9/11 conspiracy theory

I would first like to ask Con to use commas, it was extremely difficult to read through your case. I urge a S/G vote for Pro. 1. Con did not pose any argument at all in the first round. He told the voters what the theory was, defining it for the round. A definition is not an argument, I accepted the definition by accepting the debate. I will not argue what the definition is. However, if Con is talking about the second round (the first we started arguing), I did answer all of the "holes" that he proposed are in this theory. What Con doesn't understand about the theory is that if the 9/11 conspiracy theory were true, the government probably would have gone to everyone that would be involved. If Con cannot prove that the government did not do this, this point defaults to Pro. Essentially, because we are debating a theory, I do not need proof, however, Con needs to provide this evidence that the government did in fact do this without consent of the now diseased. So, yes, I believe that the government would take that large of a risk. 2. There is a higher chance of being killed by being in the military than if you were not. Therefore, the people who enter the military know that they have a greater chance of being killed, this is truly patriotic, and if they would go and kill an enemy that they do not know without real initiative, they would go to this length of the theory to ultimately protect the people. Some 4,000 people is nothing compared to the entire population of America. This is the same point as those who enter the military. This few of people compared to the whole is a huge gain for America because now the entire country is more weary that a terrorist attack is probably. Just because Con cannot think of an American that would do this, that does not mean there are none. I may not be able to think of anyone that can write with both their left and right hands, does that mean there are none? 3. Con appeals to pathos only in this point, practically begging for the vote based only on the people that died and their families. He has strayed from the initial point while he lists off way too many different family members. We get the point that families died in this disaster. Con contradicts himself here, however. The true Americans, as Con says, took the plane down and killed themselves. These true Americans killed each other in this sense. No one knows if everyone on board was apt to taking down the plane. The people that did however, did not only take down the plane in a way that crashed it, but they killed themselves and those on the plane that would rather have died initially by the terrorist. As Con says, some people are not patriotic, what if some of the people on the plane were not? What if they wanted the plane to take out the White House? Con doesn't realize that all he does in this point is contradict himself. Because he strays away from the initial arguments in the point, it will default Pro. Con also says "no way" as if he only instantiated this debate knowing it was a one sided debate to practically everyone on DDO. This defaults the Conduct vote to Pro. C1. I pointed this out in my very first argument. There were no arguments that I needed to answer. C2. a. I already answered this argument in the last round so this will be counted as a drop by Con. The point defaults to Pro. C2. b. i. Again, this will count as a drop by Con, as he did not attack this point whatsoever. C2. b. ii. Con also dropped my racism kritik here. This point defaults to Pro because of the drop. The point was that Con was posing racist comments towards Afghanistan. C2. c. Con drops the actual argument here, again. This point will default to Pro. The point of this argument was to prove that the vote must go to Pro because of the ill-framed resolution. By arguing semantics I proved that I win this debate if I prove that this theory is real. Because Con conceded this, and I have proved my side of the resolution true, I win this debate. C3. Con has not taken this debate seriously. By dropping both of my contentions, we can see that Con thinks that this is a one-sided debate in the sense that he assumes he will win even if he drops my case. My argument here is that because of Con's initial reason for instantiating this debate, which can be assumed to be simply for a win, and not a true debate, the debate defaults to Pro. Con also poses no evidence anywhere. Because we are arguing a theory, Con must pose evidence to prove that it is not true, however Pro does not have to.