Thos who say "no WMD were found in Iraq are either Misinformed, or Prevaricators

"Thank you for your willingness to watch this debate with an open mind. " OK guys, I have to say it. This statement lame. The instigator of this debate has once again tried to avoid his duty of carrying the burden of proof in this debate because everyone should just be able to tell that he wins. 1. The Instigator attempts to make this a matter of "res ipsa loquitur. " (i. e. "it speaks for itself")This is a common mistake in argumentation made by the holders of the burden of proof. My opponent maintains that everything will just make sense without looking to the details. I will maintain that this is not just reasoning and that it is still abusive to the Con side of this debate. 2. Once again, ABUSE- As I have stated before, it is the duty of the Pro team to present a "prima facie" case. In other words, the case must affirm the resolution or framework of the debate "at first appearance. " As I have stated before, the instigator has not even attempted to show that the initial statements that he had made are completely true. ***NOTABLY: Where are the WMD's AFTER Operation Iraqi Freedom? 3. SoutherngentFL's flawed argumentation methods should lead to a vote for Con in this debate because it has limited my ability to argue. My opponent has given me no substance to debate. It is difficult to disprove arguments that have not been made. My opponent begins his previous speech by denouncing my "word games. " Once again, this is a very good reason to vote Con. A big part of the Con case was dropped. The instigator continues to provide nothing but sourceless text attempting to prove that WMD's were in Iraq before and during Operation Iraqi Freedom. Fine. .. I'll bite. 1. The instigator's claim of WMD's in Iraq are false. Bush knowingly lied the the U. S. public about the existence of WMD's. -Christian Science Monitor, May 9, 2007, Wednesday, OPINION; Pg. 9, 744 words, John Hughes ". .. critics of Mr. Bush claim that he knowingly lied about the WMD issue in order to justify the war. The nearer truth seems to be that he was painfully misled, as were prominent Democrats such as Hillary Clinton and John Kerry. .. " Yes, this evidence does post-date the instigator's evidence and it STILL says that WMD's did not exist in Iraq at the time of invasion. 2. The case for WMD's presented by the instigator does not mean anything. -The Toronto Sun, November 29, 2007 Thursday, EDITORIAL/OPINION; Pg. 19, 635 words, BY DAVE GORDON "The failure to find WMD has led to worldwide condemnation of the Iraq war and of U. S. President George W. Bush for launching it. " ". .. the case for Saddam's WMD isn't a "smoking gun" or the "slam dunk" former CIA director George Tenet described to Bush prior to the invasion. " "Rather, it's an interesting theory developed by. .. an intelligence expert. " ". .. even he concedes no single captured Iraqi document confirms it. .. " Once again, note the date on this evidence. It states that previous claims, as in the instigator's '06 evidence, are not solid. This leaves a reasonable doubt as to whether or not WMD's existed in Iraq. Now that I have done my duty as the Con team in this round, I will move on. When the team that holds the burden of proof is not able to present a prima facie case, the other debater is of course left with a stray piece of the framework or resolution. In this case, it is the part AFTER Operation Iraqi Freedom. From what I can see, my opponent will present a timetable. Perhaps this will be an attempt to prove that WMD's will be found AFTER Operation Iraqi Freedom. However, the evidence must be very good to prove this. I will suggest that Operation Iraqi Freedom will not be over until the elimination of WMD threat from Iraq. It would not make sense to leave otherwise. Whomever takes the duty of President of the United States in January will certainly agree. Barack Obama will hold that the WMD's never existed in Iraq, therefore we should leave. John McCain will hold that we should not leave Iraq until WMD's are no longer a threat. And not to bash McCain, but he says that it might take another 100 years. In any case, look to the fact that my opponent has failed to prove thus far a presence of WMD's in Iraq AFTER Operation Iraqi Freedom. At this point in the debate, I have shown that the instigator has not proven the statement made that is highlighted in the first part(A) of the framework. I have shown that there have also been flawed and abusive attempts at argumentation. This alone necessitates a vote for Con. However, if a reader is not convinced of the Con's case thus far, I would suggest that they pay close attention to the second part(B) of the framework. As I have stated previously, this is a major part of the debate, as it is part of one of the only things presented in the first speech. In previous speeches, I have proven the instigator to have flawed reason in his remarks. These arguments have become completely ignored by the instigator. I have already stated several times as to the magnitude of this mistake. I will once again make my point clear. A person who states that WMD's were not found in Iraq may not be lying purposefully at all. I have shown this to be true through a credible source noted in my first speech. This negates the instigators claim highlighted in the second part(B) of the framework for this debate. Here is another argument. Suppose that the person that SoutherngentFL was talking to was merely talking about one stage of the war. Perhaps the person meant: There were no WMD's found in Iraq BEFORE Operation Iraqi Freedom. Perhaps they meant: There were no WMD's found in Iraq DURING Operation Iraqi Freedom. Or perhaps they meant: There are no WMD's in Iraq to found AFTER Operation Iraqi Freedom. All three of these are valid cases that can be made. In fact, any of these cases could be made to prove the person in denial of WMD's to be more informed than the instigator himself! Now we have two sets of arguments set on the second part(B) of the framework of this debate. If these are not touched in the final round, I would suggest to the reader that there has been a loss of value and education in the debate due to the lack of argumentation from the instigator in this debate. I stated at the beginning of my first speech what the instigator must prove to win this debate. At this point, NONE of it has been proven.