9/11 conspiracy theory
Debate Rounds (5)
1. Why would our government attack its own nation causing millions of dollars in damage that we don't have the money to pay for blaming it on a terrorist who is hiding in the barren waste land of Afghanistan so we could invade Iraq for oil two years later when by that time people have already begun demanding we surrender in Afghanistan?
2. How would the government convince these people to kill themselves not with money and not with religion the two biggest motivators?
3. Why send a missile strike into the Pentagon its the national defense system a government building as if the towers wouldn't be enough they have to send a multi million dollar weapon at a multi million dollar building that they own?
These are some key flaws in the theory and I wish my opponent best for filling these holes.
1. A Government needs to set an example and make sure people know exactly how serious these issues are. This is exactly like using foax car crashes at high schools to explain the risk of drunk driving. This would probably be the government's scale of things. Besides, if it makes everyone much more cautious, it helps the greatest number of people, therefore, supporting a utilitarianistic ideal.
2. I don't know how they would convince these people to do it, but it was probably along the lines of explaining how patriotic this act would be. How do people convince others to go to war? It is simply because they are told that it is the best way to serve and protect their country. This would get any patriots attention. The simple fact is, if you are able to be a hero, even if you are about to die, you are still feeling a sense of pride. There is also the fact that we do not know the exact conditions of these people. These people could be the sickest of the sick, medically, and need attention.
3. I do not know why they would send a missile into the pentagon, but yet again, it seems like it would be much more for an example of the devastating effects of an unexpected missile system. By providing the citizens with much more realistic cases that false alarms and drills, the people become prepared for more of this kind of event. Thereby, setting the entire country on alert and suspicion, thereby allowing them to stop these situation from occurring.
Now onto his case.
There is no case by Con. All his argument is seems to be a series of questions in order to question the validity of the 9/11 conspiracy theory. This is not topical to the resolution. The resolution is simply: "9/11 conspiracy theory." One can easily assume that the Pro will defend the theory's existence, and the Con will attack it. All Con does is ask questions about the government's morals.
My case will be explaining how the 9/11 Conspiracy Theory exists.
C1. People believe it.
Thereby, the theory is real. By definition, a theory is an idea, or, something to be proven. If people believe in this theory, it must exist as an idea.
C2. We are currently debating it.
If this theory did not exist we would not be debating about it, because we would not know about it. There was someone who came up with the idea and spread it. Therefore it is real.
My answers to Con's questions are as in depth if not more than the questions themselves and provide reasonable examples to answer them in my favor.
I would like to point out again that there is no real case for me to argue. Con does not have any claims, warrents, or data, thereby forfeiting this round entirely. Asking questions is for a cross-examination/comment section period of time, not in the first argument.
For all of these reasons, please vote affirmative (Pro) in today's debate.
2. Your trying to tell me a American citizen was that patriotic I don't think so many Americans hate their own country and would love to see the government topple and when people join the American military they understand they are getting the best training in the world to make sure they don't die so that helps get people to join also many people join just for the free collage.
3. I highly doubt that the government even if they were going to do something like this would destroy part of the Pentagon there for almost shutting down their military for several hours and even if they wanted to cover their tracks by targeting a government building they could have easily had the cities air defense systems shoot it down and blab about what a close call it was but thanks to the heroic actions of our men and women in arms another tragedy was stopped on the day.
Now to my points
Well because my opponent did not answer to many of the holes in this theory and instead just tried to prove the theory is an actual idea which I never said it wasn't I have only one thing to add and that is why would the government blame this act on a terrorist who was living in Afghanistan one of the most barren worthless countries in the world with almost no resources so that they could attack there and two years later invade Iraq for oil?
We can think about utilitarianism here, which is the greatest good for the greatest amount of people. Instead of caring for the few on the planes compared to the entire nation, it (if it was indeed an example) a very good idea in that it set out whole nation into a defensive mindset which therefore protects us better.
2. Americans as a whole are EXTREMELY patriotic. Con seems to be pointing out that many of us hate our country, but I would like to point out that this is completely false. Many Americans who enlist in the war know that there is an extremely high chance of them being killed. It is war, just because they are trained well, know that there is still this extremely high chance.
They are not only trained in combat, but in the mindset that they might die. This mindset prepares them to be as patriotic as possible. There is no draft now, therefore, all of the people enlisting either want to or have to for some reason. Even this being the case, the general point is that Americans are so much more patriotic than Con claims. In fact, because of this fact, there are tons of websites like USA-Patriotism.com where people can view history and talk about it and express their love for the country.
3. You can cross-apply my first argument that there needs to be an extreme example to convince an entire country, as opposed to a high school. Close-calls do not always get the message across. It instead convinces the people that close-calls will always be taken account for. Because of this they will always assume that terrorism will never be a problem.
Not onto the real case:
C1. I did not answer the holes in my theory is what Con claims. Con did not present any holes that I did not account for, so this point will be thrown out. Con claims that there are other holes that I did not address, yet he did not point them out, therefore assuming that I believe there are other issues. Because this is not the case, I have nothing to argue further in this point.
C2. a. Why would the government blame this act on a terrorist who was living in Afghanistan so they could invade Iraq two years later for oil, is essentially what Con tries to ask me. If this theory is true, then it was easier to blame a terrorist on the actions because it would have been an example of a terrorist attack. Therefore, blaming a terrorist is completely logical.
C2. b. i. Apparently, according to Con, it is a fact that we blamed Bin Ladin so we could attack Afghanistan and invade Iraq. This is completely false. This was obviously not the intention of the government. Con needs to look up on his history before he can make this argument because it is not true that we "invaded" because of Con's reasoning.
C2. b. ii. I'll have to run a kritik on Con here for being racist against those who live in the country of Afghanistan. This will provide the conduct vote to Pro. "One of the most barren worthless countries in the world." By calling the country worthless, you call all of the people in that country worthless. This is a racist remark, and immediately urges a Conduct vote to Pro because of the nature of this comment.
C2. c. I argued semantics, which Con did not understand entirely. In this contention, Con claims that I just tried to prove the theory is an actual idea. Yes, this is what I was doing, but I also made points to verify the theory as well. Semantics are arguments that attack the wording of the resolution. This was my intention, and exactly what I did. If I do not win on the three points above, I still win on my semantics argument that the 9/11 conspiracy theory exists. If I don't win on this subpoint, I now win on this contention due to the kritik alone.
Also though this would explain a bit of things there still is one thing in your way a little piece of paper called the Constitution stating in it that the government must provide the people with happy and safe lives and if they fail to the people must rise up and replace the government so by making an attack on itself the Government is breaking that agreement and putting themselves open to a complete uprising in which the government would lose all control over the people and all power over the military who is sworn to protect the people and defend the legitimate American government by attacking the nation the Government would lose all legitimate claims to power and the power would be given back to the people and the government would just be a terroristic group of people with no weapons who would all be quickly executed do you actually think the government is willing to take that big of a risk to prove a point?
2. Their is not a high chance of being killed in the American military out of the millions of soldiers in the US military we have lost 7,000 in Iraq and Afghanistan combined 7,000 out of millions is not a good chance of being killed also many people in America hate America and would love to see the government over thrown.
I did not say their are no patriotic Americans I said their aren't as many as their used to be also I can't think of one that would kill himself so he could kill thousands of Americans for their own good.
3. You say it as if 3,000 civilians dead in the towers along with another 1,000 or so dead rescue workers and hundreds of dead by standers along with the 80 to 100 people in the planes were not enough to get the message across their were people who had family that died their friends brothers mothers sisters fathers cousins aunts uncles nieces nephews grandparents grandchildren daughters sons all killed some diving out of the building ending their lives then their family and friends watching them die on television with the rest of the world one man went on his roof after a collapse of a tower and found arms legs heads of human beings mutilated cut to bits by bits of metal and concrete and that wasn't enough you think you think that the government wouldn't think that would get the point across that they had to finish it with the Pentagon no they didn't the only one who would do that is someone who really wanted to hurt us someone who wanted to watch all Americans break down in tears not to mention the hero's on united 93 who went down fighting like true Americans real Americans the original Americans and stopped the enemy from hitting another unknown target possibly the White House. Their is no way the government no matter what point they wanted to make would have continued the attack after the towers no way
C1. I did point out holes look at the first round
C2. a. But why blame it on one in Afghanistan when many believers of the theory believe it was a cover up for a invasion of Iraq for oil
C2. b. ii. revert to C2. a,
C2. b. ii. If you mean about Afghanistan being a worthless country it is it has no resources why even bothering to attack it you can't take anything from it there is no oil no gold no precious metals not enough lumber to make a business out of what's the point of attacking it?
C2. c. And I agreed it is a theory.
1. Con did not pose any argument at all in the first round. He told the voters what the theory was, defining it for the round. A definition is not an argument, I accepted the definition by accepting the debate. I will not argue what the definition is. However, if Con is talking about the second round (the first we started arguing), I did answer all of the "holes" that he proposed are in this theory.
What Con doesn't understand about the theory is that if the 9/11 conspiracy theory were true, the government probably would have gone to everyone that would be involved. If Con cannot prove that the government did not do this, this point defaults to Pro. Essentially, because we are debating a theory, I do not need proof, however, Con needs to provide this evidence that the government did in fact do this without consent of the now diseased. So, yes, I believe that the government would take that large of a risk.
2. There is a higher chance of being killed by being in the military than if you were not. Therefore, the people who enter the military know that they have a greater chance of being killed, this is truly patriotic, and if they would go and kill an enemy that they do not know without real initiative, they would go to this length of the theory to ultimately protect the people. Some 4,000 people is nothing compared to the entire population of America. This is the same point as those who enter the military. This few of people compared to the whole is a huge gain for America because now the entire country is more weary that a terrorist attack is probably.
Just because Con cannot think of an American that would do this, that does not mean there are none. I may not be able to think of anyone that can write with both their left and right hands, does that mean there are none?
3. Con appeals to pathos only in this point, practically begging for the vote based only on the people that died and their families. He has strayed from the initial point while he lists off way too many different family members. We get the point that families died in this disaster. Con contradicts himself here, however. The true Americans, as Con says, took the plane down and killed themselves. These true Americans killed each other in this sense. No one knows if everyone on board was apt to taking down the plane. The people that did however, did not only take down the plane in a way that crashed it, but they killed themselves and those on the plane that would rather have died initially by the terrorist. As Con says, some people are not patriotic, what if some of the people on the plane were not? What if they wanted the plane to take out the White House? Con doesn't realize that all he does in this point is contradict himself. Because he strays away from the initial arguments in the point, it will default Pro. Con also says "no way" as if he only instantiated this debate knowing it was a one sided debate to practically everyone on DDO. This defaults the Conduct vote to Pro.
C1. I pointed this out in my very first argument. There were no arguments that I needed to answer.
C2. a. I already answered this argument in the last round so this will be counted as a drop by Con. The point defaults to Pro.
C2. b. i. Again, this will count as a drop by Con, as he did not attack this point whatsoever.
C2. b. ii. Con also dropped my racism kritik here. This point defaults to Pro because of the drop. The point was that Con was posing racist comments towards Afghanistan.
C2. c. Con drops the actual argument here, again. This point will default to Pro. The point of this argument was to prove that the vote must go to Pro because of the ill-framed resolution. By arguing semantics I proved that I win this debate if I prove that this theory is real. Because Con conceded this, and I have proved my side of the resolution true, I win this debate.
C3. Con has not taken this debate seriously. By dropping both of my contentions, we can see that Con thinks that this is a one-sided debate in the sense that he assumes he will win even if he drops my case. My argument here is that because of Con's initial reason for instantiating this debate, which can be assumed to be simply for a win, and not a true debate, the debate defaults to Pro. Con also poses no evidence anywhere. Because we are arguing a theory, Con must pose evidence to prove that it is not true, however Pro does not have to.
For all of these reasons, please vote Pro in this debate.
Con has no evidence the government did this making your point no higher than mine. Also I don't believe so if it could be proved than they would die also remember the government isn't just mindless monsters they are people to they have emotions and morals do you think you could kill all of those people in cold blood for no reason but to make a point?
2. We knew terrorist attacks were possible Osama bin Laden had done it before just never on such a large scale we knew they could do it our government wouldn't need to kill 4,000 people to tell us something we all ready know.
That is a completely different state of mind no American in their right mind believes that killing thousands of them will help the nation.
3. The true Americans did not take the plane down for anyone who has seen anything on United 93 knows when the plane went down they were fighting the hijackers for control of the cockpit the terrorists pointed the plane at the ground while the Americans were trying to break in they didn't have control yet also the point of me saying this was to explain what the last few minutes of these peoples lives were like and to show that you claim the government that is sworn to protect them knowing what they were doing did that I believe it is wrong
C1. I meant in part two
C2. a. you answered nothing why would they blame it on Osama bin Laden if they were after oil Osama was in Afghanistan which has no oil?
C2. b. i. I guess Pro don't understand how to answer the question.
C2. b. ii. How can you be racist against geography all I said is that their would be no point in taking the land because their is no resources I said nothing about the people.
C2. c./C3. Obviously Pro does not know how to respond and is trying to make me seem dumb so he will get the vote as you have seen I have made my point Pro just can't understand.
Please vote Con.
1. I responded to every question that Con posted, he uses this argument as a time suck and distracts the debate and contention from it's original purpose.
You can cross apply my argument in C3 that I need not provide evidence because I am debating that a theory is true, Con needs to provide evidence to prove this theory false. Therefor, my points do stand strong. Even if this is not the case, Con poses this argument in the last round and it will be thrown out. Besides, it's in true human nature that someone, or a group of someones will go to whatever length they can to get what the need. Our nation needs to be on high end alert that a terrorist attack is possible and probable, this is the point to where the government would go to reach what they felt we needed.
2. Yes, we know they were possible, but the security of the nation was by far not up to the caliber they are now. Think about it, if someone tried to bring a bomb onto a plane now, there is a much less chance that they will be caught than they would have before 9.11.2001.
Con creates an unfair idealistic scenario in which "no American in their right mind believe that killing thousands of them will help the nation." First off, considering he doesn't pose an explanation as to who "they are" I can easily make the argument that killing thousands of our enemies could be seen as helping the nation. However, I will stick to Con's initial point that he wants us to assume that he meant other Americans. As I've already said, some Americans are patriotic to the point that they will go to any length to protect the country as a whole. Con seems to love arguing numbers, so I have one for him. 0.00001278% of the entire United States population died in that event, clearly this is a very small sacrifice to strengthen our entire nations defense.
3. Con completely transforms this contention to something different, but I suppose I will have to argue this. Con claims that he believes it is wrong for the government to have known what the passengers in the plane would have done. However, the government would not have known what they would have done. You cannot automatically claim to know what humans will do. Just like I don't know what my neighbor would do if my house caught fire, the government would not know what the passengers on the plane would do. My point also still stands that in the previous round Con only contradicted himself with his patriotism point.
The initial point of this contention was about the attack on the pentagon. I will revert back to this as my opponent has dropped his own contention and replaced it with another. I automatically win this point because Con dropped it along the way, transforming it into something totally different. The attack on the government itself would have proved the case that it was a terrorist attack, and lead people away from the suspicion of the conspiracy theory.
C1. Yet again, I answered everything Con asked me. The voters can see this clearly, even if Con can't. There was no point that Con made that I left unanswered in that round.
C2. a. Con's initial statement: "But why blame it on one in Afghanistan when many believers of the theory believe it was a cover up for a invasion of Iraq for oil" The framing of this question is simple, so I will reword it. "Why blame Bin Ladin if so many people believe it was an invasion for oil?" This question does not help Con's case at all. I answered exactly in the way that it asked me to. It asked me to justify why Osama would be blamed. I answer this, and then Con dropped it. In Con's last argument he changes it to say something completely different. Answering the question about Osama along gives me the win on this point. Osama Bin Ladin was an easy blame because he was a well-known terrorist. Not every move in a game of chess is used to achieve a single goal. This can be applied to this theory. Even if the government did blame Bin Ladin, this did not have to be a step in obtaining the oil. This could easily have been a side step to get rid of the conspiracy theory.
C2. b. i. Con makes waste of the original point of this sub-point. He dropped it last round, I will extend the argument initially here that "Apparently, according to Con, it is a fact that we blamed Bin Ladin so we could attack Afghanistan and invade Iraq. This is completely false. This was obviously not the intention of the government. Con needs to look up on his history before he can make this argument because it is not true that we "invaded" because of Con's reasoning." As I just stated, this was a side step, not in the direct path to invading Iraq or obtaining oil. This point defaults Pro.
C2. b. ii. I ran a racism kritik on his wording in the sense of calling Afghanistan a worthless country implies that not only the land, but the people are worthless. If Con had claimed that "the land is worthless," this would not be the case. Besides, even if this was Con's initial point, Afghanistan is not a worthless country for resources.
"Afghanistan, often dismissed in the West as an impoverished and failed state, is sitting on $1 trillion of untapped minerals, according to new calculations from surveys conducted jointly by the Pentagon and the US Geological Survey.
The sheer size of the deposits – including copper, gold, iron and cobalt as well as vast amounts of lithium, a key component in batteries of Western lifestyle staples such as laptops and BlackBerrys – holds out the possibility that Afghanistan, ravaged by decades of conflict, might become one of the most important and lucrative centres of mining in the world." [http://www.independent.co.uk...]
C2. c. Con claims that I can't understand his point, when really he cannot understand mine. He agreed that the 9.11 Conspiracy Theory is real, and theory, winning me the debate by being true to my side of the resolution. The resolution being "9/11 Conspiracy Theory." I win because the Pro side can be assumed to have to take the side of proving this theory is real. My point was that even if I lose on every single point in this debate but this one, I still win the debate as a whole as I have proved this form of the resolution in my favor. It was a semantics argument, and Con did not say I could not run semantics.
I will provide some voters:
1. Con ultimately dropped my entire case.
2. Con dropped his own case by transforming every point into something entirely different, even in the last round where it is strictly unfair to pose new arguments.
3. S/G is a vote to Pro automatically.
4. Sources to Pro, as Pro was the only side that provided any sources.
5. Arguments to Pro for attacking everything that was presented, as Con did not do the same.
For all of the reasons listed above, please vote Pro in today's debate.
I would also like to thank Con for debating this topic with me, I found it quite an interesting and educational debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by vmpire321 4 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||1||4|
Reasons for voting decision: Lol. S/G goes to pro, because I spotted more errors within Con's writing. Furthermore, Con concedes the fact that it is indeed a "theory" which proves the resolution.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.