9/11 conspiracy theory

C3 - I don't need to provide evidence, Con does. 1. I responded to every question that Con posted, he uses this argument as a time suck and distracts the debate and contention from it's original purpose. You can cross apply my argument in C3 that I need not provide evidence because I am debating that a theory is true, Con needs to provide evidence to prove this theory false. Therefor, my points do stand strong. Even if this is not the case, Con poses this argument in the last round and it will be thrown out. Besides, it's in true human nature that someone, or a group of someones will go to whatever length they can to get what the need. Our nation needs to be on high end alert that a terrorist attack is possible and probable, this is the point to where the government would go to reach what they felt we needed. 2. Yes, we know they were possible, but the security of the nation was by far not up to the caliber they are now. Think about it, if someone tried to bring a bomb onto a plane now, there is a much less chance that they will be caught than they would have before 9.11.2001. Con creates an unfair idealistic scenario in which "no American in their right mind believe that killing thousands of them will help the nation. " First off, considering he doesn't pose an explanation as to who "they are" I can easily make the argument that killing thousands of our enemies could be seen as helping the nation. However, I will stick to Con's initial point that he wants us to assume that he meant other Americans. As I've already said, some Americans are patriotic to the point that they will go to any length to protect the country as a whole. Con seems to love arguing numbers, so I have one for him. 0.00001278% of the entire United States population died in that event, clearly this is a very small sacrifice to strengthen our entire nations defense. 3. Con completely transforms this contention to something different, but I suppose I will have to argue this. Con claims that he believes it is wrong for the government to have known what the passengers in the plane would have done. However, the government would not have known what they would have done. You cannot automatically claim to know what humans will do. Just like I don't know what my neighbor would do if my house caught fire, the government would not know what the passengers on the plane would do. My point also still stands that in the previous round Con only contradicted himself with his patriotism point. The initial point of this contention was about the attack on the pentagon. I will revert back to this as my opponent has dropped his own contention and replaced it with another. I automatically win this point because Con dropped it along the way, transforming it into something totally different. The attack on the government itself would have proved the case that it was a terrorist attack, and lead people away from the suspicion of the conspiracy theory. C1. Yet again, I answered everything Con asked me. The voters can see this clearly, even if Con can't. There was no point that Con made that I left unanswered in that round. C2. a. Con's initial statement: "But why blame it on one in Afghanistan when many believers of the theory believe it was a cover up for a invasion of Iraq for oil" The framing of this question is simple, so I will reword it. "Why blame Bin Ladin if so many people believe it was an invasion for oil? " This question does not help Con's case at all. I answered exactly in the way that it asked me to. It asked me to justify why Osama would be blamed. I answer this, and then Con dropped it. In Con's last argument he changes it to say something completely different. Answering the question about Osama along gives me the win on this point. Osama Bin Ladin was an easy blame because he was a well-known terrorist. Not every move in a game of chess is used to achieve a single goal. This can be applied to this theory. Even if the government did blame Bin Ladin, this did not have to be a step in obtaining the oil. This could easily have been a side step to get rid of the conspiracy theory. C2. b. i. Con makes waste of the original point of this sub-point. He dropped it last round, I will extend the argument initially here that "Apparently, according to Con, it is a fact that we blamed Bin Ladin so we could attack Afghanistan and invade Iraq. This is completely false. This was obviously not the intention of the government. Con needs to look up on his history before he can make this argument because it is not true that we "invaded" because of Con's reasoning. " As I just stated, this was a side step, not in the direct path to invading Iraq or obtaining oil. This point defaults Pro. C2. b. ii. I ran a racism kritik on his wording in the sense of calling Afghanistan a worthless country implies that not only the land, but the people are worthless. If Con had claimed that "the land is worthless," this would not be the case. Besides, even if this was Con's initial point, Afghanistan is not a worthless country for resources. "Afghanistan, often dismissed in the West as an impoverished and failed state, is sitting on $1 trillion of untapped minerals, according to new calculations from surveys conducted jointly by the Pentagon and the US Geological Survey. The sheer size of the deposits – including copper, gold, iron and cobalt as well as vast amounts of lithium, a key component in batteries of Western lifestyle staples such as laptops and BlackBerrys – holds out the possibility that Afghanistan, ravaged by decades of conflict, might become one of the most important and lucrative centres of mining in the world. " [. http://www.independent.co.uk...] C2. c. Con claims that I can't understand his point, when really he cannot understand mine. He agreed that the 9.11 Conspiracy Theory is real, and theory, winning me the debate by being true to my side of the resolution. The resolution being "9/11 Conspiracy Theory. " I win because the Pro side can be assumed to have to take the side of proving this theory is real. My point was that even if I lose on every single point in this debate but this one, I still win the debate as a whole as I have proved this form of the resolution in my favor. It was a semantics argument, and Con did not say I could not run semantics. I will provide some voters: 1. Con ultimately dropped my entire case. 2. Con dropped his own case by transforming every point into something entirely different, even in the last round where it is strictly unfair to pose new arguments. 3. S/G is a vote to Pro automatically. 4. Sources to Pro, as Pro was the only side that provided any sources. 5. Arguments to Pro for attacking everything that was presented, as Con did not do the same.