TEA Party Ignorance, Stupidity and Extremism Cost GOP the 2012 Presidential Election

Crying WolfPro claims he doesn't have to prove crying wolf cost Romney the election, just that it hurt republican credibility. But the wording of the resolution puts the burden on Pro to prove that these things "cost GOP the election". That means that harming credibility is a valid argument, but only if he ties it into a tangible impact on the presidential race. But its not done - Pro hasn't offered any reasons to believe that crying wolf affected the race, and if so how much. Maybe it was a dumb thing for the tea party to do, but Pro needs to prove that voters had "this party cried wolf less" in mind when casting their ballot. Pro provided 4 examples of "crying wolf" in R3. I refuted each of them, and he didn't defend any of them in R4. Therefore, there are no standing examples of it in the debate round. That said, Pro links me to a Google search and puts the burden on me to refute "thousands, if not millions" of more examples. Problem is, I can't refute a million arguments in 4000 characters, which is why standard debate rules dictate that supporting examples be provided in the debate round (like his first 4), which these were not. If Pro wanted to run more examples, he should have linked the specific ones from that search and explained them here. As it is, there's nothing for me to refute. Furthermore, Pro drops my (3) from last round which empirically proved that pollsters voted for who they thought would do a better job on the big issues (like the economy), and not because they didn't belong to a party that made extravagent claims. EconomyPro doesn't respond to anything under this - extend everything. The economy was the biggest issue on the voter's minds and the Republican party did a good job of making it so. ExtremismI'll agree that attacking the EPA can be considered extremist (based off the definition), but Pro still doesn't refute the fact that this anti-environmentalist position was posited by Mitt Romney, who is neither in the Tea Party nor is politically far-right, which makes this entire argument nontopical. More importantly, my (3) from last round was 100% dropped, which showed that his environmental position also has an economic component, which means that this "extremist" position actually benefited the GOP in the polls (since Pro thinks Republicans were better on the economy). Pro then gives a statistical analysis estimating how many votes may have been lost by the GOP's position on abortion. First, the republican platform didn't push "anti-abortion absolutism" - Romney supports abortion in some circumstances (1). This invalidates the entire argument because abortion then isn't an extreme position at all. Maybe the Tea Party is universally opposed, but the person that actually ran for president isn't, so this had no effect on the election. Second, turn - the GOP's pro-life position had a net benefit on the polls. From my opponent's own source (2) - "Gallup finds slightly more pro-life voters than pro-choice voters saying they will vote only for a candidate who shares their views, 21% vs. 15%. .. a slight pro-life tilt, albeit one that could potentially benefit pro-life Republican candidate Mitt Romney"My opponent references "other far right positions" that the Tea Party supported, but doesn't say what they are and how they affected the election, so there's nothing to refute. ConclusionRomney lost the election for a lot of reasons, but the reasons my opponent cites aren't among them. All examples of crying wolf have been refuted and weren't defended. The economy was proven to have been pushed adequately as a major issue. The "extreme" positions from the GOP were either made by Romney (who isn't Tea Party) or had a net benefit on his chances. Good luck to proglib in his future debates.1. . http://www.nytimes.com...2. . http://www.gallup.com...