Did The Obama Administration Cover Up Benghazi

Well, once again, there isn't much to rebut because Pro hasn't made an argument and has in fact dropped every single piece of evidence I have provided, including a Senate Report negating the resolution. But I'll take this time to respond to what Pro has said line by line. "Note) I Did not forfeit I have school and A life. So I was not able to respond. "That is called a forfeit on DDO. It does not mean that you forfeitted the debate, but that you forfeitted the round. "First, its fine. "Ok, cool. "Second, My Apologies as I get flustered when it comes to this issue. "You get flustered? Well, you could've fooled me. This resolution was fairly daring, and that's quite a massive burden of proof to take on for your first debate, so kudos to you for that. "Third, I have made a argument. And about the links, My apologies for posting links. And I'm just getting started. "No, you haven't made an argument. You made two almost-contentions about an e-mail from Mr. Rhodes and about the Obama Administration's language regarding the attack, both of which I have countered extensivley. But, ok. It seems a bit unconventional to be "just getting started" in Round 4 when, in my mind, I've already negated your resolution by providing a Senate Report which says that the Obama Administration did not cover this up. If you can fulfill your burden of proof sometime between this round (since I'm reading your argument step by step as I go through this) and the next, I'll be very impressed. I see it as a nearly impossible BOP, but let's see. "Fourth, I Provided ONE Fox News link and Send me Poof that Fox News has been proven wrong. But don't worry your not going to be able to use that as I will use congregational Hearings. "You did, and the other sites were quite biased as well, but I'm interested in evaluating your arguments, as are our voters, not links that you provide that you think can make the arguments for you. And, sure, there's plenty of proof. The Media Matters link from the last round addressed a massive distortion regarding the Ben Rhodes e-mail, and many ran with the "you didn't call it an act of terror" narrative that I've already disproved last round [1. . http://tinyurl.com...].But, by all means, use Congressional (you meant congressional, right? ) hearings. I've already provided plenty of information regarding hearings and reports and so forth, but I digress. I'm still waiting on your proof. "Fifth, I Was using that as a example that The Obama's Care more about opposite country's then our own, As they haven't Done anything. "I know what your intention was, and I was pointing out that your argument was completely fallacious and insensitive. "Sixth, Don't worry dear, I'll give you the proof you request. I always love a game of connect the dots! :D"Well, it's Round 4, and still no proof. "So you want me to explain the email? No problem. Juditial Watch Released a Article on the email and several other document that i was going to quote from is down currently so expect a paragraph on that soon. Dont believe me heres the link: . http://www.judicialwatch.org...;First of all, linking me to this page is not explaining the e-mail. Once again, the link cannot do the talking for you. I want you to make an argument on this, but it seems that you're waiting until Round 5 for that. That is fine, and I eagerly await your paragraph. Just note, however, that I've already addressed this e-mail extensively and even cited Judicial Watch, as they released the e-mail in full. I've already debunked the notion that the e-mail was in some way incriminating for the Obama Administration. But I await your arguments. Also, I'd like to just point out that the link doesn't appear to be working. I'm not sure if it's me or the site. I found it on Google and it doesn't appear to be working, either. So it may be best if you could quote from the e-mail and the parts of it that you find suspicious, since the link I posted from last round does work and obviously we both have access to it. I'll leave that up to you, though. It is important that we can both access each other's sources. "Alright the other was Contention that you felt i didn't do good enough to explain. Another item i will touch up on when i have time as its 11:07 pm where im at and im tired. Expect a full timeline in round 5. "To be perfectly honest, neither of your contentions were really contentions since you didn't back up either of them, neither have you done that now. As I said, you have an immense burden of proof to fulfill.