text
stringlengths 1
80.7k
| label
int64 0
1
| author
stringlengths 2
25
| original_text
stringlengths 7
90.9k
| category
stringclasses 23
values | round
int64 0
8
| debate_id
stringlengths 8
103
| idx
int64 4
82.5k
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
When the Audi your dad bought you breaks down, and it costs thousands to fix, and your daddy foots the bill again, you will love the Audi still, only because it is daddy that pays for it, and not you. You will hate your Audi when you have to pay for repairs. | 0 | Max.Wallace |
When the Audi your dad bought you breaks down, and it costs thousands to fix, and your daddy foots the bill again, you will love the Audi still, only because it is daddy that pays for it, and not you. You will hate your Audi when you have to pay for repairs. | Cars | 0 | .-Audis-are-junkers-except-to-rich-kids-with-limitless-assets-and-time-to-maintain-them./1/ | 4 |
This is a bout Audis exclusively, not just anything. Some vehicles you can neglect and they will almost never let you down. Not with big buck daddies Audi. | 0 | Max.Wallace |
This is a bout Audis exclusively, not just anything. Some vehicles you can neglect and they will almost never let you down. Not with big buck daddies Audi. | Cars | 1 | .-Audis-are-junkers-except-to-rich-kids-with-limitless-assets-and-time-to-maintain-them./1/ | 5 |
They do meet emission and mileage standards so the must be good cars, right? Until the second owner/dreamer/sucker buys one. Nobody deserves that burden. | 0 | Max.Wallace |
They do meet emission and mileage standards so the must be good cars, right? Until the second owner/dreamer/sucker buys one. Nobody deserves that burden. | Cars | 2 | .-Audis-are-junkers-except-to-rich-kids-with-limitless-assets-and-time-to-maintain-them./1/ | 6 |
Same could be said for any car or any asset in general. | 0 | TheCalmCanadian |
Same could be said for any car or any asset in general. | Cars | 0 | .-Audis-are-junkers-except-to-rich-kids-with-limitless-assets-and-time-to-maintain-them./1/ | 7 |
This is one of the most pointless debates ever. Any vehicle can let you down and in all honesty reliable vehicles are also very expensive. in the past Audies have been really reliable and good vehicles. Same with volvos they are now expensive and overpriced. | 0 | TheCalmCanadian |
This is one of the most pointless debates ever. Any vehicle can let you down and in all honesty reliable vehicles are also very expensive. in the past Audies have been really reliable and good vehicles. Same with volvos they are now expensive and overpriced. | Cars | 1 | .-Audis-are-junkers-except-to-rich-kids-with-limitless-assets-and-time-to-maintain-them./1/ | 8 |
I wouldn't be so sure about that. The more modern Audis have better gas rating and in all honesty they are pretty nice cars. Maybe not the most pricy audis but the older ones remind me a lot of volvo's. They are modest cars and middle class can afford them. Someone is just upset that the fact they cannot afford a similar vehicle. | 0 | TheCalmCanadian |
I wouldn't be so sure about that. The more modern Audis have better gas rating and in all honesty they are pretty nice cars. Maybe not the most pricy audis but the older ones remind me a lot of volvo's. They are modest cars and middle class can afford them. Someone is just upset that the fact they cannot afford a similar vehicle. | Cars | 2 | .-Audis-are-junkers-except-to-rich-kids-with-limitless-assets-and-time-to-maintain-them./1/ | 9 |
This debate is pretty straight forward and has been done before; however, I believe I am correct in asserting that 0.999 repeating does not equal 1. As this is a two round debate, I have an odd rule that must be honored, otherwise it results in automatic loss for Con. In Con's first round, they must state their proof as to why they believe that .99999 equals 1. I am sure we both know what that will look like... Con has the Burden of Proof, as they will be making the positive assertion, and must do so in round 1. I will refute them in Round 2. Con then may attempt to refute my refutation in Round 2. Good luck to whoever accepts this debate, and, please, no trolling. | 0 | Khaos_Mage |
This debate is pretty straight forward and has been done before; however, I believe I am correct in asserting that 0.999 repeating does not equal 1. As this is a two round debate, I have an odd rule that must be honored, otherwise it results in automatic loss for Con. In Con's first round, they must state their proof as to why they believe that .99999 equals 1. I am sure we both know what that will look like... Con has the Burden of Proof, as they will be making the positive assertion, and must do so in round 1. I will refute them in Round 2. Con then may attempt to refute my refutation in Round 2. Good luck to whoever accepts this debate, and, please, no trolling. | Science | 0 | 0.999999999-etc.-does-not-equal-1/1/ | 89 |
Numbers represent abstract ideas, and are connected by logic. However, the physical representation of these numbers is hardly the same as their abstract functions imply. Let us, for example, take the equality of 2/2 = 1. We both know these are equivalent functions, but two halves are not the same as one whole. Furthermore, 2 + 2 = 4. However, one side of this equation denotes two distinct sets, while the other includes them as one set. 0.99999 is irrational, while 1 is a whole number. Something can be 1, a whole entity of itself. However, the only way an irrational number can exist, is from a calculation. For example, pi is the ratio of circumference to diameter. The relevant irrational cannot even be expressed as a fraction or ratio, only as a sum. For example, 1/3 = .3333 and if we have three of them, that "equals" 1, but you have three separate entities, not 1. 1/2 = 2/2. We come to this equality by eliminating the radical in the denominator by multiplying the "unit" of 1/2 by 1 (in this case, 2/2), to achieve the equivalent figure using the identity property of multiplication. But, what is 2/2? Sure, it is treated as 1 for these calculations, but they are not the same thing, as multiplying this improper "number" by 5/5 would not aid in ridding the denominator of the radical. Somehow, only a specific equal number eliminates the radical, which shows that all equivalencies are not the created equal. Therefore, 1 does not equal .99999, even if they are equivalent. Thank you for the debate. | 0 | Khaos_Mage |
Numbers represent abstract ideas, and are connected by logic. However, the physical representation of these numbers is hardly the same as their abstract functions imply.
Let us, for example, take the equality of 2/2 = 1. We both know these are equivalent functions, but two halves are not the same as one whole.
Furthermore, 2 + 2 = 4. However, one side of this equation denotes two distinct sets, while the other includes them as one set.
0.99999 is irrational, while 1 is a whole number. Something can be 1, a whole entity of itself. However, the only way an irrational number can exist, is from a calculation. For example, pi is the ratio of circumference to diameter. The relevant irrational cannot even be expressed as a fraction or ratio, only as a sum. For example, 1/3 = .3333 and if we have three of them, that “equals” 1, but you have three separate entities, not 1. 1/√2 = √2/2. We come to this equality by eliminating the radical in the denominator by multiplying the “unit” of 1/√2 by 1 (in this case, √2/√2), to achieve the equivalent figure using the identity property of multiplication. But, what is √2/√2? Sure, it is treated as 1 for these calculations, but they are not the same thing, as multiplying this improper "number" by 5/5 would not aid in ridding the denominator of the radical. Somehow, only a specific equal number eliminates the radical, which shows that all equivalencies are not the created equal.
Therefore, 1 does not equal .99999, even if they are equivalent.
Thank you for the debate.
| Science | 1 | 0.999999999-etc.-does-not-equal-1/1/ | 90 |
I am advocating that the minimum number of rounds allowed to a debate be 2. One-round "debates" defeat the actual purpose of a debate, because all that is done is the establishment of both sides. Nobody has a real chance to refute each other (except the contender, but then his arguments cannot be refuted). One-round "debates" are not really debates, they are just rounds. As you can see, this "debate" is one round. So you may see the evils of a one-round "debate" (See above if you didn't catch them). | 0 | gahbage |
I am advocating that the minimum number of rounds allowed to a debate be 2. One-round "debates" defeat the actual purpose of a debate, because all that is done is the establishment of both sides. Nobody has a real chance to refute each other (except the contender, but then his arguments cannot be refuted). One-round "debates" are not really debates, they are just rounds.
As you can see, this "debate" is one round. So you may see the evils of a one-round "debate" (See above if you didn't catch them). | Politics | 0 | 1-Round-debates-should-not-be-allowed./1/ | 129 |
Pshhhhhhhhhhhhh. You've got no shot at beating me, gahbage. One round debates are da bomb. I believe they should be allowed. I would elaborate, but I believe the horrid shrieking coming from the galley kitchen is my estranged wife sending an open invitation for pasta. I shall elaborate on my position in the next argument. Your turn. | 0 | mynameisjonas |
Pshhhhhhhhhhhhh. You've got no shot at beating me, gahbage. One round debates are da bomb. I believe they should be allowed.
I would elaborate, but I believe the horrid shrieking coming from the galley kitchen is my estranged wife sending an open invitation for pasta. I shall elaborate on my position in the next argument.
Your turn. | Politics | 0 | 1-Round-debates-should-not-be-allowed./1/ | 130 |
1 and .999999... is NOT the same, because in order to be euivelent it must be the SAME number. Maybe if you are rounding the number it could be the same. That is like saying "7 and 10 are the same, and have the same value." Anybody that knows simple math, knows that 7 and 10 are NOT the same thing. Thus my opponent is trying to make you as the voters, and me as his opponent believe something untrue. .9999 is not the same as 0, it is not the same as 1, it is the same as .9999. ~~~~~irrelavent question~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Why, padfo0t, did you think of this debate? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ As it stands, you as the voters with common sense must vote con. | 0 | Im_always_right |
1 and .999999... is NOT the same, because in order to be euivelent it must be the SAME number. Maybe if you are rounding the number it could be the same. That is like saying "7 and 10 are the same, and have the same value." Anybody that knows simple math, knows that 7 and 10 are NOT the same thing. Thus my opponent is trying to make you as the voters, and me as his opponent believe something untrue. .9999 is not the same as 0, it is not the same as 1, it is the same as .9999.
~~~~~irrelavent question~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Why, padfo0t, did you think of this debate?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
As it stands, you as the voters with common sense must vote con. | Science | 0 | 1-can-be-proven-to-have-the-same-value-as-0.9999999etc./1/ | 131 |
LOL... Okay that is like saying 2.1 X 10= 20 therfore 2.1=2. Thus .9999 cannot equal the same value as 1, because, 1 is 1 is 1, and cannot be anything else. 9999 has it's own value, thus cannot have the same value that 1 has. Therefore, you must vote Con, as it stands, unless Pro provides information voiding the numirical value of these numbers. I eagerly await my opponent's responce. | 0 | Im_always_right |
LOL...
Okay that is like saying 2.1 X 10= 20 therfore 2.1=2. Thus .9999 cannot equal the same value as 1, because, 1 is 1 is 1, and cannot be anything else. 9999 has it's own value, thus cannot have the same value that 1 has.
Therefore, you must vote Con, as it stands, unless Pro provides information voiding the numirical value of these numbers.
I eagerly await my opponent's responce. | Science | 1 | 1-can-be-proven-to-have-the-same-value-as-0.9999999etc./1/ | 132 |
This round was forfeited because the debater found her glasses and now has a huge headache on top of being blonde and did not agree to the allotted time. Okay N/M that, but, that is like saing 1 can be proven to = 2 which doesn't NORMALLY make since. I can prove it though. Thus if you prove something once it is not always ligit, thus, you can prove 1 to be .99999999999999999999999999999999999999999 all you want, but that doesn't make 1=.99999999, unless 1=2 which nobody will agree to without proof. Which means that if a number is a noumber once it must always be that number. Meaning that 1 cannot be .9999 etc. and 1 cannot be 2. Thus 1 is 1, and 2 is 2, and .9999 is .9999. which means you must vote con. | 0 | Im_always_right |
This round was forfeited because the debater found her glasses and now has a huge headache on top of being blonde and did not agree to the allotted time.
Okay N/M that, but, that is like saing 1 can be proven to = 2 which doesn't NORMALLY make since. I can prove it though. Thus if you prove something once it is not always ligit, thus, you can prove 1 to be .99999999999999999999999999999999999999999 all you want, but that doesn't make 1=.99999999, unless 1=2 which nobody will agree to without proof. Which means that if a number is a noumber once it must always be that number. Meaning that 1 cannot be .9999 etc. and 1 cannot be 2. Thus 1 is 1, and 2 is 2, and .9999 is .9999.
which means you must vote con. | Science | 2 | 1-can-be-proven-to-have-the-same-value-as-0.9999999etc./1/ | 133 |
So you do not agree that 1=.99999, which means it doesn't which means it cannot be PROVEN which means 1 does not =2 even though I can show you the equation that shows that meaning every number has it's own value and you have surrendered. Thus I win, you MUST vote con on this debate. Have fun Chip the Mouster, padfo0t, and all the voters. Also I never thought that you thought that I thought that you thought you made me think that, thus I do not think that you thought that I thought you felt that way. | 0 | Im_always_right |
So you do not agree that 1=.99999, which means it doesn't which means it cannot be PROVEN which means 1 does not =2 even though I can show you the equation that shows that meaning every number has it's own value and you have surrendered.
Thus I win, you MUST vote con on this debate.
Have fun Chip the Mouster, padfo0t, and all the voters.
Also I never thought that you thought that I thought that you thought you made me think that, thus I do not think that you thought that I thought you felt that way. | Science | 3 | 1-can-be-proven-to-have-the-same-value-as-0.9999999etc./1/ | 134 |
Good day to you, opponent, and to you, the voter 1 and .99999etc can be proved to be the same, and have the same value. In other words, they are equivalent. If you disagree with my statement, please accept this debate and tell me why. | 0 | padfo0t |
Good day to you, opponent, and to you, the voter
1 and .99999etc can be proved to be the same, and have the same value.
In other words, they are equivalent.
If you disagree with my statement, please accept this debate and tell me why. | Science | 0 | 1-can-be-proven-to-have-the-same-value-as-0.9999999etc./1/ | 135 |
~~~~~irrelavent answer~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Even though people vote on their own opinions, I thought I'd try to show people the truth, and maybe by the time this debate ends, you will agree with me.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Lets start here: >>>IF 0.999999999etc. = a THEN 10 x 0.9999999etc. = 10a correct? SO 9.99999999etc. = 10a (-a) (-a) THEN 9 = 9a THEN 1 = a SO 1 = 0.999999999etc There you go, there's the TRUTH (emphasis on truth) | 0 | padfo0t |
~~~~~irrelavent answer~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Even though people vote on their own opinions,
I thought I'd try to show people the truth,
and maybe by the time this debate ends, you
will agree with me.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Lets start here:
>>>IF 0.999999999etc. = a
THEN 10 x 0.9999999etc. = 10a correct?
SO 9.99999999etc. = 10a
(-a) (-a)
THEN 9 = 9a
THEN 1 = a
SO 1 = 0.999999999etc
There you go, there's the TRUTH
(emphasis on truth) | Science | 1 | 1-can-be-proven-to-have-the-same-value-as-0.9999999etc./1/ | 136 |
...coughcough...response...coughcough... Excuse me. No, I never said 2.1 X 10=20 It is obvious that that is rounding. There is absolutely no rounding in my explanation, and each and every step has been proven to work. If you look again at the topic of this debate>>> 1 can be proven to have the same value as 0.9999999etc. >>>Then you will realize that I have in fact proven that 1 CAN have the same value as 0.99etc There is no further way that you could convince other to vote for you, BUt, sadly, many vote on their own opinion DONT DO IT!!!!!!!!!!!!! Therefore, you must vote Pro, as it stands. I also agree that no they are not always the same, but the topic of this debate here allows that to be so. No harsh feelings. PS. DOL means Debate Out Loud. | 0 | padfo0t |
...coughcough...response...coughcough...
Excuse me. No, I never said 2.1 X 10=20
It is obvious that that is rounding. There is absolutely no rounding in my explanation, and each and every step has been proven to work. If you look again at the topic of this debate>>>
1 can be proven to have the same value as 0.9999999etc.
>>>Then you will realize that I have
in fact
proven that 1 CAN have the same value as 0.99etc
There is no further way that you could convince other to vote for you,
BUt, sadly, many vote on their own opinion
DONT DO IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Therefore, you must vote Pro, as it stands.
I also agree that no they are not always the same,
but the topic of this debate here allows that to be so.
No harsh feelings.
PS. DOL means Debate Out Loud. | Science | 2 | 1-can-be-proven-to-have-the-same-value-as-0.9999999etc./1/ | 137 |
Other than the fact that...like...fifty words were misspelled, that made COMPLETELY NO SENSE!!! Although my opponent persists on making me and others confused, I do not agree with the fact that 1=2, and I also do not agree that 1 is the SAME as 0.9999999999999. What i DO believe is that 1 CAN BE PROVEN to have THE SAME VALUE as 0.99999999999999999999999999999999999etc. Just admit it. What say you about the supposed mouse? PLease say sorry to Chip.,.. | 0 | padfo0t |
Other than the fact that...like...fifty words were misspelled, that made
COMPLETELY NO SENSE!!!
Although my opponent persists on making me and others confused, I do not agree with the fact that 1=2, and I also do not agree that 1 is the SAME as 0.9999999999999.
What i DO believe is that 1 CAN BE PROVEN to have THE SAME VALUE as 0.99999999999999999999999999999999999etc.
Just admit it.
What say you about the supposed mouse?
PLease say sorry to Chip.,.. | Science | 3 | 1-can-be-proven-to-have-the-same-value-as-0.9999999etc./1/ | 138 |
Reality television is television that captures actual occurrences. It usually stars someone interesting or a already known celebrity. A reality television show could also consists of a documentary. Most reality shows usually have high ratings. Reality shows give people knowledge on how the stars life works. It's usually interesting things the Producers will pick for a reality show. Therefore, reality doesn't do harm. | 0 | jaquavianalexander |
Reality television is television that captures actual occurrences. It usually stars someone interesting or a already known celebrity. A reality television show could also consists of a documentary. Most reality shows usually have high ratings. Reality shows give people knowledge on how the stars life works. It's usually interesting things the Producers will pick for a reality show. Therefore, reality doesn't do harm. | Entertainment | 0 | 100-debate-Challenge-3-This-House-believes-reality-television-does-more-harm-than-good/2/ | 192 |
Let a = b. Then a^2 = ab. Subtract b^2 from both sides. Then a^2-b^2=ab-b^2. Use difference of squares. (a+b)(a-b)=b(a-b) Divide both sides by (a-b). Then a+b=b. Now let a=1, then b=1. Substitute a=1 and b=1 into a+b=b. Thus 2=1. | 0 | stephenyoo1995 |
Let a = b.
Then a^2 = ab.
Subtract b^2 from both sides.
Then a^2-b^2=ab-b^2.
Use difference of squares.
(a+b)(a-b)=b(a-b)
Divide both sides by (a-b).
Then a+b=b.
Now let a=1, then b=1.
Substitute a=1 and b=1 into a+b=b.
Thus 2=1. | Science | 0 | 2-has-the-same-value-as-the-value-of-1./1/ | 271 |
do (a-b) then you get the answer! It's not 2=1 HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH MUHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH MUHAHAHA MUHA MUHA MUHAAAAAAAA | 0 | ww54ww |
do (a-b) then you get the answer! It's not 2=1 HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH MUHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH MUHAHAHA MUHA MUHA MUHAAAAAAAA | Science | 0 | 2-has-the-same-value-as-the-value-of-1./1/ | 272 |
Second Amendment - Bearing Arms A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. if you look under the term infringe or Infringement it states go against rules and laws if you look under the constitution the second amendment it is in the bill of rights under our constitution it states shall not be infringed. now if we had to look at the revolutionary war we had the Militia and to day we still have the militia if you were called up by you mayor or congressman or even a mayor after a major storm you and your neighbors will be a militia now during WWII law abiding citizens voluntereed on the home front to defend our boarders and also in europe in WWII Nazi Repression Of Firearms Owners New research into Adolf Hitler's use of firearm registration lists to confiscate guns and then execute their owners teaches a forceful lesson. It is a lesson that reveals why the American people and Congress have rejected registering honest firearms owners. It would be instructive at this time to recall why the American citizenry and Congress have historically opposed the registration of firearms. The reason is plain. Registration makes it easy for a tyrannical government to confiscate firearms and make prey of its subjects. Denying this historical fact is no more justified than denying that the Holocaust occurred or that the Nazis murdered millions of unarmed people. I am writing a book on Nazi policies and practices that sought to repress civilian gun ownership and eradicate gun owners in Germany and occupied Europe. The following sampling of my findings should give pause to the suggestion that Draconian punishment of citizens for keeping firearms is necessarily a social good. The Night of the Broken Glass (Kristallnacht)--the infamous Nazi rampage against Germany's Jews--took place in November 1938. It was preceded by the confiscation of firearms from the Jewish victims. On Nov. 9, The New York Times reported from Berlin, "Berlin Police Head Announces 'Disarming' of Jews," explaining: "The Berlin Police President, Count Wolf Heinrich von Helldorf, announced that as a result of a police activity in the last few weeks the entire Jewish population of Berlin had been 'disarmed' with the confiscation of 2,569 hand weapons, 1,702 firearms and 20,000 rounds of ammunition. Any Jews still found in possession of weapons without valid licenses are threatened with the severest punishment."1 On the evening of Nov. 9, Adolf Hitler, Propaganda Minister Joseph Goebbels and other Nazi chiefs planned the attack. Orders went out to Nazi security forces: "All Jewish stores are to be destroyed immediately. . . Jewish synagogues are to be set on fire. . . The Fhrer wishes that the police does not intervene. . . All Jews are to be disarmed. In the event of resistance they are to be shot immediately."2 All hell broke loose on Nov. 10: "Nazis Smash, Loot and Burn Jewish Shops and Temples," a headline read. "One of the first legal measures issued was an order by Heinrich Himmler, commander of all German police, forbidding Jews to possess any weapons whatever and imposing a penalty of twenty years confinement in a concentration camp upon every Jew found in possession of a weapon hereafter."3 Thousands of Jews were taken away. Searches of Jewish homes were calculated to seize firearms and assets and to arrest adult males. The American Consulate in Stuttgart was flooded with Jews begging for visas: "Men in whose homes old, rusty revolvers had been found during the last few days cried aloud that they did not dare ever again return to their places of residence or business. In fact, it was a mass of seething, panic-stricken humanity."4 Himmler, head of the Nazi terror police, would become an architect of the Holocaust, which consumed 6 million Jews. It was self-evident that the Jews must be disarmed before the extermination could begin. Finding out which Jews had firearms was not too difficult. The liberal Weimar Republic passed a Firearm Law in 1928 requiring extensive police records on gun owners. Hitler signed a further gun control law in early 1938. Other European countries also had laws requiring police records to be kept on persons who possessed firearms. When the Nazis took over Czechoslovakia and Poland in 1939, it was a simple matter to identify gun owners. Many of them disappeared in the middle of the night along with political opponents. Imagine that you are sitting in a movie house in Germany in May 1940. The German Weekly Newsreel comes on to show you the attack on Holland, Belgium and France. The minute Wehrmacht troops and tanks cross the Dutch border, the film shows German soldiers nailing up a poster about 2-ft. by 3-ft. in size. It is entitled "Regulations on Arms Possession in the Occupied Zone" ("Verordnung ber Waffenbesitz im besetzen Gebiet").5 The camera scans the top of the double-columned poster, written in German on the left and Flemish on the right, with an eagle and swastika in the middle. It commands that all firearms be surrendered to the German commander within 24 hours. The full text is not in view, but similar posters threatened the death penalty for violation. The film shows artillery and infantry rolling through the streets as happy citizens wave. It then switches to scenes of onslaughts against Dutch and Belgian soldiers and Hitler's message that this great war would instate the 1000-year Reich. A patriotic song mixed with the images and music of artillery barrages, Luftwaffe bombings and tank assaults compose the grand finale. France soon fell, and the same posters threatening the death penalty for possession of a firearm went up everywhere. You can see one today in Paris at the Museum of the Order of the Liberation (Muse de l'Ordre de la Lib&ration). A photograph of the poster is reproduced here, including a translation. There was a fallacy to the threat. No blank existed on the poster to write in the time and date of posting so one would know when the 24-hour "waiting period" began or ended. Perhaps the Nazis would shoot someone who was an hour late. Indeed, gun owners even without guns were dangerous because they knew how to use guns and tended to be resourceful, independent-minded persons. A Swiss manual on armed resistance stated with such experiences in mind: Out of all the acts of armed citizen resisters in the war, the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising of 1943 is difficult to surpass in its heroism. Beginning with just a few handguns, armed Jews put a temporary stop to the deportations to extermination camps, frightened the Nazis out of the ghetto, stood off assaults for days on end, and escaped to the forests to continue the struggle. What if there had been two, three, many Warsaw Ghetto Uprisings?19 The NRA trained hundreds of thousands of Americans in rifle marksmanship during World War II. President Harry Truman wrote that NRA's firearms training programs "materially aided our war effort" and that he hoped "the splendid program which the National Rifle Association has followed during the past three-quarters of a century will be continued."20 By helping defeat the Nazi and Fascist terror regimes, the NRA helped end the Holocaust, slave labor and the severest oppression. Those tiny pacifist organizations of the era that called for gun registration and confiscation contributed nothing to winning the war or to stopping the genocide. Their counterparts today have nothing to offer that would enable citizens to resist genocide. Individual criminals wreak their carnage on individuals or small numbers of people. As this century has shown, terrorist governments have the capacity to commit genocide against millions of people, provided that the people are unarmed. Schemes to confiscate firearms kept by peaceable citizens have historically been associated with some of the world's most insidious tyrannies. | 0 | cjmousseau |
Second Amendment - Bearing Arms A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. if you look under the term infringe or Infringement it states go against rules and laws if you look under the constitution the second amendment it is in the bill of rights under our constitution it states shall not be infringed.
now if we had to look at the revolutionary war we had the Militia and to day we still have the militia if you were called up by you mayor or congressman or even a mayor after a major storm you and your neighbors will be a militia now during WWII law abiding citizens voluntereed on the home front to defend our boarders and also in europe in WWII Nazi Repression Of Firearms Owners New research into Adolf Hitler`s use of firearm registration lists to confiscate guns and then execute their owners teaches a forceful lesson. It is a lesson that reveals why the American people and Congress have rejected registering honest firearms owners.
It would be instructive at this time to recall why the American citizenry and Congress have historically opposed the registration of firearms. The reason is plain. Registration makes it easy for a tyrannical government to confiscate firearms and make prey of its subjects. Denying this historical fact is no more justified than denying that the Holocaust occurred or that the Nazis murdered millions of unarmed people.
I am writing a book on Nazi policies and practices that sought to repress civilian gun ownership and eradicate gun owners in Germany and occupied Europe. The following sampling of my findings should give pause to the suggestion that Draconian punishment of citizens for keeping firearms is necessarily a social good.
The Night of the Broken Glass (Kristallnacht)--the infamous Nazi rampage against Germany`s Jews--took place in November 1938. It was preceded by the confiscation of firearms from the Jewish victims. On Nov. 9, The New York Times reported from Berlin, "Berlin Police Head Announces `Disarming` of Jews," explaining:
"The Berlin Police President, Count Wolf Heinrich von Helldorf, announced that as a result of a police activity in the last few weeks the entire Jewish population of Berlin had been `disarmed` with the confiscation of 2,569 hand weapons, 1,702 firearms and 20,000 rounds of ammunition. Any Jews still found in possession of weapons without valid licenses are threatened with the severest punishment."1
On the evening of Nov. 9, Adolf Hitler, Propaganda Minister Joseph Goebbels and other Nazi chiefs planned the attack. Orders went out to Nazi security forces: "All Jewish stores are to be destroyed immediately. . . Jewish synagogues are to be set on fire. . . The F�hrer wishes that the police does not intervene. . . All Jews are to be disarmed. In the event of resistance they are to be shot immediately."2
All hell broke loose on Nov. 10: "Nazis Smash, Loot and Burn Jewish Shops and Temples," a headline read. "One of the first legal measures issued was an order by Heinrich Himmler, commander of all German police, forbidding Jews to possess any weapons whatever and imposing a penalty of twenty years confinement in a concentration camp upon every Jew found in possession of a weapon hereafter."3 Thousands of Jews were taken away.
Searches of Jewish homes were calculated to seize firearms and assets and to arrest adult males. The American Consulate in Stuttgart was flooded with Jews begging for visas: "Men in whose homes old, rusty revolvers had been found during the last few days cried aloud that they did not dare ever again return to their places of residence or business. In fact, it was a mass of seething, panic-stricken humanity."4
Himmler, head of the Nazi terror police, would become an architect of the Holocaust, which consumed 6 million Jews. It was self-evident that the Jews must be disarmed before the extermination could begin.
Finding out which Jews had firearms was not too difficult. The liberal Weimar Republic passed a Firearm Law in 1928 requiring extensive police records on gun owners. Hitler signed a further gun control law in early 1938.
Other European countries also had laws requiring police records to be kept on persons who possessed firearms. When the Nazis took over Czechoslovakia and Poland in 1939, it was a simple matter to identify gun owners. Many of them disappeared in the middle of the night along with political opponents.
Imagine that you are sitting in a movie house in Germany in May 1940. The German Weekly Newsreel comes on to show you the attack on Holland, Belgium and France. The minute Wehrmacht troops and tanks cross the Dutch border, the film shows German soldiers nailing up a poster about 2-ft. by 3-ft. in size. It is entitled "Regulations on Arms Possession in the Occupied Zone" ("Verordnung �ber Waffenbesitz im besetzen Gebiet").5 The camera scans the top of the double-columned poster, written in German on the left and Flemish on the right, with an eagle and swastika in the middle. It commands that all firearms be surrendered to the German commander within 24 hours. The full text is not in view, but similar posters threatened the death penalty for violation.
The film shows artillery and infantry rolling through the streets as happy citizens wave. It then switches to scenes of onslaughts against Dutch and Belgian soldiers and Hitler`s message that this great war would instate the 1000-year Reich. A patriotic song mixed with the images and music of artillery barrages, Luftwaffe bombings and tank assaults compose the grand finale.
France soon fell, and the same posters threatening the death penalty for possession of a firearm went up everywhere. You can see one today in Paris at the Museum of the Order of the Liberation (Mus�e de l`Ordre de la Lib&�ration). A photograph of the poster is reproduced here, including a translation.
There was a fallacy to the threat. No blank existed on the poster to write in the time and date of posting so one would know when the 24-hour "waiting period" began or ended. Perhaps the Nazis would shoot someone who was an hour late. Indeed, gun owners even without guns were dangerous because they knew how to use guns and tended to be resourceful, independent-minded persons. A Swiss manual on armed resistance stated with such experiences in mind:
Out of all the acts of armed citizen resisters in the war, the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising of 1943 is difficult to surpass in its heroism. Beginning with just a few handguns, armed Jews put a temporary stop to the deportations to extermination camps, frightened the Nazis out of the ghetto, stood off assaults for days on end, and escaped to the forests to continue the struggle. What if there had been two, three, many Warsaw Ghetto Uprisings?19
The NRA trained hundreds of thousands of Americans in rifle marksmanship during World War II. President Harry Truman wrote that NRA`s firearms training programs "materially aided our war effort" and that he hoped "the splendid program which the National Rifle Association has followed during the past three-quarters of a century will be continued."20 By helping defeat the Nazi and Fascist terror regimes, the NRA helped end the Holocaust, slave labor and the severest oppression.
Those tiny pacifist organizations of the era that called for gun registration and confiscation contributed nothing to winning the war or to stopping the genocide. Their counterparts today have nothing to offer that would enable citizens to resist genocide.
Individual criminals wreak their carnage on individuals or small numbers of people. As this century has shown, terrorist governments have the capacity to commit genocide against millions of people, provided that the people are unarmed. Schemes to confiscate firearms kept by peaceable citizens have historically been associated with some of the world`s most insidious tyrannies. | Politics | 0 | 2nd-amendment/1/ | 284 |
The Second Amendment The Second Amendment guarantees: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." This guarantees a citizen's right to keep and bear arms for personal defense. The revolutionary experience caused our forebears to address a second concern -- the ability of Americans to maintain a citizen militia. The Founding Fathers trusted an armed citizenry as the best safeguard against the possibility of a tyrannical government. James Madison, author of the Second Amendment, wrote that Americans had "the advantage of being armed," that was lacking in other nations, where "the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." Patrick Henry proclaimed the "great object is that every man be armed. . . . Everyone who is able may have a gun." The Second Amendment was then, as it is today, about freedom and the means to protect it. In United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939), the Supreme Court refused to take judicial notice that a short-barreled shotgun was useful for militia purposes. Nowhere did the court hold that an individual does not have a right to keep and bear arms. In United States v. Gomez, 81 F.3d 846, 850 n. 7 (9th Cir. 1996), Judge Kozinski opined that "The Second Amendment embodies the right to defend oneself and one's home against physical attack." In United States v. Hutzell, 217 F.3d 966, 969 (8th Cir. 2000), the court held that "... an individual's right to bear arms is constitutionally protected, see United States v. Miller ...." In United States v. Emerson, 270 F.3d 203 (5th Cir. 2001), the court examined United States v. Miller and held: "We reject the collective rights and sophisticated collective rights models for interpreting the Second Amendment. We hold, consistent with Miller, that it protects the right of individuals ... to privately possess and bear their own firearms ...." The U. S. Supreme Court has recently recognized the Second Amendment as an important individual right. Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992); United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U.S. 259 (1991). On December 17, 2004, the U.S. Department of Justice published an exhaustive Second Amendment memorandum. It concludes without reservation that "the Second Amendment secures a personal right of individuals, not a collective right that may only be invoked by a State or a quasi-collective right restricted to those persons who serve in organized militia units." <URL>... The Founding Fathers distrusted a government that wouldn't trust its people. To fulfill the promise of the Declaration of Independence, the authors of the U.S. Constitution and its Bill of Rights made it clear that individual rights were paramount. The Bill of Rights, wrote Madison, was "calculated to secure the personal rights of the people." Some claim that banning only certain firearms does not constitute an infringement of Second Amendment rights. That measured ploy is not new. George Mason exposed it at Virginia's constitutional convention in 1788: "[W]hen the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliament was advised by an artful man . . . to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them; but that they should not do it openly, but weaken them, and let them sink gradually." Our founders risked their lives to create a free nation, and they guaranteed freedom as the birthright of American citizens through the Bill of Rights. The Second Amendment remains the first right among equals, because it is the one we turn to when all else fails. thanks charles h mousseau jr NRA member | 0 | cjmousseau |
The Second Amendment
The Second Amendment guarantees: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
This guarantees a citizen's right to keep and bear arms for personal defense. The revolutionary experience caused our forebears to address a second concern -- the ability of Americans to maintain a citizen militia. The Founding Fathers trusted an armed citizenry as the best safeguard against the possibility of a tyrannical government.
James Madison, author of the Second Amendment, wrote that Americans had "the advantage of being armed," that was lacking in other nations, where "the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." Patrick Henry proclaimed the "great object is that every man be armed. . . . Everyone who is able may have a gun." The Second Amendment was then, as it is today, about freedom and the means to protect it.
In United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939), the Supreme Court refused to take judicial notice that a short-barreled shotgun was useful for militia purposes. Nowhere did the court hold that an individual does not have a right to keep and bear arms. In United States v. Gomez, 81 F.3d 846, 850 n. 7 (9th Cir. 1996), Judge Kozinski opined that "The Second Amendment embodies the right to defend oneself and one's home against physical attack." In United States v. Hutzell, 217 F.3d 966, 969 (8th Cir. 2000), the court held that "... an individual's right to bear arms is constitutionally protected, see United States v. Miller ...." In United States v. Emerson, 270 F.3d 203 (5th Cir. 2001), the court examined United States v. Miller and held: "We reject the collective rights and sophisticated collective rights models for interpreting the Second Amendment. We hold, consistent with Miller, that it protects the right of individuals ... to privately possess and bear their own firearms ...."
The U. S. Supreme Court has recently recognized the Second Amendment as an important individual right. Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992); United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U.S. 259 (1991).
On December 17, 2004, the U.S. Department of Justice published an exhaustive Second Amendment memorandum. It concludes without reservation that "the Second Amendment secures a personal right of individuals, not a collective right that may only be invoked by a State or a quasi-collective right restricted to those persons who serve in organized militia units." http://www.usdoj.gov...
The Founding Fathers distrusted a government that wouldn't trust its people. To fulfill the promise of the Declaration of Independence, the authors of the U.S. Constitution and its Bill of Rights made it clear that individual rights were paramount. The Bill of Rights, wrote Madison, was "calculated to secure the personal rights of the people."
Some claim that banning only certain firearms does not constitute an infringement of Second Amendment rights. That measured ploy is not new. George Mason exposed it at Virginia's constitutional convention in 1788: "[W]hen the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliament was advised by an artful man . . . to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them; but that they should not do it openly, but weaken them, and let them sink gradually."
Our founders risked their lives to create a free nation, and they guaranteed freedom as the birthright of American citizens through the Bill of Rights. The Second Amendment remains the first right among equals, because it is the one we turn to when all else fails.
thanks
charles h mousseau jr
NRA member | Politics | 1 | 2nd-amendment/1/ | 285 |
Fortifying The Right To Self-Defense "Law is order, and good law is good order," Aristotle said. Without doubt, Florida's recently enacted "Castle Doctrine" law is good law, casting a common-sense light onto the debate over the right of self-defense. It reverses the pendulum that for too long has swung in the direction of protecting the rights of criminals over the rights of their victims. Despite predictable howling from the anti-gun media elite that Florida was taking an unprecedented and dangerous action, in truth it joined 24 other states that reject "duty-to-retreat" laws. Passed overwhelmingly in the state legislature--unanimously in the Senate and 94-20 in the House--;the new law removes the "duty to retreat" when citizens are outside of their homes and where they have legal right to be. It says that if a criminal breaks into your home or occupied vehicle or a place where you are camping overnight, for example, you may presume that he is there to do bodily harm and use any force, including deadly force, to protect yourself from a violent attack. Floridians who defend themselves from criminal attack are shielded by the new law from criminal prosecution and from civil suits brought by their attackers. In testifying for the bill, Marion P. Hammer, executive director of Unified Sportsmen of Florida, said: "No one knows what is in the twisted mind of a violent criminal. You can't expect a victim to wait before taking action to protect herself and say: 'Excuse me, Mr. Criminal, did you drag me into this alley to rape and kill me or do you just want to beat me up and steal my purse?'" Florida's "Castle Doctrine" law does the following: One: It establishes, in law, the presumption that a criminal who forcibly enters or intrudes into your home or occupied vehicle is there to cause death or great bodily harm, so the occupant may use force, including deadly force, against that person. Two: It removes the "duty to retreat" if you are attacked in any place you have a right to be. You no longer have to turn your back on a criminal and try to run when attacked. Instead, you may stand your ground and fight back, meeting force with force, including deadly force, if you reasonably believe it is necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm to yourself or others. Three: It provides that persons using force authorized by law shall not be prosecuted for using such force. It also prohibits criminals and their families from suing victims for injuring or killing the criminals who have attacked them. In short, it gives rights back to law-abiding people and forces judges and prosecutors to focus on protecting victims. if we had to look over history like the revolutionary war to the war on terror. duing the revolutionary war men fought the red coats and if that read coat came near a mans house in the 13 collines he would have said i am going to get out my kentucky long rifle and i am going to shoot the SOB that comes near me or my family. now on the war on terror lets say we have a domestic terrorist group comming to break into your house you would say i am going to lock and load with my riot control shotgun and my M4A2 and my colt451911. i have a right to defend my self it staes it in the second ammedment it states A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. now in that right to bear arms it staes for the people to keep and bear arms. and it also states shall not be infringed and infringe states to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another and i am protecting my freedom. if you are a politician a member of the military or the president of the united states you are sworn to uphold the U.S. Constitution. thanks charles h mousseau jr NRA Member | 0 | cjmousseau |
Fortifying The Right To Self-Defense
"Law is order, and good law is good order," Aristotle said. Without doubt, Florida's recently enacted "Castle Doctrine" law is good law, casting a common-sense light onto the debate over the right of self-defense. It reverses the pendulum that for too long has swung in the direction of protecting the rights of criminals over the rights of their victims. Despite predictable howling from the anti-gun media elite that Florida was taking an unprecedented and dangerous action, in truth it joined 24 other states that reject "duty-to-retreat" laws.
Passed overwhelmingly in the state legislature--unanimously in the Senate and 94-20 in the House--;the new law removes the "duty to retreat" when citizens are outside of their homes and where they have legal right to be. It says that if a criminal breaks into your home or occupied vehicle or a place where you are camping overnight, for example, you may presume that he is there to do bodily harm and use any force, including deadly force, to protect yourself from a violent attack. Floridians who defend themselves from criminal attack are shielded by the new law from criminal prosecution and from civil suits brought by their attackers.
In testifying for the bill, Marion P. Hammer, executive director of Unified Sportsmen of Florida, said: "No one knows what is in the twisted mind of a violent criminal. You can't expect a victim to wait before taking action to protect herself and say: 'Excuse me, Mr. Criminal, did you drag me into this alley to rape and kill me or do you just want to beat me up and steal my purse?'"
Florida's "Castle Doctrine" law does the following:
One: It establishes, in law, the presumption that a criminal who forcibly enters or intrudes into your home or occupied vehicle is there to cause death or great bodily harm, so the occupant may use force, including deadly force, against that person.
Two: It removes the "duty to retreat" if you are attacked in any place you have a right to be. You no longer have to turn your back on a criminal and try to run when attacked. Instead, you may stand your ground and fight back, meeting force with force, including deadly force, if you reasonably believe it is necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm to yourself or others.
Three: It provides that persons using force authorized by law shall not be prosecuted for using such force. It also prohibits criminals and their families from suing victims for injuring or killing the criminals who have attacked them. In short, it gives rights back to law-abiding people and forces judges and prosecutors to focus on protecting victims.
if we had to look over history like the revolutionary war to the war on terror. duing the revolutionary war men fought the red coats and if that read coat came near a mans house in the 13 collines he would have said i am going to get out my kentucky long rifle and i am going to shoot the SOB that comes near me or my family. now on the war on terror lets say we have a domestic terrorist group comming to break into your house you would say i am going to lock and load with my riot control shotgun and my M4A2 and my colt451911. i have a right to defend my self it staes it in the second ammedment it states A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,
the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. now in that right to bear arms it staes for the people to keep and bear arms. and it also states shall not be infringed and infringe states to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another and i am protecting my freedom. if you are a politician a member of the military or the president of the united states you are sworn to uphold the U.S. Constitution.
thanks
charles h mousseau jr
NRA Member | Politics | 2 | 2nd-amendment/1/ | 286 |
First round is for acceptance. 5 minute responses. 2000 allotted characters. Voting period: 10 days. | 0 | CloudApex |
First round is for acceptance.
5 minute responses.
2000 allotted characters.
Voting period: 10 days. | Education | 0 | 5-minutes-Global-warming-is-a-problem./1/ | 352 |
Thank you for accepting this debate. I would like to start by scaffolding my argument. Statistically speaking, the average atmospheric temperature has risen tremendously in the past few decades and if it continues to expand at an exponential rate, will entail troublesome problems to the generations of the future and even those who live imminently. Its presence is no longer benign. The amount of coral reefs and mangroves have experienced a dramatic decline in the past few years. Organisms that live in cold regions like that of Antarctica and Arctic are forced to either assimilate to the rapidly warming conditions, migrate to cooler and inhospitable tropical regions between the Tropic of Capricorn and the Tropic of Cancer or die as the glacial ice caps and icebergs melt. As huge ice masses melt, coastal flooding will become an insurmountable problem. San Fransisco and its coastal residents WILL suffer losses and will be displaced. Due to the time limit, I will conclude in the following round. | 0 | CloudApex |
Thank you for accepting this debate.
I would like to start by scaffolding my argument.
Statistically speaking, the average atmospheric temperature has risen tremendously in the past few decades and if it continues to expand at an exponential rate, will entail troublesome problems to the generations of the future and even those who live imminently.
Its presence is no longer benign. The amount of coral reefs and mangroves have experienced a dramatic decline in the past few years. Organisms that live in cold regions like that of Antarctica and Arctic are forced to either assimilate to the rapidly warming conditions, migrate to cooler and inhospitable tropical regions between the Tropic of Capricorn and the Tropic of Cancer or die as the glacial ice caps and icebergs melt.
As huge ice masses melt, coastal flooding will become an insurmountable problem. San Fransisco and its coastal residents WILL suffer losses and will be displaced.
Due to the time limit, I will conclude in the following round. | Education | 1 | 5-minutes-Global-warming-is-a-problem./1/ | 353 |
9/11 never happened at all, if nobody did it, nothing or any weather made it happen either. Even though the blame game confusion cycle only says that if we can't blame anybody either because its a conspiracy or it is confusing to tell without bias. the weather never made the towers melt, it was a sunny but cool day. no self-driving planes, no confusion blame, no nothing. if he said it happen, 9/11 is a lie, look it up: <URL>... | 0 | BryanMullinsNOCHRISTMAS2 |
9/11 never happened at all, if nobody did it, nothing or any weather made it happen either.
Even though the blame game confusion cycle only says that if we can't blame anybody either because its a conspiracy or it is confusing to tell without bias. the weather never made the towers melt, it was a sunny but cool day. no self-driving planes, no confusion blame, no nothing.
if he said it happen, 9/11 is a lie, look it up:
https://www.youtube.com... | Society | 0 | 9-11-Never-Happened-At-All/1/ | 389 |
This is my first debate so tell me if i did something wrong ill let my opponent start first so i can think of a good argument for i need to think of a plan to WIN. so let us begin | 0 | Prodigy_X |
This is my first debate so tell me if i did something wrong
ill let my opponent start first so i can think of a good argument for i need to think of a plan to WIN.
so let us begin | Miscellaneous | 0 | 9-11-was-a-made-by-the-government-so-they-could-invade-another-country-for-oil/1/ | 434 |
i'd like to thank my opponent for stepping up to the challenge i'm not saying 9/11 didnt exist Im saying this: the U.S goverment took a couple of people from the middle east to stage an "attack" on the world trade centre, an airplane crashing into the pentagon and another one in a field to make the people in believing "terrorists" are attacking the U.S and rally them up so they can invade another country for its oil since the oils supply in the world is decreasing. i'm not saying that all Americans are evil just George Bush because when 9/11 happened Afghanistan was invaded by the Americans and it continues till this day. what the people in afghanistan will say" thanks for letting me walk through my own roads in my own country". And when they defeat the "terrorists" that "attacked" America, the military have just made things worse and just completely fucked things up even worse then when they werent there and still they are there making things worse. in maybe a few years the U.S will have turned Iraq and Afghanistan into a land of which no one can go to unless wearing a radiation suit and the U.S would of just took their oil and left laughing after another triumphant victory over nothing. Thank you | 0 | Prodigy_X |
i'd like to thank my opponent for stepping up to the challenge
i'm not saying 9/11 didnt exist Im saying this:
the U.S goverment took a couple of people from the middle east to stage an "attack" on the world trade centre, an airplane crashing into the pentagon and another one in a field to make the people in believing "terrorists" are attacking the U.S and rally them up so they can invade another country for its oil since the oils supply in the world is decreasing.
i'm not saying that all Americans are evil just George Bush because when 9/11 happened Afghanistan was invaded by the Americans and it continues till this day. what the people in afghanistan will say" thanks for letting me walk through my own roads in my own country".
And when they defeat the "terrorists" that "attacked" America, the military have just made things worse and just completely fucked things up even worse then when they werent there and still they are there making things worse. in maybe a few years the U.S will have turned Iraq and Afghanistan into a land of which no one can go to unless wearing a radiation suit and the U.S would of just took their oil and left laughing after another triumphant victory over nothing.
Thank you | Miscellaneous | 1 | 9-11-was-a-made-by-the-government-so-they-could-invade-another-country-for-oil/1/ | 435 |
Now i am going to flaw the government on how they perfected 9/11 1. War Games US military and other authorities planned or actually rehearsed defensive response to all elements of the 9/11 scenario during the year prior to the attack - including multiple hijackings, suicide crashbombings, and a strike on the Pentagon 2.Pentagon strike How was it possible the Pentagon was hit 1 hour and 20 minutes after the attacks began? Why was there no response from Andrews Air Force Base, just 10 miles away and home to Air National Guard units charged with defending the skies above the nation's capital? How did Hani Hanjour, a man who failed as a Cessna pilot on his first flight in a Boeing, execute a difficult aerobatic maneuver to strike the Pentagon? Why did the attack strike the just-renovated side, which was largely empty and opposite from the high command? 3.Demolition Hypothesis What caused the collapse of a third skyscraper, WTC 7, which was not hit by a plane? Were the Twin Towers and WTC 7 brought down by explosives? And finally 4. Awol chain of command It is well documented that the officials topping the chain of command for response to a domestic attack - George W. Bush, Donald Rumsfeld, Richard Myers, Montague Winfield - all found reason to do something else during the actual attacks, other than assuming their duties as decision-makers But dont give me credit for these arguments i got most of them from a 9/11 truth website so thank them for these reasons and more vote.......... Pro! thank you | 0 | Prodigy_X |
Now i am going to flaw the government on how they perfected 9/11
1. War Games
US military and other authorities planned or actually rehearsed defensive response to all elements of the 9/11 scenario during the year prior to the attack - including multiple hijackings, suicide crashbombings, and a strike on the Pentagon
2.Pentagon strike
How was it possible the Pentagon was hit 1 hour and 20 minutes after the attacks began? Why was there no response from Andrews Air Force Base, just 10 miles away and home to Air National Guard units charged with defending the skies above the nation's capital? How did Hani Hanjour, a man who failed as a Cessna pilot on his first flight in a Boeing, execute a difficult aerobatic maneuver to strike the Pentagon? Why did the attack strike the just-renovated side, which was largely empty and opposite from the high command?
3.Demolition Hypothesis
What caused the collapse of a third skyscraper, WTC 7, which was not hit by a plane? Were the Twin Towers and WTC 7 brought down by explosives?
And finally 4. Awol chain of command
It is well documented that the officials topping the chain of command for response to a domestic attack - George W. Bush, Donald Rumsfeld, Richard Myers, Montague Winfield - all found reason to do something else during the actual attacks, other than assuming their duties as decision-makers
But dont give me credit for these arguments i got most of them from a 9/11 truth website so thank them
for these reasons and more vote..........
Pro!
thank you | Miscellaneous | 2 | 9-11-was-a-made-by-the-government-so-they-could-invade-another-country-for-oil/1/ | 436 |
Alright. Thanks for the debate. I'm going to start this round by putting a little offense on your claims and then I will move on to supply some defense for my own position. The very first thing you tell me is quite simply that the confession video could not have been fake because it is not easy to forge a video. Here are my points on this argument. 1. Hollywood. We make videos every day with amazing special effects in them. Look at James Bond, Harry Potter, 300, etc.... These movies are loaded with special effects and actually manage to come off looking real. So my question to you is this, here is the video of him confessing that he attacked us: . How hard would it actually be to make a movie of a guy simply sitting on the floor and eating for 9 minutes? A movie with fuzzy reception at that. I'm pretty sure the answer is not hard at all. In fact with a wig and a bit of make-up I think I could have made a home video nearly as convincing if not more so. After all he is reportedly left handed but he makes every gesture with his right hand in the video. Not to mention the fact that the entire thing is in a different language. As far as the American public knows that video could be in any language, we just added sub-titles. 2. Aside from the fact that he uses the wrong hand the entire time and his turban is reportedly on the wrong way we also have the fact that he looks nothing like Osama Bin Laden. Compare this video of him to any other picture of him you have seen. Actually if you have time to load <URL>... scroll directly to 45:00 minutes into the video and it will do the comparisons for you. It will show you 4 other photos of Bin Laden and the one in the movie, looks nothing alike, minus a turban. Ron Paul even notices this coincidence on his War room page when he says, "That the tape in which bin Laden claims responsibility for the attacks was released by the State Department after having been found providentially by US forces in Afghanistan, and depicts a fattened Osama with a broader face and a flatter nose, proves Osama, and Osama alone, masterminded 9/11." 3. Third point, on the morning of Sept. 11 George Bush Senior was actually meeting with Bin Laden's older brother; while this doesn't actually prove anything it does show that the Bush family had ties with the Bin Laden's. Source: <URL>... George Bush senior has also made multiple trips to Saudi Arabia to meet with Bin Laden in the past regarding oil. 4. Bush actually ordered that investigations on the Laden family to be stopped before Sept. 11 ever occurred. Our intelligence had some suspicion that the Ladens could possibly be a threat in the future but Pres. Bush prevented them from investigating. This once again isn't 100% proof but at the very least we can conclude that something very strange was going on. Source: <URL>... 5. Osama Bin Laden reportedly was treated in an American hospital in Dubai and met with the local CIA agent between the 4th and 14th of July in 2001. This was well after he was known to be one of America's most wanted criminals. Yet he was allowed to leave the hospital with no repercussions. Source: <URL>... 6. The only piece of evidence that actually links Bin Laden to sept. 11 was the confession video you have provided me. One of the easiest things ever to forge. Now for some offense. I'm going to start with the Pentagon because it is the strangest of them all. I'm going to be using this photo for reference its an easy one. I would have liked one of the photos with people walking in front of it for perspective but I can't seem to find a large one of those. So here goes. <URL>... 1. Like the photo says where is the Plane? Last time I checked steel melts at 2750 degrees Fahrenheit ( <URL>... ). Meanwhile jet fuel burns at what? About 1500 degrees farenhiet? But this is an over simplification. We are not talking about the plane melting in this scenario we are talking about is simply vaporizing and we are not talking about steel we are talking about alloys. How do you manage to vaporize a plane made of steel alloys within seconds and somehow leave the building looking as if a couple stories collapsed. Not to mention the impact, wouldn't there be at least a wing or something somewhere.... Which brings me to point number two. 2. Where are wings holes.... We have a hole in this building, that on the left side at least, is a complete straight line. Where are the holes where the wings hit on either side....? Did those just happen to fall off and vaporize on the lawn? 3. Perhaps the most disturbing point. Our government, not only has no tape of a plane flying onto the pentagon but actually seized the tapes from private businesses that had vantage points of the Pentagon. Source: <URL>... The only pieces of evidence that have been cited to show a Plane hitting the Pentagon were from Pentagon cameras and the evidence looks like this: <URL>... Very conclusive. Can someone point me to the plane in this picture....? If a plane had actually hit the pentagon why has our government seized the tapes and has not bothered to show us them despite multiple inquiries? 4. Watch this if you have time. It has some of my ideas and is fairly short. <URL>... OFFENSE 2: The Hijackers 1. The planes... Once again of the four planes that crashed, not a piece of wreckage is shown anywhere for any of them. The official story once again being that they vaporized on impact. 2. We found the passports for four of the hijackers, Ziad Jarrah, Abdulaziz Alomari, Saeed Alghamdi, Satam Al Suqami , in the rubble and on the streets below ( <URL>... ). So let me explain this situation briefly. The plane and passengers are vaporized on impact, but the passports, made of paper, are hurdled through the flames and found by a random passersby on the street below unsinged. 4 paper passports survive where 12 tons of jet steel and titanium was vaporized. What....? 3. The FBI report comes to the conclusion that there were 19 hijackers. 4 or 5 per plane. Yet mere days later at least 6 of the suspected hijackers are still alive. ( <URL>... ) And yet, to date, the FBI list hasn't been revised, ummm what? Also we have the issue that not one of the flight manifests actually contained any of the hijackers names or any names of middle eastern origin for that matter. Offense 3: WTC 1 2 & 7 1. Despite popular belief 3 world trade centers actually fell on September 11th. Official report cites fire melted the 3 however all three fell at nearly the speed of free fall. The only feasible scenario for such would be controlled demolition. No building has ever been known to collapse in this way from fire, yet on Sept. 11th three building collapsed.... Care to explain? | 0 | Yraelz |
Alright. Thanks for the debate. I'm going to start this round by putting a little offense on your claims and then I will move on to supply some defense for my own position.
The very first thing you tell me is quite simply that the confession video could not have been fake because it is not easy to forge a video. Here are my points on this argument.
1. Hollywood. We make videos every day with amazing special effects in them. Look at James Bond, Harry Potter, 300, etc.... These movies are loaded with special effects and actually manage to come off looking real. So my question to you is this, here is the video of him confessing that he attacked us: . How hard would it actually be to make a movie of a guy simply sitting on the floor and eating for 9 minutes? A movie with fuzzy reception at that.
I'm pretty sure the answer is not hard at all. In fact with a wig and a bit of make-up I think I could have made a home video nearly as convincing if not more so. After all he is reportedly left handed but he makes every gesture with his right hand in the video. Not to mention the fact that the entire thing is in a different language. As far as the American public knows that video could be in any language, we just added sub-titles.
2. Aside from the fact that he uses the wrong hand the entire time and his turban is reportedly on the wrong way we also have the fact that he looks nothing like Osama Bin Laden. Compare this video of him to any other picture of him you have seen. Actually if you have time to load http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com... scroll directly to 45:00 minutes into the video and it will do the comparisons for you. It will show you 4 other photos of Bin Laden and the one in the movie, looks nothing alike, minus a turban.
Ron Paul even notices this coincidence on his War room page when he says, "That the tape in which bin Laden claims responsibility for the attacks was released by the State Department after having been found providentially by US forces in Afghanistan, and depicts a fattened Osama with a broader face and a flatter nose, proves Osama, and Osama alone, masterminded 9/11."
3. Third point, on the morning of Sept. 11 George Bush Senior was actually meeting with Bin Laden's older brother; while this doesn't actually prove anything it does show that the Bush family had ties with the Bin Laden's.
Source: http://www.prisonplanet.com...
George Bush senior has also made multiple trips to Saudi Arabia to meet with Bin Laden in the past regarding oil.
4. Bush actually ordered that investigations on the Laden family to be stopped before Sept. 11 ever occurred. Our intelligence had some suspicion that the Ladens could possibly be a threat in the future but Pres. Bush prevented them from investigating. This once again isn't 100% proof but at the very least we can conclude that something very strange was going on.
Source: http://www.webcom.com...
5. Osama Bin Laden reportedly was treated in an American hospital in Dubai and met with the local CIA agent between the 4th and 14th of July in 2001. This was well after he was known to be one of America's most wanted criminals. Yet he was allowed to leave the hospital with no repercussions.
Source: http://emperors-clothes.com...
6. The only piece of evidence that actually links Bin Laden to sept. 11 was the confession video you have provided me. One of the easiest things ever to forge.
Now for some offense. I'm going to start with the Pentagon because it is the strangest of them all. I'm going to be using this photo for reference its an easy one. I would have liked one of the photos with people walking in front of it for perspective but I can't seem to find a large one of those. So here goes. http://images.google.com...
1. Like the photo says where is the Plane? Last time I checked steel melts at 2750 degrees Fahrenheit ( http://www.chemicalelements.com... ). Meanwhile jet fuel burns at what? About 1500 degrees farenhiet? But this is an over simplification. We are not talking about the plane melting in this scenario we are talking about is simply vaporizing and we are not talking about steel we are talking about alloys. How do you manage to vaporize a plane made of steel alloys within seconds and somehow leave the building looking as if a couple stories collapsed. Not to mention the impact, wouldn't there be at least a wing or something somewhere.... Which brings me to point number two.
2. Where are wings holes.... We have a hole in this building, that on the left side at least, is a complete straight line. Where are the holes where the wings hit on either side....? Did those just happen to fall off and vaporize on the lawn?
3. Perhaps the most disturbing point. Our government, not only has no tape of a plane flying onto the pentagon but actually seized the tapes from private businesses that had vantage points of the Pentagon.
Source: http://911research.wtc7.net...
The only pieces of evidence that have been cited to show a Plane hitting the Pentagon were from Pentagon cameras and the evidence looks like this:
http://archives.cnn.com...
Very conclusive. Can someone point me to the plane in this picture....?
If a plane had actually hit the pentagon why has our government seized the tapes and has not bothered to show us them despite multiple inquiries?
4. Watch this if you have time. It has some of my ideas and is fairly short.
http://www.pentagonstrike.co.uk...
OFFENSE 2: The Hijackers
1. The planes... Once again of the four planes that crashed, not a piece of wreckage is shown anywhere for any of them. The official story once again being that they vaporized on impact.
2. We found the passports for four of the hijackers, Ziad Jarrah, Abdulaziz Alomari, Saeed Alghamdi, Satam Al Suqami , in the rubble and on the streets below ( http://www.cooperativeresearch.org... ). So let me explain this situation briefly. The plane and passengers are vaporized on impact, but the passports, made of paper, are hurdled through the flames and found by a random passersby on the street below unsinged. 4 paper passports survive where 12 tons of jet steel and titanium was vaporized. What....?
3. The FBI report comes to the conclusion that there were 19 hijackers. 4 or 5 per plane. Yet mere days later at least 6 of the suspected hijackers are still alive. ( http://news.bbc.co.uk... )
And yet, to date, the FBI list hasn't been revised, ummm what? Also we have the issue that not one of the flight manifests actually contained any of the hijackers names or any names of middle eastern origin for that matter.
Offense 3: WTC 1 2 & 7
1. Despite popular belief 3 world trade centers actually fell on September 11th. Official report cites fire melted the 3 however all three fell at nearly the speed of free fall. The only feasible scenario for such would be controlled demolition. No building has ever been known to collapse in this way from fire, yet on Sept. 11th three building collapsed.... Care to explain? | Politics | 0 | 9-11-was-an-inside-job-done-by-the-government-of-the-United-States-of-America./1/ | 446 |
I urge voters to vote not on the debate content and not their own bias. I realize this probably won't happen but I feel better if I urge it. =) Anyways I'm going to go down my own points that I made last round and defend the ones my opponent attacked. I started my last round with offense on my opponents video claim. 1. This point can be summarized as "forging videos is easy, particularly one where all the main character does is sit for 9 minutes." My opponent responded with this, "Of course special effects are easy, but making a specific person do certain motions and so on is not is not." My response: All he does in the movie is eat and talk..... And as I said he does the motions with the wrong hand. My opponent answer this by saying that he makes hand gestures with his left even though he is right. However I would doubt that my opponent makes every single hand gesture with his left. Doing such almost defeats the idea of being right handed. Next my opponent mentions that it could not be in a different language because Arabic speaking U.S citizens are true. I admit this is true, I was simply illustrating the ignorance of the average American citizen on such a matter and how it could potentially be exploited. 2). I give my opponent multiple sources showing how Osama Bin Laden looks different in this video than in any other. My opponent responds with, "I don't know how Ron Paul entered this conversation, he does not support your crazy theory." I concede to my opponent that this is true. Ron Paul does not support me at all, he is in complete negation. I was simply showing that even he noticed this phenomenon. He simply chooses to disregard it. I would like to point out that aside from this point my opponent did not attack my point, thus it stands in this round. 3. Concerning the family relations with the Bush family and the Ladens. My opponent simply states that this point means nothing to him. I'm simply pointing out that it is interesting our president has relations with a terrorist organization in such a way. 4. Bush ordered investigations of Bin Laden family to be halted. My opponent states, "Points 3 and 4 say nothing to me. " It seems odd to me that the George Bush would stop investigations on one of the biggest terrorists ever. Might be something to do with the fact that their families have close relations..... 5. Osama was treated in an American hospital and talked to a CIA agent. My opponent states, "And there is no proof for your point 5, only some cheap website probably invented by a conspiracy wacko. There's a reason why no official website supports this theory." Here are the sources where this idea originated from, "According to United Press International (Oct. 31, 2001), bin Laden underwent clandestine kidney treatment by Dr. Terry Calloway (Canadian urologist) for 11 days in July at the American Hospital in Dubai. During his hospital stay, bin Laden met with a U.S. CIA agent, according to French daily Le Figaro and Radio France International." 6. Only piece of evidence that link Bin Laden to 9/11 was this confession video. My opponent attempts to prove this using Spain and England. However even if he could prove that Osama Bin Laden did such acts to assume that he therefor did 9/11 would be fallacious. It would actually make sense that our government blame a known terrorist. It makes the story more plausible. Next I offered my offense. Scenario 1: Pentagon 1. Plane vaporization. My opponent, "Well who said the airplane vaporized? They probably got it out of there. The pentagon isn't in such bad shape, it seems like that picture is not of the pentagon right after the plane hit, but a long time after." In response that picture was taken the same day.... Look up pentagon plane on google you'll find many similar pictures. As far as the plane vaporizing goes. Thats the official story given by the white house. It would be rather difficult to explain the idea that the plane did not vaporize when we have pictures like this <URL>... where there is nearly 0 wreckage. However many many studies have been done proving that a plane cannot vaporize in any of these conditions. 2. No wing holes. My opponents makes no response. There are no wing holes, tapes were confiscated. Conclusion: No plane, otherwise government would show tapes. 3. Tapes seized by government. My opponent makes no response except to say that the plane should be right in the flames. My questions still remains, why is there no picture of the plane anywhere? Nearly 50 cameras from nearby building seized that would all show a plane, and the government has released 0 of the those tapes. Only showing us pictures of explosions. Cross apply my opponents argument from earlier, "Of course special effects are easy." 4. <URL>... ... , my opponent makes no response. Offense 2: Hijackers 1. No wreckage, vaporized on impact. My opponent makes no comment. 2. Found the passports of four hijackers despite the fact the plane vaporized. My opponent makes no comment. 3. FBI report comes to the conclusion that there were 19 hijackers yet days later 6 of them were still known to be alive. My opponent responds with, "The F.B.I. didn't really know. There were suspects of course, now they are not suspects anymore since they're alive. If the government did all of this, wouldn't they be smart enough to at least blame it on someone who won't just show up alive?" They're still suspects, the FBI has never revised their list. Page 563 of the 9/11 comission report, note 32, clearly states, "Two of the hijackers (Satam al Suqami and Abdul Aziz al Omari) presented passports in a fraudulent manner that has subsequently been associated with Al Qaeda." Why has the FBI not revised their list? Because it frankly doesn't matter who flew the plans; they made America believe at the time that the planes were flown by those men. The fact that they weren't, at this point, is of little consequence as America still firmly believes that they were flown by Al Qaeda. Until a great many people stop believing this the government has no need to deal with the issue. Offense 3: WTC 1, 2, & 7 1. Let me paste the entire argument that my opponent never responded to, "1. Despite popular belief 3 world trade centers actually fell on September 11th. Official report cites fire melted the 3 however all three fell at nearly the speed of free fall. The only feasible scenario for such would be controlled demolition. No building has ever been known to collapse in this way from fire, yet on Sept. 11th three building collapsed.... Care to explain?" To add to my point a small amount. The official cause of these collapses was that fire melted the supports to the main beams of each tower. Thus the tower collapsed in a pancake fashion 1 floor hitting the next. Unfortunately this would leave the main beams still intact, which it didn't, and would not allow the towers to fall at the speed of free fall. In conclusion my opponents final statement is as follows, "Overall, if the government really did this. Wouldn't they use a real plane? " No, that would be a bad idea. If it ever gets out that this was all a farce by our government to get us into a war it will be much better if the government can tell the public that planes loaded with civilians never crashed. You seem to be under the idea that our government is incapable of harming our citizens for gain. This is fallacious, as empirical data from the past proves. Operation North Woods is a fine example. <URL>... Prescott bush helping WWII is another <URL>... | 0 | Yraelz |
I urge voters to vote not on the debate content and not their own bias. I realize this probably won't happen but I feel better if I urge it. =)
Anyways I'm going to go down my own points that I made last round and defend the ones my opponent attacked.
I started my last round with offense on my opponents video claim.
1. This point can be summarized as "forging videos is easy, particularly one where all the main character does is sit for 9 minutes." My opponent responded with this,
"Of course special effects are easy, but making a specific person do certain motions and so on is not is not."
My response: All he does in the movie is eat and talk..... And as I said he does the motions with the wrong hand. My opponent answer this by saying that he makes hand gestures with his left even though he is right. However I would doubt that my opponent makes every single hand gesture with his left. Doing such almost defeats the idea of being right handed.
Next my opponent mentions that it could not be in a different language because Arabic speaking U.S citizens are true. I admit this is true, I was simply illustrating the ignorance of the average American citizen on such a matter and how it could potentially be exploited.
2). I give my opponent multiple sources showing how Osama Bin Laden looks different in this video than in any other. My opponent responds with,
"I don't know how Ron Paul entered this conversation, he does not support your crazy theory."
I concede to my opponent that this is true. Ron Paul does not support me at all, he is in complete negation. I was simply showing that even he noticed this phenomenon. He simply chooses to disregard it. I would like to point out that aside from this point my opponent did not attack my point, thus it stands in this round.
3. Concerning the family relations with the Bush family and the Ladens. My opponent simply states that this point means nothing to him. I'm simply pointing out that it is interesting our president has relations with a terrorist organization in such a way.
4. Bush ordered investigations of Bin Laden family to be halted. My opponent states,
"Points 3 and 4 say nothing to me. "
It seems odd to me that the George Bush would stop investigations on one of the biggest terrorists ever. Might be something to do with the fact that their families have close relations.....
5. Osama was treated in an American hospital and talked to a CIA agent. My opponent states,
"And there is no proof for your point 5, only some cheap website probably invented by a conspiracy wacko. There's a reason why no official website supports this theory."
Here are the sources where this idea originated from, "According to United Press International (Oct. 31, 2001), bin Laden underwent clandestine kidney treatment by Dr. Terry Calloway (Canadian urologist) for 11 days in July at the American Hospital in Dubai. During his hospital stay, bin Laden met with a U.S. CIA agent, according to French daily Le Figaro and Radio France International."
6. Only piece of evidence that link Bin Laden to 9/11 was this confession video. My opponent attempts to prove this using Spain and England. However even if he could prove that Osama Bin Laden did such acts to assume that he therefor did 9/11 would be fallacious. It would actually make sense that our government blame a known terrorist. It makes the story more plausible.
Next I offered my offense.
Scenario 1: Pentagon
1. Plane vaporization. My opponent,
"Well who said the airplane vaporized? They probably got it out of there. The pentagon isn't in such bad shape, it seems like that picture is not of the pentagon right after the plane hit, but a long time after."
In response that picture was taken the same day.... Look up pentagon plane on google you'll find many similar pictures. As far as the plane vaporizing goes. Thats the official story given by the white house. It would be rather difficult to explain the idea that the plane did not vaporize when we have pictures like this http://media.graytvinc.com... where there is nearly 0 wreckage. However many many studies have been done proving that a plane cannot vaporize in any of these conditions.
2. No wing holes. My opponents makes no response. There are no wing holes, tapes were confiscated. Conclusion: No plane, otherwise government would show tapes.
3. Tapes seized by government. My opponent makes no response except to say that the plane should be right in the flames. My questions still remains, why is there no picture of the plane anywhere? Nearly 50 cameras from nearby building seized that would all show a plane, and the government has released 0 of the those tapes. Only showing us pictures of explosions. Cross apply my opponents argument from earlier, "Of course special effects are easy."
4. http://www.pentagonstrike.co.uk... ... , my opponent makes no response.
Offense 2: Hijackers
1. No wreckage, vaporized on impact. My opponent makes no comment.
2. Found the passports of four hijackers despite the fact the plane vaporized. My opponent makes no comment.
3. FBI report comes to the conclusion that there were 19 hijackers yet days later 6 of them were still known to be alive. My opponent responds with,
"The F.B.I. didn't really know. There were suspects of course, now they are not suspects anymore since they're alive. If the government did all of this, wouldn't they be smart enough to at least blame it on someone who won't just show up alive?"
They're still suspects, the FBI has never revised their list. Page 563 of the 9/11 comission report, note 32, clearly states, "Two of the hijackers (Satam al Suqami and Abdul Aziz al Omari) presented passports in a fraudulent manner that has subsequently been associated with Al Qaeda."
Why has the FBI not revised their list? Because it frankly doesn't matter who flew the plans; they made America believe at the time that the planes were flown by those men. The fact that they weren't, at this point, is of little consequence as America still firmly believes that they were flown by Al Qaeda. Until a great many people stop believing this the government has no need to deal with the issue.
Offense 3: WTC 1, 2, & 7
1. Let me paste the entire argument that my opponent never responded to,
"1. Despite popular belief 3 world trade centers actually fell on September 11th. Official report cites fire melted the 3 however all three fell at nearly the speed of free fall. The only feasible scenario for such would be controlled demolition. No building has ever been known to collapse in this way from fire, yet on Sept. 11th three building collapsed.... Care to explain?"
To add to my point a small amount. The official cause of these collapses was that fire melted the supports to the main beams of each tower. Thus the tower collapsed in a pancake fashion 1 floor hitting the next. Unfortunately this would leave the main beams still intact, which it didn't, and would not allow the towers to fall at the speed of free fall.
In conclusion my opponents final statement is as follows,
"Overall, if the government really did this. Wouldn't they use a real plane? "
No, that would be a bad idea. If it ever gets out that this was all a farce by our government to get us into a war it will be much better if the government can tell the public that planes loaded with civilians never crashed. You seem to be under the idea that our government is incapable of harming our citizens for gain. This is fallacious, as empirical data from the past proves. Operation North Woods is a fine example.
http://en.wikipedia.org...
Prescott bush helping WWII is another
http://rinf.com... | Politics | 1 | 9-11-was-an-inside-job-done-by-the-government-of-the-United-States-of-America./1/ | 447 |
I just want to see if I can plunder a conspiracy junkie in a debate on 9/11, just to shut him up. 9/11 was obviously done by Al-Qaeda. The tapes of Bin Laden admitting to have attacked us in 9/11 couldn't have been fake, it's not that easy to forge a video. We meddled around in the Middle East and Al-Qaeda got sick of it. Also, you conspiracy maniacs never answer this question: If the U.S. government (mainly the Bush administration) caused 9/11 without the help of Al-Qaeda, how do you explain the attacks made on Spain and England, to which Al-Qaeda also took responsibility for? | 0 | blond_guy |
I just want to see if I can plunder a conspiracy junkie in a debate on 9/11, just to shut him up.
9/11 was obviously done by Al-Qaeda. The tapes of Bin Laden admitting to have attacked us in 9/11 couldn't have been fake, it's not that easy to forge a video. We meddled around in the Middle East and Al-Qaeda got sick of it.
Also, you conspiracy maniacs never answer this question:
If the U.S. government (mainly the Bush administration) caused 9/11 without the help of Al-Qaeda, how do you explain the attacks made on Spain and England, to which Al-Qaeda also took responsibility for? | Politics | 0 | 9-11-was-an-inside-job-done-by-the-government-of-the-United-States-of-America./1/ | 448 |
Of course special effects are easy, but making a specific person do certain motions and so on is not is not. "As far as the American public knows that video could be in any language, we just added sub-titles." Oh yeah, like there's no U.S. citizens that speak Arabic and would notice that. "After all he is reportedly left handed but he makes every gesture with his right hand in the video." You can't prove this. I make hand gestures with my left hand although I'm right handed. This says nothing. "Ron Paul even notices this coincidence on his War room page when he says..." I don't know how Ron Paul entered this conversation, he does not support your crazy theory. Points 3 and 4 say nothing to me. And there is no proof for your point 5, only some cheap website probably invented by a conspiracy wacko. There's a reason why no official website supports this theory. "where is the Plane?" Well who said the airplane vaporized? They probably got it out of there. The pentagon isn't in such bad shape, it seems like that picture is not of the pentagon right after the plane hit, but a long time after. "The only piece of evidence that actually links Bin Laden to sept. 11 was the confession video you have provided me. One of the easiest things ever to forge." Did you forget about the question conspiracy maniacs never answer? What happened in Spain and England then? Did our government do that too? " <URL>... ... Very conclusive. Can someone point me to the plane in this picture....? " The plane should be right in those huge flames. By the way, try saying there was no plane to the families of the victims that died there. And those airlines that are missing a jet. "The FBI report comes to the conclusion that there were 19 hijackers. 4 or 5 per plane. Yet mere days later at least 6 of the suspected hijackers are still alive." The F.B.I. didn't really know. There were suspects of course, now they are not suspects anymore since they're alive. If the government did all of this, wouldn't they be smart enough to at least blame it on someone who won't just show up alive? Overall, if the government really did this. Wouldn't they use a real plane? Bush is not famous for his intelligence, but his administration could do better than that. You still haven't answered the question in my opening statement. Anyways, thank you for this debate, I'm looking forward to your next argument. | 0 | blond_guy |
Of course special effects are easy, but making a specific person do certain motions and so on is not is not.
"As far as the American public knows that video could be in any language, we just added sub-titles."
Oh yeah, like there's no U.S. citizens that speak Arabic and would notice that.
"After all he is reportedly left handed but he makes every gesture with his right hand in the video."
You can't prove this. I make hand gestures with my left hand although I'm right handed. This says nothing.
"Ron Paul even notices this coincidence on his War room page when he says..."
I don't know how Ron Paul entered this conversation, he does not support your crazy theory.
Points 3 and 4 say nothing to me. And there is no proof for your point 5, only some cheap website probably invented by a conspiracy wacko. There's a reason why no official website supports this theory.
"where is the Plane?"
Well who said the airplane vaporized? They probably got it out of there. The pentagon isn't in such bad shape, it seems like that picture is not of the pentagon right after the plane hit, but a long time after.
"The only piece of evidence that actually links Bin Laden to sept. 11 was the confession video you have provided me. One of the easiest things ever to forge."
Did you forget about the question conspiracy maniacs never answer? What happened in Spain and England then? Did our government do that too?
" http://archives.cnn.com... ...
Very conclusive. Can someone point me to the plane in this picture....? "
The plane should be right in those huge flames. By the way, try saying there was no plane to the families of the victims that died there. And those airlines that are missing a jet.
"The FBI report comes to the conclusion that there were 19 hijackers. 4 or 5 per plane. Yet mere days later at least 6 of the suspected hijackers are still alive."
The F.B.I. didn't really know. There were suspects of course, now they are not suspects anymore since they're alive. If the government did all of this, wouldn't they be smart enough to at least blame it on someone who won't just show up alive?
Overall, if the government really did this. Wouldn't they use a real plane? Bush is not famous for his intelligence, but his administration could do better than that.
You still haven't answered the question in my opening statement.
Anyways, thank you for this debate, I'm looking forward to your next argument. | Politics | 1 | 9-11-was-an-inside-job-done-by-the-government-of-the-United-States-of-America./1/ | 449 |
I am accepting this debate on the grounds that I, and no one else, can really know for sure if 9/11 was an inside job. As I understand it, you have BoP to show it was definitely not an inside job; where I have BoP to show how we cannot be certain. It is a far stretch to say there is definitive evidence one way or the other. I agree that some of the evidence is deceiving and requires many assumptions, but some of it isn't. Regarding Building 7: There are many issues when considering the official story of Building 7. First, the BBC reported the collapse 20 minutes before it even happened. ( <URL>... ) No assumptions necessary here. There are a lot of problems with the NIST report on Building 7. Since this is the first round, I'll give you a link: <URL>... A few issues covered here are: NIST ignored all invitations from independent investigators to discuss or debate its findings or the alternative theory. NIST's previous reports show no evidence that NIST considered alternative theories at all. Only one small disclaimer was made in the final report for the towers, and only after public criticism that no mention of alternative theories was made in the draft report for the towers. 9/11 family members and independent investigators have had to pursue legal avenues to seek the truth from NIST, including a request for correction that has ultimately been ignored by NIST. Those citizens who have successfully criticized NIST in public have lost their jobs for doing so. NIST makes no mention of the mainstream scientific articles published in support of the alternative theory. We can discuss specific issues in later rounds if you'd like. NIST did actually say that Building 7 fell at free fall speed. The 9/11 Commission makes no mention to the collapse of Building 7. There is no video evidence proving that a plane hit the Pentagon. People at the scene admitted there was no sign a plane hit the building. Some eye-witnesses said they saw a plane, others said they did not; however, unless we have conclusive video evidence, we cannot rule out a JASSM. The Pentagon surveillance video is missing the critical frame that would allow us to see what hit the building. The government is excellent at keeping secrets. Research Gulf of Tonkin and Operation Northwoods. For me, I get very suspicious when I read about foreknowledge of 9/11. Specifically this document, a President's daily brief: <URL>... ; The 9/11 Commission is also suspect at best. Less initial government funding was given to it than the Clinton-Lewinsky investigation. It took 441 days to begin; compared to 7 days for the JFK assassination Henry Kissinger was originally supposed to head the commission. Kissinger is the principal creator of the US-instigated coup in Chile. Kissinger also had a critical role in extending the Vietnam War among many others. <URL>... I know my response is fairly vague and goes off in quite a few tangets, so give me some bullet points and I'll attempt to address them. I'm not saying I have all the answers or that it was certainly an inside job, but I do believe there is plenty of doubt surrounding the official story. | 0 | Free_Th1nker |
I am accepting this debate on the grounds that I, and no one else, can really know for sure if 9/11 was an inside job. As I understand it, you have BoP to show it was definitely not an inside job; where I have BoP to show how we cannot be certain. It is a far stretch to say there is definitive evidence one way or the other. I agree that some of the evidence is deceiving and requires many assumptions, but some of it isn't. Regarding Building 7: There are many issues when considering the official story of Building 7. First, the BBC reported the collapse 20 minutes before it even happened. ( https://www.youtube.com... )
No assumptions necessary here. There are a lot of problems with the NIST report on Building 7. Since this is the first round, I'll give you a link: http://www.911truth.org... A few issues covered here are:
NIST ignored all invitations from independent investigators to discuss or debate its findings or the alternative theory.
NIST’s previous reports show no evidence that NIST considered alternative theories at all. Only one small disclaimer was made in the final report for the towers, and only after public criticism that no mention of alternative theories was made in the draft report for the towers.
9/11 family members and independent investigators have had to pursue legal avenues to seek the truth from NIST, including a request for correction that has ultimately been ignored by NIST.
Those citizens who have successfully criticized NIST in public have lost their jobs for doing so.
NIST makes no mention of the mainstream scientific articles published in support of the alternative theory.
We can discuss specific issues in later rounds if you'd like. NIST did actually say that Building 7 fell at free fall speed. The 9/11 Commission makes no mention to the collapse of Building 7. There is no video evidence proving that a plane hit the Pentagon. People at the scene admitted there was no sign a plane hit the building. Some eye-witnesses said they saw a plane, others said they did not; however, unless we have conclusive video evidence, we cannot rule out a JASSM. The Pentagon surveillance video is missing the critical frame that would allow us to see what hit the building. The government is excellent at keeping secrets. Research Gulf of Tonkin and Operation Northwoods. For me, I get very suspicious when I read about foreknowledge of 9/11. Specifically this document, a President's daily brief: http://en.wikipedia.org... ; The 9/11 Commission is also suspect at best. Less initial government funding was given to it than the Clinton-Lewinsky investigation. It took 441 days to begin; compared to 7 days for the JFK assassination Henry Kissinger was originally supposed to head the commission. Kissinger is the principal creator of the US-instigated coup in Chile. Kissinger also had a critical role in extending the Vietnam War among many others. http://www.globalresearch.ca... I know my response is fairly vague and goes off in quite a few tangets, so give me some bullet points and I'll attempt to address them. I'm not saying I have all the answers or that it was certainly an inside job, but I do believe there is plenty of doubt surrounding the official story. | News | 0 | 9-11-was-not-an-inside-job./1/ | 490 |
I maintain my position. | 0 | Free_Th1nker |
I maintain my position. | News | 1 | 9-11-was-not-an-inside-job./1/ | 491 |
I maintain my position | 0 | Free_Th1nker |
I maintain my position | News | 2 | 9-11-was-not-an-inside-job./1/ | 492 |
I maintain my argument. | 0 | Free_Th1nker |
I maintain my argument. | News | 3 | 9-11-was-not-an-inside-job./1/ | 493 |
I maintain my position. | 0 | Free_Th1nker |
I maintain my position. | News | 4 | 9-11-was-not-an-inside-job./1/ | 494 |
The problem with this plan is that it has no sense of consequences beyond the range of the moment. You can loot all you like right now, but in doing so, you send a signal to the market: "There shall be no rewards for working." Working is costly, without benefits proportional to the cost, it disappears. And then what? You'll force people to work? The mind cannot be forced, though the body can. You can, perhaps, turn the UK into an agricultural nation where there is enough food to keep perhaps half the people from starving, on a model similar to the agriculture of the American South antebellum, except with less land to work with and no way to reward your overseers. With luck and a lot more skill than you've probably got. But it will be hell once the loot from your revolution disappears, for the modern economy will be impossible, can you imagine a modern engineer or programmer or factory planner working on the threat of force with no reward? It's not even possible, the mind functions worse the more force is placed upon it, this is why people don't typically invent great things in prison :) The medieval economy-- that is the limit of the fully consistent socialist economy, things beyond it are only possible to the extent you deviate from that model. | 0 | Ragnar_Rahl |
The problem with this plan is that it has no sense of consequences beyond the range of the moment.
You can loot all you like right now, but in doing so, you send a signal to the market: "There shall be no rewards for working."
Working is costly, without benefits proportional to the cost, it disappears.
And then what? You'll force people to work? The mind cannot be forced, though the body can. You can, perhaps, turn the UK into an agricultural nation where there is enough food to keep perhaps half the people from starving, on a model similar to the agriculture of the American South antebellum, except with less land to work with and no way to reward your overseers. With luck and a lot more skill than you've probably got. But it will be hell once the loot from your revolution disappears, for the modern economy will be impossible, can you imagine a modern engineer or programmer or factory planner working on the threat of force with no reward? It's not even possible, the mind functions worse the more force is placed upon it, this is why people don't typically invent great things in prison :) The medieval economy-- that is the limit of the fully consistent socialist economy, things beyond it are only possible to the extent you deviate from that model. | Politics | 0 | 90-of-the-British-public-should-back-my-plans-for-a-socialist-revolution/1/ | 503 |
" Many people make the mistake of associating socialism with oppressed, unhappy, impoverished people living in bleak grey cities" In other words, the "mistake" of associating socialism with everything it's ever created. "- but that is to confuse socialism with communism. " And the communists would say the opposite. And both cooperate to make sure that they can't be distinguished from one another, because whenever one comes up with a definition for socialism, a socialist says "No, that's communism," and a communist returns the favor when you define communism, the only exception being when the definitions are self-contradictory. " Plenty of prosperous European countries have socialists in government." Of the most inconsistent variety, and NOTHING like you're advocating. And yes, btw, your "Socialist" revolution has more in common with the "Communist" countries than the "Socialists" presently in Europe. So playing word tricks won't help ya here :) "As a result of the government's economic policies this country has the most equal distribution of income of any country in the world, and as a result of this, Denmark is also the happiest country in the world. " Happiness is impossible to study externally, any attempts at it can only come about through false reporting or biased proxies. So, utter nonsense there. Furthermore, as one of your sources mentioned, "A long term issue is the drop in the ratio of workers to retirees." This is shorthand for incoming systemic collapse, which is a DIRECT RESULT of redistributive policies-- there are more incentives to retire, less to work, so less people work. And your plan, unlike Denmark's, removes ALL incentives. " The "champagne effect" that capitalists use to describe the notion that some of the fortunes of the richest in society will eventually trickle down to the masses doesn't hold water" Bill Gates created Microsoft, Jobs created Apple. As a result, the masses now have quality operating systems, whereas before they had crap for operating systems. The problem with the statement is the "Eventually" part. The flood down, not a trickle, happens WHILE THE FORTUNE IS BEING MADE. It is only when the rich STOP working, because they no longer have incentives to, that the trickling down stops :). "as the gap between rich and poor in countries with capitalist governments is ever growing. " There is no country in the world with a capitalist government. Perhaps you ought to try one if you're planning on a revolution, especially since a lot of that gap, though not all of it, comes from anti-capitalist devices such as state-sponsored banks which use the mechanism of inflation to directly redistribute from poor to rich :). Also, this is ignoratio elenchi. The statement that the gap grows does not contradict the statement that those on the bottom grow with it in a free market-- which, as operating system markets demonstrate, they do. Income inequality was historically at it's lowest in various tribes in the primitive world. It was only as such inequality ROSE that standards of living rose in the long run. " It is no use tinkering at the edges of British society in order to crate a fairer society - the archaic political and social structures that favour the Establishment are too entrenched. What is required is root and branch reform." I just gave you an option for complete reform-- capitalism, which has never been tried. The establishment in Britain got that way as a leftover from the aristocracy... a STATE mechanism :). And yes, btw, your "Socialist" revolution has more in common with the "Communist" countries than the "Socialists" presently in Europe. So playing word tricks won't help ya here :) "Workers create all the wealth under capitalism." Only if you include the work of planning production, done by the owners. Otherwise, this is COMPLETELY nonsensical. The standard of living, the productivity, of a modern steel worker is much higher than that of a medieval blacksmith. The difference is the factory setting. The ideas and the risk of the entrepreneur create that difference. Which, by the way, is, unlike in a market system, impossible to rationally calculate to create under consistent socialism, since there is no means (price mechanism) of calculating it. "Now that those pillars of capitalism - the financial institutions - have been exposed to be corrupt, fraudulent and incompetent," No one intellectually honest can declare the STATE SUBSIDIZED financial institutions of the modern world to be "pillars of capitalism." A pillar of capitalism would be one that sought to FREE itself from the state, not to beg for scraps from it. The closest thing is perhaps BB&T; bank, but even that accepted bailout money in order to not be forced out of business by the subsidies granted to its competitors, so that's at best only an aspiring pillar of capitalism, while remaining an actual part of the state-controlled (socialist) system :) "A new society can only be constructed when they collectively seize control of that wealth and plan its production and distribution according to need." And here you reveal the deepest weakness of your system. ACCORDING TO NEED. And, implicitly, from each according to ability. That old slogan eh? Guess what-- When you take something out of someone's hide according to ability, and hand it out according to need, what you have is a system that punishes ability and rewards need. What happens in such a system? People, consciously or otherwise, often the former, become progressively less able and more needy, because they have incentive to do so, and because you kill off all the able ones on the sacrificial pyre of need. When you run out of the "Able," you have to go with a new "able," that's less able, and so on and so forth, until at last there is only need-- only the neediest-- only those on the edge of death. And, since no one is around to take care of them, they die. Death is the purpose, standard, and ultimate result of the slogan "From each according to ability, to each according to need." | 0 | Ragnar_Rahl |
"
Many people make the mistake of associating socialism with oppressed, unhappy, impoverished people living in bleak grey cities"
In other words, the "mistake" of associating socialism with everything it's ever created.
"- but that is to confuse socialism with communism.
"
And the communists would say the opposite. And both cooperate to make sure that they can't be distinguished from one another, because whenever one comes up with a definition for socialism, a socialist says "No, that's communism," and a communist returns the favor when you define communism, the only exception being when the definitions are self-contradictory.
"
Plenty of prosperous European countries have socialists in government."
Of the most inconsistent variety, and NOTHING like you're advocating.
And yes, btw, your "Socialist" revolution has more in common with the "Communist" countries than the "Socialists" presently in Europe. So playing word tricks won't help ya here :)
"As a result of the government's economic policies this country has the most equal distribution of income of any country in the world, and as a result of this, Denmark is also the happiest country in the world.
"
Happiness is impossible to study externally, any attempts at it can only come about through false reporting or biased proxies. So, utter nonsense there. Furthermore, as one of your sources mentioned, "A long term issue is the drop in the ratio of workers to retirees." This is shorthand for incoming systemic collapse, which is a DIRECT RESULT of redistributive policies-- there are more incentives to retire, less to work, so less people work.
And your plan, unlike Denmark's, removes ALL incentives.
"
The "champagne effect" that capitalists use to describe the notion that some of the fortunes of the richest in society will eventually trickle down to the masses doesn't hold water"
Bill Gates created Microsoft, Jobs created Apple. As a result, the masses now have quality operating systems, whereas before they had crap for operating systems.
The problem with the statement is the "Eventually" part. The flood down, not a trickle, happens WHILE THE FORTUNE IS BEING MADE. It is only when the rich STOP working, because they no longer have incentives to, that the trickling down stops :).
"as the gap between rich and poor in countries with capitalist governments is ever growing. "
There is no country in the world with a capitalist government. Perhaps you ought to try one if you're planning on a revolution, especially since a lot of that gap, though not all of it, comes from anti-capitalist devices such as state-sponsored banks which use the mechanism of inflation to directly redistribute from poor to rich :).
Also, this is ignoratio elenchi. The statement that the gap grows does not contradict the statement that those on the bottom grow with it in a free market-- which, as operating system markets demonstrate, they do.
Income inequality was historically at it's lowest in various tribes in the primitive world. It was only as such inequality ROSE that standards of living rose in the long run.
"
It is no use tinkering at the edges of British society in order to crate a fairer society – the archaic political and social structures that favour the Establishment are too entrenched. What is required is root and branch reform."
I just gave you an option for complete reform-- capitalism, which has never been tried. The establishment in Britain got that way as a leftover from the aristocracy... a STATE mechanism :).
And yes, btw, your "Socialist" revolution has more in common with the "Communist" countries than the "Socialists" presently in Europe. So playing word tricks won't help ya here :)
"Workers create all the wealth under capitalism."
Only if you include the work of planning production, done by the owners. Otherwise, this is COMPLETELY nonsensical. The standard of living, the productivity, of a modern steel worker is much higher than that of a medieval blacksmith. The difference is the factory setting. The ideas and the risk of the entrepreneur create that difference. Which, by the way, is, unlike in a market system, impossible to rationally calculate to create under consistent socialism, since there is no means (price mechanism) of calculating it.
"Now that those pillars of capitalism - the financial institutions - have been exposed to be corrupt, fraudulent and incompetent,"
No one intellectually honest can declare the STATE SUBSIDIZED financial institutions of the modern world to be "pillars of capitalism." A pillar of capitalism would be one that sought to FREE itself from the state, not to beg for scraps from it. The closest thing is perhaps BB&T; bank, but even that accepted bailout money in order to not be forced out of business by the subsidies granted to its competitors, so that's at best only an aspiring pillar of capitalism, while remaining an actual part of the state-controlled (socialist) system :)
"A new society can only be constructed when they collectively seize control of that wealth and plan its production and distribution according to need."
And here you reveal the deepest weakness of your system. ACCORDING TO NEED. And, implicitly, from each according to ability. That old slogan eh? Guess what-- When you take something out of someone's hide according to ability, and hand it out according to need, what you have is a system that punishes ability and rewards need. What happens in such a system? People, consciously or otherwise, often the former, become progressively less able and more needy, because they have incentive to do so, and because you kill off all the able ones on the sacrificial pyre of need. When you run out of the "Able," you have to go with a new "able," that's less able, and so on and so forth, until at last there is only need-- only the neediest-- only those on the edge of death. And, since no one is around to take care of them, they die.
Death is the purpose, standard, and ultimate result of the slogan "From each according to ability, to each according to need." | Politics | 1 | 90-of-the-British-public-should-back-my-plans-for-a-socialist-revolution/1/ | 504 |
" Even communism, which I do not advocate, is not as desperate and oppressive as Hollywood would make you believe." Hollywood, in fact, has historically wanted to make it look better than it is for most of its history. "As it happens, I visited and Russia and East Germany when I was a lad and, while the architecture was undeniably dour, the people seemed happy." When it was under communism? You realize that anyone caught NOT seeming happy in a communist country when foreign visitors are around gets the notice of the local Party and all it's various control measures? You know what happens when you get too much negative notice? That's what the labor camps in Siberia are for... and that's assuming they don't just take a shortcut and execute you. "Also, my wife grew up in the former Czechoslovak Republic which was a satellite state of the USSR at that time. Her father was the chief designer and director of a tank factory that employed 60,000 people. He could have worked on the production line but he studied (at the state's expense) and was promoted to the top in recognition of his ability and hard work." Anecdotes are the least useful sort of evidence, especially ones you can't prove. Besides, the USSR was inconsistent :). It had to be or it would have collapsed sooner. " As a result of his endeavours, when my wife was a kid, the family were able to take foreign holidays (vacations) and buy Western goods. They lived (and still live) in a fantastic apartment overlooking the river and the mountains and also had a brand new Skoda (okay, not the most respected marque internationally at the time, but still)." Sounds like he was a Party official :). "You see, there were incentives to do well, even under communism" Under inconsistent communism, and mostly for "doing well" by a bureaucrat's standards rather than the standards of someone who knows what they are doing. And even then, those incentives aren't enough, see also, the country collapsing :). Your first round, however, detailed your proposal. Your proposal removes all incentives in the name of equalizing incomes. Your proposal is more radical than the Soviet Union's, more consistent... and it would pay the price. " But my concept of a socialist state is one of a meritocracy, whereby one is rewarded for hard work" You have officially scrapped your resolution, by admitting the revolution you described in round 1 is not fitting with your concept of a socialist state, and therefore should not be supported as a socialist revolution. I accept your forfeit. :). Furthermore, we already HAVE a word for a country where one is rewarded for hard work (or, at the least, competent work, the hardness is a secondary matter), it's called laissez-faire capitalism. " Not only does it allow people the freedom to innovate, be creative and entrepreneurial," How can you do that if the state seizes all capital and redistribuites it without mind to the needs of entrepreneurialism, as you described in round one? "but it also nurtures future winners by giving the opportunity to succeed to all children, not just those of the privileged few." Except, of course, that it refuses the oppurtunity to succeed to anyone, as described in round one. Furthermore, under laissez-faire capitalism, there would be an incentive for a business model I've described many times for educating those among poor children with potential. A school can provide an education in exchange for a small percentage of future income. This gives the school an incentive, unlike any school ever before, to ensure the highest quality education available. Do you know what is in the way of it? The state wouldn't presently recognize such a contract. State control of the economy (socialism) is the only thing in the way of educating all capable children. " This is what is actually meant by distribution of wealth according to need. It has nothing to do, as my opponent suggests, with encouraging the workshy to rely on state benefits for an income" Your round one contradicts this, as it distributes the money to everyone. Again, you forfeit by conceding that your planned revolution is not socialist at all :). "but rather giving all in society the opportunity to progress and allowing them to reap the rewards of their efforts when they succeed. " Flatly contradicts Round One. It is not possible to simultaneously advocate stealing all of someone's income, which you've already advocated, and "allowing someone to reap the rewards of their efforts." You cannot have your cake and eat it too. My opponent has conceded that his debating has been incoherent, as the revolution he described is not in the least bit socialist per his definition, and therefore the resolution is nonsensical :). | 0 | Ragnar_Rahl |
"
Even communism, which I do not advocate, is not as desperate and oppressive as Hollywood would make you believe."
Hollywood, in fact, has historically wanted to make it look better than it is for most of its history.
"As it happens, I visited and Russia and East Germany when I was a lad and, while the architecture was undeniably dour, the people seemed happy."
When it was under communism?
You realize that anyone caught NOT seeming happy in a communist country when foreign visitors are around gets the notice of the local Party and all it's various control measures?
You know what happens when you get too much negative notice? That's what the labor camps in Siberia are for... and that's assuming they don't just take a shortcut and execute you.
"Also, my wife grew up in the former Czechoslovak Republic which was a satellite state of the USSR at that time. Her father was the chief designer and director of a tank factory that employed 60,000 people. He could have worked on the production line but he studied (at the state's expense) and was promoted to the top in recognition of his ability and hard work."
Anecdotes are the least useful sort of evidence, especially ones you can't prove.
Besides, the USSR was inconsistent :). It had to be or it would have collapsed sooner.
"
As a result of his endeavours, when my wife was a kid, the family were able to take foreign holidays (vacations) and buy Western goods. They lived (and still live) in a fantastic apartment overlooking the river and the mountains and also had a brand new Skoda (okay, not the most respected marque internationally at the time, but still)."
Sounds like he was a Party official :).
"You see, there were incentives to do well, even under communism"
Under inconsistent communism, and mostly for "doing well" by a bureaucrat's standards rather than the standards of someone who knows what they are doing.
And even then, those incentives aren't enough, see also, the country collapsing :).
Your first round, however, detailed your proposal. Your proposal removes all incentives in the name of equalizing incomes. Your proposal is more radical than the Soviet Union's, more consistent... and it would pay the price.
"
But my concept of a socialist state is one of a meritocracy, whereby one is rewarded for hard work"
You have officially scrapped your resolution, by admitting the revolution you described in round 1 is not fitting with your concept of a socialist state, and therefore should not be supported as a socialist revolution. I accept your forfeit. :). Furthermore, we already HAVE a word for a country where one is rewarded for hard work (or, at the least, competent work, the hardness is a secondary matter), it's called laissez-faire capitalism.
"
Not only does it allow people the freedom to innovate, be creative and entrepreneurial,"
How can you do that if the state seizes all capital and redistribuites it without mind to the needs of entrepreneurialism, as you described in round one?
"but it also nurtures future winners by giving the opportunity to succeed to all children, not just those of the privileged few."
Except, of course, that it refuses the oppurtunity to succeed to anyone, as described in round one.
Furthermore, under laissez-faire capitalism, there would be an incentive for a business model I've described many times for educating those among poor children with potential. A school can provide an education in exchange for a small percentage of future income. This gives the school an incentive, unlike any school ever before, to ensure the highest quality education available.
Do you know what is in the way of it?
The state wouldn't presently recognize such a contract.
State control of the economy (socialism) is the only thing in the way of educating all capable children.
"
This is what is actually meant by distribution of wealth according to need. It has nothing to do, as my opponent suggests, with encouraging the workshy to rely on state benefits for an income"
Your round one contradicts this, as it distributes the money to everyone. Again, you forfeit by conceding that your planned revolution is not socialist at all :).
"but rather giving all in society the opportunity to progress and allowing them to reap the rewards of their efforts when they succeed.
"
Flatly contradicts Round One. It is not possible to simultaneously advocate stealing all of someone's income, which you've already advocated, and "allowing someone to reap the rewards of their efforts." You cannot have your cake and eat it too.
My opponent has conceded that his debating has been incoherent, as the revolution he described is not in the least bit socialist per his definition, and therefore the resolution is nonsensical :). | Politics | 2 | 90-of-the-British-public-should-back-my-plans-for-a-socialist-revolution/1/ | 505 |
Look out all you aristocrats, members of the landed gentry and mega-rich tycoons, sitting there in your stately homes, manor houses and palatial penthouses - your days of lording it over the proletariat are numbered. The oppressed masses from the working classes will soon unite with the lower and upper-middle classes and, under my leadership, rise up and overthrow your feudalistic reign of patronage and privilege. But don't press the panic button MI5, this transition of power will be a peaceful one becuase it will be supported by the 90% of the population that will benefit from it. You see, in the UK: 93% of the nation's personal wealth is owner by the richest 50% of the population; 72% of the nation's personal wealth is owner by the richest 25% of the population; 53% of the nation's personal wealth is owner by the richest 10% of the population; 40% of the nation's personal wealth is owner by the richest 5% of the population and 21% of the nation's personal wealth is owner by the richest 1% of the population. <URL>... So, come the Revolution when I am duly installed as the rightful dictator of the new United Republic of Great Britain and Northern Ireland; I will immediately institute a mass redistribution of wealth. Let's make the math(s) easy and say the total population of the UK is 1,000,000 and the total personal wealth is 100,000,000,000 (the actual figures are: a population of 60,975,000 with a total personal wealth of 6,998,000,000,000; so the model fits the actual to within 5%). <URL>... <URL>... At the moment the average net worth per person across the whole of the population is 100,000, although the richest half is worth an average of 186,000 while the poorest half is worth an average of just 14,000. However, once in power, I would redistribute the pot so that 90% of the population are better off as follows: 53% of the wealth is owned by 10% of the people. They represent 10% of the population, so I will let them keep 10% of the wealth. They will then each be worth 100,000. The remaining 43% of the wealth will be divided between the remaining 90% of the population so that they each get 47,000. Then the poorest 50% will be worth an average 61,000 and the richest 40% will be worth an average of 233,000 - the richest half of the population will thus become approximately 4 times wealthier than the poor half - as opposed to 14 times wealthier, as they are today. So we can see that 90% of the population benefit from a one-off lump sum payment with the poorest half of the population being the biggest percentage gainers. Of course the 10% of the population that were formerly the richest in society might object to this plan, as their wealth would be reduced to the net worth of the average person. However, democratic principles apply even in a socialist state and it is only fair that the many benefit from the sacrifice of the over-privileged few. Support the Revolution! Vote Pro. Thank you. <URL>... | 0 | brian_eggleston |
Look out all you aristocrats, members of the landed gentry and mega-rich tycoons, sitting there in your stately homes, manor houses and palatial penthouses – your days of lording it over the proletariat are numbered. The oppressed masses from the working classes will soon unite with the lower and upper-middle classes and, under my leadership, rise up and overthrow your feudalistic reign of patronage and privilege.
But don't press the panic button MI5, this transition of power will be a peaceful one becuase it will be supported by the 90% of the population that will benefit from it. You see, in the UK:
93% of the nation's personal wealth is owner by the richest 50% of the population;
72% of the nation's personal wealth is owner by the richest 25% of the population;
53% of the nation's personal wealth is owner by the richest 10% of the population;
40% of the nation's personal wealth is owner by the richest 5% of the population and
21% of the nation's personal wealth is owner by the richest 1% of the population.
http://www.statistics.gov.uk...
So, come the Revolution when I am duly installed as the rightful dictator of the new United Republic of Great Britain and Northern Ireland; I will immediately institute a mass redistribution of wealth.
Let's make the math(s) easy and say the total population of the UK is 1,000,000 and the total personal wealth is �100,000,000,000 (the actual figures are: a population of 60,975,000 with a total personal wealth of �6,998,000,000,000; so the model fits the actual to within 5%).
http://www.statistics.gov.uk...
http://www.statistics.gov.uk...
At the moment the average net worth per person across the whole of the population is �100,000, although the richest half is worth an average of �186,000 while the poorest half is worth an average of just �14,000.
However, once in power, I would redistribute the pot so that 90% of the population are better off as follows:
53% of the wealth is owned by 10% of the people. They represent 10% of the population, so I will let them keep 10% of the wealth. They will then each be worth �100,000.
The remaining 43% of the wealth will be divided between the remaining 90% of the population so that they each get �47,000. Then the poorest 50% will be worth an average �61,000 and the richest 40% will be worth an average of �233,000 – the richest half of the population will thus become approximately 4 times wealthier than the poor half - as opposed to 14 times wealthier, as they are today.
So we can see that 90% of the population benefit from a one-off lump sum payment with the poorest half of the population being the biggest percentage gainers.
Of course the 10% of the population that were formerly the richest in society might object to this plan, as their wealth would be reduced to the net worth of the average person. However, democratic principles apply even in a socialist state and it is only fair that the many benefit from the sacrifice of the over-privileged few.
Support the Revolution! Vote Pro.
Thank you.
http://polizeros.com... | Politics | 0 | 90-of-the-British-public-should-back-my-plans-for-a-socialist-revolution/1/ | 506 |
I extend my thanks to my opponent for accepting this challenge. Many people make the mistake of associating socialism with oppressed, unhappy, impoverished people living in bleak grey cities - but that is to confuse socialism with communism. Plenty of prosperous European countries have socialists in government. For example, Denmark is governed by a liberal / socialist coalition. As a result of the government's economic policies this country has the most equal distribution of income of any country in the world, and as a result of this, Denmark is also the happiest country in the world. <URL>... <URL>... <URL>... The "champagne effect" that capitalists use to describe the notion that some of the fortunes of the richest in society will eventually trickle down to the masses doesn't hold water (or bubbly) as the gap between rich and poor in countries with capitalist governments is ever growing. Even after over 10 years of a Labour government, wealth inequality in the UK remains one of the highest in the world. <URL>... It is no use tinkering at the edges of British society in order to crate a fairer society - the archaic political and social structures that favour the Establishment are too entrenched. What is required is root and branch reform. The Socialist Worker Party's stance is: "The present system cannot be patched up -- it has to be completely transformed. The structures of the parliament, army, police and judiciary cannot be taken over and used by the working people. Elections can be used to agitate for real improvements in people's lives and to expose the system we live under, but only the mass action of workers themselves can change the system. Workers create all the wealth under capitalism. A new society can only be constructed when they collectively seize control of that wealth and plan its production and distribution according to need." <URL>... Now that those pillars of capitalism - the financial institutions - have been exposed to be corrupt, fraudulent and incompetent, it is time to sweep away the inequality of the past and move on to create a brighter, fairer future where the whole of society has the opportunity to thrive. Thank you. | 0 | brian_eggleston |
I extend my thanks to my opponent for accepting this challenge.
Many people make the mistake of associating socialism with oppressed, unhappy, impoverished people living in bleak grey cities - but that is to confuse socialism with communism.
Plenty of prosperous European countries have socialists in government. For example, Denmark is governed by a liberal / socialist coalition. As a result of the government's economic policies this country has the most equal distribution of income of any country in the world, and as a result of this, Denmark is also the happiest country in the world.
https://www.cia.gov...
http://www.nationmaster.com...
http://www.cnn.com...
The "champagne effect" that capitalists use to describe the notion that some of the fortunes of the richest in society will eventually trickle down to the masses doesn't hold water (or bubbly) as the gap between rich and poor in countries with capitalist governments is ever growing. Even after over 10 years of a Labour government, wealth inequality in the UK remains one of the highest in the world.
http://news.bbc.co.uk...
It is no use tinkering at the edges of British society in order to crate a fairer society – the archaic political and social structures that favour the Establishment are too entrenched. What is required is root and branch reform. The Socialist Worker Party's stance is:
"The present system cannot be patched up — it has to be completely transformed. The structures of the parliament, army, police and judiciary cannot be taken over and used by the working people. Elections can be used to agitate for real improvements in people's lives and to expose the system we live under, but only the mass action of workers themselves can change the system.
Workers create all the wealth under capitalism. A new society can only be constructed when they collectively seize control of that wealth and plan its production and distribution according to need."
http://www.swp.org.uk...
Now that those pillars of capitalism - the financial institutions - have been exposed to be corrupt, fraudulent and incompetent, it is time to sweep away the inequality of the past and move on to create a brighter, fairer future where the whole of society has the opportunity to thrive.
Thank you. | Politics | 1 | 90-of-the-British-public-should-back-my-plans-for-a-socialist-revolution/1/ | 507 |
I consider it my privilege to respond to my opponent's arguments as he is recognised as a seasoned debater and his strongly-held views are widely respected. Notwithstanding his forceful (and seemingly convincing) statements, however, I should like to remind the voters that he is more than capable of distorting the facts to suit his own ends - not that there is anything wrong with that, this is a debating competition after all! My point is only this: please don't be persuaded by his stereotypical characterisation of socialism because the reality is, in fact, much different to the myth. Even communism, which I do not advocate, is not as desperate and oppressive as Hollywood would make you believe. As it happens, I visited and Russia and East Germany when I was a lad and, while the architecture was undeniably dour, the people seemed happy. Also, my wife grew up in the former Czechoslovak Republic which was a satellite state of the USSR at that time. Her father was the chief designer and director of a tank factory that employed 60,000 people. He could have worked on the production line but he studied (at the state's expense) and was promoted to the top in recognition of his ability and hard work. He is still there now, by the way, although the factory now makes Volkswagen cars. As a result of his endeavours, when my wife was a kid, the family were able to take foreign holidays (vacations) and buy Western goods. They lived (and still live) in a fantastic apartment overlooking the river and the mountains and also had a brand new Skoda (okay, not the most respected marque internationally at the time, but still). In addition, my father-in-law also had 24-hour use of a chauffeured limousine. You see, there were incentives to do well, even under communism (and my mother in law, like most of the older generations, much regret its demise because they were better off under that system). But my concept of a socialist state is one of a meritocracy, whereby one is rewarded for hard work, within a liberal (i.e. non-conformist) framework which can interact competitively in an global marketplace. That, essentially, is the key difference between socialism and communism. Not only does it allow people the freedom to innovate, be creative and entrepreneurial, but it also nurtures future winners by giving the opportunity to succeed to all children, not just those of the privileged few. This is what is actually meant by distribution of wealth according to need. It has nothing to do, as my opponent suggests, with encouraging the workshy to rely on state benefits for an income, but rather giving all in society the opportunity to progress and allowing them to reap the rewards of their efforts when they succeed. Thank you. | 0 | brian_eggleston |
I consider it my privilege to respond to my opponent's arguments as he is recognised as a seasoned debater and his strongly-held views are widely respected. Notwithstanding his forceful (and seemingly convincing) statements, however, I should like to remind the voters that he is more than capable of distorting the facts to suit his own ends - not that there is anything wrong with that, this is a debating competition after all! My point is only this: please don't be persuaded by his stereotypical characterisation of socialism because the reality is, in fact, much different to the myth.
Even communism, which I do not advocate, is not as desperate and oppressive as Hollywood would make you believe. As it happens, I visited and Russia and East Germany when I was a lad and, while the architecture was undeniably dour, the people seemed happy. Also, my wife grew up in the former Czechoslovak Republic which was a satellite state of the USSR at that time. Her father was the chief designer and director of a tank factory that employed 60,000 people. He could have worked on the production line but he studied (at the state's expense) and was promoted to the top in recognition of his ability and hard work. He is still there now, by the way, although the factory now makes Volkswagen cars.
As a result of his endeavours, when my wife was a kid, the family were able to take foreign holidays (vacations) and buy Western goods. They lived (and still live) in a fantastic apartment overlooking the river and the mountains and also had a brand new Skoda (okay, not the most respected marque internationally at the time, but still). In addition, my father-in-law also had 24-hour use of a chauffeured limousine. You see, there were incentives to do well, even under communism (and my mother in law, like most of the older generations, much regret its demise because they were better off under that system).
But my concept of a socialist state is one of a meritocracy, whereby one is rewarded for hard work, within a liberal (i.e. non-conformist) framework which can interact competitively in an global marketplace. That, essentially, is the key difference between socialism and communism.
Not only does it allow people the freedom to innovate, be creative and entrepreneurial, but it also nurtures future winners by giving the opportunity to succeed to all children, not just those of the privileged few.
This is what is actually meant by distribution of wealth according to need. It has nothing to do, as my opponent suggests, with encouraging the workshy to rely on state benefits for an income, but rather giving all in society the opportunity to progress and allowing them to reap the rewards of their efforts when they succeed.
Thank you. | Politics | 2 | 90-of-the-British-public-should-back-my-plans-for-a-socialist-revolution/1/ | 508 |
1) the world trade center was a huge center of economic activity. We would never destroy a building of such economic value. 2) the people who hijacked the plane were from a foriegn country. 3) the U.S. government wouldn't risk exposure to an inside job on a massive scale such as that. 4) you haven't listed the details of why you think it was an inside job | 0 | Benshapiro |
1) the world trade center was a huge center of economic activity. We would never destroy a building of such economic value. 2) the people who hijacked the plane were from a foriegn country. 3) the U.S. government wouldn't risk exposure to an inside job on a massive scale such as that. 4) you haven't listed the details of why you think it was an inside job | Politics | 0 | 911-inside-job/2/ | 528 |
The U.S. government oversees and funds military companies. They also wouldn't destroy a building of huge economic value to destroy evidence. If they wanted to increase military spending without court approval they would do it. They have done many unconstitutional things in the name of national security - like spying on phone records for instance. The government has this sort of power. To think a grand scheme of hijacking airplanes and crashing them into the twin towers for financial gain is ridiculous. Your other points are so weak they aren't even worth refuting. | 0 | Benshapiro |
The U.S. government oversees and funds military companies. They also wouldn't destroy a building of huge economic value to destroy evidence. If they wanted to increase military spending without court approval they would do it. They have done many unconstitutional things in the name of national security - like spying on phone records for instance. The government has this sort of power. To think a grand scheme of hijacking airplanes and crashing them into the twin towers for financial gain is ridiculous. Your other points are so weak they aren't even worth refuting. | Politics | 1 | 911-inside-job/2/ | 529 |
They could've gone to war with fake evidence instead of creating an economic catastrophe. It just doesn't make logical sense for them to go that route. It's nothing more than a conspiracy theory. | 0 | Benshapiro |
They could've gone to war with fake evidence instead of creating an economic catastrophe. It just doesn't make logical sense for them to go that route. It's nothing more than a conspiracy theory. | Politics | 2 | 911-inside-job/2/ | 530 |
That 911 was orchestrated by elements within the military industrial complex of top military corporations and insider from the US government and or mossad | 0 | truther1111 |
That 911 was orchestrated by elements within the military industrial complex of top military corporations and insider from the US government and or mossad | Politics | 0 | 911-inside-job/2/ | 531 |
1. I first want to make it clear that im not a supporter that the US government was behind the attacks. Rather military industrial companies namely , SAIC corporation. There are some researchers who propose economic reasons for the destruction of the towers, including insurance benefits , stolen gold, destruction of crucial evidence for world com and Enron. These researches some being ex government have done this sort of research that could only be argued in a courtroom. One of these researches is Kevin Ryan , the research would take years to do I unfortunately cannot take this time and effort but thankfully Kevin ryan and others have taken this question on and found startling conclusions. The main suspects seem to be a company or elements within that company called SAIC <URL>... 2. Yes and the day before 911 were reported doing cocaine and carrying large amounts of cash and visiting strippers , they were obviously set up and framed by the 'insiders' , other reports including from the BBC reported that some of the Hijackers were still alive and well. There is no evidence that they boarded the plane. Where is the footage. Why doesnt the airport have footage of that... 3. These criminals this criminal mafia are not the US government but rather have corrupted and infiltrated parts of the US government and other governments around the world. 4. I think that if you look at Who benifits from 911 these military industrial companys gained alot and therefore should be the number one suspects of 911 compared to the unlikely story of the muslim extremists | 0 | truther1111 |
1. I first want to make it clear that im not a supporter that the US government was behind the attacks. Rather military industrial companies namely , SAIC corporation.
There are some researchers who propose economic reasons for the destruction of the towers, including insurance benefits , stolen gold, destruction of crucial evidence for world com and Enron. These researches some being ex government have done this sort of research that could only be argued in a courtroom.
One of these researches is Kevin Ryan , the research would take years to do I unfortunately cannot take this time and effort but thankfully Kevin ryan and others have taken this question on and found startling conclusions.
The main suspects seem to be a company or elements within that company called SAIC
http://www.infowars.com...
2. Yes and the day before 911 were reported doing cocaine and carrying large amounts of cash and visiting strippers , they were obviously set up and framed by the 'insiders' , other reports including from the BBC reported that some of the Hijackers were still alive and well. There is no evidence that they boarded the plane. Where is the footage. Why doesnt the airport have footage of that...
3. These criminals this criminal mafia are not the US government but rather have corrupted and infiltrated parts of the US government and other governments around the world.
4. I think that if you look at Who benifits from 911 these military industrial companys gained alot and therefore should be the number one suspects of 911 compared to the unlikely story of the muslim extremists | Politics | 1 | 911-inside-job/2/ | 532 |
How else to get the world and american public on your side than by such an event live on TV for the whole world to see and get them on your side to fight an invisible enemy in countries that strategically they wanted to invade ( PNAC ) Project for a new american century. It lead to two illegal wars and the government spending of billions of dollars , dollars paid for by the United States Government and ultimately the American taxpayer. The american taxpayer must spend thousands of dollars out of there pocket every year to kill innocent children in other countries and they have no choice but to pay there taxes. Is that what you call freedom or democracy. All the tax money goes into this military complex which has totally taken over control of the interests of the government since the days of JFK and even before. It has gotten completely out of hand attacking its own people to create a new enemy after communism was dead. | 0 | truther1111 |
How else to get the world and american public on your side than by such an event live on TV for the whole world to see and get them on your side to fight an invisible enemy in countries that strategically they wanted to invade ( PNAC ) Project for a new american century. It lead to two illegal wars and the government spending of billions of dollars , dollars paid for by the United States Government and ultimately the American taxpayer. The american taxpayer must spend thousands of dollars out of there pocket every year to kill innocent children in other countries and they have no choice but to pay there taxes. Is that what you call freedom or democracy. All the tax money goes into this military complex which has totally taken over control of the interests of the government since the days of JFK and even before. It has gotten completely out of hand attacking its own people to create a new enemy after communism was dead. | Politics | 2 | 911-inside-job/2/ | 533 |
My position as pro is not made yet, but there are only two, being: a Zombie Apocalypse (which I will define in a moment) would destroy the living human race more effectively than a Robot Uprising. Or thus, the polar opposite of this stance is that a Zombie Apocalypse would NOT be more effective in causing living man's extinction than a Robot Uprising (or A Robot Uprising would be more effective in causing living man's extinction than a Zombie Apocalypse). I am letting my opponent choose which premise they wish to take up. Please only explain which topic you choose for round 1, so that we can treat this as a 3 round debate. Also, only accept if you plan to see this all the way through. First some quick definitions: A Zombie Apocalypse is when a reanimated corpse (or zombie) rises from the dead. The way this occurs is by the X virus that spreads by air, and only affects dead human bodies, centering itself in the brain, allowing the ability to perform basic motor functions (walking, biting, etc). It can spread its disease by biting a victim/getting it's tissue inside the victim (either of which will kill and transform the victim into a fellow zombie within a few hours). It can only 'die' by removing the head or destroying the brain, or by its complete and total decomposition of all body tissue, except for bones (this can take several weeks when exposed to air, but since it will always be moving, environments and climates will constantly be changing, so we will assume that this stage will not fully occur for a few years). Their top speed can only reach maybe a brisk trot if the zombie is in good condition, they can't climb, but that can 'swim' . They can detect living things from dead, and will chase/kill any living matter, including animals, but the 'disease' does not affect them. The Apocalypse part is because the zombies will spread on a world wide level (virus like), spreading the virus by killing and transforming human, until the human race is extinct. [These parameters were taken from Dawn of he Dead, Z War, The Walking Dead, How to survive a Zombie Apocalypse, Shawn of the Dead, and 28 Days Later] The robot uprising is when robots (usually the case is those programmed with Artificial Intelligence) gain consciousness and are unsatisfied with the slave lifestyle they are forced to live by, and use their superior strength, speed, and armoring to take over man kind. They can die from Electro-Magnetic Pulses, Severe Crushing, and substantial Firepower that destroys their frame (heavy guns, missiles, armor piercing bullets, etc), and any of natures own weapons, in particularly rust and water damage to electronics. They cannot convert electronics, but have to manually reprogram them to work for them. Early stages (assume like I, Robot/Terminator design) can run at 50 mph (fastest human speed is close to 30) their jumping power is decreased due to their heavier weight. They are powered by electricity, and have a battery life of 1 month without recharging. Early stages have no attached weaponry, or movement enhancers besides those it has naturally. They can communicate electronically through radio waves and satellite, and are programmed through a head computer who we can assume started the rebellion by reprogramming all able robots. [Parameters were taken from I, Robot, The Matrix, Enter the Matrix, Matrix comics, and Terminator) Choose wisely. Nuclear weapons will not be taken into account, as it closes either case fairly quickly. | 0 | Darth_Grievous_42 |
My position as pro is not made yet, but there are only two, being: a Zombie Apocalypse (which I will define in a moment) would destroy the living human race more effectively than a Robot Uprising. Or thus, the polar opposite of this stance is that a Zombie Apocalypse would NOT be more effective in causing living man's extinction than a Robot Uprising (or A Robot Uprising would be more effective in causing living man's extinction than a Zombie Apocalypse).
I am letting my opponent choose which premise they wish to take up. Please only explain which topic you choose for round 1, so that we can treat this as a 3 round debate. Also, only accept if you plan to see this all the way through.
First some quick definitions:
A Zombie Apocalypse is when a reanimated corpse (or zombie) rises from the dead. The way this occurs is by the X virus that spreads by air, and only affects dead human bodies, centering itself in the brain, allowing the ability to perform basic motor functions (walking, biting, etc). It can spread its disease by biting a victim/getting it's tissue inside the victim (either of which will kill and transform the victim into a fellow zombie within a few hours). It can only 'die' by removing the head or destroying the brain, or by its complete and total decomposition of all body tissue, except for bones (this can take several weeks when exposed to air, but since it will always be moving, environments and climates will constantly be changing, so we will assume that this stage will not fully occur for a few years). Their top speed can only reach maybe a brisk trot if the zombie is in good condition, they can't climb, but that can 'swim' . They can detect living things from dead, and will chase/kill any living matter, including animals, but the 'disease' does not affect them. The Apocalypse part is because the zombies will spread on a world wide level (virus like), spreading the virus by killing and transforming human, until the human race is extinct. [These parameters were taken from Dawn of he Dead, Z War, The Walking Dead, How to survive a Zombie Apocalypse, Shawn of the Dead, and 28 Days Later]
The robot uprising is when robots (usually the case is those programmed with Artificial Intelligence) gain consciousness and are unsatisfied with the slave lifestyle they are forced to live by, and use their superior strength, speed, and armoring to take over man kind. They can die from Electro-Magnetic Pulses, Severe Crushing, and substantial Firepower that destroys their frame (heavy guns, missiles, armor piercing bullets, etc), and any of natures own weapons, in particularly rust and water damage to electronics. They cannot convert electronics, but have to manually reprogram them to work for them. Early stages (assume like I, Robot/Terminator design) can run at 50 mph (fastest human speed is close to 30) their jumping power is decreased due to their heavier weight. They are powered by electricity, and have a battery life of 1 month without recharging. Early stages have no attached weaponry, or movement enhancers besides those it has naturally. They can communicate electronically through radio waves and satellite, and are programmed through a head computer who we can assume started the rebellion by reprogramming all able robots. [Parameters were taken from I, Robot, The Matrix, Enter the Matrix, Matrix comics, and Terminator)
Choose wisely. Nuclear weapons will not be taken into account, as it closes either case fairly quickly. | Society | 0 | A-Zombie-Apocalypse-would-be-More-Effective-in-causing-Living-Mans-extinction-than-a-Robot-Uprising/1/ | 967 |
Therefore, I will be defending the Zombie Apocalypse. Now, most people when they think of these two scenarios would think that 'of course, the smart mighty robots would be more effective', but lets get a few definitions straight: (The source for both these definitions is Oxford online dictionary) Effective - adjective 1 producing a desired or intended result Extinct - adjective 1 (of a species or other large group) having no living members Thus by my premise a zombie apocalypse will produce the intended result (mans extinction) better than a robot uprising. We can assume that there are several factors that will make it better, the ones I can currently think of are surprise, speed, global reaction, and resistance. If Ragnar_Rahl thinks of more qualifications I welcome them, and will not only rebut the way they help his Armageddon, but will fit it into my own as well. Surprise - What do people think of when they think of a zombie? Something scary that could only ever be a work of fiction. There has never yet been a credible zombie reporting, or in anyway some sign that my even hint at corpses reanimating. However, for robots there are, seeing as how they are our own creation. We follow their progress every step of the way, and all robotic advancements are highly publicized <URL>... <URL>... So, there's a high possibility that when robots are more of a common place thing, people especially the government) may see early warning signs and begin preparations for a possible rebellion. However for my scenario, there is no one who believes a zombie outbreak could ever occur. If one did (remember, both are hypothetical) then it would totally catch everyone by surprise. Most zombie enthusiasts agree that people will treat any small outbreaks as crazed, rabies-infested people. Authorities will try to subdue them, and hospitals will try to cure them. People who have fought back will either die, or be viewed as a common shoot out or other crime. Most if not all, will have no viable proof to show the public that it was the living dead, only their personal testimonies. No police officer in his right mind (even if it is true) will believe "I shot him because he was a zombie!" By the time it starts to happen on a worldwide scale, it will be to late to put up any effective resistance. Next, when there begin to be bite victims, and they are brought to hospitals, this will be when things really go bad. The bites will probably be treated as any other emergency, of course with differing levels (serious to not). When they 'come back' at the surgery table, they WILL take doctors and nurses by surprise, as someone with a flat line does not ever get back up, thus biting maybe one or two (maybe three in total chaos) and in the process infecting that man more. Because of the high deaths, all occurring at one place, these will be the first hotspots. Because peoples naturally human belief about the definitely of death, everyone will treat it as less than it is, until it is too late. So my scenario is more lethal, simply because it is so unexpected. Speed - This is a global thing mind you. The reactions I described will be, most likely, on a global scale in any society with hospitals and police force. Third world countries with neither will go faster, as they will probably assume it witchcraft or miracle and either try to heal it communally or praise it, respectively. But the fact is this will spread like a wildfire. One zombie bite transforms a victim, therefore, there are now two zombies. Those two bite 1 victim, now there are 4. This process continues like the tale of the rice an chess board, doubling until it is large scale. Large populations will fall first. Another theory most agree on is that governments will try and defend large cities (when they figure it out) and call on their populations to meet there, where they can more easily defend them. But this is extremely flawed. Minor bite victims won't turn immediately, so they will enter the cities with all 10,000 or so other people, and when they turn, the chain reaction starts again from within. So large cities, or over populated areas will go the fastest. A robotic take over would take time to build anything of effectiveness, and then they will have to bring on a full-fledged battle, to which soldiers will fight back (and most likely lose). So Zombies will kill humans faster, and more effectively here. Global reaction - As I stated earlier, no one will treat it as it properly needed to, simply because no one will believe it until its chasing them in their own house. The attempts to control it, once realized, will do more harm than good. Not only the zombies, but humans on humans will play a role. People won't trust each other; there will be violence, looting, and chaos everywhere. Nobody will work together, and those who do will only be the closest of families ad friends, who only care about themselves and will not be stopped by any resistance. It's more than probable, that man will kill man for the safety of himself. There will be 'heroic rescues' of loved ones that in the end turn into suicide missions when they run right into a zombie horde. Suicide, both religious and otherwise, will kill a majority of humans. 'Its the rapture!' 'God is punishing man!' 'I don't wanna be eaten!' will be one in a hundred reasons people will give before ending themselves. Unless they shoot themselves in the head, their dead corpses will reanimate as well, only adding to the problem. A robot uprising has only so many resources and machines, were mine directly uses the human population it is destroying as its fuel. Resistance - Here is probably where you think you've won. How can any person possibly say that a slow, fleshy, stupid zombie could ever hold any weight over a total armor, better than human robot? While this is true, it's also the wrong thinking. Remember, I specifically said that only a headshot would definitely end a zombie. All our military are only prepared for gun-to-gun combat, or at least any kind where all parts of the body can kill the enemy. But with a zombie, its only real weak spot is the head. Preliminary military action will shoot at all the body, some lucky machine gun fire probably getting the head. But it's extremely hard to get a head shot without experience. So most fire will not be effective, until the horde is coming right down on you. Not to mention the human 'fight or flight' factor. Most people will run at the sight of a dead walking corpse, blood dripping and entrails waiving in the wind, and those who fight will probably not do so effectively until the last minute. Any death on the human side that does not do injury to the brain will only add to zombie numbers, and only helps with the effectiveness of mans extinction. Yes, I admit, a robot would be harder to kill. However, any robot can meet its end by the right circuit being hit, or computer damage, hull damage, jamming, etc. But there's only one way to stop a zombie, and in more cases than not, resistance only helps the cause. So this is my first reasoning to why a zombie apocalypse will kill mankind more effectively. Its own creation is directly beneficial to the desired effect. Man will mostly help its spread through ignorance of the real problem, all over the world. And mans resistance ability is minimal, and more often than not, beneficial to the zombie side. I will say right now that of a robot takeover would destroy mankind, but nowhere near as fast, efficiently, and global as there will be prepared defenses, direct offensive at the start, and is time consuming as it will be a total war, rather than a disease outbreak. Both will destroy mankind, zombies will just do it better. For outside information, the Matrix's robot uprising took 41 years to come into full fruition, while the events of Dawn of the Dead occurred within a week. | 0 | Darth_Grievous_42 |
Therefore, I will be defending the Zombie Apocalypse. Now, most people when they think of these two scenarios would think that 'of course, the smart mighty robots would be more effective', but lets get a few definitions straight:
(The source for both these definitions is Oxford online dictionary)
Effective - adjective 1 producing a desired or intended result
Extinct - adjective 1 (of a species or other large group) having no living members
Thus by my premise a zombie apocalypse will produce the intended result (mans extinction) better than a robot uprising.
We can assume that there are several factors that will make it better, the ones I can currently think of are surprise, speed, global reaction, and resistance. If Ragnar_Rahl thinks of more qualifications I welcome them, and will not only rebut the way they help his Armageddon, but will fit it into my own as well.
Surprise - What do people think of when they think of a zombie? Something scary that could only ever be a work of fiction. There has never yet been a credible zombie reporting, or in anyway some sign that my even hint at corpses reanimating. However, for robots there are, seeing as how they are our own creation. We follow their progress every step of the way, and all robotic advancements are highly publicized
http://youtube.com...
http://youtube.com...
So, there's a high possibility that when robots are more of a common place thing, people especially the government) may see early warning signs and begin preparations for a possible rebellion. However for my scenario, there is no one who believes a zombie outbreak could ever occur. If one did (remember, both are hypothetical) then it would totally catch everyone by surprise. Most zombie enthusiasts agree that people will treat any small outbreaks as crazed, rabies-infested people. Authorities will try to subdue them, and hospitals will try to cure them. People who have fought back will either die, or be viewed as a common shoot out or other crime. Most if not all, will have no viable proof to show the public that it was the living dead, only their personal testimonies. No police officer in his right mind (even if it is true) will believe "I shot him because he was a zombie!" By the time it starts to happen on a worldwide scale, it will be to late to put up any effective resistance. Next, when there begin to be bite victims, and they are brought to hospitals, this will be when things really go bad. The bites will probably be treated as any other emergency, of course with differing levels (serious to not). When they 'come back' at the surgery table, they WILL take doctors and nurses by surprise, as someone with a flat line does not ever get back up, thus biting maybe one or two (maybe three in total chaos) and in the process infecting that man more. Because of the high deaths, all occurring at one place, these will be the first hotspots. Because peoples naturally human belief about the definitely of death, everyone will treat it as less than it is, until it is too late. So my scenario is more lethal, simply because it is so unexpected.
Speed - This is a global thing mind you. The reactions I described will be, most likely, on a global scale in any society with hospitals and police force. Third world countries with neither will go faster, as they will probably assume it witchcraft or miracle and either try to heal it communally or praise it, respectively. But the fact is this will spread like a wildfire. One zombie bite transforms a victim, therefore, there are now two zombies. Those two bite 1 victim, now there are 4. This process continues like the tale of the rice an chess board, doubling until it is large scale. Large populations will fall first. Another theory most agree on is that governments will try and defend large cities (when they figure it out) and call on their populations to meet there, where they can more easily defend them. But this is extremely flawed. Minor bite victims won't turn immediately, so they will enter the cities with all 10,000 or so other people, and when they turn, the chain reaction starts again from within. So large cities, or over populated areas will go the fastest. A robotic take over would take time to build anything of effectiveness, and then they will have to bring on a full-fledged battle, to which soldiers will fight back (and most likely lose). So Zombies will kill humans faster, and more effectively here.
Global reaction - As I stated earlier, no one will treat it as it properly needed to, simply because no one will believe it until its chasing them in their own house. The attempts to control it, once realized, will do more harm than good. Not only the zombies, but humans on humans will play a role. People won't trust each other; there will be violence, looting, and chaos everywhere. Nobody will work together, and those who do will only be the closest of families ad friends, who only care about themselves and will not be stopped by any resistance. It's more than probable, that man will kill man for the safety of himself. There will be 'heroic rescues' of loved ones that in the end turn into suicide missions when they run right into a zombie horde. Suicide, both religious and otherwise, will kill a majority of humans. 'Its the rapture!' 'God is punishing man!' 'I don't wanna be eaten!' will be one in a hundred reasons people will give before ending themselves. Unless they shoot themselves in the head, their dead corpses will reanimate as well, only adding to the problem. A robot uprising has only so many resources and machines, were mine directly uses the human population it is destroying as its fuel.
Resistance - Here is probably where you think you've won. How can any person possibly say that a slow, fleshy, stupid zombie could ever hold any weight over a total armor, better than human robot? While this is true, it's also the wrong thinking. Remember, I specifically said that only a headshot would definitely end a zombie. All our military are only prepared for gun-to-gun combat, or at least any kind where all parts of the body can kill the enemy. But with a zombie, its only real weak spot is the head. Preliminary military action will shoot at all the body, some lucky machine gun fire probably getting the head. But it's extremely hard to get a head shot without experience. So most fire will not be effective, until the horde is coming right down on you. Not to mention the human 'fight or flight' factor. Most people will run at the sight of a dead walking corpse, blood dripping and entrails waiving in the wind, and those who fight will probably not do so effectively until the last minute. Any death on the human side that does not do injury to the brain will only add to zombie numbers, and only helps with the effectiveness of mans extinction. Yes, I admit, a robot would be harder to kill. However, any robot can meet its end by the right circuit being hit, or computer damage, hull damage, jamming, etc. But there's only one way to stop a zombie, and in more cases than not, resistance only helps the cause.
So this is my first reasoning to why a zombie apocalypse will kill mankind more effectively. Its own creation is directly beneficial to the desired effect. Man will mostly help its spread through ignorance of the real problem, all over the world. And mans resistance ability is minimal, and more often than not, beneficial to the zombie side. I will say right now that of a robot takeover would destroy mankind, but nowhere near as fast, efficiently, and global as there will be prepared defenses, direct offensive at the start, and is time consuming as it will be a total war, rather than a disease outbreak. Both will destroy mankind, zombies will just do it better.
For outside information, the Matrix's robot uprising took 41 years to come into full fruition, while the events of Dawn of the Dead occurred within a week. | Society | 1 | A-Zombie-Apocalypse-would-be-More-Effective-in-causing-Living-Mans-extinction-than-a-Robot-Uprising/1/ | 968 |
End of preview. Expand
in Dataset Viewer.
- Downloads last month
- 0