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

"My heartfelt sympathy is extended to the challenger; and aplaud him for his willingness to publicly admit his illness. .. " How crafty. .. I want it to be noted that I have just been called ill by a person who has completely dropped all of my arguments. Surely I'm not the one who is mentally ill. Obviously my opponent did not consider the arguments brought up in my last speech. A person could simply be speaking about a specific time, either before, during, or after Operation Iraqi Freedom. This alone necessitates a vote for CON. I want to make it clear about how disappointing this is to have the instigator do nothing but mock my arguments. This is not a successful refutation of my arguments nor is it a reason to vote for him. I don't know how I could make it any more clear that it would be ridiculous to vote Pro in this debate. I'll try to give an analysis. .. A. THE FRAMEWORK: 1. The framework for this debate was given at the very beginning of the debate. My opponent gave his opening argument and I gave my interpretation. This interpretation was not refuted. Instead, it was mishandled (part A of framework) and completely ignored (part B of framework). The instigator of this debate made statements in the first part of this debate. I can do nothing but try to prove them to be wrong. 2. Although my opponent does not claim to be well-versed in the world of formal debate, this is not an excuse for not fulfilling a duty as the holder of the burden of proof in this round. I stated in my first speech that the instigator must prove his statement to be valid beyond a reasonable doubt. I will also note that this has not been proven. 3. The reader should vote Con based on the instigator's inability to prove his statements to be true within the bounds of the framework set at the beginning of this debate. B. EDUCATION AND MERIT: 1. The first thing that we can look to in this round is the ABUSE. The Pro team has not presented a Prima Facie case for their statement. It is the job of the Con to argue against whatever the Pro puts forth. In this case, the Pro did not sufficiently make an attempt at proving all of their statement to be true from the beginning. This makes it difficult for the Con because there is no substance to debate. 2. My opponent's choice to not read my last speech and disregard all of my arguments creates a lack of education coming out of this round. I have just given "on-case" arguments as to the validity of the claims made about WMD's in my last speech. These arguments were not touched. This is exactly where the educational merit of this round has diminished. 3. Also, refer to my previous speeches where I have noted that at the point where the challenger is not allowed to pay attention to detail is the point where all merit in the round is lost. This has been untouched. The instigator could have said that this has still been an educational experience in spite of the dropped arguments. However, this has not been the case. 4. The reader should vote Con given the fact that there has been a loss in the educational merit of this debate due to abusive strategy of the instigator. C. FIRST PART(A) OF FRAMEWORK: -This was the part about WMD's. Once again, from my first speech: ". .. .A. In order for SoutherngentFL to win this debate, he must prove that 'there WERE WMD found before, during and after Operation Iraqi Freedom. '" "My duty as Con in this debate round will be to prove one or more of SoutherngentFL's statements to be incorrect or not completely true. " "Therefore, the Pro debater must prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that WMD's were found in Iraq. " 1. The instigator began his strategy by defining what WMD's were. He expected this to be a big deal. I assume that he certainly runs into people that believe that WMD's are only certain things(e. g. long range nukes). However, I did not dispute the definition. I accepted it. In fact, I have proven his arguments on WMD's to be not valid as of my last speech. 2. The instigator provides evidence from articles about BEFORE and DURING the Iraq War from 2006. I provided evidence in my last speech that noted the invalidity of his evidence. While I am aware that the instigator brought up newer evidence attempting to prove that WMD's were found AFTERWARDS, this certainly does not cover the BEFORE and DURING parts of the framework for this debate. 3. I honestly don't know who the instigator is trying to fool. He just brought up sourceless evidence noting the findings of WMD's AFTER THE REMOVAL OF HUSSEIN. Well, guess what? That still doesn't prove his statement to be true. We are talking about Operation Iraqi Freedom. It is still going on. The instigator has shown no reason to believe that we will find WMD's after the war is over. This alone can be a reason to vote Con. 4. At this point, I have proven that the evidence from the instigator supporting his claims BEFORE and DURING the war are not valid. I have also shown his claims about AFTER the war to be not reasonable. Therefore, I believe that the reader would be able to vote Con on the first part(A) of the framework alone. D. SECOND PART(B) OF FRAMEWORK: 1. The instigator has completely dropped HALF of his statements made in his first speech. This necessitates a vote for Con. 2. I brought of evidence that said it was perfectly reasonable for a person that claims WMD's to be non-existent in Iraq to be a pathological liar. What frustrates me more is that I have stated that Part B of the framework is only necessary at the point where the instigator has proven the existence of WMD's in Iraq. If I am able to show that it was possible that a person that SoutherngentFL was talking to was a pathological liar, then I have disproved his assertion that the people might be "Intentional prevaricators". The instigator dismisses these arguments as being "word games". However, I maintain that they are solid attacks against the outrageous claims made in the first speech. 3. The second front of my Part B attack was also ignored in the last speech. This is a part that I wish my fellow debater would have not dismissed. It is perfectly reasonable that a person might have been talking about a specific part of the Iraq War. Once again: "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! " This argument was completely ignored by the instigator and is another reason to vote Con. Maybe if the instigator had read this part of the debate, he may not have made his bold and witty statement at the end of his speech. I have proven many of the instigator's assertions to be wrong. Therefore, it would make perfect sense for me to claim that "there were no WMD found in Iraq. " I would neither be misled nor lying in any manner. E. WHY VOTE CON? 1. I'm going to be honest. It would be pretty ridiculous to vote Pro in this debate. I have proven that WMD's were not in Iraq BEFORE, DURING, and AFTER Operation Iraqi Freedom. If the reader suspects that even one part of this statement made by SoutherngentFL is not valid, it necessitates a Con vote. 2. Even if you don't like my WMD arguments, the instigator dropped half of the debate and completely ignored it. He also tried to play some type of trick that showed us to find weapons in Iraq after Saddam was ousted. However, this is not the same thing as AFTER Operation Iraqi Freedom. Don't let him get away with dropping part of the debate. Hold him to the statements he made from the beginning. Thanks for the debate!