The Iraq War was justified

In this round I plan to address these in depth. As you go through this case, please pay attention to the fact that my opponent has ignored around 90% of the case I spent hours writing in round two, and the remainder is mostly not refuted but simply mocked, with claims like that they are silly or obviously false. Assertive Strawmans / Silly StatementsMy opponent not only needs to say my arguments fell into these categories, he actually need to show where they are, and prove that they are. The only example of an "assertive strawman" he argued was my line that the assertion "America is good" is unjustified. Not only did I expressly say I didn't have the characters to make that argument, and thus did not make it in the debate, it isn't a strawman. For the logic that war is justified through the faults of another to hold, a number of premises need to be justified first. One of these must be that war, when conducted through the attacking nation, actually solves the problem. This is not true, however, if the attacking nation is also a problem. Since I do not wish to advance this particular argument in the debate, however (it would take almost the whole of my 8000 characters to explain fully) I would prefer to focus on my more important point that I spent several paragraphs justifying at length, that war is inherently bad. My argument against the use of weapons my opponent has brushed off as silly. Cool. What he now needs to do is justify why the argument is silly. It's pretty clear that if my opponent agrees it is silly to hold a standard of invasion that is an interest in weapons, then my opponent has not shown what his standard is that he was attempting to prove in round two. He needs to be able to explain why it is legitimate to invade Iraq and not everywhere on earth that contains a person with a passing interest in weapons. Flawed studies? No study is perfect. It's a fact (. http://www.psychologyandsociety.com...). Every single study published in the lancet includes a limitations section which provides opportunities for further research. This is normal academic practice. This does not mean, however, that the findings of the studies are inaccurate. Mot universities require limitations to arguments to be acknowledged (. http://libguides.usc.edu...), but in this specific paper, the authors were confident that despite these limits, their conclusion was a very good estimate. Simply asserting that the study was flawed in some small respects does not, therefore, disprove or even challenge their findings. Obvious War JustificationMy opponent's whole logic relies on a single example of where it is justified to go to war. First of all, Iraq is not that example. Even if my opponent's example holds true in hypothetical imagination-land, it certainly does not hold true in the real world, nor is his hypothesis equivalent or analogous to Iraq. Nevertheless, I do not concede that even in this extreme example, war is justified just because my opponent thinks it obvious. I have already given countless reasons why. First, no matter how extreme, the principle that defense justifies attack does not hold. Second, war is morally objectionable, even if done for very noble reasons. War is a descriptor for an event with negative consequences, so to say it is justified is an oxymoron. Third, the presumption that war can in fact be "justified" has not yet been demonstrated by my opponent, because there are no absolute moral values. These are the things my opponent needs to disprove if he intends to refute my case. Simply giving an example and calling it "obviously true" does not make it true - this is why I do not accept war can be justified. War is never justified. The resolution is negated.