9/11 conspiracy theory

1. My opponent failed to address that I mentioned that this was "the government's scale of things." A nation is just as careless as a whole if the example is not strong enough. This example was. And yes, it was a huge loss, but it is logical because such a loss is needed to spread the true nature of things. And considering there are still many careless people who try to bring explosives on planes and such other disastrous incidents, this wasn't quite enough. Con cannot make the argument that this was too much put into an example for the entire nations. We can think about utilitarianism here, which is the greatest good for the greatest amount of people. Instead of caring for the few on the planes compared to the entire nation, it (if it was indeed an example) a very good idea in that it set out whole nation into a defensive mindset which therefore protects us better. 2. Americans as a whole are EXTREMELY patriotic. Con seems to be pointing out that many of us hate our country, but I would like to point out that this is completely false. Many Americans who enlist in the war know that there is an extremely high chance of them being killed. It is war, just because they are trained well, know that there is still this extremely high chance. They are not only trained in combat, but in the mindset that they might die. This mindset prepares them to be as patriotic as possible. There is no draft now, therefore, all of the people enlisting either want to or have to for some reason. Even this being the case, the general point is that Americans are so much more patriotic than Con claims. In fact, because of this fact, there are tons of websites like USA-Patriotism.com where people can view history and talk about it and express their love for the country. 3. You can cross-apply my first argument that there needs to be an extreme example to convince an entire country, as opposed to a high school. Close-calls do not always get the message across. It instead convinces the people that close-calls will always be taken account for. Because of this they will always assume that terrorism will never be a problem. Not onto the real case: C1. I did not answer the holes in my theory is what Con claims. Con did not present any holes that I did not account for, so this point will be thrown out. Con claims that there are other holes that I did not address, yet he did not point them out, therefore assuming that I believe there are other issues. Because this is not the case, I have nothing to argue further in this point. C2. a. Why would the government blame this act on a terrorist who was living in Afghanistan so they could invade Iraq two years later for oil, is essentially what Con tries to ask me. If this theory is true, then it was easier to blame a terrorist on the actions because it would have been an example of a terrorist attack. Therefore, blaming a terrorist is completely logical. C2. b. i. Apparently, according to Con, it is a fact that we blamed Bin Ladin so we could attack Afghanistan and invade Iraq. This is completely false. This was obviously not the intention of the government. Con needs to look up on his history before he can make this argument because it is not true that we "invaded" because of Con's reasoning. C2. b. ii. I'll have to run a kritik on Con here for being racist against those who live in the country of Afghanistan. This will provide the conduct vote to Pro. "One of the most barren worthless countries in the world." By calling the country worthless, you call all of the people in that country worthless. This is a racist remark, and immediately urges a Conduct vote to Pro because of the nature of this comment. C2. c. I argued semantics, which Con did not understand entirely. In this contention, Con claims that I just tried to prove the theory is an actual idea. Yes, this is what I was doing, but I also made points to verify the theory as well. Semantics are arguments that attack the wording of the resolution. This was my intention, and exactly what I did. If I do not win on the three points above, I still win on my semantics argument that the 9/11 conspiracy theory exists. If I don't win on this subpoint, I now win on this contention due to the kritik alone.