azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: 9/11 was an inside job.
Side: Wrong, I trust my government.

What is the motive for that? I think any person who believes the government would kill thousands of people for no apparent reason is and ignorant conspiracy theorist.
Debate: 9/11 was an inside job.
Side: Wrong, I trust my government.

One obvious motive would be to gain control of Middle-Eastern oil. The whole world runs on oil, and it's running out fast. It's not too hard to imagine a super conservative hardass thinking that he was "breaking a few eggs" to secure America's status.
Debate: 9/11 was an inside job.
Side: Wrong, I trust my government.

Then explain the collapse of the north face of WTC7. Watch ae911truth.org video for ore details.WTC7 is obviously a controlled demolition, and that means the government had demolition charges set.To not realise this, you have to be extremely dumb.
Debate: 9/11 was an inside job.
Side: Wrong, I trust my government.

When our government tells you that Saddam murdered thousands of innocent Kurds, you believe them, right? So you're saying, other governments can commit atrocities -- just not ours? What if you knew that the U.S. supported Saddam through the very worst of the atrocities he committed against his own people? Our government has blood on its hands - there is no question about that.
Debate: 9/11 was an inside job.
Side: Wrong, I trust my government.

Official Account: With the intention of influencing American Foreign Policy in the Middle East with an act of terrorism, 19 Muslim extremists hijacked four commercial airliners crashing two into each tower of the World Trade Center, which subsequently collapsed due to the damaged sustained from the impact, one into the Pentagon, and the final crashing in a field in Pennsylvania killing 3,000 American civilians. WTC building 7 also collapsed due to a structural damage caused by a large portion of the falling North twin tower striking it during its own collapse.Conspiracy Account: In an effort to cause fear in the American public in order to justify going to war in the Middle East to get access to oil and pass laws which strip civil liberties away, the government of the United States coordinated a staged terrorist attack on its own people. Four commercial airliners loaded with passengers were diverted of their planned flight and landed in a secret location where the passengers were either killed or imprisoned indefinitely, then the planes were destroyed. Then two unidentifiable windowless, and presumably radio controlled, government planes were crashed into each tower of the WTC and subsequently detonated there explosive payload. Meanwhile two ballistic missiles were launched into both the Pentagon and a random field in Pennsylvania to appear as though the last two planes crashed into them. After the initial impact of the military drones into the WTC at 56 and 102 minutes previously planted demolition explosives, including thermite, were set off to ensure the buildings collapsed within there own footprint and at free fall speeds. Additionally, WTC building 7 was also destroyed by explosives, also secretly installed at an earlier time, to ensure it also fell within its own footprint.Which of these two scenarios seems most reasonable, obviously the official account is. The only somewhat rational argument for the governments involvement in 9/11 is that they intentionally ignored intelligence warning of the subsequent attacks. This is of course also highly unlikely for if that were the case, those involved are doing a horrible job keeping incriminating evidence a secret. It is already common knowledge that many key reports and forecasts of forthcoming terrorist attacks were not headed by those in the government. This is simply proof of the ignorance of those responsible for our safety not of their guilt in a treasonous conspiracy to forward their own agenda.
Debate: 9/11 was an inside job.
Side: Obviously...Wake up, America!

Includes a whole lot of straw men about 911 truth. Most truthers dont claim to know about most of how 911 was pulled off. But we DO know the buildings were pulled with preplanted explosives. As a I make very clear in my arguments throughout this debate.
Debate: 9/11 was an inside job.
Side: Obviously...Wake up, America!

"It is already common knowledge that many key reports and forecasts of forthcoming terrorist attacks were not headed by those in the government. This is simply proof of the ignorance of those responsible for our safety not of their guilt in a treasonous conspiracy to forward their own agenda."I don't see how the government's failure to prevent the attacks proves their innocence....
Debate: 9/11 was an inside job.
Side: Wrong, I trust my government.

Your point makes the fallacy of hindsight is 20/20. We know now that the memo on Osama Bin-Laden was one that was very valid, but that is hard to discern in the heat of the moment while the president has literally dozens of similar memos put on his table every day.
Debate: 9/11 was an inside job.
Side: Wrong, I trust my government.

first of all, I don't believe in conspiracy theories.second of all, I believe terrorist were responsible for 9/11.third of all, I don't entirely trust any government.fourth of all, I believe that there are evil people on this world.fifth of all, I believe that there are people bent on destroying America.On the other hand, I have five more fingers.
Debate: 9/11 was an inside job.
Side: Obviously...Wake up, America!

"first of all, I don't believe in conspiracy theories."Oh yes you do:- "10 Arab Muslims CONSPIRED to hijack 2 planes, outflew the USAF, flew them into 2 hundred story buildings, and brought down a third 47 storey building at free fall speed, vertically and magically creating pools of molten iron/steel." is your conspiracy theory.
Debate: 9/11 was an inside job.
Side: Wrong, I trust my government.

you mean warped steel?
Debate: 9/11 was an inside job.
Side: Obviously...Wake up, America!

No. I mean what I said. There are dozens of witnesses, some are listed at ae911truth.org in the presentation. Here's a forensic analysis:http://www.archive.org/details/liftingthefog_2006_11_11_session2
Debate: 9/11 was an inside job.
Side: Wrong, I trust my government.

If you take the position that the "currently held" view of 9/11 is a conspiracy, then I can't counter your argument that I believe in conspiracies because we are not even on the same plane. In order to have a rational, productive argument, both points of view need to reside in the same plane.
Debate: 9/11 was an inside job.
Side: Obviously...Wake up, America!

What do you mean by "conspiracy"?
Debate: 9/11 was an inside job.
Side: Obviously...Wake up, America!

Joe's position is, in my opinion, superficial. He clearly doesn't understand what a conspiracy is. Claiming you don't beleive 911 was a conspiracy means you either don't think the attacks happened at all, or you think one person carried them out.He, and many other intelectually lazy people like him have been trained to ignore the meaning of words by the nmainstream media, which frequently perverts language in an attempt to dumb the population, in the same way described in 1984.With Joe, they have clearly succeeded. He uses the word "conspiracy" without having the first idea what it means.To claim not to beleive in conspiracies is SO dumb it should be apparent to everyone. It means you don't believe that robbers conspire to steal from stores, you dont beleive terrorists conspire to perform terror attacks, in say Madrid or London or any other conspiracy.Its so dumb it discredits not just the person's position but the person himself.In this case I can, for example, confidently declare Joe not to be a serious debater.
Debate: 9/11 was an inside job.
Side: Wrong, I trust my government.

What I meant was that I don't believe in conspiracy theories. I thought that was clear from the context. Robbers clearly conspire to steal. A lier doesn't necessarily lie in order to steal. But to claim that some one lied in order to steal with little proof is clearly a conspiracy theory.The government doesn't normally conspire to blow up their own buildings and kill their own people in order to have an excuse to attack a third world country (Afghanistan) that has no economic or strategic benefit. To claim otherwise and offer inconclusive proof falls in the conspiracy theory realm. I guess I'm guilty of assuming that people understood what I meant from the context. But now I realize that I have to guide the reader through each and every step, connecting the dots for them.
Debate: 9/11 was an inside job.
Side: Obviously...Wake up, America!

Unfortunately, language and thinking has been degraded to such an extent now that that previously assumed obvious must now be stated explicitly. "conspiracy" has been perverted to mean several different things. Theory too. Theory didn't historically mean "unproven" historically it merely meant "systematic explanation".The 911 conspiracy has been proven, as shown in the discussion below. So your implied (ie unstated) connotation (ie selective defintion) doesn't hold here.Nice attempt to sneak it past the metal detectors by just implying it, though.One definition of "Conspiracy" is now merely "crimethink". Orwell explained that things have gotten so bad that intelligent men have to go round stating obvious things. That was in 1948. Perversion of language has gotten so bad now, that conspiracy and theory have lost all of their original meanings. Maybe they had even more meaning before I was born.But most people are indoctrinated and too busy earning money to think about this stuff, so I am not convinced you or very many others here will have a clue what I am banging on about.So I'll summarise: deceitful language means you can't skip words.
Debate: 9/11 was an inside job.
Side: Wrong, I trust my government.

I almost hate to write a comment on an argument that is so infiltrated with paranoid schizophrenics. Conspiracy theorists persist in magical thinking rather than accepting the obvious. I don't trust my govt. but I also know they are incapable of producing a conspiracy that cannot be easily uncovered. I can hardly believe that this is an actual debate. I'm so disgusted I don't even want to argue this silly postulate.
Debate: 9/11 was an inside job.
Side: Obviously...Wake up, America!

The government story requires there Arabs who can create explosions 300 metres away inside a seperate building when they hit the towers with two planes.The government story requires Arabs to be able to melt structural steel with jet fuel.The government story requires that Arabs are able to make explosions occur in the basement of a 400 metre tall building when a plane hits it about 300 metres above ground level.The WTC 1 2 and 7 collapse videos or the Rodriguez and Jennings testimony prove among many other pieces of evidence, that the government story RELIES on magical thinking.410 qualified architects and engineers agree. Go to ae911truth.org
Debate: 9/11 was an inside job.
Side: Obviously...Wake up, America!

I can't beleive I didn't give links to the evidence the first time here.The government story requires there Arabs who can create explosions 300 metres away inside a seperate building when they hit the towers with two planes.http://www.loosechange911.com/blog/?p=105 The government story requires Arabs to be able to melt structural steel with jet fuel.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D9qEIlNVl5s http://video.google.com/videosearch?hl=en&q=kevin+ryan The government story requires that Arabs are able to make explosions occur in the basement of a 400 metre tall building when a plane hits it about 300 metres above ground level.http://911blogger.com/node/11949http://911blogger.com/node/11384http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KmF-VQNEQMc (In the last link, the guy corroborating Rodriguez is about halfway thru the video)Also plenty supported by qualified architects and engineers at ae911truth.org
Debate: 9/11 was an inside job.
Side: Wrong, I trust my government.

I think all people who are opposed should watch a good show about it. Their theorys about what happened are wrong, engineers have figured it out.And on a side note I am not american, and I don't think anybody could completely trust their government especialy the americans.
Debate: 9/11 was an inside job.
Side: Wrong, I trust my government.

I do not like the choices I was given, I do not think it was an inside job, but I don't really trust the current government much.
Debate: 9/11 was an inside job.
Side: Wrong, I trust my government.

I say that is wasn't an inside job, not necessarily because I trust my government, but because I think that George W. Bush is too much of an idiot to pull off something that complex and not get noticed by his peers. I mean, just look at how Bush reacted when it happened, he panicked! He wasn't sure what to do, so instead he let congress and the house of representatives decide we should go to war! So with that, I restate that I don't think it was an inside job because Bush is not smart enough to pull it off.
Debate: 9/11 was an inside job.
Side: Obviously...Wake up, America!

George Bush is little more than a retarded chimpanzee acting as America's mascot, unable to control anything. How does that mean the government didn't do it?
Debate: 9/11 was an inside job.
Side: Wrong, I trust my government.

So you expect me to believe that the entire congress and the entire house of representatives are against America? I don't think so! And there is not one person powerful enough in government other than the president who can pull off something that big! And you just agreed that he is a "retarded chimpanzee" so he is out of the list of people it could have been. The only other person could have been the VP MAYBE! but other than him, the congress as a WHOLE or the house of representatives as a WHOLE and it is doubtful that they could have contacted someone all the way in the middle east and set up this whole operation without us, the people of this country, knowing about it!
Debate: 9/11 was an inside job.
Side: Obviously...Wake up, America!

So you expect me to believe that the entire congress and the entire house of representatives are against America?No. there are a few honest people: Gravel, Kucinich, Senator Karen S. Johnson. Most have been bribed, others were bullied with Anthrax traceable back to US military installations (remember the anthrax deliveries?) and a big group are simply ignorant. Bribery is how government keeps everyone in line, not just congress."And there is not one person powerful enough in government other than the president who can pull off something that big!"THis was OBVIOUSLY NOT ONE PERSON. Congress doesn't get to hear about many of the worst government operations. The US government has been running terrorism in the middle east for decades, and people DO know about it. At least a quarter of Americans think 9/11 was an inside job. And they're right. The video evidence, forensic evidence and eyewitnesses prove it. Look here: 911blogger.com/node/10025 and search for presentations by Steve E Jones, David Ray Griffin and Kevin Ryan.
Debate: 9/11 was an inside job.
Side: Wrong, I trust my government.

Here's an article from Popular Mechanics debunking many of the common 9/11 conspiracy theories.http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html
Debate: 9/11 was an inside job.
Side: Obviously...Wake up, America!

Yeah, well now link me the Popular Mechanics article addressing the STRAW MAN!
Debate: 9/11 was an inside job.
Side: Wrong, I trust my government.

Popular Mechanics, of course, did their best to remain unbiased and objective in their investigation.A quote from prison planet web site:"It comes as no surprise that Popular Mechanics is owned by Hearst Corporation. As fictionalized in Orson Welles' acclaimed film Citizen Kane, William Randolph Hearst wrote the book on cronyism and yellow journalism and Popular Mechanics hasn't bucked that tradition.The magazine is a cheerleader for the sophistication of advanced weaponry and new technology used by police in areas such as crowd control and 'anti-terror' operation. A hefty chunk of its advertising revenue relies on the military and defense contractors. Since the invasions of Afghanistan, Iraq and in the future Iran all cite 9/11 as a pretext, what motivation does the magazine have to conduct a balanced investigation and risk upsetting its most coveted clientele?"
Debate: 9/11 was an inside job.
Side: Wrong, I trust my government.

The main crux of your argument is that because someone may have benefitted from the 9/11 attacks then that person must have conducted and/or supported the attacks at the very least. From the US government planning and executing the attacks, to Larry Silverstein fraudently insuring the trade centers against terrorism, to Popular Mechanics and the 9/11 Commission conducting widespread cover ups, your list of accomplises continues to grow to unbelievable lengths. Isn't it far more likely that a known anti-american terrorist group, that had previously attacked numerous US embassies, boats, etc. abroad, finally managed to succeed in an attack on US soil?
Debate: 9/11 was an inside job.
Side: Wrong, I trust my government.

My argument is A: people benefitted and B: then they lied about what happenedI think they lied about what happened because the official story omits many details or does not plausibly explain them.-------------------------------------------------------------------- When it comes to what they knew prior to September 11th, 2001, about possible terrorist attacks against the United States, do you think members of the Bush Administration are telling the truth, are mostly telling the truth but hiding something, or are they mostly lying?Telling the truth 16%Hiding something 53%Mostly lying 28%Not sure 3%Source: The New York Times / CBS NewsMethodology: Telephone interviews with 983 American adults, conducted from Oct. 5 to Oct. 8, 2006. Margin of error is 4 per cent.
Debate: 9/11 was an inside job.
Side: Wrong, I trust my government.

Great point randomguy, it's pretty much impossible to fathom that all of these people from different walks of life would be in some huge conspiracy to cover up that the government hijacked 4 planes and caused the largest terrorist attack on US soil since Pearl Harbor.
Debate: 9/11 was an inside job.
Side: Obviously...Wake up, America!

It isn't impossible to fathom at all, and since the controlled demolition has been proven, so has the inside job.Intelligence work, Bullying, bribery and information management are core functions of the US military intelligence framework.
Debate: 9/11 was an inside job.
Side: Obviously...Wake up, America!

From the top of page 2: "The widely accepted account that hijackers commandeered and crashed the four 9/11 planes is supported by reams of evidence, from cockpit recordings to forensics to the fact that crews and passengers never returned home."To those who reject the official story: how do you account for this evidence?
Debate: 9/11 was an inside job.
Side: Wrong, I trust my government.

Cockpit recording? where?
Debate: 9/11 was an inside job.
Side: Wrong, I trust my government.

Page 5 attempts to explain the collapse of WTC7 with a 6 paragraph, arm-waving attempt to argue that the perfect, vertical, free fall collapse of WTC7 was not explosives for Americans too afraid to accept it. NIST has subsequently admitted it can't explain WTC7, and this is PM's DESPICABLE attempt to help the government escape blame.There was NO DIAGONAL collapse. Watch the videos of this collapse. This collapse was vertical.None of the assertions about "unusual design", fires, or debris damage can explain the free fall, vertical nature of the collapse. Steel, when exceeding its "load-bearing capability" due to heat does NOT instantly lose all of its strength, but DEFORMS PLASTICALLY, Maintaining resistance to collapse.WTC7 contained an emergency command bunker, reinforced and designed to withstand earthquakes, among other disasters. If there was any "unusual design", it was a STRONGER design with ADDITIONAL REDUNDANCY to achieve this.As any chemist knows, even an ENERGY PRODUCING CHAIN REACTION requires an ACTIVATION ENERGY, WHICH WOULD NECESSARILY REDUCE THE SPEED OF THE COLLAPSE WELL BELOW FREE FALL SPEED WHERE THE ACTIVATION ENERGY WAS THE ENERGY REQUIRED TO OVERCOME THE RESISTANCE OF A STRUCTURE DESIGNED TO RESIST THE LOAD.
Debate: 9/11 was an inside job.
Side: Obviously...Wake up, America!

Page 4 provides a mere seven paragraphs of despicable lies dealing with core claims to help government terrorists get away with murder.The first three paragraphs insults alert people and confuses dimwits by asserting that lobby damage was as a result of burning jet fuel falling hundreds of metres down the lift shaft, when the vast majority of it visibly burned up on impact in a large fireball and other eyewitnesses (William Rodriguez and others) have testified to hearing and feeling bombs in the basement IN ADVANCE of the plane impacts.Then the releveant section follows up with deception by omission- A collapse itself doesn't require melted steel but the SPEED of collapse DOES:- "However, experts agree that for the towers to collapse, their steel frames didn't need to melt, they just had to lose some of their structural strength"
Debate: 9/11 was an inside job.
Side: Wrong, I trust my government.

This supposedly authoritative article spends less than 15 paragraphs on the controlled demolition hypothesis. I have demonstrated why they are false in my Stumbleupon review of it.
Debate: 9/11 was an inside job.
Side: Wrong, I trust my government.

Add a link to your StumbleUpon profile so people can check it out!
Debate: 9/11 was an inside job.
Side: Wrong, I trust my government.

I'm sure you found it a profound leap of logic to think I might have the same SU username as I used here? Further, you can see the review by going to the article in SU and looking at the reviews from there. My profile has thousands of different reviews which make it very hard to find there, even for me.
Debate: 9/11 was an inside job.
Side: Wrong, I trust my government.

Not a profound leap of logic, just a moderate waste of time to reference another website without providing a link.
Debate: 9/11 was an inside job.
Side: Wrong, I trust my government.

The fact that the 9/11 truthers are winning this argument is every indication of why this site will fail. God dammit, it had so much potential too!
Debate: 9/11 was an inside job.
Side: Obviously...Wake up, America!

A debate site is doomed because it permits free and open discussion?Maybe our side of the debate has more support because we've submitted more convincing evidence.
Debate: 9/11 was an inside job.
Side: Obviously...Wake up, America!

Here, here! We should consider all the evidence in an open, honest and transparent way.
Debate: 9/11 was an inside job.
Side: Wrong, I trust my government.

Answer me this: How did the government arrange for Building 7 to have extensive exterior damage occur that would be a precursor to the controlled demolition?Were explosives placed within all of the surrounding buildings and since building 7 was hit the hardest, only that one was imploded? What if building 5, 4, or 3 had been hit with debris but building 7 spared? Would the government still have imploded building 7?Or was the exterior damage of building 7 also a controlled operation? Was the exterior damage to building 7 planned? If so, by what means was it carried out?
Debate: 9/11 was an inside job.
Side: Wrong, I trust my government.

They didn't. There was trivial external damage only, and almost all of that was on the south face.External damage is NOT a precursor of controlled demolition. Controlled demolition usually occurs EXCLUSIVELY through INTERNAL DESTRUCTION OF THE CORE STRUCTURE.building 7 was NOT hit hardest. Buildings 3 4 and 5 ALL took more damage than 7, as you'd expect them to, being closer to the collapsing towers than WTC7 was.The poster of this question knows so little about 911 and makes so many errors, I dont consider his question credible.
Debate: 9/11 was an inside job.
Side: Wrong, I trust my government.

People who say 9/11 was an inside job do not understand the reality of Jihad.