The Titanic sank because it hit an iceberg.

*NOTE. In this round, Pro has essentially repeated everything he said in Round 3, which I have already refuted and he as already conceded to. Therefore, I will simply repeat what I said in my counter-rebuttal in Round 3. __________________________________________________________Counter-Rebuttal:"It is a fact that everyone with a basic knowledge of science is familiar with. When I started the debate, I did not want a theory that is fact."-You did not specify that you desired a theory that is not fact, therefore my first theory remains valid, even though it is a fact because I have established earlier that my fact is also a theory."You said that the ship sank due to it weighing more than the water it displaced. Yes, that is fact. However, you did not say what caused this."-So you concede to my theory. It is a valid theory to use in this debate nevertheless because I have established it to be and you have conceded that while it is a fact, it is also a theory. Because it is already a valid theory to use in this debate, I do not have to say what caused this. "My stance is supported by this fact."-Your stance is not supported by this fact. That would be saying: "The Titanic got hit by an iceberg because when a ship weighs more than the water it displaces, it sinks." See how absurd that sounds? -However your stance supports my theory and my theory is supported by your stance. That being true, your theory does not account for any other possibility, whereas mine does, and therefore my theory is more likely than yours nevertheless. And because my theory is more likely than yours, it is obvious that I have proven my point."The displacement of water is not a theory. It is fact"-And I have shown that this fact is also a theory because it in no way contradicts the definitions I used. -If you insist on going this route, you must explain why this fact cannot be used as a theory, yet you have not."I wanted to hear a theory explaining why the ship had such exponential damage to its hull."-Again, you did not specify. My theory in no way broke any of your rules or contradicted your requirements of the debate, therefore it is valid. If you had specified what you wanted, this might not have happened."Of course, when the water came into the ship, the ship weighed more than the water it displaced."-So you DO concede! "Your "theory" makes it sound as if the Titanic randomly started sinking. That is not how it happened. There are witness testimonies that clearly state that the Titanic was half in the water, half in the air, in a diagonal angle."-The Titanic randomly sinking is a possibility. You have not proven it wrong, nor have you proven your theory right, therefore this theory could be a possibility. The testimonies of the witnesses does not help your cause at all. Perhaps the ship randomly sank in a diagonal angle, half in water, half in air. And this would work for my theory! However, my theory would account for an almost infinite amount of possibilities, not just the possibility that it was all random. Therefore, my theory is more likely than yours."Your theory does not state how this could occur. You just said "Something happened to make the Titanic weigh more than the water it displaced." True, that is the science aspect of the event, but not the physical aspect."-Again, how does this contradict your requirements in Round 1 or break any of your rules? I don't think you are using terms correctly. Water displacement is a very physical thing, therefore it is a physcial aspect.-Besides, your theory did not state how it occured either. You said: "The Titanic sank because it hit an iceberg." Yet you didn't explain what caused the Titanic to hit the iceberg, or what caused that caused the Titanic to hit an iceberg, or what caused the cause that caused the Titanic to hit an iceberg, or what caused the cause that caused the cause that caused the Titanic to hit an iceberg."I acknowledge the truth of your first "theory", but I was not looking for that when I started the debate."-Again, you have conceded, and I must remind you again that If that was not what you were looking for you must specify in Round 1, because my first theory does not break any of your rules.________________________________________________________________________________Conclusion Rebuttal:-Pro has attempted to reclaim the credibility of his argument by posting a few sources that support his claims. As mentioned in the previous round, it is too late for him to do this because his arguments lacked credibility throughout the whole debate, therefore it was unneccessary for me to attack his arguments. And now, by providing the sources in the last round, there is no more room for debate. I have graciously allowed him to provide sources in round 4, yet he wasted his offer. ________________________________________________________________________________To Wrap up the Debate:-I presented my first theory with sufficient sources.-I have shown that my theory is more likely than Pro's theory.-Pro has conceded to my theory several times.-Pro broke his own rule by not providing any sources to support his claims. Even after being reminded by me, he refused to provide sources until the last moment when it is too late.-Because of his lack of sources, his arguments contain no credibility, therefore they are not at all convincing.-Pro wasted his entire argument in round 4 by trying to justify his violation of his own rules instead of just fixing it and providing sources.-Pro wasted his entire argument in round 5 by repeating basically everything he said in round 3, which I have refuted, and I have refuted again in round 5.-Pr has not addressed my argument in round 4, whereas I have addressed everything he's said, except for his "evidence" because they had no sources.-Vote Con!________________________________________________________________________________Good night.