack Iran (which my opponent claims will start WWIII), long before they get a permission slip from the U.S. or the U.N. My opponent said that McCain is making false assumptions on Iran. I proved this point in the last argument; I don't think my opponent read the article. If you're willing to take my word for it, I can summarize it for you; otherwise you can check it out yourself. It says that Iran does indeed have nuclear weapons and that it has been PROVEN that they are hiding them and have done so before. Not to mention what President Achmednijad has said about Israel going to be wiped off the planet and the true holocaust has yet to happen. My opponent somehow believes that a man of this nature would simply tell us that he is making them and not hide them. It's even more outrageous that my opponent believes that he is using them for negotiation purposes. Someone who wants to destroy the Holy Land is not trying to negotiate; no one in their right mind can buy that one. My opponent thinks its right to criticize John McCain because he doesn't want to keep talking with Iran. I say keep talking because, as again my opponent has faulted to note in my last post is that there have been diplomatic talks going on with Iran. Incentives to withdraw the nuclear enrichment and THREE economic sanctions worth of diplomacy. How much more talking is there? I have shown how McCain does know what is going on in the world and Obama doesn't have the courage to stand up to terrorist government organizations. McCain wants to stop Achmedinjiad; Obama wants to whine about it. If it has been proven that Achmedinijad is making weapons and would use them for more than just "negotiation purposes" then wouldn't it be safer to have someone like John McCain preventing that from happening instead of someone who would allow it. Sounds like Obama might be the greatest threat in that case considering that more "diplomacy" would allow Iran to try and hit Israel forcing the rest of the world to intervene causing WWIII. I would also like to not that I had explained in my second post that the Cold War was the closest we have ever gotten to WWIII, that was in response to when he made the claim that John McCain poses the largest threat in HISTORY. You need weapons building for a Cold War. McCain wants to stop amassing of weapons for Iran. Looks like McCain is trying to prevent the conditions for another World War. John McCain was also right with Iraq, something in my sources that my opponent didn't read. The sales numbers clearly show that we gave Saddam the capabilities of making weapons of mass destruction. He didn't have them built in the sense of what people think when they hear "weapons"; we can thank sanctions on that. But trade was encouraged with Iraq after the fall of the Soviets and selling deadly gasses and toxins was one of the results. Investigators have found these chemicals and if the Sanctions were removed, Saddam would have used those chemicals to make WMD's. Weapons inspectors, who were fooled as my opponent incorrectly asserts, explained later how they were given so much useless information that they could tell was being given to them to distract them. Aerial photos, similar to that taken in Cuba during the Cold war, confirmed the weapons supply cache, and further investigations found the chemicals that we and several European nations gave Saddam. McCain YET AGAIN has proven to be right and continuing with this policy is preventing other countries from holding deadly arsenals of weapons, something that would prevent WWIII. With this proper foresight that I have repeatedly shown McCain has, we can be damn well certain that he is going to war because he believes that the country is in danger and that it is on our best interests. My opponent thinks that because McCain mentions war when he despises it means he is being hypocritical. McCain knows what war is like and not wanting to go to war without substantial reasoning, which he knows how to find and is aware of in the current stage of events, he wouldn't subject anyone to that unless it was totally necessary. He is more careful and would remain peace time if international ties would call for it. My opponent also hasn't been able to refute my comment about McCain not causing copious amounts of death. I explained previously that with the precision bombing techniques of GPS and lasers, only the targets get hit and not civilians. This makes sense considering that civilians are dying from IEDs planed by insurgents. Not only would McCain be careful with when to bomb, he wouldn't cause undue loss in human life when bombing did occur. If you think that McCain is too much like Bush, let's just look at the timetable that Bush signed a few weeks ago. The first timetable that he has ever signed for Iraq because he always claimed that the timetable would give the terrorists notification of how long to wait out U.S. occupancy. The full withdrawal date is June 30, 2011. If you want to claim that McCain is following too closely to Bush's policies, then you can be assured that we will be out of Iraq before his first term is over. Obama wants us out completely long before then and before we can finish the job which I outlined in my first argument of finishing establishing the peaceful government bureaucracy there, which is nearly complete. If we left before that, we might have to head back into Iraq to try to fix things and cause more global distrust. Obama again, more capable of bringing us into the third world war. My opponent tried showing me in the Second round that he didn't have the burden of proof, and now he says that I do? I think that says something about the arguments that he makes. The idea that we are debating this tells us that it's in question whether you think that he is a war monger. My opponent brought this to the table, which tells us that this isn't a predominantly accepted viewpoint and that he certainly does have the burden of proof, something that he has not done. Ladies and Gentleman,if you must please re-read the arguments that I make because my opponent claims that I haven't refuted his arguments when in fact I have and it is him that has failed to show after my reasoning how his argument holds any water at all and aren't really fake