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

Both my opponent and I agree that conspiracy theories are often true. That's not at issue in this debate. The question in this debate is whether "conspiracy theory" is used to create cognitive dissonance, as proposed by pro, or arises because of cognitive dissonace, as I'm about to advocate. Why does cognitive dissonance actually happen?9/11 is a reasonably good example of a conspiracy theory. Regardless of whether it was orchestrated by the US government or not, the people who believe it was a conspiracy are not exactly big supporters of the US government. Why? Because according to their beliefs, the US government has done something that they're not really happy about - first of all, committing the actual act of blowing up the twin towers, killing thousands and destroying important landmarks, but secondly, lying about it and covering it up. Why does anybody believe that narrative? Because they distrust the official government narrative, obviously - they believe things like that the 9/11 commission was a sham and that it was all a pretense to start wars that they usually don't agree with either. So let's investigate that chain of events. First, problem recognition - ie, there is evidence that the US government could be behind the attacks. Second, cognitive dissonance - ie how could it be possible that this government I trust could be behind 9/11. At this point, they make one of two choices - either they stop trusting the government, or they stop trusting the evidence that makes the government responsible. Let us presume they choose the first option and somebody calls them a conspiracy theorist. In order for this to create cognitive dissonance, it would have to clash somehow with their already-held assumptions. If, in fact, they are conspiracy theorists, then there's no reason why they'd have a problem with that. It's like going up to a gay person and saying "ha ha, you're gay! " - the gay person would simply reply saying "yes, I am. Thank you captain obvious. " The situation is a bit different if the other person is somebody they know and trust. If, for instance, one trusts the local priest, and the priest says "Thou shalt not be gay," then there is cognitive dissonance - does one trust one's own assumptions or the priest's? The same thing happens with conspiracy theories - if you trust your grandma, and she says "Oh no, dear, that's just a conspiracy theory, don't worry about it," then you might have cognitive dissonance because you might trust your grandma more than your assumption. However, it's not because it's a conspiracy theory that your grandma might have changed your mind - it's because it was your grandma who said it. Similarly, in the example my opponent mentioned, if the evidence is not so strong for the conspiracy theory, or because you voted for a government in the past, then it's because of that vote or that lack of evidence that you experience cognitive dissonace - NOT because it's a conspiracy theory. Whether there were conspirators or not, the need for consistancy and evidence does not go away. The words "conspiracy theory" say nothing about the credibility of evidence or about any lack of evidence, unlike my opponent's assertion - it simply refers to "a theory that explains an event as being the result of a plot by a covert group or organization; a belief that a particular unexplained event was caused by such a group" (. http://dictionary.reference.com...). This is also more or less equivalent to the Oxford definition provided by my opponent in the first round. My evidenceUnder my opponent's model, you'd expect to see groups like 9/11 truthers die out pretty quickly, as people become cognitively dissonant with being called conspiracy theorists. This would particularly be true over time, since calling something a conspiracy theory more frequently should mean more cognitive dissonance should build up. It's the same principle as when you become dissatisfied with a purchase you have made. Say you buy a new phone and then notice that it actually sucks. The longer you have to use that phone, the more dissonant you will become - after one month you might only be slightly annoyed, while after three years you'll probably be smashing your phone to pieces in rage. However, conspiracy theories do not follow this paradigm, indicating that for conspiracy theorists, being called a conspiracy theorist is not a source of cognitive dissonance. A good example of this is the shooting of John F Kennedy, the former president of the United States. People still debate about whether or not there was a conspiracy. I recently did some research into what really caused the Hindenburg to blow up, and if you do so like me, you'll find a whole host of fasinating conspiracy theories that survive and are passionately argued to this day - despite the fact that (let's be honest) it doesn't really matter whether there was a conspiracy or not any more (I mean, seriously - World War 2 ended how long ago! ?). Conspiracy theories go older still. Did Nero set alight Rome, was it really some sneaky Christians, or was it somebody else entirely? Historians, by and large, think there was a conspiracy, but calling them conspiracy theorists hasn't changed their views in hundreds of years. Furthermore, there has been plenty of ongoing rational thought and creative insights on all of these, such as the recent discovery of the coating used on the Hindenburg as a possible cause for the speed of the fire's spread. My opponent's psychological theory does not stand up to empirical facts about conspiracy theories. Entrenchment of biasesI agree that the entrenchment of biases is harmful. However, this is a problem with conspiracy theories. This is not a debate about whether conspiracy theories are a good thing or not. This is a debate about whether the phrase "conspiracy theory" is usually used as a cliche to terminate thought. Conspiracy theories will exist for as long as there are conspiracies, and applying the label "conspiracy theory" to a conspiracy theory does nothing more to entrench the confirmation biases of conspiracy theorists or any other groups.