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

I will begin with an underview of the debate thus forth. I began with setting the framework for this debate by stating that my opponent must prove two things to be true beyond a reasonable doubt. It is apparent that this framework has been accepted by the instigator; but only to a certain extent. First and foremost, I would ask the reader to extend my second part(B) of the framework for this debate, stating: In order for SoutherngentFL to win this debate, he must also prove that "Those who state otherwise are either misinformed or Intentional prevaricators." My opponent asks you to disregard this HALF of the debate because he plans to win this debate "without parsing words." My hope is that the honest reader will not fall prey to this move that is obviously detrimental to the education of this debate. 1. The instigator has the ability to create the framework for the debate and what is to be argued and what should be left aside. 2. ABUSE-The fact that the instigator decides that my arguments have no merit because they pay attention to detail is ridiculous. The challenger of any debate has but one thing to go off of and that is the first speech. As such, I believe that it is abusive to the challenger to have their arguments disregarded after no reasoning besides a hope that the "honest reader" will see factual validation of his proposition. 3. At the very point where the challenger is not allowed to pay attention to detail is the point where the debate has lost all of its merit. Both sides must have equal ground to represent. 4. The reader should vote Con at this very point due to lack of education coming out of this round. Maybe you are as disappointed as I am. Moving on, Back to the first part of the framework of this debate(A), to prove that Weapons of Mass Destruction were found in Iraq before, during, and after Operation Iraqi Freedom. 1. I find it odd that my opponent spent most of his time to merely explain what a WMD is. Nevertheless, it is a fair introduction and a valid point to make. I will accept this definition as concrete as well as authoritative. And to be clear, I believe this definition is about all his speech has provided. 2. ABUSE-The instigator has given no proof of an WMD's at this point. The Pro has set out a task. However, my opponent has not attempted to prove that WMD's exist in Iraq in any manner. If this is the task of the Pro team...what am I supposed to be debating right now? 3. Given the fact that I cannot debate the merits of whether or not there were or are WMD's in Iraq, I will now pay attention to the last part of the task: to prove that we will find WMD's in the future. Yes, Operation Iraqi Freedom has not ended and I will remind the reader that it is the duty of the instigator to prove that we will find WMD's even after the war is over. (We must lose, huh?) I am looking forward to any proof of the aforementioned task of the instigator. Now, to move on to my arguments about misinformed people and Intentional prevaricators. 1. I would beg the reader to pay close attention to this part of the debate, seeing as it has been dropped by the instigator but is still an argument that holds a great deal of weight in this round. You see, even at the very point that the instigator is able to prove that there were WMD's in Iraq BEFORE, DURING, and AFTER Operation Iraqi Freedom, he must still answer to the fact that he is generalizing a group of people as being misinformed and more notably, "Intentional prevaricators". I don't know about the reader, but I don't take it lightly when someone calls me a liar. Given my stance in this debate, the instigator would surely deem me as being a misinformed person or a liar; either of which I do not see as being remotely true. 2. Keep in mind my arguments about people who compulsively lie and have pathological disorders. They might lie uncontrollably. This is certainly a valid point which I see fit to bring up given the fact that the instigator has given no reason as to why not. At this point in the debate, I would like to point out that my opponent has not proven a single bit of information holding weight in this debate. A mistake was made by spending too much time on a less important issue upon which I agree and completely dropping a valid argument brought forth by the challenger.