The Instigator
Ghassen
Pro (for)
Losing
4 Points
The Contender
lannan13
Con (against)
Winning
27 Points

Al Quaida" was made by Acme Corporation

Do you like this debate?NoYes-2
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 5 votes the winner is...
lannan13
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/17/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,548 times Debate No: 29305
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (5)

 

Ghassen

Pro

Hello
Well I am not here to talk neither about Illuminiati nor about 'Tim Osman ' or any secret society , since nowadays everybody know that the NATO the Western intelligence agencies , and their allies such as Qatar and Saudi Arabia , supported and are till supporting Islamic fanaticism and sectarianism in Lybia , Syria and in the Middle east in General .For this reason I believe that 'Al Quaida' is nothing but a product of 'Acme Corporation ' ,by this 'funny' sentence , I just want show the the western roots of Islamic fanaticism..
lannan13

Con

First off lets look at the ACME Corporation. http://www.acmecorp.com..., According to this link ACME is actualy a furnater company so lets see how Al Quaida was made. http://www.cfr.org..., Al Quaida was made inorder to protect Afghanistan from invasion of the Soviet Union, so therefore it couldn't have been made by ACME. Response?
Debate Round No. 1
Ghassen

Pro

First of all thank you for accpeting the challenge .
Sorry brother , but I think you missunderstood what I mean , clearly i was referring to the fictional corporation that features prominently in the Road Runner/Wile E. Coyote cartoons as a running gag featuring outlandish products that fail catastrophically at the worst possible times.(1)
I mentioned that it was a 'funny' way to express my opinion , so do not take things literally.Moreover , you said it was made to ' protect Afghanistan from the Sovier Union',and I think it's a good point to start with ,The soviet union wasn't it the enemy number one of the West and the Us especially ? ,I think that we have to foccus on this period to point out the support of the CIA and the US to AlQaida and Osama Ben Laden (Tim Osman).
Looking forward to your response.
(1):http://en.wikipedia.org...
lannan13

Con

Okay my bad on that part.
My opponet on this part is mistaken Afghanistan was netrual and the USSR invaded Afghanistan in 1989 thus bringing them to the Allies side. http://www.britannica.com... don't disagree that the CIA didn't support Al-Quaida during this time.

Lets go and disect this debate.
The ACME company is from Lunny Toons, as a matter of fact Wile E. Coyote sues the ACME company http://www.lectlaw.com... my opponet says that it's fictional. Lets define fiction, fiction is the class of literature comprising works of imaginative narration,especially in prose form. http://dictionary.reference.com...
Now we will look to see if Al-Quiada is a work of imagination. One of the most notable acts by Al-Quaida is 9-11, but did 9-11 happen? Huh, according to this article it was http://channel.nationalgeographic.com... something real can't spur from something not real.

Debate Round No. 2
Ghassen

Pro

Would please stick to the point brother , the ct of the debate is whether the Islamic fanaticism is supported by the West and the US or no , and it's not about ACME or ... So would you stick to the point please , about the fiction , I think that it's obvious as the US and the NATO declared 'the war against terrorism ' since 2001 , when they supported and they keep supporting this terrorism as I said in Lybia and Syria to acheive the geopolitical goals . Brother you accepted this debate as 'Con' which are against the idea that the west is supporting Islamic fanaticism , although you said 'don't disagree that the CIA didn't support Al-Quaida during this time. ' , i think you are here to disagree this idea , not to give us the definition of the word fiction ..
Thank you
lannan13

Con

I would like to point out the title of today's debate, "Al Quaida" was made by Acme Corporation," thus meaning that this debate was suppose to be about weather or not Al Quaida was made by ACME Corportation not weather or not the CIA supported Al Quaida, if that was the case that should have been the title. Extend all arguments and vote Con.
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by Azul145 4 years ago
Azul145
Apologize for the errors in rfd my keyboard is giving me crap.
Posted by lannan13 4 years ago
lannan13
120th debate : )
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by Mangani 4 years ago
Mangani
Ghassenlannan13Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:41 
Reasons for voting decision: I believe Pro has been unfairly penalized for Con's semantic argument. Pro made a clear enough argument that his reference to ACME Corp. was in jest, and a way to say the group was formed through synthetic means, rather than through natural occurrence. Pro argued that Al Qaeda was formed with Western influence, and for Western influence. Though this is not true (the Mujaheddin were formed with Western influence and backing- Al Qaeda was formed as a response to Saudi Arabia's choice of the US for homeland defense assistance rather than the Mujaheddin), Con did not argue against this point. I believe if you are an honest judges, Pro would be winning this debate.
Vote Placed by Deadlykris 4 years ago
Deadlykris
Ghassenlannan13Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro had no argument, poor grammar, attempted to redefine the debate at the last moment, and used no reliable sources.
Vote Placed by Azul145 4 years ago
Azul145
Ghassenlannan13Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro you are an idiot to even attempt to debate this. Con was going to win since the start. Pro provided no evidence or sources or his assumption and failed at thos debate.
Vote Placed by Citrakayah 4 years ago
Citrakayah
Ghassenlannan13Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Really, this is an embarrassing debate. And should be keelhauled.
Vote Placed by likespeace 4 years ago
likespeace
Ghassenlannan13Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Ghasen provided no evidence Al Quaeda was made by the Acme corporation.. nor for his later claims that the CIA funded Al Quaeda. Whether or not these things are true, one must provide evidence in support of their claims, and Pro had the burden of proof. I will deduct conduct points from Pro for attempting to change the terms of the debate, and give sources points to Pro for providing a wealth of reliable sources.