The Instigator
DucoNihilum
Con (against)
Winning
27 Points
The Contender
sccrplyr40
Pro (for)
Losing
9 Points

9/11 was an 'inside' job, done by the government of the United States.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/9/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,997 times Debate No: 2504
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (12)
Votes (12)

 

DucoNihilum

Con

As this is a five round debate, I think I have some room for a simple opening argument. I have tried to follow the conspiracy theories as much as possible, and I have yet to come across one that really made sense when examined carefully.
sccrplyr40

Pro

Thank you DucoNihilum for posting this debate.

This should be fun because they real reason 9-11 happened was because of our presence in the Middle East. Al-Queda warned us to get out of the Middle East before 9-11 happened. We did not leave, therefore they bombed one of our ships in the Indian Ocean. They followed that up by telling us to get out again, and we didn't comply, so they hit the Trade Centers and the Pentagon and were going for the White House but crashed in Pennsylvania.

There is NO way that the United States Government would kill over 3,000 of its own citizens. No matter how horrible they are in office, it just wouldn't happen.

I look forward to how you think otherwise.

sccrplyr40
Debate Round No. 1
DucoNihilum

Con

I don't think otherwise, I took the con position.

The topic of the debate is "9/11 was an 'inside' job, done by the government of the United States."

I oppose such a view, and as you can clearly see I am "Con" and you are "Pro"

You must prove that 9/11 was an 'inside' job, done by the government of the United States.

Sounds like a simple mistake to me, it's late at night, etc etc.
sccrplyr40

Pro

D*** It!!! lol pardon my language...Yes, it was a very late night, and I now realize what position I have taken. I can't believe I did that. I thought you were insane for posting this topic but apparently I'm now the crazy one on the crazy side. I propose that everyone reading disreagards my first post in this debate. Now I guess I must try and convice the others reading this that it WAS an inside job huh? crap...well here goes...

The Bush Administration made 9-11 happen and knew about it before it even happened and here is why:

1.) They wanted an Excuse for going into the middle east and capturing oil refineries so they could get richer (since we all know the Bush family are oil tycoons)

2.) They figured it would be easy to convince the American public of the connection between Iraq and Afghanistan and therefore made the attack happen so that they could overthrow a dictator they didnt like (saddam)

3.) They could inflict fear into Americans so they could be re elected

4.) They wanted to expand our empire to the middle east

5.) Bush actually hates america and wanted to destroy it as much as possible...by attacking on 9-11, he was able to kill 3,000 people and blame it on someone else, start a war and send our economy down the tubes, and kill american soldiers fighting for a cause they thought was important when Bush really has a 'secret' agenda.

Let's pretend that first round didn't happen shall we? please?
Debate Round No. 2
DucoNihilum

Con

Well, I have to admit I find it rather unorthodox to actually continue this debate you personally find to be absolutely wrong, and figured you would concede due to this error....

But if you choose to continue this debate, so shall I.

Bush did not need 9/11 as an excuse to go into Iraq- he could have simply used weapons of mass destruction as his 'excuse'. There would be no reason for such a massive attack, when (playing devils advocate) he could just make up some stories about Iraq having WMDs.

Bush has no reason to 'hate' America, and if he were to do that he could do it easier by just harming us though his executive level rather than going to the point of random attacks on our country.

You've yet to counter anything in the official report, or propose how exactly Bush did this.
sccrplyr40

Pro

"Bush did not need 9/11 as an excuse to go into Iraq- he could have simply used weapons of mass destruction as his 'excuse'. There would be no reason for such a massive attack, when (playing devils advocate) he could just make up some stories about Iraq having WMDs."

-Bush could have simply used WMD's, but instead he wanted to be sneaky. Therefore he made up stories so that the American people wouldn't think he had something to do with 9-11.

"Bush has no reason to 'hate' America, and if he were to do that he could do it easier by just harming us though his executive level rather than going to the point of random attacks on our country."

-Again, you underestimate his 'sneakyness' (not to quote Mr. deeds at all). He wants to make the people think he isnt hurting them and instead is completing his Mission: hatred america mission through (partially) an attack on america (9-11)

You say I am yet to quote the 'official' report. How can it be official if he was behind the attacks? He simply altered the whole report. (there's your executive power that he is using)

I would now like to speak to those who will be voting on this issue. Vote for who argued there point better in all rounds excluding round 1, not on what position you hold. Thank you
Debate Round No. 3
DucoNihilum

Con

This is stupid.

You should have just quit- its very clear that you aren't putting any real effort into this debate as you yourself called the view 'crazy'.

You're just coming up with 'crazy' views to support your argument- views that you can not even convince yourself of.

You're not showing any proof that 9/11 was an 'inside job', but rather speculating as to the intentions of GWB. You have not shown how Bush could have possibly done this.

Perhaps, to win this debate, YOU personally did these attacks! Perhaps YOU attacked us! Maybe you just hate America THAT much.

These arguments are silly.
sccrplyr40

Pro

First off, I never give up.

Second, your not giving any proof that it wasn't an inside joob.

And to say that I 'hate' America "that" much is completely absurd. I hate Bush, yes. America, absolutely not.

Bush wanted to secretly attack america because he hates us. Plain and simple.
Debate Round No. 4
DucoNihilum

Con

It's not my duty to prove otherwise. I'm con.

You're pro.

To the voters- paying attention to the first and second rounds, it is quite obvious my opponent is not serious about this debate- he called me crazy for what he later found out was what he had to argue, in fact, he argued that it would be insane to support..... what he eventually did.

He somehow managed to actually try this debate- in a very half assed way, he failed to show any real evidence that Bush was at all involved in 9/11 and just suggested that he perhaps doesn't like the US, which was obviously a false argument to begin with and was just silly. He failed to prove his proposition, thus I win. I do not need to provide negative proof.
sccrplyr40

Pro

There is no hard core proof of either side, it is all speculation. Therefore by proposing this debate, you could have said I am only speculating on the conspiracy that Bush hates America and you would've won. That is simply an unfair debate. Having said that, Bush does secretly hate America or he would not have done the following things:

1.) Created the "Patriot Act"
2.) Went into Iraq when he knew there weren't WMD and then refuse to remove our troops, causing part of our downfall in the economy and our multi-trillion dollar debt
3.) Signed the Economic Stimulus Plan which basically borrowed money from China only to help Americans get $600 out of their own personal debt
4.) Cut the health care benefits of our own war veterans
5.) Created the no child left behind act which rewards teachers and their corresponding states for having their students do 'better' (aka cheat) on tests to receive funding from the Federal government, while honest teachers whose students may not do as well are 'punished' because e they didn't meet expectations and therefore receive NONE or little funding to actually help the students succeed
6.) Withdrew the USA from sections of the UN and breached the United Nations code of intervening without their consent.
7.) Created the most divided US since the Civil War era.

Those are 7 things he has done in office along with many others that I don't feel I need to bring up. What is one more possibility that could have happened? 9-11.

Bush WAS involved in 9-11.

Ever remember hearing the story of what he was doing when the planes hit? He was reading a book to a bunch of elementary kids.

Did you hear how long it took him to respond (leave the room)? Longer than 5 minutes (I believe the actual time was around 7 minutes).

When he finally left the room, he still didn't do much. In fact, I don't know of ONE thing he actually did to help at ground zero. Fire halls, police stations, and volunteers all come together without the authority of someone else telling them how to help. They just help.

Bush could have been behind the attacks on 9-11 because he does hate America (which I just provided multiple examples of). There is absolutely NO way to prove he was behind them or not, therefore this debate should end up in a default tie because neither side is able to prove the other wrong. However, I realize the voters are probably going to read my first post and vote con because I took the wrong side at the beginning. I urge you all to actually take into consideration my proposal to negate Round 1 of this debate in order to make it interesting.

After looking at this opposite side of this debate, I have actually realized that Bush could have been partially responsible for 9-11 (he is for sure if you consider the breach in airport security, and lack of communication between the FBI and CIA, which the president is ultimately responsible for).

Having said this, I actually have been serious about this debate from Round 1 on. You can call me 'crazy' or 'insane', but overall, I believe I effectively argued this side of the issue. My opponent should not win by a default mistake but rather who argued their case better. I dug a deep hole to begin with but i think I buried him in it with this last post. Thank you to all who have read this entire debate and voted for the person who debated their case best. sccrplyr40
Debate Round No. 5
12 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by sccrplyr40 9 years ago
sccrplyr40
dear 'the consevative' this is not about what you think, its about who debates better, therefore the point of view shouldnt matter one bit...u can believe whatever the hell you want, i dont care...just vote for the winner
Posted by blond_guy 9 years ago
blond_guy
word up doctafly
25 characters
Posted by DucoNihilum 9 years ago
DucoNihilum
Pro didn't even believe what he was saying.
Posted by DoctaFly 9 years ago
DoctaFly
Conspiracy whackjobs can suckle my big fat throbbing grassy knoll.

Ya HEAR?
Posted by the_conservative 9 years ago
the_conservative
"left wing nut job bill clinton" not that i like him but he ran as a moderate conservative ........so yeah
Posted by griffinisright 9 years ago
griffinisright
I think pro is a paranoid mess... Not even the left wing nut job bill clinton believes 9/11 was an inside job. You need to stop believing everything Michael idiot Moore spoon feeds you. He is an actor! Don't you get it he pretends to be someone else for a living. In his world its called acting in my world its called Schizophrenia. Good debate Con you win!
Posted by the_conservative 9 years ago
the_conservative
i like when people say that this was an inside job. How un-American and unpatriotic could you be to say that? I mean ....if you say that go join Al-Qaeda or the Taliban becasue America does not want you. You can believe in your little conspiracy theories and be a loner but i know that 19 middle east arabs attacked the twin towers and pentagon and camp david so die now please
Posted by sccrplyr40 9 years ago
sccrplyr40
hey at least you support the right person for president! Ron Paul all the way baby!!! too bad he's basically out of the race now though.
Posted by DucoNihilum 9 years ago
DucoNihilum
Well, I said that assuming you would be conceding.

Take as long as you want now.
Posted by sccrplyr40 9 years ago
sccrplyr40
I shall make my arguements as quickly as i can. Usually takes only a day. I might as well try to earn some votes, therefore i continue
12 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by sluggerjal 9 years ago
sluggerjal
DucoNihilumsccrplyr40Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 
Vote Placed by floydington25 9 years ago
floydington25
DucoNihilumsccrplyr40Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 
Vote Placed by blond_guy 9 years ago
blond_guy
DucoNihilumsccrplyr40Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 
Vote Placed by polka-dots323 9 years ago
polka-dots323
DucoNihilumsccrplyr40Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 
Vote Placed by Garibovic7 9 years ago
Garibovic7
DucoNihilumsccrplyr40Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 
Vote Placed by skiies23 9 years ago
skiies23
DucoNihilumsccrplyr40Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 
Vote Placed by griffinisright 9 years ago
griffinisright
DucoNihilumsccrplyr40Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 
Vote Placed by the_conservative 9 years ago
the_conservative
DucoNihilumsccrplyr40Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 
Vote Placed by Korezaan 9 years ago
Korezaan
DucoNihilumsccrplyr40Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 
Vote Placed by kels1123 9 years ago
kels1123
DucoNihilumsccrplyr40Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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