Benazir Bhutto Was Most Likely Killed by Pervez Musharraf

Alright. The main argument of Con, was a Topicality argument. So, the word that is causing the trouble is "by". I'll go ahead and define the word "by". By means: "through; through the act or agency of" - (All definitions are from Merriam Webster's Dictionary). Alright, so let's replace "by" in the Topic Sentence: Benazir Bhutto Was Most Likely Killed "through the act or agency of" Pervez Musharraf. The defintion of "act" is: the doing of a thing. The definition of agency is: "a person or thing through which power is exerted or an end is achieved". So let's put it all together: Benazir Bhutto Was Most Likely Killed 'through the "doing of a thing" or "a person or thing through which power is exerted or an end is achieved" of' Pervez Musharraf. Agency doesn't make the most sense, so assuming that Act and Agency are synonyms: Benazir Bhutto Was Most Likely Killed 'through the "doing of a thing" or agency of Pervez Musharraf. This means that for Benazir Bhutto to have been killed by Musharraf, Musharraf would have had to do "a thing" or "exert power". It's not specified what he had to do, but rather that he had to do something that resulted in her dieing. He never would have had to murder her with his own hands, and had the Con looked at definitions, he would have seen this. So basically, I'm arguing that Musharraf did do something. So therefore, the Topic Sentence is quite clear that Benazir Bhutto Was Most Likely Killed 'through the "doing of a thing" or agency of' Pervez Musharraf. I am quite topical in demanding that the Con provide a relevent attack, but I'll go onto the merits of topicality to prove my point further. First off, topicality should be evaluated within a reasonable framework. Topicality should only become a voter, should I be very untopical, to a point where I am not clear. Nobody has posted comments saying things like "What's your stance" or "What? !? ", so I believe that to the average human, my stance is defined. The Topic Sentence is limited, and therefore, should my Topic Sentence be a tad unclear, you can look to my argument. My argument is very defined in saying that the debate will be on whether or not Musharraf is "behind the killing" or Bhutto. Anyway, i an ideal world, topicality is a voter (in policy debate at least) for two reasons: 1). Unfairness, and 2). Education. Unfairness - This doesn't really ransition into home debate, because the voter in CX is that you cannot prepare for debates outside a resolution. This doesn't apply because you CAN in fact prepare. Also, my argument isn't unfair because you have brought up attacks and information on the real purpose of the debate, and therefore the 'Unfairness' part of Topicality isn't a voter Education - Debate is to educate people on the given topic. My topic sentence (after getting into the barebones of English) is clear in that the debate is on whether Musharraf did "a thing" that would have killed Bhutto. Therefore, I am Educational. Even if I wasn't on the exact topic, I set the topic, and most people got what I was going for. Therefore, it is clear and I'm being reasonable in the pedagogical merits of this debate. Also, if you really want to get into the merits of definitions, I am topical. A simple misunderstanding on wording, and after I proved my wording was indeed apt, we can move on. I proved it, and I would like to move on to relevent attacks. Also, one of your arguments was based on the misunderstanding, and I do not wish to waste room answering it, as it is irrelevant. My Responses (Going line by line. Also, I normally put quotes of what you said, but I doubt I'll have room) 1. Coalition - The link you gave me saying they did not ally against Musharraf was to the main page of Wikipedia. Also, wikipedia is written by normal people, and for all I know. .. you wrote the article in question. So, there isn't much point of going there, as it is not credible. Also, the supposed coalition would force Musharraf to share power, something that someone who took power in a military coup wouldn't like. Polls - The link was from August, it doesn't reflect now. Plus, he took power in a military coup and still has strong ties with the military (i. e. hand-picking his succesor). Public opinion of tyrants doesn't matter to the tyrants. Also, it talked about Musharraf reaching out to Bhutto. .. in August. Once again, the situation has changed, and Bhutto has spoken out against Musharraf since then. . http://www.npr.org... A - But Musharraf would still be not at the top of the chain of power. He turned against her after he saw that she: A. Was speaking against him (above link), and B. Was going to be elected higher than him (yours). B - But what did she bring to the table for Musharraf? She brought him majority support. She is dead, and support has to go somewhere. Maybe to the party, most likely to Musharraf. C - Evidence at all? And also, that doesn't mean Musharraf didn't gain something from killing Bhutto. If he gets one more supporter, than he benefits from the assasination. D - New voters won't matter if the People's Party doesn't put up a good candidate, and they may withdraw, like Sharif. E - Evidence? And he could still rig the elections (the assasination still would have got rid of a vocal opposer of Musharraf) F - He stepped down as general, so he would lose power, and he does want his power. 2. - A - Again, evidence? It's impossible to predict the future, and I believe you are completely wrong. The major opposition to Musharraf winning is gone. The party doesn't have a good candidate. B - . http://www.npr.org... - The elections were, or are, going to be rigged. Bhutto was a vocal opponent of Msuharraf recently, and also may have discovered the plot to tamper with the elections. If the vote was fair, PPP may win, but it won't be. Musharraf gains too much for him not to be behind it. C - The election is expected to be delayed (see link above) D - Evidence? A ridiculous claim, also, the link says that the election will be rigged and that Bhutto was about to announce it. Again, supporting me. E - A ridiculous claim, and I would like to see evidence about it. 3. - A - . http://www.abc.net.au... - This basically says that a top analyst from Pakistan, doesn't believe that terrorists orchestrated it. The theory I support is that Musharraf is responsible and behind it because he didn't give her the neccesary security. That "act" he did, directly resulted in her dieing. This means that Bhutto was killed by Musharraf's act of not increasing her security. . http://www.csmonitor.com... (Look for the Hassan Abbas quote) B - See above response C - My theory (see above) still holds. D - Just saying that the deed was done by a operative, not that Musharraf couldn't have purposefully not given her security. My theory holds still. 4. - A - But where is the evidence saying that they could have done it (like mine saying Musharraf did) B - What? You said that the other parties had made attempts on their lives. Evidence? C thru E - You still do not have the evidence saying that the families did it. Many have motives, but is there evidence saying they did it? There is evidence against Musharraf. Also, you argued that Bhutto's death would increase the sympathy and therefore gain her party the lead. Same idea for their family doesn't apply? Conclusion: I am topical, I have proved it, and I have proved that it isn't a voter. I also have negated all of his points, and provided evidence that Musharraf is likely the killer (. http://www.csmonitor.com...), and that terrorists aren't (. http://www.abc.net.au...). The other suspects do not have any evidence against them, and therefore aren't important.