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

Con is actually extending more arguments against a strawman of my position. Whether this is because he has failed to understand them, or because he didn't read the resolution thoroughly, or attempt to clarify it with me before the debate, I am not sure. My position never asserted that the phrase "conspiracy theory" had any bearing on the truth of any information, that is the opposite of the position I have been defending throughout this debate. What makes a TTC a TTC is the fact that it doesn't bear any real truth value either way. It simply serves to quiet cognitive dissonance independent of the truth value of a claim.Con's arguments are failing to elucidate his position in regards to my own. For instance, I do not need to prove that "because something is a conspiracy theory, cognitive dissonance needs to be resolved to the extent that it becomes a substitute for finding more information."That is not consistent with the resolution I put forward or my own arguments. It also doesn't make much logical sense in terms of what I have been arguing, because the need to remove cognitive dissonance is inherent, it is a psychological drive to avoid the discomfort that comes with dissonance. A thought-terminating cliché is used to fulfill that function, independent of any truth behind it. This has been my position in regards to the phrase (and only the phrase) "conspiracy theory" throughout the debate. It does not matter whether the phrase is applied to a situation with any bearing in reality, in terms of my argument. Either way it functions as a TTC.Pro Conspiracy: This, again, is a total strawman. I'll demonstrate why.Con says, "It's not because I am called a conspiracy theorist that I'm not reading government accounts any more, it's because I've always believed (both before and after being called a "conspiracy theorist") that the government account is wrong. It's also not because I am called a conspiracy theorist that I'm more likely to read the narratives of other conspiracy theorists - it's because I read those narratives in the first place. So the whole dynamic of information gathering isn't affected."This was my point on this side of the conspiracy example. Con has again actually argued for my position to some degree. My argument was not that the phrase "conspiracy theory" directly affected which information searched out. It was that confirmation bias makes one prefer one side of the issue in the first place. In this case it would be pro-conspiracy already. The TTC comes in when information that is opposed to one's preferred view is presented, and is then used to remove the resulting cognitive dissonance from that, allowing one to continue building up their base of information consonant to their bias in the absence of the uncomfortable cognitive dissonance.This is the actual reason why people who are already biased towards belief in conspiracies seek out enough semi-relevant information to continually come up with new theories to explain past events.Con Conspiracy:Con has ignored the examples I gave in both the pro/con contentions, and what they were meant to demonstrate. I agree that both pro-conspiracy and anti-conspiracy advocates would do things in accord with their biases without the use of the phrase "conspiracy theory." That was, yet again, part of my point from the beginning. The crucial difference is what happens when either party is presented with evidence that opposes what they already believe. Then, and only then, is when they would experience cognitive dissonance, and only then would the phrase "conspiracy theory" act as a TTC, and in general this is where we here the phrase used. This has been, and is, my position.I'll spell it out one last time:I believe X position. -> Information opposed to position X is presented to me somehow. -> I thus experience cognitive dissonance, because I cannot handle considering this new information conflicting with my previously held belief X. -> Someone explains the situation with the phrase "conspiracy theory." -> One of two things happen. -> Either I am pro-conspiracy and the phrase removes cognitive dissonance and resolves my belief in the conspiracy (because obviously the government would call it a conspiracy to cover it up), or I am con-conspiracy and the phrase removes cognitive dissonance and resolves my disbelief in the conspiracy (because after all those people are crazy.)My opponent has not consistently opposed the actual position I have held throughout this debate, and where he has, he has not given any valid explanations or evidence to support his alternative positions. I have made several versions of the same argument, where my opponent has made several rebuttals to arguments that I never posed. Therefore, my opponent's strawman arguments and unwarranted assertions in response have thus far failed to hold up against my own arguments and explanations.I nevertheless look forward to his final remarks and the interpretation of this debate by the voters.