BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
9/11 was not an inside job

I have nothing to refute. To sum up my arguments: 1. NORAD is famed for successful interceptions, but failed twice in a day. 2. The building was made to take larger forces than the plane. 3. The floors and steel rods would not be shredded, but bent if nothing but the plane was used. 4. Fire was not a factor. It does not burn hot enough to do serious damage. 5. The "Bin Laden" tapes provided by CIA are obviously fake. 6. Pools of molten steel were found WEEKS afterward, suggesting the use of thermite. In conclusion, I have no doubt in my mind that this was an inside job. Thank you for the good debate.
9/11 was not an inside job

I dropped the Bin Laden point because that is a totally separate part of the debate. For time and space constraints, lets keep it at the actual attack. Maybe it was aluminum maybe it wasn't. But if the molten steel was found, that does not prove that bombs were used to cause that. It proves that "hot steel will continue to undergo exothermic oxidation reactions while exposed to air, causing iron to increase its temperature until it melts, forming pools of molten iron." "The building supported a certain amount of weight before the collision and same after, extra floors were not added" Yes there were no floors added, but structural support was taken out. Example: Have someone stand on your hand. Not bad right? Now have someone with a high heel stand on your hand. Hurts doesn't it? Think of the "foot" as the building after the attack, and think of the "heel" as after the plane hit. There was more pressure on the steel because other floors fell due to the perimeter structure breach. Step 1: building is fine. All steel is intact and perfectly placed. Step 2: plane hits building and fire burns/melts mostly everything, including the steel. Step 3: support beams are taken out. Step 4: more weight is administered to the beams still somewhat intact. Step 5: those beams break. You would most likely not see perfect square floors on the ground because everything is breaking and hitting a variety of things. Once the floors hit the ground, The floors exploded outward from the force of their impact on the ground. Your telling me that you would expect a perfect stack of floors? Everything is falling and breaking at different angles so common sense would dictate that the floors will break on the way down. They aren't invincible when they are falling... As for the NORAD incident, I do not think we will ever find out the answer to why they did not respond in time. The military hates accepting the fact they failed or something went wrong. If the military openly says that a certain action failed at a pivotal point, than terrorist can do the exact same maneuver because is worked last time. Was it the governments fault for Pearl Harbor? Yes they had all their eggs in one basket and they knew an attack was coming but they didn't know when or where it would happen. The same could be said with this situation. The jets were being scrambled about but some were armed and some where not. The attach was unprecedented which was way is was so effective. Also, shooting down a civilian plane would be impossible. Hijackings were unheard of at the time and kamikaze attacks were the last thing Bush expected as a terrorist attack on America. Bush even gave the military authorization to shoot down commercial airliners but it was overruled by the military. People would blame Bush if either decision was made.
9/11 was not an inside job

"Once that floor was under too much stress, it gave out and crashed on to the next floor. It's weight was almost quadrupling as each floor fell onto the next." 1. The weight did not change. The building supported a certain amount of weight before the collision and same after, extra floors were not added. They were simply stacked on one another. 2. If this was true, then "layers" of floors stacked on top of each other would be found afterwards. There were no stacks of floors found. In fact, the floors were shredded. Same with the steel columns, if there were no explosives, then the columns would be bent, beaten but not SHREDDED as they were found and as you can see in this picture. http://911research.wtc7.net... "Hot steel will continue to undergo exothermic oxidation reactions while exposed to air, causing iron to increase its temperature until it melts, forming pools of molten iron." Which is why it was steel that was molten weeks after the collision, and not aluminum. Aluminum would have cooled off. "I'm not asking WHY the government would do that" The government did it to create a national enemy and create a reason to invade Iraq/Middle East for oil. Lots of money. http://www.cnn.com... http://readersupportednews.org... "It "failed" because the hijackers turned off the airplanes transponders so the Air Traffic Control could not track them. The only way the Air Force could shoot down those hijacked planes is if they got an alert from Air Traffic Control, which they didn't because Air Traffic Control could get in touch with the hijacked planes." NORAD is immediately notified when a plane stops broadcasting the transponder code and NORAD had many drills with planes that had transponders turned off. One of the planes was flying around without a signal for 45 mins, yet NORAD still "couldn't" take it down. http://georgewashington.blogspot.com... I will note that my opponent dropped my point about Bin Laden. It can be noted that the buildings fell at almost free fall speed. Nothing can move mass out of the way that fast except explosives. http://911research.wtc7.net...
9/11 was not an inside job

Fire cannot destroy concrete"- Yes fire cannot destroy concrete but the falling floors above them can. The real reason for their collapse was structural. Most buildings have their support in the center of the tower. The Twin Towers had their support on the outside, giving it perimeter support. So if and airplane crashes into it at 560 knots, regardless of the integrity of the steel, the "shell" of steel is most likely to buckle, bend or break, causing floors above to crash down. This put more weight than expected on the inferior levels. Once that floor was under too much stress, it gave out and crashed on to the next floor. It's weight was almost quadrupling as each floor fell onto the next. About thermite... First things first: never has there ever been a fire that involved a jet airplane crashing into a sky scrapper causing thousands of gallons of jet fuel to spill into the building and catching the entire building on fire and having it crash to the ground. The "liquid" metal could have been melted aluminum for all we know. It's most likely aluminum because it took the steel much longer to melt than the aluminum from the plane. Hot steel will continue to undergo exothermic oxidation reactions while exposed to air, causing iron to increase its temperature until it melts, forming pools of molten iron. (http://www.physics.byu.edu...) So it could also be iron. Who knows. Some people said it was too shiny to be aluminum, others said it was not, but, really, who had the time to observe it while they were running in the streets? It has come down to one question: was the molten substance shinny enough to be aluminum? The pictures we have are only so good, and we may never know how freaking shinny it actually is... Even if it was explosives that were used in the building, is there any proof that the Government did it? I'm not asking WHY the government would do. Why must we blame the government? Terrorists have placed bombs before. There has been a total of 60 attempts to attack the WTC in some form; small or big. Do you think they would figure out the layout of the building after 60 attempts? The government owns military grade explosives. The terrorists own military grade explosives... (http://www.heritage.org...) "NORAD is a very advanced system that conducted 67 successful interceptions in the year 2000, but suddenly fails twice in one day" It "failed" because the hijackers turned off the airplanes transponders so the Air Traffic Control could not track them. The only way the Air Force could shoot down those hijacked planes is if they got an alert from Air Traffic Control, which they didn't because Air Traffic Control could get in touch with the hijacked planes.
9/11 was not an inside job

"If the fire did not destroy the steel, then it destroyed every other pillar that was stabilizing the building." Other supporting pillars were most likely made out of concrete. Fire cannot destroy concrete. "but as a retired New York deputy fire chief, Vincent Dunn says he has never seen steel being melted before in his life until 9/11." That is not surprising because steel does not melt unless additional explosives/thermite were added to help. For WEEKS after the disaster, firefighting teams found pools of molten steel in the rubble. This suggests the use of thermite to destroy the metal columns. http://moltenmetalsmokinggun.blogspot.com... Next, let's take a look at security. NORAD is a very advanced system that conducted 67 successful interceptions in the year 2000, but suddenly fails twice in one day? http://www.911myths.com... I would also like to note that the "Bin Laden" tapes are fake. http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net... These are two pictures, one of Bin Laden, the other is from the tape that the CIA released of Bin Laden supposedly admitting that it was his plot. They are obviously not the same person. http://www.911myths.com...
9/11 was not an inside job

Yes rocket fuel does burn at about 600 C. With the steel's melting point of 1500 C, its hard to think that such jet fuel can actually melt the steel. However, the rocket fuel did not just effect the floors it hit. The fuel went down the elevators, causing significant damage to the building from the floor the plane hit, to ground level. People were killed instantly when elevators were seen, by eye witnesses, crashing to the ground and exploding on contact. Most elevator shafts were burning with rocket fuel with a temperature as hot as 500 C. If the fire did not destroy the steel, then it destroyed every other pillar that was stabilizing the building. Get rid of those, and the structure, used to standing on steel and other objects as a way of structural integrity, will fall due to less infrastructure inside. Yes the melting point of the steel was about 1500 C, but as a retired New York deputy fire chief, Vincent Dunn says he has never seen steel being melted before in his life until 9/11. Even though the steel was not completely melted through, all it took was the steel to melt slightly; just enough so "the steel tries to expand at both ends, but when it can no longer expand, it sags and the surrounding concrete cracks" under pressure. Other things caught on fire as well. NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology) reports that the overall heat reached 1832 F. (http://www.popularmechanics.com...) Yes, what you say about the building withstanding 30 times greater than the weight of the plane is true. Yet, remember, the plane was traveling at about 560 knots. The impact of the plane was responsible for the building's collapse just as much as the fires inside. The weight of the plane had nothing to do with the building collapsing. Once the fires entered the building and the damage stretched the ENTIRE height of the building, from ground level to the top floors, the structure was bound to collapse. (http://pilotsfor911truth.org...)
9/11 was not an inside job

Thank you for offering this interesting topic of debate. Personally, I have no doubt in my mind that this was an inside job. First, I will begin with simple statistics. The skyscraper was built to withstand wind loads 30 times greater than the weight of the plane, yet somehow, the building still collapsed. This suggests the use of additional explosives that were detonated at the time of the collision to "help" bring the tower down. http://www.tms.org... Many people point to burning jet fuel as the source of the problem, however, this too is false. Jet fuel burns at about 600 C, but the melting point of steel (which the "skeleton" of the building was made of) is 1500 C. Jet fuel would have done virtually nothing to contribute to the fall of the buildings. http://education.jlab.org... http://911research.wtc7.net... Considering the above, I think it is safe to say that there is no way that the plane alone could have caused the fall of the skyscrapers. I will expand on my arguments in the next round. On to Pro.
Animal Rights

"Animal" is hereby defined as a sentient multicellular eukaryotic organism of the kingdom Animalia, with the ability to process pain and/or emotions. Sponges and simple polyps and medusans, for example, are excluded from this defining category; according to this definition, only fairly complex non-human species of the kingdom Animalia with a proper nervous system and the ability of a level of motion. Primarily, this debate deals with: mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, fish, cephalopods, gastropods, arthropods, echinoderms and annelids. Cnidarians and sponges (sponges, jellyfish, polyps, coral etc.) are not applicable in this debate, because of lack of complex nervous systems. "Animal rights" is the idea that non-human animals (according to the above definition) are entitled to the POSSESSION of their own lives. Humans often manipulate animals, treating them as property for their own selfish needs rather than treating them with compassion; if animals are not treated as property for selfish reasons, they "possess their own lives". (Thanks to Ra1n for pointing out the need to define this) Round 1: I have defined the terms; Con must accept and pose the first argument AGAINST animal rights (in accordance to the above definition). All other rounds: rebuttals and arguments. Any mis-definition of these terms, or rights vs welfare arguments by Con will result in my immediate 7-point victory. Sources for the definitions: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal; The Oxford Dictionary of English (American edition, 2013); en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_rights
Animal Rights

The basic principle of equality is not equal treatment, it is equal CONSIDERATION. Animals deserve to live their lives free from suffering and exploitation. Jeremy Bentham, the founder of the reforming utilitarian school of moral philosophy, stated that when deciding on a being"s rights, "The question is not 'Can they reason?' nor 'Can they talk?' but 'Can they suffer?'" In that passage, Bentham points to the capacity for suffering as the vital characteristic that gives a being the right to equal consideration. The capacity for suffering is not just another characteristic like the capacity for language or higher mathematics. All animals have the ability to suffer in the same way and to the same degree that humans do. They feel pain, pleasure, fear, frustration, loneliness, and motherly love. Whenever we consider doing something that would interfere with their needs, we are morally obligated to take them into account. Why are we morally obligated to do so? It is because humans created the concept of morality. Morality is a subtle thing, and a subject of human psychology. Biologically, the human's developed morality intuitively to ensure the genetic survival of the human race, and for the survival of the human race, we need a balance in the ecosystem. Slaughtering animals destroys the balance of the ecosystem in a variety of ways. Some of these are described below: 1. Raising them for slaughter: For the formation of factory-farms, or any slaughter farms, there is a massive encroachment of wildlife, that results in the destruction of forests. According to the Worldwide Fund for Wildlife (WWF), 31% of the total land area is covered by forests; ideally, 46% of the Earth's land mass would have to be covered by forests for a balanced ecosystem. 2. Hunting: Hunting creates an imbalance in any habitat-ecosystem, by reducing the population of animals. Conclusion: Only prejudice allows us to deny others the rights that we expect to have for ourselves, and prejudice is morally unacceptable. Refusal of animal rights is "discrimination by species". Source: Animal Liberation by Peter Singer, www.worldwildlife.org/threats/deforestation
AAP party is one of Congress' Pawns

Well, thank you for instigating a debate on such an interesting topic. I believe Aam Aadmi Party is not one of Congress' pawns because the inception of AAP was done to fight an undo the corruption and wrong doings of the Congress party. AAP has been a major reason for Congress' defeat in the Delhi state elections where they could only manage 8 seats whereas AAP and BJP managed 28 and 31 respectively. Sheila Dikshit is still traumatic of the broom, and the man who has lead the party Arvind Kejriwal who defeated her by more than 15,000 votes in the state elections. Though AK's reign ended in 49days he did a tremendous job and people of Delhi will not forget. Congress has no pawn or ally left in these times of peril therefore we should not think of AAP as a soldier fighting someone else's battles because it is a seperate party with its own set of rules and ideas. I look forward to my opponent's argument.
Atheism is more rational than Christianity

I see that Con missed the deadline to post his response. I hope everything is well and that he can return to the debate. If not, then I am sure he has a good reason and would like to thank him anyway. One piece of house-clearing is to address Con's charge that my third premise in the PoE presented commits the Fallacy of Exclusion. Before refuting this, let's define our terms: The Fallacy of Exclusion - "Important evidence which would undermine an inductive argument is excluded from consideration." (1) Now not only did I allow evidence that would undermine premise 3 to be ‘included‘, but I actually explicitly acknowledged that there were cases where evil was logically necessary for an adequately compensating good. The word "Much" at the beginning of premise 3, which has been present since my argument's formulation from my first post, quite willingly concedes this, that this may be the case for some, and may be even most evil in the world. The key is that it is not the case for ALL evil, which is where the argument succeeds or fails, depending on one's point of view. But more than this, I actually gave the analogy of visiting the dentist, an everyday example which we all can relate to where the evil is logically necessary for an adequately compensating good. This is basically a framework for what a correct answer to the problem would look like, and far from being exclusive, I perhaps suffer because I am being far too generous in my presentation of the problem and possible solutions to it, rather than just letting you answer it wrongly and criticising you for it. I think anything more on my part to share any more information would be beginning to argue with myself. I am being as inclusive as I can here. Anymore so and I would be in danger of trying to refute a problem which I don't think can be refuted. It's up to you Con to now show me where I went wrong, and address my response to your criticisms, criticisms which I think were unfounded, and if I am permitted to say so, even a little unfair. The floor is yours. Hope all is well. Kind regards. Unitedandy (1) http://www.onegoodmove.org...
The right of self-determination should be given to the Southern people.

The right of self-determination, or independence, is protected in the United Nations Geneva Convention, so that right should be given to all peoples and nations, including the people of the South. My definition of nation is the Biblical and historical definition, that a nation is a group of people who share a common ethnicity, history, language, religion, and culture. The Southern people absolutely qualifies this, so they should be given their own nation-state.
The right of self-determination should be given to the Southern people.

Well, I guess I should post mine. Nation "a large aggregate of people united by common descent, history, culture, or language, inhabiting a particular country or territory. " Along with the fact a majority of people would unlikely to leave the Union, and it would take a majority for such to happen. Not to mention that such Confederate States would be squished like a bug. Who are these Southern People? They have the same Religion as the majority of the United States, language, and live in the same territory/landmass. Again, since you are pro, I suggest you post your arguments since I don't have much to shoot at here. " Article 1(4) provides that armed conflicts in which peoples are fighting against colonial domination, alien occupation or racist regimes are to be considered international conflicts. " Give me some sources here, I got nothing to look at as well. http://www.icrc.org...
REAL democracy in america - are we ready? Let's DEMAND - NATIONAL BALLOT MEASURES

The point of the whole arguement was that we indirectly vote on the federal issues by who we put in office to respresent our state and our country. Nobody goes into a voting station blindfolded. I was not aware that you are from California. That still doesn't change the fact that everyone doesn't necessarily feel the same you do on the hard issues. Much of my arguments, especially those in reference to your proposed ballot measures, are not incorrectly stated. How can you refute the driving death rates in America? Schools and roads are more of a local level issue. Surely you don't expect Congress to sit down and find the smallest county in any given state and focus on improving their roads. That is what local government is for. Majority voted Bush in twice. Majority votes in our officials who in turn vote on the issues the way they state. We have been electing these people to vote for us for our entire existence. Example: The War In Iraq. People knew that most Democrats wanted to end it or find a ebtter way towards success. Soultion? Vote Democrats in the Congress and House. Iraq has been their hot button issue from Day 1 and they were voted in by Majority to figure out a fix to it.
REAL democracy in america - are we ready? Let's DEMAND - NATIONAL BALLOT MEASURES

You have all your facts incorrect, my friend. You start by saying we already vote on these issues? I would like you to cite the last time, We the Voters were allowed to vote on any NATIONAL ISSUES directly on any Federal Ballot. The rest of your arguments are all the same, incorrectly stated. I am in California and we in California DID PASS SUCH a LAW. Did you not READ my argument correctly? I hope you are not representative of most Republicans, because you don't understand cogent arguments, you follow leaders with no real intellect and you have no understanding of the real issues. A poor attempt at insulting me is not a debate. Read it again and then maybe you will understand. In a DEMOCRACY the MAJORITY OPINION overrules all party propaganda and lobbyist bribery. Actually, all of YOUR arguments make my point for me. We need to listen to the OPINIONS of the MAJORITY of Americans, in place of people like you, Party Propagandists.