The Instigator
JohnJohnSHTOOKAH
Con (against)
Winning
39 Points
The Contender
OhioGary
Pro (for)
Losing
36 Points

Alex Jones is rational, and should be taken seriously.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+14
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 17 votes the winner is...
JohnJohnSHTOOKAH
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/13/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 6,303 times Debate No: 29115
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (35)
Votes (17)

 

JohnJohnSHTOOKAH

Con

I'm all ears. Lets hear it.
OhioGary

Pro

I'm new to this but I'll give it my best.
Yes, I realize that I'm arguing Pro for Alex Jones and I know who he is.

Let's have a great debate!
Debate Round No. 1
JohnJohnSHTOOKAH

Con

With that I suppose we should get the show on the road.

For those of you who don't know, Alex Jones is an American talk radio host from Texas, who has made a name for himself by becoming involved with a variety of controversial topics that often if not always revolve around conspiracies towards the U.S. government.

Irrational: "Without the faculty of reason; deprived of reason."

Some of these conspiracies (there are a lot of them) Jones rants about to his listeners over the airwaves and to his very dedicated followers on the web are the fallowing..
1. 9/11 was an inside job http://www.slate.com...
2. The government is trying to encourage people to be gay (In order to fight overpopulation)

3.The Government is and has been launching a covert eugenics operation

4. The biggest one of them all.. The New World Order conspiracy.
Alex Jones believes that the world is being ran by a small elite or a composed corporate-world government, that is essentially hellbent on enslaving the earths population by secretly destroying nations' sovereignty, taking away personal freedoms under what he deems the"hoax" of terrorism, ah and to poison people with aspartame and sodium fluoride.

"It's amazing, they admit that they're establishing a global corporate government, to carry out genocide covertly through vaccines, through sodium fluoride, through sterilants like Bisphenol-A, aspartame!"- Alex Jones, New World Order: Blueprint of Madmen (18:28 on youtube if you wish to look it up)

Alex Jones plays the convincing and convenient role to many impressionable young minds over the internet by exploiting real world problems (Such as the military industrial complex, issues with "big pharma", freedom vs. security debates) and then injecting his own paranoid New World Order narrative along with them.

Now I will admit that being wrong doesn't inherently make one irrational. However in this particular case I think we could all agree that content of which Alex Jones conveys to his audience, and the implications of that content are very serious. Call me an idealist, but I wish to live in a society that denounces the kind of ridiculous paranoid nonsense Jones frequently releases over the internet via his authoritative conspiracy documentaries and his notorious two websites.

Rush Limbaugh was called a sexist and a hate monger during the whole slut remark fiasco with Sandra Fluke.
I don't see why calling a man that believes there is a "covert genocide" going on right now to be irrational, to be completely off base..

References!
1.http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk...
2.http://www.infowars.com...
3.http://www.prisonplanet.com...

For Fun.....
42 failed conspiracy predictions :)
OhioGary

Pro

I would like to thank my opponent for this debate and for the opening response.


Alex Jones is a public figure who, like Howard Stern, Glen Beck, Steven Colbert, & Rush Limbaugh, must find a way to carve out a niche in order to attract listeners. In fact, this very debate and the videos provided in Con’s opening argument prove the old adage: even bad PR is better than no PR.

While Alex Jones may make offensive statements at times, this is not proof that he lacks reason as a person. Also, I submit that we should take Mr. Jones seriously in what he says. For these reasons, you should support the resolution in its entirety by voting Pro.

Con has not proved that Alex Jones is irrational, only that Alex Jones provides controversial remarks on his radio show.

Con provides information gathered from the Alex Jones Radio Show to assert that Alex Jones as a person is deprived of reason.

But, how does Con determine that Alex Jones’ conduct crossed the line? In fact, where does such a line exist? And, how did Con come into authority to draw such a line of permissible conduct? What qualities did Alex Jones portray that now merit irrationality as judged by Con?

Con declared that Alex Jones is irrational based on Con’s instinct. We cannot allow an individual’s intuition, absent appropriate medical expertise, to become the sole and deciding factor in determining another person’s rationality. Such actions set dangerous precedents on how we treat those who hold a disagreeing viewpoint. A Pro vote aligns you with a long held standing that individuals are reasonable until proven unreasonable and that we must use logic and facts to arrive at conclusions about people.

While Con has argued that Alex Jones may say & do things in the public eye that cause some disagreement, Con has not proven that Alex Jones as a person is unreasonable. Therefore, I ask you to vote Pro on this resolution.

We should always take individuals seriously, especially when they talk about guns.

Con argues that we should not take Alex Jones seriously. I respectfully disagree. Regardless of how we view someone’s opinions, we should be mindful of what they say. Alex Jones recently said on Piers Morgan Tonight that “1776 will commence again if you try to take our firearms.” http://swampland.time.com... Such a comment should not be ignored and we should take comments like these very seriously.

Alex Jones should consider some media training. However, his TV & radio performances are not a basis to determine that he lacks the ability to reason. We do not have enough information to make a claim that Alex Jones lacks reason. We should also take Alex Jones seriously, especially when he makes comments about guns and/or violence.

I’m afraid that Con has not, nor cannot, provide sufficient evidence to refute the resolution as posted. For these reasons, you should vote Pro in all categories.

Debate Round No. 2
JohnJohnSHTOOKAH

Con


Quick Rebuttal

Alex Jones doesn't make offensive statements as much as he makes WRONG statements. Wrong statements that infer malicious intent in the manifestation of a global tyrannical government ran by bankers that are hell bent on enslaving the earth's population for really no clear reason whatsoever (They already have power and wealth according to this theory of his). His evidence for such a extraordinary claim?

A non-binding U.N. resolution adopted by 178 countries at a 1992 conference regarding the environment and international development. The content of this resolution in short was a compilation of goals and recommendations set forth in order to tackle a variety of global issues such as poverty, pollution, famine, and environmental concerns regarding sustainable development.
Sincerely nothing out of the ordinary, being that it is sort of what the U.N. does.

Jones believes this highly irrelevant U.N. resolution was essentially the blue print for the globalist's "stealth takeover".

Because as we all know, when corrupt governing organizations wish to unleash their diabolical plans upon their own people they always do so by placing said plans in full, on the Internet.

Alex Jones declares that this "stealth takeover" will be seen in the most evil light through the initiation of "covert genocide" by his fantasized sinister world government.
Now I mentioned this previously in second round, but apparently this term isn't ridiculous enough on its face to be considered irrational. From my modest understanding of what the term genocide means...
Genocide: "Thedeliberateandsystematicexterminationofanational,racial,political,orculturalgroup."
& Covert: "Concealed;secret;disguised."

I really don't see how in the 21st century this is even logistically possible. Let alone with the use of such substances like aspartame.


THIS is what makes Jones irrational and thus why he shouldn't be taken seriously in the realm of public debate.

How dare I, to have the audacity to draw such a conclusion of a man being irrational?

The Argument

It is in the mind of Alex Jones where there is no right-left paradigm in politics. There is no such thing as subjective reporting (or subjective reality for that matter), only people that are either on the side of liberty or on the side of tyranny. Jones fundamentally believes that he is an informational messiah/freedom fighter that is occasionally followed by federal agents for whatever reason his convoluted paranoid mind thinks. These are not the thoughts of a rational person. This is not a matter of a difference of opinion. Alex Jones insights conspiracy NOT controversy.

An accusation of global tyranny that conducts genocide is NOT a mere statement. It's lunacy.


Sources

Belief in being followed by federal agents:



Agenda 21: http://www.undispatch.com...
http://www.unep.org...



OhioGary

Pro

I thank my opponent for the rebuttal, but Con’s argument raises a few points to consider:

Con changed his mind about what counts as irrational from R2 to R3.

My opponent began to discuss that Alex Jones is irrational because he makes wrong statements. In R2, Con defined irrational as:

“Irrational: ‘Without the faculty of reason; deprived of reason.’”
(Con – Round 2 Arguments)


In R2, Con never said that being wrong means being irrational. However, in R3, Con now argues that making wrong statements in and of itself is cause for irrationality.

In other words, Con is now debating himself about what constitutes irrationality.

We can’t trust Con’s moving goal post to determine if someone lacks logic and reason. A Pro vote signifies stability and consistency in thought.

Being wrong just means being wrong. Wrong does not mean irrational.

Being wrong does not mean anything else other than being wrong.

History has given us many people who were wrong. For instance, Western Union nixed Alexander Graham Bell’s telephone saying:

"We do not see that this device will be ever capable of sending recognizable speech over a distance of several miles. Hubbard and Bell want to install one of their telephone devices in every city. The idea is idiotic on the face of it. Furthermore, why would any person want to use this ungainly and impractical device when he can send a messenger to the telegraph office and have a clear written message sent to any large city in the United States?.. ignoring the obvious limitations of his device, which is hardly more than a toy. This device is inherently of no use to us. We do not recommend its purchase." http://inventors.about.com...

Are we to determine that the officers of Western Union lacked the ability to reason simply because they were wrong? No. Being wrong just means being wrong. Wrong does not mean irrational.

It’s alleged that in 1943, Thomas Watson of IBM thought that there would be a world market for approximately 5 computers in total. To show you how wrong such a statement is, we are using more than 5 computers just to facilitate this online debate and I have three computers in my own house.
http://inventors.about.com...

If Thomas Watson said that there was a world market for 5 computers, then he was wrong. Does that mean he lacked reason? No. Being wrong just means being wrong. Wrong does not mean irrational.

Contrary to Con’s argument, being wrong does not mean that someone lacks reason. It just means that someone is wrong.

A Pro vote signifies that being wrong is not proof to determine that someone is irrational and should not be taken seriously.

We cannot start accusing someone of being irrational simply because they are wrong or because we do not agree with what they say.

A Pro vote stops the whimsical & subjective slippery-slope proposed by Con and states that no substitute exists for facts, evidence, and logic.

Debate Round No. 3
JohnJohnSHTOOKAH

Con


"Now I will admit that being wrong doesn't inherently make one irrational. However in this particular case I think we could all agree that content of which Alex Jones conveys to his audience, and the implications of that content are very serious..." - Me, r2.

I fail to see the confusion.


Note that we are here in the fourth and final round of this debate and my opponent has yet to defend Alex Jones's statements or his non-existence as a rational human being. Outside of the essential threat (another irrational behavior) Jones gave Piers Morgan on his show, Pro cited (One of the two instances I've listed where Jones believes he was followed by federal agents) in his opening argument, he has been completely silent about Alex Jones. Instead of defending the conspiracy theorist, Pro has taken the high road and thought it would be a more convenient of a position to attack my logic and overall ability to make judgements about others.

Yes, this may come of a surprise to my opponent but people frequently make assertions about one another based upon the things people say and do. "We cannot allow an individual’s intuition, absent appropriate medical expertise, to become the sole and deciding factor in determining another person’s rationality."- Pro, R2.

No.. I do not need nor should I have an M.D. to be able to hear someone who says irrational things like "If they get their plan fully in, say 10 years after its in place, you'll probably have a 150 million people left in the country and they're (the government) gunna repopulate the U.S. with Latin Americans." and infer that said someone may just be an irrational person. Keep in mind I never made the claim that Jones possess some sort of mental illness, I merely am making the judgement based off of what the man says, does and believes is in fact the statements, actions, and thoughts of an irrational person.

Seems to me that Pro recognizes the kind of nonsense Jones constantly offers the country and looks at it understandably as indefensible. So instead of actually defending these statements or Jones rationale as a whole, Pro decided to fight a different fight (me). I've given my evidence to show you all exactly why I've come to the conclusion of this man being irrational. Statements, videos and conspiracies riddled with the illogic of an irrational person that has yet to be disputed. Pro's 2 cents is in short is characterized by "well, being wrong doesn't mean you're irrational". Yes, I've already established being wrong doesn't inherently mean being irrational. What is the argument? Because I really don't see how wrongly understating the capabilities of Alexander Graham Bell's telephone and misreading a U.N. international development document from the early 90's to be the blue print for "covert genocide" to be even remotely the same thing.

A con vote, would ideally indicate that you looked at the evidence presented by both sides and ultimately agreed with me more than pro. No more, no less.
OhioGary

Pro

I thank my opponent for this great debate and for his closing remarks.


To summarize this debate, Con proposed this debate to question whether Alex Jones lacked the ability to reason. Con was required to provide evidence which showed that Alex Jones lacked reason. This was Con’s burden of proof.


Con started off R2 by saying that the content of the show was all the proof needed to presume that the person was irrational.


I responded by saying that Con cannot use radio show comments to prove that the person is irrational, controversial radio show comments only prove that someone makes controversial remarks on their radio show, no more and no less. I opened R2 by naming several other radio and TV personalities who often make controversial remarks in order to generate listeners and media buzz. I pointed out that the discussion of Alex Jones’s radio show actually benefits Alex Jones because even bad PR is better than no PR. I continued in R2 to discuss that we should take Alex Jones seriously.


As Con could not refute my R2 arguments nor could Con prove that Alex Jones was irrational and should be ignored, Con lost this entire debate in R2.


Realizing that Con could not meet the burden of proof, Con changed his focus in R3 towards something that he could prove: that Alex Jones made wrong statements on his radio show.


However, as I mentioned in R3, being wrong just means being wrong. Contrary to Con’s second argument, being wrong does not mean being irrational.


Now, in the final round of the debate, Con moved the goal post once again. Con now claims that I have personally attacked him and that I kept changing my story throughout this debate. You are welcome to read the transcript and decide who changed their mind through this debate and who didn’t.


Con concluded his remarks by saying that if you vote for Con, it’s not because you felt that Con met the burden of proof or that Con was even required to meet the burden of proof. No, no, now a Con vote only means that you agree with Con, no more and no less.


In other words, Con moved the goal post one last time.


I thank you all for reading this entire debate. This was a difficult subject to discuss and we covered a lot of ground. Throughout this entire debate, I have not faltered or wavered. I have not changed my mind, only to change it again, and then change it two more times at the very end of the debate.


I have not attacked Con. I have merely pointed out that Con was supposed to provide evidence, and he has not. Con has not met the burden of proof, and he was required to do so if he wanted your vote. He did not meet it in R2 and he has not met it now. Because Con did not meet the burden of proof, you must give the resolution a Pro vote even if you don’t agree with Alex Jones.

Debate Round No. 4
35 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by morgan2252 4 years ago
morgan2252
That guy really does sound like he's from Texas. I've never actually heard of him before, but seeing some of the videos really made me consider how stupid Texans could be.

Interesting debate, guys, and a very interesting person to be debating about...

By the way, I really hate to post this, but could someone please vote on my debate? I'd hate to end it with the votes being so close! Thanks!
http://debate.org...
Posted by proglib 4 years ago
proglib
@johnlubba

You make a good point, in some sense. I'm just saying that for some claims, they seem so paranoid and (yes) bat-sh** crazy wrong that we would ask the proponent to provide solid evidence and our default position would put the BoP on the proponent.

Depending on what one considers evidence, there is evidence for all kinds of claims that stretch the bounds of rationality--for example flying saucers with aliens. ("little green men"*) Most people think the claim is a bit irrational (as do I, just for the record:), does that mean there is no evidence?

I can provide evidence that the sun travels around the earth--come stand outside with me. We won't move, but the sun will seem to.

Is there really evidence that intelligent, sane people would go along with for most of Mr. Jones' claims?

You'll notice I voted with Pro, despite my concerns for the sanity of this gentleman, who I didn't know existed before reading this debate.

Lastly, if I could be permitted a bit more rambling, I'd love to see the evidence for a one world government. Most of the government entities I'm aware of have enough trouble functioning as one city or one county government [the right keeps reminding us (me at least through one or more siblings) that the U.S. Senate is years past due on producing a budget.:)]
Posted by ishallannoyyo 4 years ago
ishallannoyyo
Get a CVB up in here for Con, "he's right" isn't good enough Fritz.
Posted by likespeace 4 years ago
likespeace
Con established that Alex Jones talks about controversial things and may be wrong about some of them. That's not enough to establish that he's irrational. If Con had studied the meaning of irrational before instigating this debate, it would've really helped his case.
Posted by johnlubba 4 years ago
johnlubba
@ Proglib, I have no idea what you mean, I can offer evidence to back up clams made by Alex Jones of a one world goverment forming. where did you get little green men from?
Posted by OhioGary 4 years ago
OhioGary
I have to say the results so far have been very good especially because I'm new to debating -and- I'm the one who had to defend Alex Jones.

Thank you all for your feedback on this debate. I'll take it under consideration and use it for future debates.
Posted by proglib 4 years ago
proglib
@OhioGary and @sythe

You make good points. I'll have to read the whole debate to see if OG can carry this.

I still think there are some things so far fetched and preposterous that saying them puts doubt on one's rationality; that the burden of proof actually shifts to the claimant. I'm curious whether my little green men example was such a case for either of you.

For me a person who says the government is intentionally spiking our drinks so that we will become gay, or something like that, is at least pushing crazy ideas, if not irrational himself.

Again, however, I will read the arguments before making up my mind--that's only rational.:D
Posted by OhioGary 4 years ago
OhioGary
...and now we wait!
Posted by sythe 4 years ago
sythe
@proglib I would say that saying things most people believe to be false doesn't make you irrational. There was a time once when people believed that the world was flat and that the sun revolved around the earth. Then comes along "irrational" Nicolaus Copernicus who said the earth revolves around the sun. Good thing no one listened to him. Not saying I agree with Jones, but just because none of us think there are martians controlling the government doesn't mean that they aren't.
17 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by morgan2252 4 years ago
morgan2252
JohnJohnSHTOOKAHOhioGaryTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:20 
Reasons for voting decision: Both sides had good conduct, excellent spelling and grammar, and great arguments. However, I have to give sources to con because he uses more reliable ones, as opposed to About.com.
Vote Placed by TheUnderdog 4 years ago
TheUnderdog
JohnJohnSHTOOKAHOhioGaryTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Con did a great job using Jones' words to make his argument. Pro did a great job also but could not argue what Jones said. Personally I agreed with Con due to the illogicalness of Jones. Alex Jones is not rational. He is more demagogue, but that is personal preference. Pro did great, con did to, but had a difficult time defending Jones rants.
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 4 years ago
RoyLatham
JohnJohnSHTOOKAHOhioGaryTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro did a fine job of attacking the semantics of Con's idea of what is "rational," but I think the plain understanding of "rational" that Con offered survived the attack. Con was clear that he wasn't attacking Jones' sanity, only his ability to reason. That makes the issue whether Jones shows a consistent inability to reasonably derive conclusions from data, and the evidence is strong and largely uncontested that Jones lacks the ability. Commentary should be taken seriously only if it is likely to provide valuable insights. Jones doesn't meet that test. (Incidentally, I had no familiarity with Jones before the past couple of weeks.)
Vote Placed by Deadlykris 4 years ago
Deadlykris
JohnJohnSHTOOKAHOhioGaryTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: Whoa, how'd my vote get changed? Stupid phone.
Vote Placed by imabench 4 years ago
imabench
JohnJohnSHTOOKAHOhioGaryTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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: countering deadlykris
Vote Placed by kingcripple 4 years ago
kingcripple
JohnJohnSHTOOKAHOhioGaryTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: con is right all the way. videos he posted proved how asinine jones is
Vote Placed by emj32 4 years ago
emj32
JohnJohnSHTOOKAHOhioGaryTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Countering Geo's wildly biased and insufficient vote.
Vote Placed by GeoLaureate8 4 years ago
GeoLaureate8
JohnJohnSHTOOKAHOhioGaryTied
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: Con was obliterated by Pro. Con admitted that Alex Jones has tangible proof of his claims, yet says Alex is wrong because the conspiracy published its agenda on the Internet. I like Pro's unique angle at tackling the resolution. He exposed Pro's inability to actually demonstrate his irrationality. Con simply pointed to statements of Alex he disagrees with, then calls them absurd and irrational. Disagreement =/= Irrational Con, you have no knowledge.
Vote Placed by anonynomous 4 years ago
anonynomous
JohnJohnSHTOOKAHOhioGaryTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: All con did is show that alex jones makes wrong statements but as pro rightly pointed out wrong does not imply delusional. EDIT: my original RFD stands in which i give pro 3 point but im changing my vote in favor of con by 4 points in order to combat tes95 VB
Vote Placed by Tes95 4 years ago
Tes95
JohnJohnSHTOOKAHOhioGaryTied
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: My logic ascertains that Con has a form of bias, and is automatically disqualified for failing to come from a standpoint of neutrality. In order to truly make the correct decision, one must put aside bias against an individual. As demonstrated (rather heavily) by Con, he believes Alex Jones "makes WRONG statements". Now this is a matter of opinion until he proves this correct. He is demeaning Alex Jones instead of focusing on Alex Jones' points. One must always hold facts in the utmost esteem, not opinion.