The Instigator
marines1031
Pro (for)
Tied
3 Points
The Contender
yuiru
Con (against)
Tied
3 Points

9/11 Was Not An Inside Job

Do you like this debate?NoYes-4
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/21/2012 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,796 times Debate No: 24375
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (18)
Votes (2)

 

marines1031

Pro

There Is Plenty Of Evidence That Debunks Claims By "Truthers". I Will Happily Debate And Show You That You Are Wrong.
yuiru

Con

Okay I accept,

I will be arguing "9/11 was an inside job",

under these definitions:

9/11:
September 11, 2001. On this date, two hijacked commercial airliners were flown into the World Trade Center in lower Manhattan. A third hijacked airliner was crashed into the Pentagon, and a fourth went down in a field in Pennsylvania.

Inside Job:
A crime committed by or with the assistance of a person living or working on the premises where it occurred.

Truther:
Person believing that the U.S. government perpetrated or allowed the 9/11 terrorist attacks.


First argeement:

U.S. government allowed the 9/11 terrorist attacks to happen! It is their job to stop this from occuring, yet they don't even know? Please sugar baby, stop with the excuses.
It probably wouldn't of happened if the government was more responsible and stuff.

Kinda suspicious...

It's the government man!

First it was aliens, now it's buildings.

Shame on you.

Second Arguement:

My opponent is obviously involved with the government and is trying to brainwash the public!

Just Kidding lol



Debate Round No. 1
marines1031

Pro

First Of All, Thanks For Accepting.

1: The CIA, FBI, And NSA Each Had Separate Information. That, Linked Together, Could Possibly Indicate What Bin Laden Was Planning.

2: Like In Any Conspiracy Theory, If The U.S Did Have Information That Al-Qaeda Was Planning 9/11 Then Somebody Would Have Squealed.

3: If This Was Done For Oil, Why Are The Oil Prices Sill High? And Why Have We Gotten Very Little, If Any Oil From Iraq?
yuiru

Con


Hello, I would like to thank you for argumenting me.

I'm assuming you are using the same definitions?

Rebuttal:

"1: The CIA, FBI, And NSA Each Had Separate Information. That, Linked Together, Could Possibly Indicate What Bin Laden Was Planning."

Coulda, shoulda, woulda...
The problem is that they failed to do so. This is not okay, we're talking... National Security here!

"2: Like In Any Conspiracy Theory, If The U.S Did Have Information That Al-Qaeda Was Planning 9/11 Then Somebody Would Have Squealed."

...Okay... and... are you implying that the U.S did not? Because... to base your argument on that is argumentum e silentio.

And if they didn't, they are still failing to prevent Al-Quesdilla ~whatever.

3: If This Was Done For Oil, Why Are The Oil Prices Sill High? And Why Have We Gotten Very Little, If Any Oil From Iraq?

And Why Do You Capitalize The First Letter In Every Word You Write? Title of my new book, you should check it out...
Are these the titles of books you want me to read?

I can't explain it, you can't explain it, nobody can't explain it.

Also... what does oil have to do with it?

Seems like a fallacy of distraction... doesn't really address the issue in question.

C'mon man... that's just cold.

Argeement:

First off... Lets look at the facts...

Not only one... but two, Hijacked commercial airliners just so happen to fly into the World Trade Center in lower Manhattan!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You can't explain that..

This suggest, something... possibly terrorism...

And this just happens to be in the U.S.? ...you can't just tell me that's a coincidence.

Somethin's up...

You know what the opposite of a truther is?

...A liar.

*Disconsidering if truther is a misnomer.*


Here are some very nice sites I recommend you visit, I'm sure you will learn something new and interesting!

http://oldwebsites.ltschools.org...
http://www.writersblock.ca...
http://www.kimskorner4teachertalk.com...
http://www.grammarbook.com...
Debate Round No. 2
marines1031

Pro

The capitalization thing is a bad habit. Anyway, your argument seems unorganized and with very little debatable subjects.

Al-Qaeda attacked us because:

1# Osama was furious that Saudi Arabia choose to ask to United States to help protect them from Iraq in 1991 instead of al-Qaeda

2# They hated us because we supported Israel.

3# They believe that whoever is not Muslim is evil, and they view the U.S as a Christian state

4# They felt abandoned that we just left them after the soviet invasion of 1979-1989

Instead of blaming the government, blame the jerks who actually blew up the WTC and the pentagon and killed 3,000 people
yuiru

Con

Pro refuses to even argue me? what is this? Stop I say!

Rest assured, I am hungry.

"1# Osama was furious that Saudi Arabia choose to ask to United States to help protect them from Iraq in 1991 instead of al-Qaeda."

Show me the evidence for this claim.
Do you know Osama personally? Did he tell you that?

What qualifies as furious? A tad bit upset and jealous, or truly fly plane into building rage?
If so, Osama could have meditated or went to some conciling. Plus, I'm finding it hard to believe he could get that angry.

"2# They hated us because we supported Israel."

Us, when did I become involved with Al-Qada? Who is "we"?

Could you please be more specific and descriptive? You know I don't know what your talking about, at least act like you care.

"3# They believe that whoever is not Muslim is evil, and they view the U.S as a Christian state"

Evidence...
Come on, spite it out.

"4# They felt abandoned that we just left them after the soviet invasion of 1979-1989"

Okay, what are you doing here? You are giving reasons why the Al-quesdilla's attacked "us" but not actually addressing the issue at hand.

"Instead of blaming the government, blame the jerks who actually blew up the WTC and the pentagon and killed 3,000 people"

Are you calling me a liar?

I'm not blaming the government for WHAT they failed to prevent, I'm just pointing out that they FAILED to prevent something that they had the power and resources to prevent.

I'm pretty sure that the CIA, FBI, and NSA each had separate information. That, linked together, could indicate what Bin Laden was planning. Why didn't they just link them? Laziness perhaps... Laziness too quick for Amercia...

"Your argument seems unorganized and with very little debatable subjects."

...Is that my problem? Counter the rebuttals if you have to, don't blame for my non-argument.
That is absolutely ridiculous.
I have bigger fish to fry brotha, and if you aren't satisfied with my food then just leave it be.

Argument:

I still feel 9/11 was an inside job.

The proof of the pudding's in the eating...

Yeah, I said that...

Is that debateable? Yes it's not.

The problem with it not being an inside job is the fact the plane Al-Qaeda used was american, IN AMERICA!

How could they be within the premises in the first place? They had to get in the plane and everything with some assistence!

In my last argument you failed to rebuke, I showed 9/11, even by definition, was an inside job.

Think about this:

The government FAILS to prevent 9/11. They fail to prevent both the actual date from coming and fail to prevent the hijacks!

9/11 hijacks happened!

There is a lot of evidence to suggest that 9/11 was an inside job.
Quoting a famous philsopher and scholar:

"It was not done for oil. That is a strawman arguement. It was done to consolidate power and advance the agenda of the neocon federalists- Cheney, Rumsfeld and Jean Kirkpatrick. They wanted to institute a concept known as the "Unitary Executive". Under this definition the president would have sweeping powers. Congress would lose the authority of oversight. From 2004 to 2006 that is precisely what was attempted by the Bush administration. That was the motivation for the inside job of 911. That and reelection. No sitting US president has ever failed reelection. A fact not lost on Carl Rove."

DCH, you are forever in our hearts.

9/11 (using my definition, not the date) was so an inside job, you can look into records, the event, where it took place, and even the people and just say, "Inside job."

In my very first round I carefully put out my argument, fully perpared with definitions of what I was talking about and 1 argument. Pro, since they have not said a thing, implies no objection to what I have put on the table.
You can look at my first round, read everything, and see that 9/11 was an inside job.

Pro, so far, is unable show the proof is not in the pudding.

How does pro counter this?

How does pro explain that 9/11 is an outside job/non-inside job, when it was obviously an inside one?

Makes no sense...

When the blind lead the blind... get out of the way.


I rest my case!

Vote for me!!!! ~Please... ^_^
Debate Round No. 3
marines1031

Pro

Blaming the government for FAILING to stop 9/11 is not an inside job. It's you who cant stand that just 19 hijackers killed 3,000 people.

Osama was interviewed by a british reporter in 1998 and confirmed everything I just said.

Thats about it. and asking for votes proves you have a suckie argument
yuiru

Con

To blame is to assign responsibility for a fault or wrong, I'm just saying they failed, because they did.

They failed to prevent it, meaning they allowed it because they to permited it by neglect.

"Osama was interviewed by a british reporter in 1998 and confirmed everything I just said."

What interview? What british reporter? What publication? Are you hiding something about the the report? Then just don't be vague sugar plum.

Second, I never said blaming the government for failing to stop 9/11 made it an inside job.

If you look at my very first round I defined everything!

"Inside Job:
A crime committed by or with the assistance of a person living or working on the premises where it occurred."

You can look into my 2nd and 3rd round and I clearly point out how its an inside job:

"The problem with it not being an inside job is the fact the plane Al-Qaeda used was american, IN AMERICA!

How could they be within the premises in the first place? They had to get in the plane and everything with some assistence!

In my last argument you failed to rebuke, I showed 9/11, even by definition, was an inside job."

Where did the crime happen? In Amercia

Where was the person responsible working? In America (the premises where it occured)

Al-Qaeda was in America, they worked in America, they had terrorist assistance in America.

Steven Hawking has even confirmed this:
"the plane destroyed the building whilst inside."
I think he's smarter than you.

And you have yet to tell me how on earth, Al-Qaeda even did this outside of America.

You have yet to prove me wrong... nope...

You never even gave that there was "Plenty Of Evidence That Debunks Claims By "Truthers". I Will Happily Debate And Show You That You Are Wrong."

Never even did that, you just proved me right!

So it remains 9/11 WAS actually and inside job by definition, and did not occur as an outside job or anything else.

"Thats about it. and asking for votes proves you have a suckie argument"

Well they must be pretty good arguments to you since your only proof was that I asked for votes.

How pathetic.

I rest my casting.



Debate Round No. 4
18 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by yuiru 4 years ago
yuiru
@ RoyLatham
I don't think you understand what I meant.
I also don't think you have read my arguments, I never argued the government must have known...
In fact, I actually said they didn't know!
Posted by Double_R 4 years ago
Double_R
DCH, if you'd like to debate the topic I would gladly accept. There is no reasonable case to be made that the US government should be investigated for conspiracy.
Posted by DCH 4 years ago
DCH
inferno where are you on this? I say that the evidence for government foul play in 911 at least warents further investigation although I do not wish to try and prove government foul play. Do you want to have this debate? Someone should at least give the topic its due attention.
Posted by inferno 4 years ago
inferno
This is funny. I never seen so much misinformed and unelightened people in my life.
Posted by yuiru 4 years ago
yuiru
No DCH, don't regret, I'm going to rip-off all your arguments now!! >:D
Posted by DCH 4 years ago
DCH
Correct. I did mean no sitting president has lost an election during wartime. I do regret posting as this is no longer an open debate.
Posted by airmax1227 4 years ago
airmax1227
@DHC

Do you mean no sitting president has failed to win reelection during war time? Because that would be true.

The data is significantly limited though. Lincoln, McKinley, FDR, and Richard Nixon all are war time president that won reelection. So 4 out of 4 (Not including Dubya). Madison, Polk and Truman were also war time presidents that simply didn't seek reelection. JFK was assassinated, and Lyndon Johnson didn't seek a second term.

Also its 'Karl' Rove.
Posted by airmax1227 4 years ago
airmax1227
"No sitting US president has ever failed reelection." - DHC

@DHC

George HW Bush failed to be reelected.
John Adams failed reelection.
Jimmy Carter failed reelection.
Herbert Hoover failed reelection.
Benjamin Harrison failed reelection.
Martin Van Buren failed reelection.
John Quincy Adams failed reelection.
Rutherford B. Hayes, James Buchanan, and James Knox Polk did not seek reelection.
Franklin Pierce was denied nomination for a second term.
Grover Cleveland not reelected on his first try for a second term, though he served 2 non consecutive terms.

So.. What exactly are you talking about?
Posted by DCH 4 years ago
DCH
I want to apologize. I think I may have entered the debate where I should not have. I hope that you will accept my apology.
Posted by DCH 4 years ago
DCH
It was not done for oil. That is a strawman arguement. It was done to consolidate power and advance the agenda of the neocon federalists- Cheney, Rumsfeld and Jean Kirkpatrick. They wanted to institute a concept known as the "Unitary Executive". Under this definition the president would have sweeping powers. Congress would lose the authority of oversight. From 2004 to 2006 that is precisely what was attempted by the Bush administration. That was the motivation for the inside job of 911. That and reelection. No sitting US president has ever failed reelection. A fact not lost on Carl Rove.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 4 years ago
RoyLatham
marines1031yuiruTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: A bad debate, difficult to follow either side. Con defined "inside job" correctly, as assisting a crime. But con provided no evidence of that having happened, only an argument from incredulity, that the government must have known. Pro gave plausible arguments, but Con had the burden of proof to support an extraordinary claim. If con had cited even one source he could have won that category. Poor S
Vote Placed by Double_R 4 years ago
Double_R
marines1031yuiruTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro made no serious attempt to debate. He simply brings up new contentions every round while failing to support them or defend them in the subsequent rounds.