The Instigator
SoutherngentFL
Pro (for)
Winning
39 Points
The Contender
ABNYU
Con (against)
Losing
30 Points

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

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/3/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,936 times Debate No: 4895
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (23)
Votes (23)

 

SoutherngentFL

Pro

I've often heard the statement "there were no WMD found in Iraq". When I challenge this statement, I recieve disdain and contempt from the prevaricator who made the statement. When asked, I delineate the WMD that were found, only to recieve more verbal attacks.
The truth of the matter is there WERE WMD found before, during and after Operation Iraqi Freedom. Those who state otherwise are either misinformed or Intentional prevaricators.
ABNYU

Con

Very interesting topic.
SoutherngentFL contends that "there WERE WMD found before, during and after Operation Iraqi Freedom. Those who state otherwise are either misinformed or Intentional prevaricators."

I will begin by laying the Framework for this debate:
A. In order for SoutherngentFL to win this debate, he must prove that "there WERE WMD found before, during and after Operation Iraqi Freedom."
-I will note that at this point in the debate, this has not been proven.
B. In order for SoutherngentFL to win this debate, he must also prove that "Those who state otherwise are either misinformed or Intentional prevaricators."
-I will note that at this point in the debate, this has not been proven.

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. If I am able to do so, I should win the debate. If I cannot prove this, SoutherngentFL will be the victor.

Let the argumentation begin:
A. WMD's in Iraq
1. My first argument is that the Pro debater holds the burden of proof. This is because of the fact that the majority of Americans believe that no WMD's were found in Iraq (http://www.harrisinteractive.com...). Therefore, the Pro debater must prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that WMD's were found in Iraq.
2. Given that the Pro debater holds the burden of proof, it is also necessary that SoutherngentFL prove that WMD's were found "BEFORE,DURING AND AFTER" (Where's the oxford comma!?!?!) Operation Iraqi Freedom. If SoutherngentFL cannot hold all three of these conditions to be true, he does not win this debate round because of a failed attempt to meet his duty as the Pro debater in this debate round.

-I will stop on the WMD's for now because I believe that I have given SoutherngentFL a reasonable framework in which to debate. If SoutherngentFL does not agree with the aforementioned framework, the reader should expect reasons why from SoutherngentFL.

NOTE: Point B should only be considered if SoutherngentFL is able to prove the that "WMD found before, during and after Operation Iraqi Freedom."
B. Misinformed people and intentional prevaricators
1. First, I will concede the fact that yes, many people may be misinformed on the subject of WMD's and the Iraq War. However, I disagree strongly with the notion that they are otherwise "Intentional prevaricators."

-First, we must define prevaricators: "a person who has lied or who lies repeatedly" (http://www.answers.com...)
2. Given this definition, we are led to believe that prevaricators are liars. However, SoutherngentFL makes the mistake of saying that they are INTENTIONAL prevaricators.
3. Many people are not Intentional prevaricators. SoutherngentFL must not dismiss the fact that lying about the Iraq War could be uncontrollable. It's called pathological lying, and it is noted in this article: (http://www.wisegeek.com...)
Here are some important excerpts:
-"The term pathological lying essentially translates to uncontrollable lying. This can mean that a person who is suspected of pathological lying is considered to have a disease, and therefore cannot control the lying."
-"It can be symptomatic of other conditions, like antisocial personality disorder, obsessive compulsive disorder (OCD) or attention deficit and hyperactivity disorder (ADHD)."

I will win this debate if I can prove that it could have been possible that a person was not lying intentionally, but pathologically about WMD's in Iraq. Any of the people that were lying to SoutherngentFL could have been suffering from uncontrollable lying stemming from many pathological conditions. For example, it is perfectly reasonable that SoutherngentFL's overbearing personality backfired with a person with an antisocial personality therefore causing them to pathologically lie about there being no WMD's in Iraq when they knew otherwise.

At this point I have proven that it is possible that a person saying that WMD's were not found in Iraq may not necessarily be "Intentional prevaricators." Therefore, SoutherngentFL must prove otherwise.

I will stop here for now. I eagerly await SoutherngentFL's rebuttal. Thanks for the debate!
Debate Round No. 1
SoutherngentFL

Pro

Interesting launch. My task is simple: To prove there were WMD in Iraq before during and after the liberation of Iraq from the tyrant Sadaam.

To begin, there must be a concrete, authoritative definition of WMD. WMD (or weapon of mass destruction) is a colloquialism for violations of U.N. Resolution 1441, which states: "Deploring the fact that Iraq has not provided an accurate, full, final, and complete disclosure, as required by resolution 687 (1991), of all aspects of its programmes to develop weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles with a range greater than one hundred and fifty kilometres, and of all holdings of such weapons, their components and production facilities and locations, as well as all other nuclear programmes, including any which it claims are for purposes not related to nuclear-weapons-usable material,"

This resolution is the final authority on what is and isn't a violation, or colloquially: "WMD". Any disagreement with this fact leaves the challenger with the burden of proof since "1441" was the justification for Operation Iraqi Freedom. Said disagreement also necessitates the challenger to produce and justify an alternative authority.

Resolution 1441 is secinct in it's requirements, on what is and isn't a violation. For example:"3. Decides that, in order to begin to comply with its disarmament obligations, in addition to submitting the required biannual declarations, the Government of Iraq shall provide to UNMOVIC, the IAEA, and the Council, not later than 30 days from the date of this resolution, a currently accurate, full, and complete declaration of all aspects of its programmes to develop chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, and other delivery systems such as unmanned aerial vehicles and dispersal systems designed for use on aircraft, including any holdings and precise locations of such weapons, components, subcomponents, stocks of agents, and related material and equipment, the locations and work of its research, development and production facilities, as well as all other chemical, biological, and nuclear programmes, including any which it claims are for purposes not related to weapon production or material;

4. Decides that false statements or omissions in the declarations submitted by Iraq pursuant to this resolution and failure by Iraq at any time to comply with, and cooperate fully in the implementation of, this resolution shall constitute a further material breach of Iraq's obligations and will be reported to the Council for assessment in accordance with paragraphs 11 and 12"

Synopsis of this reolution: Turn over all your multiple death weapons (explains "weapons of mass detruction", and R&D projects you have, along with any peripheral accompaniments, or support material. This also includes "dual use" equipment, experiments, altered equipment, along with precise locations relating directly or indirectly to said weapons.

Now that we've established the authorty of what is and what isn't a "WMD" the next step in the process is to certify the existence of said violations before during and after the removal of Tyrant Sadaam.

I do find it interesting that the challenger went to great lengths to box the instigator of the debate into some type of retracted parameters for his facts. I think the honest reader will determine that the instigator has factual validation of his proposition: and will do so without parsing words. "1441" is quite clear in it's desired affect, and the violations are indeed the foundation for the war in Iraq, and removing said WMD.
My intentions are to drive home the facts as stated above, then document the violtaions and establish a time line. The end result will be evident conclusion that those who say there were no WMD in Iraq will prove to be misinformed or liars.
ABNYU

Con

I will begin with an underview of the debate thus forth. I began with setting the framework for this debate by stating that my opponent must prove two things to be true beyond a reasonable doubt. It is apparent that this framework has been accepted by the instigator; but only to a certain extent. First and foremost, I would ask the reader to extend my second part(B) of the framework for this debate, stating: In order for SoutherngentFL to win this debate, he must also prove that "Those who state otherwise are either misinformed or Intentional prevaricators."
My opponent asks you to disregard this HALF of the debate because he plans to win this debate "without parsing words." My hope is that the honest reader will not fall prey to this move that is obviously detrimental to the education of this debate.
1. The instigator has the ability to create the framework for the debate and what is to be argued and what should be left aside.
2. ABUSE-The fact that the instigator decides that my arguments have no merit because they pay attention to detail is ridiculous. The challenger of any debate has but one thing to go off of and that is the first speech. As such, I believe that it is abusive to the challenger to have their arguments disregarded after no reasoning besides a hope that the "honest reader" will see factual validation of his proposition.
3. At the very point where the challenger is not allowed to pay attention to detail is the point where the debate has lost all of its merit. Both sides must have equal ground to represent.
4. The reader should vote Con at this very point due to lack of education coming out of this round. Maybe you are as disappointed as I am.

Moving on,

Back to the first part of the framework of this debate(A), to prove that Weapons of Mass Destruction were found in Iraq before, during, and after Operation Iraqi Freedom.
1. I find it odd that my opponent spent most of his time to merely explain what a WMD is. Nevertheless, it is a fair introduction and a valid point to make. I will accept this definition as concrete as well as authoritative. And to be clear, I believe this definition is about all his speech has provided.
2. ABUSE-The instigator has given no proof of an WMD's at this point. The Pro has set out a task. However, my opponent has not attempted to prove that WMD's exist in Iraq in any manner. If this is the task of the Pro team...what am I supposed to be debating right now?
3. Given the fact that I cannot debate the merits of whether or not there were or are WMD's in Iraq, I will now pay attention to the last part of the task: to prove that we will find WMD's in the future. Yes, Operation Iraqi Freedom has not ended and I will remind the reader that it is the duty of the instigator to prove that we will find WMD's even after the war is over. (We must lose, huh?)

I am looking forward to any proof of the aforementioned task of the instigator.

Now, to move on to my arguments about misinformed people and Intentional prevaricators.
1. I would beg the reader to pay close attention to this part of the debate, seeing as it has been dropped by the instigator but is still an argument that holds a great deal of weight in this round. You see, even at the very point that the instigator is able to prove that there were WMD's in Iraq BEFORE, DURING, and AFTER Operation Iraqi Freedom, he must still answer to the fact that he is generalizing a group of people as being misinformed and more notably, "Intentional prevaricators". I don't know about the reader, but I don't take it lightly when someone calls me a liar. Given my stance in this debate, the instigator would surely deem me as being a misinformed person or a liar; either of which I do not see as being remotely true.
2. Keep in mind my arguments about people who compulsively lie and have pathological disorders. They might lie uncontrollably. This is certainly a valid point which I see fit to bring up given the fact that the instigator has given no reason as to why not.

At this point in the debate, I would like to point out that my opponent has not proven a single bit of information holding weight in this debate. A mistake was made by spending too much time on a less important issue upon which I agree and completely dropping a valid argument brought forth by the challenger.
Debate Round No. 2
SoutherngentFL

Pro

>My opponent asks you to disregard this HALF of the debate because he plans to win this debate "without parsing words." My hope is that the honest reader will not fall prey to this move

I find this to be a humorous statement. In a personal discussion my response would be "no, don't confuse people with facts, it's the peripheral issues that substantiate any given fact. Based of course on one personal opinion on a given subject.

>I will win this debate if I can prove that it could have been possible that a person was not lying intentionally, but pathologically about WMD's
AND:

>I don't know about the reader, but I don't take it lightly when someone calls me a liar.

Surely Con is not declaring himself to be a pathological liar. I find this posture curious, and cannot wait to watch this debate develop.

Onward.
Now that we've established and agreed on the definition of what is and isn't a WMD (con accepts the definition: "I will accept this definition as concrete as well as authoritative. And to be clear, I believe this definition is about all his speech has provided").

WMD found in Iraq:
Pre-war:
Iraq Survey group leaders Charles Duelfer and David Kay according to their reports "a clandestine network of laboratories and safe houses with equipment that was suitable to continuing its prohibited chemical- and biological-weapons [BW] programs," the official said. "They found a prison laboratory where we suspect they tested biological weapons on human subjects." They found equipment for "uranium-enrichment centrifuges" whose only plausible use was as part of a clandestine nuclear-weapons program. In all these cases, "Iraqi scientists had been told before the war not to declare their activities to the U.N. inspectors," the official said. "Where were the missiles? We found them"
Mr. Duelfer reported: " Iraq did, however, maintain a breakout potential, that is the capability and know-how to rebuild WMD after sanctions were lifted. * Iraq did not live up to its U.N. obligations. U.N. violations included undeclared equipment, materials and laboratories, procurement, and work on long-range missiles and drones.
The inspectors were in the process of destroying illicit Al Samoud 2 missiles and related equipment but were unable to complete the task BEFORE THE START of the U.S.-led war in Iraq.

During Operation Iraqi Freedom
A military report that was partially declassified June 21, 2006 reports to congress that "since 2003, Coalition forces have recovered approxamatly 500 weapons munitions of degraded mustard and sarin gass."

JUNE 26, 2003 The CIA has in its hands the critical parts of a key piece of Iraqi nuclear technology -- parts needed to develop a bomb program -- that were dug up in a back yard in Baghdad, CNN has learned.

The parts, with accompanying plans, were unearthed by Iraqi scientist Mahdi Obeidi who had hidden them under a rose bush in his garden 12 years ago under orders from Qusay Hussein and Saddam Hussein's then son-in-law, Hussein Kamel.

This is a sample of informarion concerning WMD found in Iraq before and during the operation to remove Sadaam Hussein from his dictatorship.

As you can see, the evidence proves conclussivly that WMD were present, and while operations to continue to produce said WMD were suspended, the UN report specifies that it was exactly that: suspended, not abandoned.

The reader will note that I refrained from kook blogs and irratic hyperbole. This was intentional since vociferous rancor becomes the issue instead of the facts.
ABNYU

Con

This is a very interesting debate so far. 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.
Debate Round No. 3
SoutherngentFL

Pro

I see my opponent continues to play word games, which is fine with me. If he wishes to apply theory or fact is his responsibility. The honest reader can decide independently whether the facts, as presented are valid to the discussion.
News article addressing the NGIC report documenting "over 500 WMD found in Iraq":

06/23/2006
Pa. Representative Weldon reacts to WMD report
By KEITH PHUCAS

NORRISTOWN - Despite the popular notion that no weapons of mass destruction exist in Iraq, since 2003 the U.S. military has recovered about 500 munitions containing mustard or the nerve agent sarin, 1.77 metric tons of enriched uranium and 1,000 radioactive materials in the war-torn country so far.
Advertisement

On Wednesday, portions of an April 2006 National Ground Intelligence Center (NGIC) report detailing the weapons armed with mustard or sarin was declassified. The NGIC is a Defense Department unit.
The report's summary said the recovered munitions contained degraded mustard or sarin, and that the weapons had likely been in Iraq since BEFORE the 1991 Gulf War.
"Despite many efforts to locate and destroy Iraq's pre-Gulf War chemical munitions, filled and unfilled pre-Gulf War chemical munitions are assessed to still exist," the summary stated.
United Nations Resolution 687, adopted by the United Nations Security Council on April 3, 1991, following the Gulf War, required Iraq to destroy any chemical or biological weapons under international supervision.
The former Iraqi regime, however, violated this resolution by neglecting to have the U.N. Special Commission (UNSCOM) oversee the destruction effort and for failing to declare all of its prohibited weapons.
Congressman Curt Weldon, R-7th Dist., who has read the recent NGIC report, said the revelations prove that Hussein and other former regime officials lied about ridding Iraq's weapons arsenal of chemical agents after the Gulf War, thus violating the U.N. resolution.

"This report specifically confirms that weapons of mass destruction existed when we went to war (in 2003)," Weldon said.

In the decade that followed the 1991 Iraq war, Hussein repeatedly insisted his regime had destroyed all weapons of mass destruction. Between 1991 and 1998, the Iraqis interfered with U.N. inspectors attempting to verify compliance with the resolution, according to former U.N. chief weapons inspector Richard Butler.
Weldon said the April report includes photographs and locations where chemical weapons were discovered. As well, the report lists specific dates chemical weapons were used against Iranians and Iraqi Kurds during the 1980s.
"It's all there," he said. "The whole report should be declassified."

The Seventh District House member said U.S. intelligence agencies have attempted to keep a lid on the latest chemical weapons revelations.
"There's been a deliberate attempt to downplay it," Weldon said.

Interestingly, the Bush administration, who met stiff resistance from the CIA over intelligence estimates of Iraq's prohibited weapons before the 2003 war, has not pressed to have the recent report publicized.
At a Pentagon briefing Thursday, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said though they recovered chemical weapons were described as degraded, they still posed a risk to U.S. troops in Iraq.
"What's been announced is accurate, that there have been hundreds of canisters or weapons of various types found that either currently have sarin in them or had sarin in them. And sarin's dangerous. And it's dangerous to our forces, and it's a concern," Rumsfeld said. "They are weapons of mass destruction. They're harmful to human beings."
On June 23, 2004, U.S. forces seized 1.77 metric tons of enriched uranium in a nuclear facility in Iraq, according to the Energy Department. Also, U.S. Department of Energy specialist removed 1,000 radioactive materials in "powdered form, which is easily dispersed," Energy spokesman Bryan Wilkes told the BBC.
The uranium, though not enriched sufficiently for use in a nuclear missile, could violate Resolution 687 that prohibited Iraq from acquiring "nuclear-weapons-usable material or any subsystems or components."
According to a 2002 Congressional Research Service report, between 1991 and 1994, weapons inspectors "uncovered and dismantled a previously undeclared network of about 40 nuclear research facilities, including three clandestine (uranium) enrichment programs. International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors discovered three tons of uranium remained in Iraq. UNSCOM in 1998 discovered that in 1996 Iraq had produced fresh bombs laden with mustard gas."
The 2002 CRS report also noted that four tons of growth media for biological agents remained unaccounted for in Iraq.
Keith Phucas can be reached at kphucasATtimesherald.com or 610-272-2500, ext. 211.

Now that we've established the definition of "WMD", have documented their existence in Iraq, we will next apply a timeline. . .

Thank you for your willingness to watch this debate with an open mind.
ABNYU

Con

"Thank you for your willingness to watch this debate with an open mind."
OK guys, I have to say it. This statement lame. The instigator of this debate has once again tried to avoid his duty of carrying the burden of proof in this debate because everyone should just be able to tell that he wins.

1. The Instigator attempts to make this a matter of "res ipsa loquitur." (i.e. "it speaks for itself")This is a common mistake in argumentation made by the holders of the burden of proof. My opponent maintains that everything will just make sense without looking to the details. I will maintain that this is not just reasoning and that it is still abusive to the Con side of this debate.
2. Once again, ABUSE- As I have stated before, it is the duty of the Pro team to present a "prima facie" case. In other words, the case must affirm the resolution or framework of the debate "at first appearance." As I have stated before, the instigator has not even attempted to show that the initial statements that he had made are completely true. ***NOTABLY: Where are the WMD's AFTER Operation Iraqi Freedom?
3. SoutherngentFL's flawed argumentation methods should lead to a vote for Con in this debate because it has limited my ability to argue. My opponent has given me no substance to debate. It is difficult to disprove arguments that have not been made.

My opponent begins his previous speech by denouncing my "word games." Once again, this is a very good reason to vote Con. A big part of the Con case was dropped. The instigator continues to provide nothing but sourceless text attempting to prove that WMD's were in Iraq before and during Operation Iraqi Freedom. Fine...I'll bite.
1. The instigator's claim of WMD's in Iraq are false. Bush knowingly lied the the U.S. public about the existence of WMD's.
-Christian Science Monitor, May 9, 2007, Wednesday, OPINION; Pg. 9, 744 words, John Hughes

"...critics of Mr. Bush claim that he knowingly lied about the WMD issue in order to justify the war. The nearer truth seems to be that he was painfully misled, as were prominent Democrats such as Hillary Clinton and John Kerry..."

Yes, this evidence does post-date the instigator's evidence and it STILL says that WMD's did not exist in Iraq at the time of invasion.

2. The case for WMD's presented by the instigator does not mean anything.
-The Toronto Sun, November 29, 2007 Thursday, EDITORIAL/OPINION; Pg. 19, 635 words, BY DAVE GORDON

"The failure to find WMD has led to worldwide condemnation of the Iraq war and of U.S. President George W. Bush for launching it."

"...the case for Saddam's WMD isn't a "smoking gun" or the "slam dunk" former CIA director George Tenet described to Bush prior to the invasion."

"Rather, it's an interesting theory developed by...an intelligence expert."

"...even he concedes no single captured Iraqi document confirms it..."

Once again, note the date on this evidence. It states that previous claims, as in the instigator's '06 evidence, are not solid. This leaves a reasonable doubt as to whether or not WMD's existed in Iraq. Now that I have done my duty as the Con team in this round, I will move on.

When the team that holds the burden of proof is not able to present a prima facie case, the other debater is of course left with a stray piece of the framework or resolution. In this case, it is the part AFTER Operation Iraqi Freedom. From what I can see, my opponent will present a timetable. Perhaps this will be an attempt to prove that WMD's will be found AFTER Operation Iraqi Freedom. However, the evidence must be very good to prove this. I will suggest that Operation Iraqi Freedom will not be over until the elimination of WMD threat from Iraq. It would not make sense to leave otherwise. Whomever takes the duty of President of the United States in January will certainly agree. Barack Obama will hold that the WMD's never existed in Iraq, therefore we should leave. John McCain will hold that we should not leave Iraq until WMD's are no longer a threat. And not to bash McCain, but he says that it might take another 100 years. In any case, look to the fact that my opponent has failed to prove thus far a presence of WMD's in Iraq AFTER Operation Iraqi Freedom.

At this point in the debate, I have shown that the instigator has not proven the statement made that is highlighted in the first part(A) of the framework. I have shown that there have also been flawed and abusive attempts at argumentation. This alone necessitates a vote for Con. However, if a reader is not convinced of the Con's case thus far, I would suggest that they pay close attention to the second part(B) of the framework. As I have stated previously, this is a major part of the debate, as it is part of one of the only things presented in the first speech.

In previous speeches, I have proven the instigator to have flawed reason in his remarks. These arguments have become completely ignored by the instigator. I have already stated several times as to the magnitude of this mistake. I will once again make my point clear.

A person who states that WMD's were not found in Iraq may not be lying purposefully at all. I have shown this to be true through a credible source noted in my first speech. This negates the instigators claim highlighted in the second part(B) of the framework for this debate.

Here is another argument. Suppose that the person that SoutherngentFL was talking to was merely talking about one stage of the war. 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!

Now we have two sets of arguments set on the second part(B) of the framework of this debate. If these are not touched in the final round, I would suggest to the reader that there has been a loss of value and education in the debate due to the lack of argumentation from the instigator in this debate. I stated at the beginning of my first speech what the instigator must prove to win this debate. At this point, NONE of it has been proven. Therefore, I believe that a vote for Con would be the best choice.
Debate Round No. 4
SoutherngentFL

Pro

Final piece of evidence that there was WMD in Iraq before, during and after the removal of Hussein:
INTERNATIONAL HERALD TRIBUNE
Uranium removed from Iraq nuclear site
By Alissa J. Rubin and Campbell Robertson Published: July 7, 2008
BAGHDAD: American and Iraqi officials have completed nearly the last chapter in dismantling Saddam Hussein's nuclear program with the removal of hundreds of tons of natural uranium from the country's main nuclear site.

The uranium, which was removed several weeks ago, arrived in Canada over the weekend, according to officials. The removal was first reported by The Associated Press.

Although the material could not be used in its current form for a nuclear weapon or even a so-called dirty bomb, officials decided that in Iraq's unstable environment, it was important to make sure that it did not fall into the wrong hands.

There are also health dangers associated with concentrated forms of natural uranium.

American military personnel helped move about 600 tons of uranium in the form called yellowcake. It had been stored at Tuwaitha, an installation south of Baghdad that had been the site of Iraq's nuclear program.

We have now established the definition of "WMD", and established their existence in Iraq.

Most of the documentation/evidence I provided crosses all three requirements of being in Iraq While Hussein was in office, and found during or after his capture. This subsequently addresses the scope of the time table.

Having established the validity of the claim that WMD WERE found, the reasonable conclusion is "People who say no WMD were found in Iraq are at best misinformed, and at worst prevaricators."

One could make the claim that they are in the same boat as the challenger, that they are mentally ill and can't tell the difference between truth and untruth. These would be the exception the premise.

My heartfelt sympathy is extended to the challenger; and aplaud him for his willingness to publicly admit his illness. I hope his doctor can help his overcome this sad predicament, and wish him a happy normal life in the near future
ABNYU

Con

"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! Vote CON!
Debate Round No. 5
23 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by SoutherngentFL 8 years ago
SoutherngentFL
The Definition:
Murphy and Redruin, this is why I spent so much time on resolution 1441. Before yahoo shut down it's descusion boards I would face those who would minimize, say 300 al samoud missles which had been altered to fly farther; thus qualify as "WMD".
There has to be a final authority on what is and isn't a violation ("WMD") and since the resolution was the foundation for the action, it became the final authority.
I agree that the resolution was broad based and therefore covered a wide spectrum of requirements. That was because the Hussein regime had a history of playing games. The U.N. was basically tired of their antics. Hence, the verbiage of 1441.
Most of you on this sight are younger than me, let me say that if you're the future of America we have a grand future awaiting this nation. I'm truly impressed.
Posted by Murphy_is_Law 8 years ago
Murphy_is_Law
The definition that was agreed upon was really shaky. The Neg interpretation was made very clear, An actual physical weapon grade material that could cause mass destruction. This would fall under the U.N. resolution that turned into a definition, but not include the other section of the resolution pertaining to the nuclear programs.

My decision:

I voted Neg, for part B of the framework. It was completely dropped by Aff and was half of the agreed upon debate. In part A, Aff squeaked through victorious because of the very broad definition of a WMD.

In my mind, a WEAPON OF MASS DESTRUCTION is not a pile of yellow dust that can cause lung problems, but what that pile of dust can and could have been turned into.

Additionally: I weigh my vote in Neg's favor because I felt like SouthergentFL was far too rude to be taken professionally, even in an online debate.
Posted by Redruin 8 years ago
Redruin
Not agressively attackong pro on his definition of a WMD dooms your effort to a draw at best, con. You let a pile of uranium and some degraded munitions do you in...
Posted by ABNYU 8 years ago
ABNYU
Hey Southerngent...no problem. It was a good debate.

As I can now see your lead starting to grow...I will go ahead and be honest. I believe that there probably were WMD's found in Iraq. Your evidence certainly showed that.
And while I still think that I won this debate, I really took it for the challenge.

Overall, I respect the style...and I truly have no problem with getting to the point. To be honest, I just had no interest in citing liberal blogs and posting Barack speeches to try to prove that WMD's never existed.

Thanks again for the fun debate!
Posted by SoutherngentFL 8 years ago
SoutherngentFL
correction: cible= civil. Yes I pronouce the word correctly, I don't always hit the correct key while typing.
Posted by SoutherngentFL 8 years ago
SoutherngentFL
publicforumG-d, thanks. For what it's worth, I suspect ABNYU is smarter than me. Meaning he'd probably beat me on the IQ test. I've been counselling substance abusers for years, and I've learned to shake them up to get them out of their comfort zone. Most consider themselves to be smart and thus become argumentative when counselling them about personal decisions. In short, I know how to get them off of their game so I can make some headway with them.
Now, here was a subject I believe, and informed on the reality. I was slow to substantiate the WMD that were found to prevent going back and challenging the definition of WMD. After that, I just laid out the case. I paid attention to ABNYU's post, I just didn't allow him to side track my reasoning.
ABNYU, I apologize for being so rough, and thank you for illustrating proper form. I've learned from you. I bet you're a great young man, but don't try to over-think issues. Because I own a small company, I've been in cibil court a few times. I can tell you judges dont follow "form" they look for truth in it's simplicity-While "form" might be good in a debate forum, it'll convince people you're devoid of "common sense" in the real world. Again, please accept my sincere apology.
Posted by Dali 8 years ago
Dali
This was not an easy vote. Pro took way too long to bring his evedence into the argument and Con spent the time changing the topic of the debate from

Those who say "no WMD were found in Iraq" are either Misinformed, or Prevaricators
to
Those who say "no WMD WERE or ARE BEING or WILL ALWAYS BE found in found in Iraq" are misinformed or INTENTIONAL prevaricators.

While I enjoy a good dig at the opponent, both should have spent more time addressing the topic or made the digs more relevant to the topic.

Ultimately I felt that Pro's evidence on what was found in Iraq was a little better while Con spent more time arguing against a topic that he changed to make it easer to argue against. Con lost but I wouldn't realy call what Pro did a win. Pro just didn't lose as badly. I grudgingly vote pro.
Posted by lacanrox 8 years ago
lacanrox
southerngentfl: I just read this debate and I think that abnyu was right when he said you weren't reading his speeches. You didn't answer his args.
Abnyu: good debating.
Posted by harvey 8 years ago
harvey
ABNYU you let Southerngent get under your skin. He gave you facts, you gave him attitude. Pro wins.
Southerngent you were slow to start but you pulled it all together.
Posted by PublicForumG-d 8 years ago
PublicForumG-d
To southern: The name calling was weird and misplaced, but so was Cons. Definately loved the well written prose, the knowledge of the arguments, and the continual flow of evidence.

You took a position I disagree with, and argued it excellently.

To abnyu: He had more evidence, and better evidence. Yours dated his, but he provided consensus - which is more valuable than dating. Had you matched him toe-to-toe for dated evidence, I'd have voted for you.

Vote Pro based on winning the WMD offense.
23 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Oolon_Colluphid 8 years ago
Oolon_Colluphid
SoutherngentFLABNYUTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by aaltobartok 8 years ago
aaltobartok
SoutherngentFLABNYUTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by SexyLatina 8 years ago
SexyLatina
SoutherngentFLABNYUTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by Greendonut 8 years ago
Greendonut
SoutherngentFLABNYUTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by bthr004 8 years ago
bthr004
SoutherngentFLABNYUTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by ldrox 8 years ago
ldrox
SoutherngentFLABNYUTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by Labrat228 8 years ago
Labrat228
SoutherngentFLABNYUTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by adaffodil 8 years ago
adaffodil
SoutherngentFLABNYUTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Derek.Gunn 8 years ago
Derek.Gunn
SoutherngentFLABNYUTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by Murphy_is_Law 8 years ago
Murphy_is_Law
SoutherngentFLABNYUTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03