"Conspiracy Theory" is, in most contexts, a Thought-Terminating Cliché.

My opponent agrees that conspiracies can and do happen (C1). So we have some common ground to work with, this is good, because as we're going to see he has made a crucial mistake in understanding my second contention (C2). As such, he has essentially, and perhaps accidentally, argued against a Straw-Man version of my initial argument, and in some cases this has actually caused him to argue for my initial position.C2: Confirmation Bias and the need to quell (i.e. quiet, decrease, remove) Cognitive Dissonance.Now, to be fair I'm simply going to elaborate on my previous position here so Con will have a chance to come back and argue against it more accurately, in the next round. I think that if Con and the voters read through both sides of round 2, then they will be able to see what I mean.[1] Cognitive Dissonance: Cognitive dissonance is a mental discomfort that increases as the weights of opposing evidence approaches the same magnitude. For instance, say you had two pieces of evidence that bear equal weight on the truth about a particular situation, however, one piece points to one solution, and the other points to another, equally plausible but opposite, solution. This would be the case where you have the highest potential cognitive dissonance. It may be more severe with the types of situations that both my opponent and I have mentioned. This would most likely be because with the advent of the Internet, the evidence against the established order of things is finally given a fair chance to be considered by the common people. This is good, but it presents its own difficulties. It means that the new, opposing evidence weighs against the old, entrenched and traditional evidence. The tremendous combined weights of these sets of information creates a lot of cognitive dissonance in the population.[2] Confirmation Bias: Confirmation Bias is a psychological tendency that "protects" us from cognitive dissonance. We have a drive-like need to remove or decrease cognitive dissonance as soon as possible, much like hunger or thirst. So, imagine that you are a "blank slate," and then you obtain one piece of information. You will go on acquiring pieces of information, most of which will be irrelevant to each other (i.e. "the sky is blue" and "I'm a male.") However, the possibility that you will come across information that is dissonant to what you already hold in mind exists. As such, confirmation bias compels us to "build up" information in mind that is consonant (i.e. agrees with, confirms) to what we already believe or what we want to believe. This is so the weight of this evidence will eventually be able to outweigh any opposing (dissonant) information we come across. However, there will still be some cognitive dissonance, and in some cases, especially today, we can not avoid cognitive dissonance as easily as we would like to. In other words, confirmation bias is becoming a little outdated. We, being stubborn beings, therefore have found new ways to adapt and defend against cognitive dissonance. This is not necessarily a good thing, because people with a high tolerance for it are particularly creative and intelligent. Most people, however, do not have such a high tolerance, and therefore use other contemporary methods, besides their own confirmation bias, to decrease it or remove it whenever possible. The most relevant such method here is the thought-terminating cliché (TTC.)[3] Thought-Terminating Clichés:The fundamental error my opponent has made in his rebuttal is to argue that TTCs, especially "conspiracy theory," do not create cognitive dissonance. The problem is, I never said that they did. My position was precisely the opposite from the beginning, and still is. This is why his rebuttal was mostly a straw-man.*The very definition I provided in the challenge for TTCs said that that they functioned to ease, remove, quiet, or decrease dissonance, not create it. I argued in the first round that the phrase "conspiracy theory" was used by both sides of any issue in this exact manner.*To clarify, let me explain more in depth how this might play out on either side of any issue.Pro-Conspiracy: I have information for X conspiracy. The news is presenting information against conspiracy X. I already believed conspiracy X. Therefore, my confirmation bias makes me favor conspiracy X's existence. However, at present, the objective evidence bears equal weight on both sides, thus I am experiencing cognitive dissonance. I then hear someone on a talk show call the evidence for X a "conspiracy theory." My cognitive dissonance is removed, because the phrase is a TTC that makes me default to my confirmation bias. I then spend hours on the Internet researching the Illuminati and Rothschilds, thus entrenching my belief in conspiracy X further.Con-Conspiracy: I have information for Y conspiracy. The news is presenting information against conspiracy Y. I already disbelieved conspiracy Y. Therefore, my confirmation bias makes me favor conspiracy Y's non-existence. However, at present, the objective evidence bears equal weight on both sides, thus I am experiencing cognitive dissonance. I then hear someone on a talk show call the evidence for Y a "conspiracy theory." My cognitive dissonance is removed, because the phrase is a TTC that makes me default to my confirmation bias. I then spend hours on the Internet reading conservative opinion articles and posting patriotic quotes on Facebook, thus entrenching my disbelief in conspiracy Y further.These are the extremes, but most people would fit nearer to one end of the spectrum, rather than in the middle, and thus a similar model might be made for them.C3: Entrenchment of Biases.My opponent and I agree that the entrenchment of biases is immediately harmful in any social context. We disagree however, about whether there is such a polarity around the phrase "conspiracy theory" and the events labeled as such.His argument here is also somewhat of a strawman as I never argued for or against conspiracy theories themselves, but only argued that at present, the phrase is used by both sides of an issue to quiet their own cognitive dissonance in light of opposing evidence.We can see the polarity exists because of the simultaneous increases in both conservative, nationalistic thought that does little to question authority or institutions, and radical, revolutionary thought that does little to see any good in those authorities and institutions. e.g. The "Truther" movement, Zeitgeist, Occupy, and others are currently opposed to conservative, patriotic Americans and other Westerners who believe that they did the right thing based on the truth (in regards to Afghanistan and Iraq.) My contention here was that the use of the phrase "conspiracy theory" on both sides serves as a TTC that removes cognitive dissonance by causing either party to default to their confirmation bias.In neither case does the majority of either group rationally weigh objective evidence, especially when TTCs such as "Conspiracy Theory" are used as an excuse to avoid the discomfort of cognitive dissonance, and therefore relinquish one's own responsibility to come up with original, creative, and constructive solutions (i.e. think.)[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...[3] http://en.wikipedia.org...