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

My opponent has decided to ignore a large part of this debate. This mistake will become more apparent as the instigator attempts to prove the ideas from the first part(A) of the framework for this debate. This is because I have clearly stated that as part A becomes valid, part B becomes an issue. HOWEVER, if the instigator cannot even prove that WMD's existed BEFORE, DURING, and AFTER Operation Iraqi Freedom, I will win this debate without the need for arguing the second part. Now, to begin: 1. The instigator has attempted to show that WMD's existed in Iraq BEFORE Operation Iraqi Freedom. "The reader will note that I refrained from kook blogs and irratic hyperbole. " I hope the reader will also note that no outside sources have been provided by the instigator. We can not be sure at all that "kook blogs" were not used in this case. 2. My opponent has also used sourceless information in his attempt to prove that WMD's were there DURING Operation Iraqi Freedom. The reader should note this as being a serious flaw within the instigators case. If he cannot provide a source, he cannot win this argument. 3. Now to the future. I would like the reader to keep in mind that the instigator has not shown any conclusive evidence on whether or not WMD's will be found after Operation Iraqi Freedom. This is a very important issue which has been dropped by my opponent. 4. In order for the instigator to win the debate within framework sub-point A, he must show that "there WERE WMD found before, during and after Operation Iraqi Freedom. " He must also do this "beyond a reasonable doubt. " All of this has been noted in my first speech and should carry a great deal of weight when deciding if the instigator has proven his statement. There is certainly a reasonable doubt that weapons were not found before and during Operation Iraqi Freedom seeing as no sources have been provided. 5. Back to the future. .. The reader must keep in mind that the instigator must prove WMD's to be in Iraq AFTER Operation Iraqi Freedom. If I am able to prove that Operation Iraqi Freedom will not be over until all WMD's are gone from Iraq, I will have won the debate. Of course, the instigator may ask you to not pay attention to this because it isn't a big issue to him. .. which brings me to the next part of the debate. 1. Once again, the instigator has dropped my arguments about misinformed people and intentional prevaricators. My opponent thinks that he can get the reader to vote for him because they should know what the debate is truly about. Somehow, we are supposed to be honest when looking at this debate and only pay attention to the facts. Here are the facts: The instigator gave a speech at the very beginning of this debate to show what it was all about. He stated that he would prove that WMD's existed BEFORE, DURING, and AFTER Operation Iraqi Freedom. This has still not been proven. 2. The instigator also stated, "When I challenge this statement, I receive disdain and contempt from the prevaricator who made the statement. " So when I hear, "Surely Con is not declaring himself to be a pathological liar. .. " I think, "Well, my opponent certainly just did. " Don't let the instigator back down on the previous statements he has made. Just because he has found himself in a sticky situation, does not mean that the reader should just assume what he meant and be honest about it. Given the fact that the majority of Americans believe that WMD's do not exist in Iraq (refer to my previous source), it is very likely that the instigator would call the reader a liar as well. I will certainly take into consideration that a person could be misinformed, but the facts are that the instigator believes these people to be lying intentionally. It is my job as the Con debater in this round to prove otherwise. 3. Note that all of my previous arguments about the merit and education coming from this round have been completely dismissed as being to detailed and not about the facts. My hope is that the reader will extend these arguments and look to them again as a reason to vote Con because of Abuse. It is not only abusive that the instigator has not attempted to prove his first statement to be true to a full extent, but it is abusive to the Con to completely drop a valid argument. Now, once again, on the second part(B) of the framework: 1. As I have previously stated, the instigator has ignored perfectly valid arguments. Please look back to the previous round's arguments and extend them through to this round as a means of showing that the instigator's statement may not be true. 2. It is still clear that a person may not be intentionally lying when speaking about WMD's in Iraq. 3. If I win this argument, I win the debate. At this point in the debate, I believe that I have proven both statements mentioned in the framework of this debate to be true, not necessarily true, or even not completely true; either of which will necessitate a vote for Con. The instigator will try to say that the facts will prevail in this debate and that the honest reader won't pay attention to his misspoken ideas and just know what he meant. However, I would hope that the honest reader would look to all of the arguments that I have presented and weigh them accordingly as they are still a big part of this debate.