The Titanic sank because it hit an iceberg.

*Disclaimer: Pro has broken the first 2 rules he has implemented in Round 1 by not citing sources and using pictures in this round. As a matter of fact, he hasn't provided any sources for the last round either. Therefore, Pro's evidence is not valid until he provides their respective sources next round. I shall await your submission._________________________________________________________________Counter-Rebuttals:"That is not a theory. It is fact. Of course this is what enabled the Titanic to sink..."-I will provide the definitions of the terms "theory" and "fact".--> Theory (noun): A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena.http://www.thefreedictionary.com...--> Fact (noun): Knowledge or information based on real occurrenceshttp://www.thefreedictionary.com...-->> Knowledge or information based on real occurrences can be used as a set of statements to explain a group of other facts. -->>> Therefore, all facts are theories, but not all theories are facts."That sentence actually supports my argument."-No it doesn't, not neccessarily, because there are many other events that could have enabled by theory to occur, not just yours. Remember that I am arguing that my theory is more likely to be the cause of the Titanic's sinking than yours. "I understand science very well, in fact. I do not need a science lesson from you."-Great! Because I am not a science teacher, and though I would gladly get my science teacher to give you a science lesson had you needed one from me, I would preferable not want to bother him."I understand displacement and weight."-So does that mean you concede to my thoery?"I believe you wrote your argument way to fast and that you didn't take your time. You weren't thinking."-Pro is using ad hominen, which is a logical fallacy. In case you don't know what ad hominen means, it's when you attack your opponent's character rather than answer my argument. "You made a highly uneducated vindication. That, I am sorry to say, will cause you to lose this argument."-And you are making a claim not backed up by any evidence. You have shown or proven in anyway why my second theory is an uneducated vindication. As of now your evidence for your theory that the Titanic was hit by an iceberg is invalid because you have not provided sources."As I have written in the first round as the third rule, "arguments must be sophisticated." Until you can present a theory that is logical and that corresponds with the physical evidence, this debate is over and I have won."-I'm going to have to define the term "sophisticated" because you haven't. To stick to your rules that you haven't followed this round, I will provide a screenshot picture from Google instead of text. -My second theory is certainly developed to a high degree of complexity. As a matter of fact, one can argue that it is more complex than your theory because in my second theory there are much more factors and explanations of how Jack Sparrow sunk the ship.-Furthermore, as mentioned in Round 1, I will be presenting two theories and if just one theory tops yours, then I win. Therefore it is logical to assume that even if one theory breaks your rules, if the other doesn't, then I still have a valid case. "I have not presented as much evidence as I could have, I understand..."-On the contrary, you have not presented any evidence at all because of your lack of sources. In Round 2, I presented sources and pictures that support my first theory. You only have pictures, which aren't very credible without sources. Of course, you can say the same about my second theory, but as established at the beginning of the round, as long as one of my theories stick to the rules, then I am fine."Your second theory is complete bulls**t."-Quite frankly I don't understand this at all! How can you say that my theory is the feces of a male cow?-This is my second theory: Jack Sparrow sunk the titanic.-This is bulls**t: "Currently, I do not need more evidence."-Indeed you do. Your stated "evidence" has no credibility whatsoever without their respective sources!________________________________________________________________________________________Conclusion-Pro has broken two of his rule that he implemented into this debate that sources must be cited. Due to the fact that I must remind him to do so, this should surely result in deductions in his conduct and sources. Voters remember to put that on the scoreboard. -Pro has conceded to my first theory.-Because Pro's evidence is not credible, as of now they are invalid, therefore I have no need to address his argument. Hopefully, he lists credible sources in the next round so that I can address them.