Thos who say "no WMD were found in Iraq are either Misinformed, or Prevaricators

Very interesting topic. SoutherngentFL contends that "there WERE WMD found before, during and after Operation Iraqi Freedom. Those who state otherwise are either misinformed or Intentional prevaricators." I will begin by laying the Framework for this debate: A. In order for SoutherngentFL to win this debate, he must prove that "there WERE WMD found before, during and after Operation Iraqi Freedom." -I will note that at this point in the debate, this has not been proven. B. In order for SoutherngentFL to win this debate, he must also prove that "Those who state otherwise are either misinformed or Intentional prevaricators." -I will note that at this point in the debate, this has not been proven. My duty as Con in this debate round will be to prove one or more of SoutherngentFL's statements to be incorrect or not completely true. If I am able to do so, I should win the debate. If I cannot prove this, SoutherngentFL will be the victor. Let the argumentation begin: A. WMD's in Iraq 1. My first argument is that the Pro debater holds the burden of proof. This is because of the fact that the majority of Americans believe that no WMD's were found in Iraq (http://www.harrisinteractive.com...). Therefore, the Pro debater must prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that WMD's were found in Iraq. 2. Given that the Pro debater holds the burden of proof, it is also necessary that SoutherngentFL prove that WMD's were found "BEFORE,DURING AND AFTER" (Where's the oxford comma!?!?!) Operation Iraqi Freedom. If SoutherngentFL cannot hold all three of these conditions to be true, he does not win this debate round because of a failed attempt to meet his duty as the Pro debater in this debate round. -I will stop on the WMD's for now because I believe that I have given SoutherngentFL a reasonable framework in which to debate. If SoutherngentFL does not agree with the aforementioned framework, the reader should expect reasons why from SoutherngentFL. NOTE: Point B should only be considered if SoutherngentFL is able to prove the that "WMD found before, during and after Operation Iraqi Freedom." B. Misinformed people and intentional prevaricators 1. First, I will concede the fact that yes, many people may be misinformed on the subject of WMD's and the Iraq War. However, I disagree strongly with the notion that they are otherwise "Intentional prevaricators." -First, we must define prevaricators: "a person who has lied or who lies repeatedly" (http://www.answers.com...) 2. Given this definition, we are led to believe that prevaricators are liars. However, SoutherngentFL makes the mistake of saying that they are INTENTIONAL prevaricators. 3. Many people are not Intentional prevaricators. SoutherngentFL must not dismiss the fact that lying about the Iraq War could be uncontrollable. It's called pathological lying, and it is noted in this article: (http://www.wisegeek.com...) Here are some important excerpts: -"The term pathological lying essentially translates to uncontrollable lying. This can mean that a person who is suspected of pathological lying is considered to have a disease, and therefore cannot control the lying." -"It can be symptomatic of other conditions, like antisocial personality disorder, obsessive compulsive disorder (OCD) or attention deficit and hyperactivity disorder (ADHD)." I will win this debate if I can prove that it could have been possible that a person was not lying intentionally, but pathologically about WMD's in Iraq. Any of the people that were lying to SoutherngentFL could have been suffering from uncontrollable lying stemming from many pathological conditions. For example, it is perfectly reasonable that SoutherngentFL's overbearing personality backfired with a person with an antisocial personality therefore causing them to pathologically lie about there being no WMD's in Iraq when they knew otherwise. At this point I have proven that it is possible that a person saying that WMD's were not found in Iraq may not necessarily be "Intentional prevaricators." Therefore, SoutherngentFL must prove otherwise. I will stop here for now. I eagerly await SoutherngentFL's rebuttal. Thanks for the debate!