We should not attack Iran

Hello everyone, if you've made it this far your almost done! Just a reminder, NO NEW ARGUMENTATION MAY BE BROUGHT UP IN REBUTTALS IN THE VERY LAST ROUND. The Con Argumentation will be as follows:1st- Extensions2nd- Refutations 3rd-Voters + ImpactsEXTENSIONSPoint 1- Extend this argument once again, Pro Concedes throughout the debate round time and time again Iran has nuclear capablities, pro also concedes this a metric for the entire round, so pro cannot stand up and say Iran is not a threat because it has nuclear capabilities, and if you scroll up to the last round, you can see pro's concession and second concession this round. Point 4- My refutations stand judges, my opponents argument- Pro stated war (not defined) is worse than the Cold War. Where exactly does pro state this other than in this round? Judges once again, i apologize for asking, but please scroll up to rounds 3 and 2 and look at point 4 for Pro's side. Where does he state the Cold War is better than war itself and how am i only utilizing half of an argument if so? Point 5- "The truth is, I do understand the goal. " That was Pro's refutation, yet apparently he quotes afterward "It is only worthwhile if it will keep Iran from making a nuclear weapon. " Then adds that he will show you why this is true later. However, Pro is skimming an argument, which cannot be allowed as the poins Con addressed through the round were PROS (Scroll up to Round 2 Pro). This means pro has dropped this argument because it was not addressed AS ARGUMENT 5. Extend the Underview- According to Pro I just brough up in the last round Iran was Volatile. Scroll back to Round 2. The 5 point underview is huge in this debate, and completely untouched and thoroughly misinterpreted by Pro. REFUTATIONSPoints 2 and 3- My opponent only refutation is against a possible pre-emptive strike, regardless, war itself was not touched by pro from this point after the first round. After my pre-emptive strike argument, Con still brings up war itself, whereas pro seems to be stuck like glue to the whole Pre-Emptive Strike. Con decides to use this to his advantage, and it appears to have payed off, now you can see pro isn't being topical anymore and not affirming through points 2 and 3. Also, a number of offensive arguments are offensive to con, as they show a disinterest in this debate.1) Sources- Con Posted 8 perfectly cited sources throughout Con's refutations and case. 2) Scroll up to rounds 2 and 3 for Con's argumentation. We agreed after round 2, that "We" as the United States have to have to show benefits or harms. The harms are the possible retalition by Iran, Pro misinterprets this and is siding with Iran, however this goes against the entire debate. Con shows that it is in the best interest of The United States of Amerca to go to war because Iran can retaliate from possible Israeli attacks. Con thoroughly misinterprets this.3) "This argument is on my side unless Con can prove that Iran does not have the right to defend itself. " Once again Pro misinterprets this argumentation. Iran has a right to DEFEND ITSELF FROM AN AGGRESSOR. BUT IT CANNOT BE ALLOWED TO RETALIATE on the United States if ISRAEL was the state that attacked. NEW ARGUMENTATIONNew argumentation in the last round of a debate is meaningless, the side videos are as well, Rebuttals are used to extend, strengthen, and refute ongoing arguments throughout the debate, not to bring in new ones. Judges do not look anywhere past my opponents speech where it says "New Argument" The videos also do not convey any evidence or information, Judges don't vote off of a video, vote off of actual argumentation not taken from another person's mouth. I WILL proceed to refute the new argumentation, however this is not required, as new argumentation has no room in a rebuttal.1. Nuclear Threat- Extend all refutations and the Point 1 Concession and cross apply it to this point, simple as that, Pro concedes Iran is a threat with nuclear capabilities once again throughout the entire debate.2. War is not something Con would advocate without evidence, without a NEED to go to war, without an imminency that is required to go to war. Pro completely drops all imminency arguments, as such, Pro concedes Iran is an immininent threat that only war can solve for.3. Cross apply 4th round refutations made on arguments 2 and 3. The pre-emptive strike sidetracked Pro completely, and does not impact the round in any way, pro has stopped being topical and stopped talking about WAR.4. IT IS JUST FOR A COUNTRY TO DEFEND ITSELF AGAINST THE AGGRESSOR, NOT AN ALLY TO THE AGGRESSOR. Israel is the problem, Israel attacks Iran, and Iran retaliates on the UNITED STATES. This major argument goes completely untouched throughout the entire debate.5. Does this really even need a refutation? Look at all of Cons arguments and Pro's concession of imminent threats by Iran that has nuclear capabilities.6. A STRIKE may not work, but WAR will. (Topicality Argument)7. NO EVIDENCE EXCEPT A VIDEO THIS IS PLAGIARISM. 8. Emotional Argument not tied to the United States. No evidence, no argument, nothing. VOTERS AND IMPACTS 1- ConcessionsImpact- 1- Iran HAS NUCLEAR CAPABILITIES and is an IMMINENT THREAT- Throughout the debate, reasonin has come into play. Why go to war? My opponent brings up arguments such as - Iran is not a threat and Iran has no nuclear weapons. Con immediately disproves this and these arguments then go untouched throughout the rounds. Thus you see IRAN IS A THREAT WITH NUCLEAR WEAPONS. Clearly the imminent threat is proven, WAR is justified.2- ExtensionsImpact-2- Without knowing for Certain Iran's intentions, we cannot say it is not just to attack a proven VOLATILE nation, and a nation proven to have nuclear capabilities, that threatens both Israel and the United States if Israel does not stop attackng, can be trusted. The war itself is justified to stop a retaliation by Iran against the United States for Israel's Actions.3- RefutationsImpact-3- Contradiction arguments and admitting to "Jumping left and right" Meaning Pro's argumentation is not constant. Secondly, the Pre- Emptive Strike seems to have sidetracked pro to a new direction, whereas con argues through war. Next, Pro does not successfully refute A SINGLE ARGUMENT and even drops his own case for new argumentation, which was a bunch of videos that should not be weighed in the round. 4-Utilization of SourcesImpact-4- Going into the first round Pro stated Iran does not have any nuclear capabilities. In the next round, Pro states Iran does indeed have nuclear capabiltiies and concedes this. The Final round, Pro agrees they have nuclear capabilties, then states they need to have a weapon. Con successfully utilizes all 8 sources and does not drop his case. Your going to look and vote for con because of Pro's misunderstanding of argumentation. Conclusion- While Pro jumps around facts, Con stands right on point. Con never shifts in any other direction but negation, gives viable evidence and sources that are brought up throughout the round, and never once drops his case, whereas pro in the final round scratches all evidence to promote videos, which are essentially plagiarized because A) There may be a copyrightB) These arguments are not in the words of Pro nor were they Cited or quoted.