"Conspiracy Theory" is, in most contexts, a Thought-Terminating Cliché.

My opponent's default response to everything I've said in this debate has been: "That's a strawman, here's my point again."Let's look at his own case. He had to prove that "conspiracy theory" was a thought terminating cliche. At the start he proved that conspiracies happen (which is irrelevant - even if they didn't happen a conspiracy theory could still be a thought-terminating cliche) and that conspiracy theories lead to the polarisation of biases (however, this would happen independant of whether conspiracy theories were thought terminating cliches or not, thus there is no causal link the the resolution). Really the only relevant point he had was about confirmation bias and the need to quell cognitive dissonance.The only explanation for why "conspiracy theory" is a thought-terminating cliche that my opponent has given in this whole debate is that "The reason for this is that most conspiracies we are presented any evidence to support are usually deeply involved in the public institutions and establishments that we identify with." I gave a number of responses to this statement. As I list my responses, check through them and note how they're not strawmen:1) Conspiracy theories have nothing to do with evidence2) Despite deep involvement, conspiracies do not operate as thought-terminating cliches in the real world - my opponent dismisses this as being a natural product of seeking out more information about the conspiracy, but that would ignore the fact that there might be multiple conspiracy theories around an event, and "switching" from one to another creates exactly the kind of cognitive dissonance he says we avoid at all costs.3) Thought is terminated by other factors, such as believing the information, rather than the nature of the information being conspiratorialBesides all that, I don't think that one sentence is sufficient analysis to carry the argument. Therefore, the key causal link my opponent had to prove - WHY conspiracy theories are in fact thought-terminating cliches - remains nothing more than a mere assertion. He also tried adding this new argument into the final round:"What makes a TTC a TTC is the fact that it doesn't bear any real truth value either way."But of course, he already proved in round one that conspiracy theories can be true, therefore showing that conspiracy theories are not TTCs.Although pro has failed to prove their case, allow me to go over the remaining point of the debate.We questioned whether "conspiracy theories" create "confirmation bias." I said that the reason why you'd have confirmation bias is a belief that some broad category of information is more valid than another category, and therefore you'd look for it. However, that's true of any theory, not specifically conspiracy theories. Despite me challenging this right from the start, my opponent has never shown you why confirmation bias applies specifically to conspiracy theories. If it's true that it does not, that means that the confirmation bias would exist independant of whether the theory is a conspiracy theory or not, implying that the theory itself is the TTC, not the nature of that theory as conspiratorial. My opponent also contradicts himself when he says "My argument was not that the phrase "conspiracy theory" directly affected which information searched out" - this is precisely what confirmation bias is, according to his own standard. In the last round, my opponent has even agreed that I'm right about this point (under the "Con Conspiracy" heading). He says that it's rather all about when information is presented that opposes a person's present assumptions, which isn't confirmation bias at all (confirmation bias deals exclusively with what kind of information is sought).Let me therefore go through my opponent's big long list of arrows at the end and point out the flaw, as before. We both agree with everything up to "one of two things happen." I disagree that calling it a conspiracy theory resolves the truth of one's own assumptions. I gave a list of three reasons why that is at the start of this round. That it's a conspiracy theory is a fact that people already know - it's because of the evidence, not the conspiracy, that they believe or disbelieve the evidence.Pro asserts that he doesn't need to prove that "conspiracy theory" becomes a substitute for finding more information on the subject. That's what a thought-terminating cliche does - it limits the scope of the information you search for. What he has not proven is that "conspiracy theory" is anything more than an arbritrary classification of fact. These facts may make you uncomfortable, or cause you to gain some degree of confirmation bias - but the conspiracy theory classification ultimately means nothing. It just describes a fact as it is.I began by saying that this is about whether conspiracies cause or are caused by cognitive dissonance. Cognitive dissonance can be used positively (increased cognitive dissonance) or negatively (decreased cognitive dissonance) - both are caused. To cause cognitive dissonance, the new information must clash with already-held assumptions. Since conspiracy theories do not clash with already held assumptions, but rather only seek to describe them, conspiracy theories do not affect cognitive dissonance.The motion falls.