Asking for a new 9/11 investigation is highly unreasonable

First of all… “Pro is a Liar - Claimed to have run out of space in his response. He actually had 500 characters left.” If you look at the links I posted in the last round you will notice that this website cuts them off. I checked the cut off portion of the first 2 links and found 115 characters cut off. There are still 8 more links. That would equal around 500 characters cut off when I submitted my argument. You should know what you are talking about before you call someone a liar. Voters should consider this in the conduct vote. This point is just another example of Cons inability to see the answer to a question if it does not fit his argument. It is ridiculous that I have to waste my space refuting this point. However it is necessary because due to these character limits I can not continue to go back and fourth with Con on his unfounded points and strawman arguments as much as I SOOO badly want to. Despite my constant attempts to bring this debate back to the resolution, Con continues to use those attempts as a means of attacking my conduct. I will make this final round to show how Con has not even bothered to make a case. Purpose: The purpose of a debate is to convince your opponent, your audience, or both that your position on the resolution is correct. Con is very good at playing games with this. He is very good at finding ways to convince the reader that he is making better points. His problem is that to do this he takes the focus away from the resolution (which is the point) and onto whatever point he feels makes him look stronger. The Resolution: “Asking for a new 9/11 investigation is highly unreasonable” When I say 9/11, it is common sense that I am talking about the attacks of 9/11. I have also made this clear by pointing this out many times throughout the debate. I will also remind the voters of this statement in the Rules portion: “This challenge is in response to the 9/11 truth movement who to this day, continue to advocate for reopening this investigation generally based on evidence which implies that forces within the US government may have been involved in the planning of these attacks. In the spirit of this fact my opponent should stay consistent with the general message given by the majority of this movement.” Logic: Although Con stayed away from what was supposed to be the point of this debate (implying that the US Government was involved). he still uses the same dirty little debate tactics that every advocate for a new investigation uses. No coherent theory: It is very easy to point out inconsistencies and suspicious facts in any story. But if the official story of 9/11 is not true then something else is. Con has stayed safe from debating this reality by just asking questions. This is a very cowardly tactic because without providing any alternative possibilities, his overall position can never be scrutinized. If I answer his question he can criticize my answer. If he can not criticize my answer he can just turn to another question. And so it goes. Shotgun Fallacy:This fallacy goes something like this… ask 101 questions, get back 100 answers, highlight the 1 question that was not answered, claim victory! I spent the entire last round (all 8,000 characters) just refuting his points. Yet in his response he says that I did not answer some particular point of his 11 seperate times which is somehow supposed to mean that I conceded them(victory!). All this really shows is that he is just throwing out points instead of actually finding good ones to focus on. Here are the paragraphs #’s as I counted to show where he does this (4,7,8,10,13,15,19,24,25,27,28). This just goes to show why re-investigating 9/11 is so unreasonable. Those who advocate for it don’t have a theory of their own, they just ask question after question. A new investigation would do nothing more then to just give them more explanations for them to question. Cons Case: Con has focused his entire debate on 3 main points: Building collapses: I was actually prepared to debate this subject but I was pushing for Con to make an implication of any kind as to what he thinks might explain the collapses. Instead he focused on proving the supporting science to be flawed. Proving the scientific community to be incompetent in evaluating building collapses has nothing to do with the attacks of 9/11. When finally acknowledging this point Con simply suggests that the investigation should focus the institutions. Why? Are they all in on some massive government plot of faking scientific papers to help the government cover up the murder of 3,000 of its own people? I can not refute any of his points on this because he did not make any. Case Rejected. NORAD: Con asks a series of questions and points he feels are suspicious. Yet his questions make no implications as to what he thinks NORAD might be guilty of besides inefficiency. Investigating NORAD’s inefficient system before 9/11, 10 years after 9/11 when major changes have since been made, would be completely pointless and has nothing to do with the resolution. Case Rejected. Bush and Cheney: Earlier I stated that they should have been under oath, I was not talking about in 2011. Con believes that we should re-open this investigation 10 years later and “discretely” place them under oath on the basis that we might find something, yet he has no idea of what we would possibly find. This argument lacks common sense. When pointing this out to him he says that that’s not an argument. There is no reason to debate an assertion that lacks common sense. Case Rejected. Just a few more examples of why we should not re-investigate (Just because I had 500 characters left): “Pro says it was a supersurprise because there hadn't been any plane hijackings in the past 10 years. This is actually false [1].” I specifically stated that there hadn’t been a hijacking in the US for 10 years. Cons source points to foreign hijackings. Con finds something wrong with every explanation even if he has to make one up, with no counter theory to measure these explanations against. A new investigation would only result in more of the same. “First, it is sufficient for us to be agnostic about the event to re-investigate it.” What??? In other words… ignore the explanations, then say we have to re-investigate because we have no explanations. I would ask Con if he is serious, but by this point I think he has shown that he is. (uh ooh looks like a concession… victory!) “Pro has no response to my "advanced interrogation" plan. It costs nothing except the discomfort of mass murderers.” By mass murders he is admittedly talking about every current and former President and Vice President still alive. How do you debate someone who lives in a reality like this one? (I would have just said the 4th amendment but somehow I don’t think that matters to him) Conclusion: Con never focused on the resolution. His responsibility in this debate was to make a somewhat reasonable case that we should re-investigate the attacks of 9/11. Instead he made a case that our scientists are incompetent, that our old structure at NORAD should be evaluated for efficiency 10 years later, and completely disregards common sense in why we investigate something. All this, despite my pointing these things out to him several times throughout this debate. The only thing he had to fall back on is attacking my debate tactics which again, has nothing to do with the resolution. Any new arguments at this point should be disregarded because I will not have a chance to refute them. When someone trying to argue that we should re-investigate 9/11 can not find any reasonable alternative theory as to what might have happened other then the official story, and has to resort to suggesting that we torture our former President just to “see what we might find”, it just proves my point that Asking for a new 9/11 investigation is highly unreasonable. Case Closed.