The Instigator
scorpionclone
Con (against)
Losing
15 Points
The Contender
beem0r
Pro (for)
Winning
30 Points

9/11 was an inside job

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: 5/14/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,189 times Debate No: 4029
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (5)
Votes (15)

 

scorpionclone

Con

I thank my opponent for taking on an argument that is really a slam dunk case for the con

It is quite obvious that America came under attack by terrorist forces on September 11, 2001. This attack was perpetrated by outside foes opposed to our very way of life. We were attacked because we're rich and we're free and the Islamic Fascists, namely Osama Bin Laden and his cohorts want to see our beloved nation detroyed by fire and an improvised nuclear device. Anyone who thinks that someone other than the terrorists committed these hateful acts of aggression should be labeled a conspiracy theorist and sent to Guantanamo.

Many times over the decades, the U.S. Government has been accused of perpetrating attacks on itself, letting other nations knowlingly attack it and did nothing. In addition the U.S. government has been accused of perpetrating coups in Cuba, Venezuela, Russia, and other places. While some of these arguments have some weight to them, they in no way reflect the truth about what might have occurred but only theories thrown out by conspiracy buffs who earn a living by fearmongering the fringes of your society.

The United States is probably one of the most benevolent nations that has ever existed. All we get for our knodness to other nations is a slap in the face. Examples would be all the moneyand aid we have given Russia to secure thier Nuclear Weapons, and help thier economy when it collapsed at the fall of the cold war. We could have marched into thier country and taken whatever we wanted but instead we chose to do the right thing, amd help that nation in a very weak point in their history. did we get a thank you? No Where are they when we need help, they are threatening us.

China, we opened up trade to that country and gave them a future, how did we get repayed, by threatening us and Taiwan.

Mexico, they hate us, used us up and now left us for dead,

I can keep going, how about Germany, hate us, for rebuilding thier country.

If anything we should look at these countries as adversaries who had better means based on their ungratefulness to attack us with the terrorists.

I'll stop there and let my opponent respond.
beem0r

Pro

First, I will respond to all the statements made by CON that are simply untrue or presumptuous.

>>>>>"This attack was perpetrated by outside foes opposed to our very way of life. We were attacked because we're rich and we're free and the Islamic Fascists, namely Osama Bin Laden and his cohorts want to see our beloved nation detroyed by fire and an improvised nuclear device."<<<<<

First of all, if we were attacked by terrorists, it is not because we are free and rich. The terrorists indeed told us why they attacked us. They attacked us because of specific foreign policies, which they found disagreeable. They're not just freedom-hating barbarians, they were upset because of problems we were causing in their region.

>>>>>"Anyone who thinks that someone other than the terrorists committed these hateful acts of aggression should be labeled a conspiracy theorist and sent to Guantanamo."<<<<<

I know many people who think this. Perhaps they should be labeled conspiracy theorists, or at least be called gullible, but they should not be sent to Guantanamo. Where's that part you said abuot the US being such a free nation now? We allow people to think whatever they want, and that includes thinking badly of the government.

>>>>>"Many times over the decades [...] your society"<<<<<

Irrelevant to the point at hand.

>>>>>"The US is probably one of the most [...] threatening us"<<<<<

Also irrelevant.

>>>>>"China [...] opponent respond"<<<<<

Once again, has nothing at all to do with 9/11.

See how my opponent has not substantiated his position at all?

Now, on to my case.

9/11 was indeed an inside job. By 9/11, it is clear that my opponent means the terrorist attacks of 9/11.

I'll go ahead and define "Job."

There are many definitions for the word Job. Here's the most valid one:

"2 a: something done for private advantage b: a criminal enterprise; specifically : robbery c: a damaging or destructive bit of work "

Source: Merriam-Webster

Definition 2b does not really fit, since it is referring specifically to robbery. However, the other two definitions here work.

Next, inside.

It's the adjective version, based on the usage.

"2 a: relating or known to a select group "

Source: Merriam-Webster

9/11 was definitely a damaging or destructive bit of work known to a select group. The select group? Whatever group formulated the plan, which was probably Al-Quaeda, not that that matters in this debate. Heck, they might have even gotten word out early, and notified another select group, which would

An inside job does not mean it is a job done by the US government. I've shown the definitions and shown how the terrorist attacks of 9/11 were definitely an inside job.

I challenge my opponent to now show me otherwise.
Debate Round No. 1
scorpionclone

Con

"First of all, if we were attacked by terrorists, it is not because we are free and rich. The terrorists indeed told us why they attacked us. They attacked us because of specific foreign policies, which they found disagreeable. They're not just freedom-hating barbarians, they were upset because of problems we were causing in their region"

-This only begs the question. How were we able to do all these foreign policy decisions that these terrorists disagreed with if not for our resources like money that enables the United States government to have a global reach. They weren't complaining when we provided the money and weapons to oust the Soviets from thier country. So this argument is not entirely accurate. Without the money and riches that we have we would have been unable to make whatever foreign policy decision that you failed to describe which supposedly upset these terrorists. Regardless, the terrorists are the ones who committed these acts.

"I know many people who think this. Perhaps they should be labeled conspiracy theorists, or at least be called gullible, but they should not be sent to Guantanamo. Where's that part you said abuot the US being such a free nation now? We allow people to think whatever they want, and that includes thinking badly of the government."

-But in fact, if you support your country the Patriot Act I & II along with the Home Grown Terrorism act plainly state that persons inside the United States who criticize the Governement and it's policies during a time of War can be classisfied as enemy combatants, and ultimately lose their citizenship. They will be sent to Guantanamo and/or similar facility. If you recall, Japanese Americans underwent a similar experience in WWII and were put into internment camps by Roosevelt because they were deemed a threat to the war effort.

So call it rude and unpleasant but it's the law.

"9/11 was definitely a damaging or destructive bit of work known to a select group. The select group? Whatever group formulated the plan, which was probably Al-Quaeda, not that that matters in this debate. Heck, they might have even gotten word out early, and notified another select group, which would"

-In trying to argue against this point it is difficult to take the other side of the debate when you agree with my position. You beleive the terrorist namely Osama Bin Laden attacked the United States on September 11, 2001. If you beleive this then you cannot win the argument simply by semantics alone.

The bin laden group might have done a job as you have so narrowly tried to show, but in no way is this terror group considered an insider of the governemt.

The audience knows ful well what is meant by the term 9/11. For yo to treat the audience as thought they have been living under a rock for the last 7 years is an insult to their intelligence.

To claim that the bin laden attacks or the suspect in the 9/11 attacks was an insider is to admit that you beleive that the attackers were working for the government,

"Heck, they might have even gotten word out early, and notified another select group, which would

"An inside job does not mean it is a job done by the US government. I've shown the definitions and shown how the terrorist attacks of 9/11 were definitely an inside job."

Next, inside.

It's the adjective version, based on the usage.

"2 a: relating or known to a select group "

- Al Qeada fails to meet this criteria of being an insider. They do not work for the government. Without accurately making the connection with this word you have failed in your argument.

Again your arguing that the terrorists did an inside job on the united states. How does that work without implying that the terrorists or Al Queada are working for the government.

Ok so Al Qeada, working for the U.S. Government commited the inside job on 9/11 ok got it.

Sadly this furthers my point when I talk about the "blame America first" crowd. My opponent admits that he beleives the terrorists who attacked our nation on 9/11 were insiders working for the US government. He also goes on to say that the government had been told ahead of time about these attacks and did nothing.

This is why I believe that many people who refuse to see the truth are the reason why the United States doesn't have the support to fight and win wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Thereby avenging the deaths of our fellow citizens.

If you think that the terrorists were working for the government you have failed to prove that theory. All you have proven is that you have some pretty interesting theories that you probably shouldn't share with your local FBI office. We'll just keep this one on the low.
beem0r

Pro

Well, it seems the only point of conflict here is whether Al Quaeda could do an inside job on the US.

I gave the defintion of inside:

"2 a: relating or known to a select group "

And my opponent simply decided that the select group HAS TO BE the US Government. However, he gave no reason for this. To perform an inside job, by this definition, they just have to poerform a job that is known to a select group. Since I am the one affirming the resolution, I choose to affirm it by selecting Al Quaeda as the select group.

It was an inside job, just not in the sense that most conspiracy theorists mean it.

Also, if we want to define the US gov as the "select group" in the definition, let's take another look.
"RELATING or known to a select group"

Even if the US government didn't KNOW about the 9/11 terrorist attacks, it's clear that the 9/11 terrorist attacks were very much RELATED to the US gov.

So I've affirmed the resolution in two ways. We can use Al Quaeda as the select group - 9/11 was related AND known to them [I guess that's already two ways, so it's 3]. Or we can use the US gov as the select group - since 9/11 and the US gov are very much related.
Debate Round No. 2
scorpionclone

Con

<<"Well, it seems the only point of conflict here is whether Al Quaeda could do an inside job on the US.">>

I gave the defintion of inside:

"2 a: relating or known to a select group (What does this have to do with Al Qaeda attacking the U.S. a sworn enemy of the U.S. government)

-This definition is not even combatible with your argument. You have to prove that Al Qaeda is an insider of the government, a member of the government, to make your argument make any sense.

in�sid�er An accepted member of a group.

Al Qaeda is not an accepted member of the US. government. You would be right if you said that Al Qaeda committed a terrorist act inside American soil. But that still wouldn't prove that the government committed the act making it an "Inside Job" as described in my argument.

inside: a select or inner circle of power, prestige, etc.: a man on the inside.

inside: acting, employed, done, or originating within a building or place(AL QAEDA WORKS FOR THE U.S. GOVERNMENT????)

Maybe you don't understand the point of this debate. 9/11 (September 11, 2001) was not an inside job(meaning the U.S. government is not responsible nor did they commit, take part in, have knowledge of). Rather the terrorists who are not members of our government committed these attacks (flew planes in to the world trade center, pentagon, and crashed a plane in Pennsylvania).

The argument is: "This attack was perpetrated by outside foes"

You agree with this. you said:

<<...Whatever group formulated the plan, which was probably Al-Quaeda...>>

-You haven't shown anything, but only agreed that terrorists committed the attacks on 9/11. Your narrow definition of "inside" sounds like a Clintesque "well it depends on what the definition of is, is?"

Let's debate the point of contention if there is any, since you agree with my position, not debate the dictionary. Besides,I could not find the definition you gave any where in several different dictionaries, and online resources.
beem0r

Pro

My opponent has changed the entire resolution. I have shown a way in which the 9/11 attacks were an inside job. HOWEVER, now my opponent wants me to prove that the 9/11 terrorist attacks were planned by US government insiders.

Insider is not the word used in the resolution.

The adjective version of "Inside" on Merriam-Webster does not include anything that means it is done or planned by insiders. I gave the most relevant of the definitions.
http://www.merriam-webster.com...

You'll have to click down to the adjective version.

You'll see that the definition I gave was the relevant one.

My opponent has not given another definition of inside, just a definition of insider. However, the definition of inside did not mention anything about "insiders."

I have given my case, hopefully people will see it for what it is.
Debate Round No. 3
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by scorpionclone 9 years ago
scorpionclone
finally somebody willing to speak truth, I actually do believe it was an inside job, but I wanted to see how many other people out there thought the similar thing, thanks for speaking up

Everone knows that steel doesn't melt at 800 degrees, don't they? Look up 9/11 mysteries on google video and it explains what really happen with real science, not junk science like on history channel
Posted by Toucan_Sam 9 years ago
Toucan_Sam
Yes those mean and nasty terrorist attacked us because we have freedom. Geez you sound just as bad as fox news.

Do you know about the Opium rings that the CIA ran, or the constant attacks on South American farmers, or the wonderful intimidation tactics that we use to get what we want regardless of the consequences. What about the installment of Osama bin Ladin or Sadem. To go around thinking that America is blameless and this innocent country is a foolish, uneducated and untrue notion that shouldn't be in your head.

America has done some awful things (like going to war in Iraq when it wasn't needed or torturing a 15 year old) read up on your history specifically the Monroe doctrine. Thats where it all starts.

I would like the government try to arrest me for having an alternative opinion about 9/11. Plus the patriot act and homegrown terrorist act are bordering close to fascism.

Oh and we did know about 9/11 before it happened. There are numerous transcripts from the intelligence community warning us of a possible attack in September. Surprise!

Whether or not it was poor planning or really an inside job remains to be seen.
Posted by The_Philosopher 9 years ago
The_Philosopher
lol. germany's hate (if there they do hate us) is not from us rebuilding them... japan loves us and we rebuilt them...
Posted by SportsGuru 9 years ago
SportsGuru
Wow. Another person who thinks that for whatever reason I am good enough to be compared to L-M and the like.
Posted by scorpionclone 9 years ago
scorpionclone
I smell some trolling going on, that was a weak argument, yet you get exactly 4 votes. Let me gues, Logical master,sports guru,Beemor, and one other alternative personality.
15 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Logical-Master 8 years ago
Logical-Master
scorpionclonebeem0rTied
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 batmanfr3ak01 9 years ago
batmanfr3ak01
scorpionclonebeem0rTied
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 GenEd 9 years ago
GenEd
scorpionclonebeem0rTied
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 HarlequinTears 9 years ago
HarlequinTears
scorpionclonebeem0rTied
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 Hypnodoc 9 years ago
Hypnodoc
scorpionclonebeem0rTied
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 Issa 9 years ago
Issa
scorpionclonebeem0rTied
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 Toucan_Sam 9 years ago
Toucan_Sam
scorpionclonebeem0rTied
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 scr3amofr3ak 9 years ago
scr3amofr3ak
scorpionclonebeem0rTied
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 inrainbows 9 years ago
inrainbows
scorpionclonebeem0rTied
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 SportsGuru 9 years ago
SportsGuru
scorpionclonebeem0rTied
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