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

Wrong. (Minus the I trust my government) I trust my own rational thought and impartial observers. It's the same logic I apply to the Kennedy assassination and the moon landing. As an aside, what was the last really big secret that our government kept?
Debate: 9/11 was an inside job.
Side: Obviously...Wake up, America!

I guess you don't keep up with history. Ever heard of Iran Contra? How about how nearly every war we've been in since the 60's has usually be precluded by a lie: Gulf of Tonkin, WMD, Babies being killed by Iraqi's, Do I really need to go on?? and that's just the lies to get us into wars... and you ask such a vapid question. Every new experimental aircraft was a secret at one point. The stealth bomber was thought to be a freakin UFO before they showed it to the public. The freedom of information act has allowed us a huge insight into out government except for people who want to remain ignorant I suppose.
Debate: 9/11 was an inside job.
Side: Wrong, I trust my government.

Oh, I don't know. Operation Northwoods is pretty good. (It's near the top, in the left hand column. Enjoy).
Debate: 9/11 was an inside job.
Side: Wrong, I trust my government.

If you know about it, doesn't that mean they were unsuccessful in keeping it a secret?
Debate: 9/11 was an inside job.
Side: Wrong, I trust my government.

It was secret for forty years. How long does it need to be a secret before it "counts?" A hundred years? Two hundred?It may as well still be secret, because the only way you can find out about it is to engage in independent research--something most Americans are too busy or too indoctrinated to undertake. I can't do the research for you. More and more Americans are waking up to the fact that the government was involved, on some level, in the events of 9/11. The 9/11 commission report and the NIST report have been exposed as frauds by engineers and scientists (These people had nothing to gain by speaking out, unlike the experts who were willing to endorse the official version of events).
Debate: 9/11 was an inside job.
Side: Wrong, I trust my government.

Yet it sounds like you have done the research for me. Thank you. You're wrong about the commission report and the NIST report. You may believe that they are frauds, but that is hardly the same thing.You're also wrong about the engineers and scientists not having anything to gain. They get immediate fame, which just goes to show how much science has been taken over by "American Idol"-itis. (Just like the scientists that blindly follow Al Gore.)As to the question of how long a secret must be kept, I would think it would have to be forever. Frustrating, isn't it? It is certainly possible that 9/11 was an inside job, but I would not classify it as probable and it in not way comes close to being definite. It is a fun mental exercise to think about it, though, the same way people spend time debating about Roswell and the moon landing being faked.I appreciate the time and effort you have put into thinking and researching this, but frankly I don't think it is credible.
Debate: 9/11 was an inside job.
Side: Wrong, I trust my government.

Conspiracy? Puh-leeze. My dad was in the Pentagon for years, and while I waited for him to get off work, I'd sit in the lobby and watch CNN...With all the other military types in there. Spy satellites? Hollywood thermal imaging? I can't remember how many times these general big wigs would stop and watch CNN, trying to get their news too. I don't trust my government, I trust that my government can't find it's way to Bin Laden's ass if he was camping on the White House lawn.I trust that my government is filled with dumb meatbags who want to go home after their 9 hours and watch sports and porn, just like you. Just because they have power doesn't make them any more competent then your conspiracy addled mind.9/11 an inside job? Not even, you'd have to believe that your fellow man is vastly more intelligent, then your common man displays. And then you'd have hope, because that would mean your fellow man has a plan to take care of your retarded ass while you suck on the teat of American Idol, World of Warcraft, conspiracy theory and fast food.Conspiracy theory is for weak people who need faith. You've simply replaced God with Government.
Debate: 9/11 was an inside job.
Side: Wrong, I trust my government.

Governments don'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 that has no economic or strategic benefit (like Afghanistan).
Debate: 9/11 was an inside job.
Side: Obviously...Wake up, America!

Ever heard of the Trans-Caspian Gas Pipeline? I didn't think so.
Debate: 9/11 was an inside job.
Side: Wrong, I trust my government.

it's amazing that besides not knowing shit about physics, these people also don't have common sense. all your theories were crushed:http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/ c.cgi?u=911_morons http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html http://www.loosechangeguide.com/LooseChangeGuide.html
Debate: 9/11 was an inside job.
Side: Obviously...Wake up, America!

Those sites rely on you being too lazy and careless to spot their lies.1) BPITU- cites PM and NIST, as I rememebr it2) NIST- Doesn't and cant address molten iron. Lead engineer denies existence of molten iron.Also doesn't address eye witness accounts of belt explosions(see the Macqueen presentation at 911blogger)3) PM: Also doesnt address molten iron - claims there didnt need to be molten iron for the collapse, but doesn't address the video and eyewitness accounts. Only 4 paragraphs - hardly even a serious analysis. Heres a more serious one for anyone willing to take the time: http://www.archive.org/details/ liftingthefog_2006_11_11_session24) LCG - let me know where it deals with molten metal, near free fall speeds, verticality of the WTC7 collapse and the 118 firefighters, and ill address those points.While loose change made MASSES of serious and compelling points, it wasn't really a forensic film, and I dont think it went into nearly enough detail on the core forensic proofs.Loose change guide, if nothing else, fails in that it doesnt challenge a more serious and systematic case, like that of Gage and Jones. I wont be bothering to defend 80% of the arguments in loose change because they don't constitute proof, even if some are powerful points.
Debate: 9/11 was an inside job.
Side: Wrong, I trust my government.

your problem is that melted steel would require more than explosions or jet fuels. it would require, i don't know, a giant welder (considering the size of the buildings). now, if the government created a giant welder, okay. but, more accounts (from actual legitimate sources) state that it is in fact warped steel (which actually looks like melted steel). hell, no one's actually ever seen a fallen building with melted steel (intentional or not), it doesn't work like that.
Debate: 9/11 was an inside job.
Side: Obviously...Wake up, America!

It just so happens you are right that it needs even more than explosions. Controlled demolitions rely on steel cutting charges to eliminate the resistance from the structure."hell, no one's actually ever seen a fallen building with melted steel (intentional or not), it doesn't work like that."Really? Perhaps you'd better explain that to the writer of patent number 20060266204"Thermite reactions are well characterized ... The thermite reaction is an exothermic reaction that can produce temperatures of more than 4,000° F. These temperatures are well above the melting point of most metals....Applications for the invention include linear cut or curvilinear cuts in homogenous and non-homogeneous materials. Typical cutting operations include: Concrete, and reinforced concrete, in a variety of applications (cut into slabs or rubble); .... buildings—steel reinforcing (I-beams in concrete); steel bridges, steel hulls (ships for rescue applications and hostile applications); and general concrete removal."and wikipedia:- "LSCs are commonly used in the cutting of rolled steel joists (RSJ) and other structural targets, such as in the controlled demolition of buildings."The reason you dont think that steel cutter charges can melt steel is quite simply because the propaganda outlets you cited don't want you to be aware that they do. They don't want you to know about the witnesses or the videos either, and so NONE of them address that, choosing instead to argue against a straw man argument that collapses necessarily require melting. Do you have ANY references which address Gage's video and eyewitness evidence and Jones' proof that it was not aluminium from the planes? (even if that could explain the volumes and WTC7 molten pools.)There are actually videos of molten steel flowing from the building just before it collapsed, and dozens of eyewitnesses listed and some videoed at ae911truth.orgSteven E Jones has found thermite residue and iron rich microspheres in the dust from the WTC collapses. Please watch the videos and look at the papers and presentations I directed you to.
Debate: 9/11 was an inside job.
Side: Wrong, I trust my government.

Well, I may not trust my government completely, but I have experience with the Intelligence industry and it was far more a result of nitwits and opportunists than insiders.
Debate: 9/11 was an inside job.
Side: Wrong, I trust my government.

Then explain the molten metal and the free fall collapses.Also, where is the steel so we can check how the buildings came down?
Debate: 9/11 was an inside job.
Side: Wrong, I trust my government.

The "weapon" was a large airplane containing enough fuel to cross the ocean. The ignition of such a large amount of fuel produce a number of cataclysmic results including liquification of metals (and other materials). In addition, pressure generates heat. As the building collapsed, it caused massive momentary increases in pressure setting of further explosions, detonating other items which added to the heat.You must remember that the mastermind is an engineer. Like Hitler, he's as insane and evil as he is brilliant. You may as well ask how Einstein or Beethoven achieved their great deeds. Genius is as genius does.
Debate: 9/11 was an inside job.
Side: Wrong, I trust my government.

You really think the government would kill that many of their own people for a few dollars?
Debate: 9/11 was an inside job.
Side: Obviously...Wake up, America!

Why, exactly, do you think we're in Iraq?
Debate: 9/11 was an inside job.
Side: Wrong, I trust my government.

Ok, are we done with this? Looks like the "No's" have it.
Debate: 9/11 was an inside job.
Side: Wrong, I trust my government.

No. No-one has responded to my challenge to explain the vertical free fall nature of the WTC7 collapse yet.
Debate: 9/11 was an inside job.
Side: Wrong, I trust my government.

I guess the "not an inside job" have it.
Debate: 9/11 was an inside job.
Side: Wrong, I trust my government.

i agree that the 911 inside job "theory" or better put "argument" (as a lot of people do believe it) is just simply too big. waaay too big. im not saying that information wasnt distorted or that there wasnt ANY form of a cover up but come on...two of the largest buildings ever built being brought down by the government is just insane. insane for anyone to ever imagine.
Debate: 9/11 was an inside job.
Side: Obviously...Wake up, America!

Most people thought the earth was flat once - they were all dead wrong.
Debate: 9/11 was an inside job.
Side: Obviously...Wake up, America!

No it isn't insane. Its proven. References are throughout this argument.That you think there were only 2 buildings brought down indicates your ignorance about the events.
Debate: 9/11 was an inside job.
Side: Obviously...Wake up, America!

Wrong. If you know something the government doesn't want people to know, the media just wont print it. Only fringe researchers get to find it out. Censorship was never easier.That you don't know it already constitutes proof hiding things is easy. The proofs are all over the net, you just havent seen them yet, or maybe you are too ignorant or frightened to recognise them of admit them when you see them.
Debate: 9/11 was an inside job.
Side: Wrong, I trust my government.

Ok, it looks like people who don't believe in conspiracies won this one.
Debate: 9/11 was an inside job.
Side: Wrong, I trust my government.

Wrong. its too close to call. The strength of argument on the inside job side is stronger. The number of people on the 19 Arabs did it side is marginally stronger.This is explained solely by the fact that big media has a pipeline into 99% of US and UK homes.The evidence supports inside job conclusion.And even if it didnt, the people on the 19 Arabs side STILL beleive in a conspiracy - by 19 Arabs.So wrong its unbelieveable.
Debate: 9/11 was an inside job.
Side: Wrong, I trust my government.

I don't buy the conspiracy theory.
Debate: 9/11 was an inside job.
Side: Wrong, I trust my government.

I think it was an outside job. I mean, look at all the evidence! The videos don't lie. Those people where outside the towers. I mean, they where inside the plane but outside the towers. That makes it an outside job.
Debate: 9/11 was an inside job.
Side: Obviously...Wake up, America!

Ok, I've seen the video where they blow the bottom floor of a building and it doesn't collapse into itself (I'll call this building number one). The floors near the top of the towers blow up and the whole thing collapses. Why did the towers not behave the same as building number one? If you're going to use the video of building number one as evidence then the conclusion would be that you would have to blow every floor in order to get the towers to collapse onto itself. However, there are no explosions on the subsequent floors.The premise that this was an inside job doesn't make sense. Assuming that that it is an inside job, why not just blow every floor of the tower and have some terrorist group claim responsibility. They have tried to blow it up before. It would have killed a little less people but it would have had the same effect and it would have been easier to pull of logistically. I mean, the hardest part is to get the explosives in place. Once in place, why have a plane crash into it and then set of the explosives? Just blow it up. A plane just adds to the complexity of an inside job and added complexity increases the likelihood of failure. Why risk it. Imagine how bad it would have been (for the insiders) if the plane crashes into it, then they set of the explosives and the explosives in the middle malfunction and don't go off. If you were an insider trying to blame the terrorist and cover your tracks, would you take this chance? Would you risk proof that the plane had nothing to do with the explosions near the lower floors? Or would you just say, "The terrorist infiltrated our security, planted the bombs and blew the whole thing up." Same dramatic effect (the towers collapsing) same results (people pissed off at terrorist) and no risk of a plane hitting the top and the middle explosives not going off and the bottom explosives do go off.
Debate: 9/11 was an inside job.
Side: Wrong, I trust my government.

There are lots of explosions all the way down at WTC1 and 2. There are hardly any explosions visible at WTC7- this was a more traditional controlled demolition with Internal, not external explsions, not take out the structure.Take a look here : http://www.911blogger.com/node/15793and here:ae911truth.org
Debate: 9/11 was an inside job.
Side: Obviously...Wake up, America!

I'm still not convinced. I don't buy the conspiracy theory.
Debate: 9/11 was an inside job.
Side: Obviously...Wake up, America!

I don't believe you have watched the presentations which prove the inside job. The presentations I have given you prove the existence of the explosions you deny. One of the presentations includes video of a fireman speaking on the day- "its like they had detonators in the buildings, the floors started popping out, one by one, boom boom boom boom."Another quotes a different firefighter describing the way the explosions went around each floor.Another part demonstrates the free fall nature of the collapse, something jet fuel categorically can not produce.Another still shows video of the molten steel and eyewtiness testimony of the witnesses to molten steel, again something impossible for standard hydrocarbon fires to produce.Another still demonstrates the vertical nature of the WTC7 collapse, again impossible when almost all of the supposed damage to this building specifically reinforced for emergencies was to the south side, without systematic and highly skilled synchronised explosions.I gave references to 118 firefighters all citing evidence of explosions, many in direct contradiction of your assertion that there were none on subsequent floors. No matter how good the proof, you negatively rate my response and wander off saying "not convinced"I have given conclusive evidence. Please address the arguments above and evidence cited directly.
Debate: 9/11 was an inside job.
Side: Wrong, I trust my government.

But, there were no planes! September Clues
Debate: 9/11 was an inside job.
Side: Wrong, I trust my government.

Hey Geoff, don't let the facts get in the way.
Debate: 9/11 was an inside job.
Side: Wrong, I trust my government.

Where is your evidence that there was anyone in the planes, please?There are no videos of the hijackers boarding. The ones you have seen are from other locations and times.
Debate: 9/11 was an inside job.
Side: Wrong, I trust my government.

So the grieving widows shown on T.V. are fake? I can't even get one friend to keep a secret. If I tell anyone, it is leaked. And you think that we can get a group of people to collaborate on a lie? I mean, we might as well say that the Holocaust never happened because we never saw the atrocities being committed right in front of our eyes and that what ever evidence exist was fabricated by a group of people conspiring against us.
Debate: 9/11 was an inside job.
Side: Wrong, I trust my government.

Your friend may not have the same pressures to keep schtum. Perhaps details of the conspiracy have been leaked (if there was a non-Islamist conspiracy) - perhaps information will be leaked. Weigh your incredulity against the unchallenged facts as they have been reported e.g. - WTC7 wasn't mentioned in the official 9/11 report - a few news organisations reported the collapse of WTC7 before it happened - the 9/11 wreckage was illegally destroyed - the collapse of the buildings and strange/missing plane wreckage at all sites - unrecoverable flight recordersSo, if all this is possible, maybe it's possible a group of people can keep a secret.
Debate: 9/11 was an inside job.
Side: Wrong, I trust my government.

When you share private information with a friend--that's gossip.When you murder thousands of innocent civilians, that's a secret. And if you were involved, you're invested in keeping that secret--because you're part of the system that perpetrated it. You benefit from keeping it secret. If you blab, you're taking a risk. If you think our government can't keep a secret, then what exactly is the purpose of top secret clearances? I suppose the CIA won't mind if I examine their files, since we know all their secrets which they are unable to keep. You think everything they do is legal? How about moral? p.s. the Government didn't fabricate the evidence of 9/11 - they omitted, destroyed, or distorted the evidence that was present.
Debate: 9/11 was an inside job.
Side: Wrong, I trust my government.

So in your world there are no traitors, counter intelligence, double agents, and death bed confessions.
Debate: 9/11 was an inside job.
Side: Obviously...Wake up, America!

You didn't address my request for evidence that those hijackers boarded the planes.I dont claim to know everything that happened on 911, just that the government blew the towers up.Evidence for your claim, please.
Debate: 9/11 was an inside job.
Side: Wrong, I trust my government.

Sigh... all these conspiracy theories... I believe 9/11 was not an inside job (no matter how much I hate the government). I have yet to see valid proof that it was an inside job.
Debate: Abortion
Side: PRO-LIFE

It really is the mother's decision. If she isn't wanting to take care of it who will? Yes the father maybe... but what if your raped, what if you didnt want the baby and the husband altered the birthcontrol pills into something else. Yes you could put it into an adoption agency, but what if they grow up wonderign why there parents gave them up? They would feel like crap thinking that there parents hated them, and be suicidel. No one deserves the live of bouncing around in foster homes, thinking no one loves them. They may get into a caring family but do you know how many kids get into crappy situations? It is the persons decisions, we souldnt have a law saying this is a bad thing to do. Its a moral and a value we all have and we all have different views. why should we care about what other people do with there lives. especally people we dont even know.
Debate: Abortion
Side: PRO-LIFE

im sorry but i would much rather have my baby in heaven then on earth if i couldn't take care of it. i don't understand why we feel that we get to dictate what other people can do with their bodies. different people have different morals and we can't tell them what to think or feel. it's not right to tell people what to think or feel then they aren't who they are anymore.
Debate: Abortion
Side: PRO-LIFE

Most adopted children do not become suicidal. they might wonder about their biological parents but i wouldnt say they think that they hated them. giving up your child for adoption is an act of love rather than hate
Debate: Abortion
Side: PRO-LIFE

Why should you kill a innocent baby? That is exactly what abortion is. Even though the mother does not want the baby, she should still have it. Most of the people who want an abortion and never go through with it, actually say they would regret killing the baby. Should America become "I get to do whatever I want to just because I can"?
Debate: Abortion
Side: PRO-CHOICE

When a fetus hasnt been born yet it isnt a person to me. If somethign cannot live without something for it to hook up to for life support it isnt alive. It isnt alive until it is born. It could be way more hazardous to the mother than the child.
Debate: Abortion
Side: PRO-CHOICE

abortion is alright with me... obviously a mother who wants an abortion is not planning on taking care of the baby. if she doesn't terminate the pregancy, who's gonna take care of the baby? not her. are you?
Debate: Abortion
Side: PRO-LIFE

If she wasn't planning on taking care of a baby, maybe she should've waited until marriage to actually have sex. The only sure-safe way to avoid pregnancy is to stay abstinent.
Debate: Abortion
Side: PRO-CHOICE

well if it's abstinance your talking about, then your probably a christian. and in the bible it says that refraining from all sexual activity is pure abstinance. that includes handjobs, blowjobs, anything that looks sexual (which includes making out). I dont know of even one person who abides by those shitty rules. not even "Devoted" christians
Debate: Abortion
Side: PRO-CHOICE

And if you didn't want to have your leg crushed in a car accident maybe you shouldn't have driven on the road. The only sure-safe way to avoid a car accident is never to go anywhere near a car.So if you are ever in a car accident it's obviously your own fault for doing something so reckless. Why exactly should we be required to expend all kinds of expensive medical treatment fixing the results of your irresponsibility?Edit: Also, what an amazing coincidence that two completely different people named "Edwardxx" who both have very low post counts and similar posting styles posted back to back "no" arguments within 5 minutes of each other. Isn't the world a funny place?
Debate: Abortion
Side: PRO-CHOICE

It's about freedom - a woman's freedom to control her own body, and a couple's freedom to decide when is a good time to bring a child into the world.