The Instigator
Quantumhead
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Spedman
Con (against)
Winning
14 Points

American Republicans Are Bigger Liars Than The Nazis

Do you like this debate?NoYes-1
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 2 votes the winner is...
Spedman
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/3/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,584 times Debate No: 58546
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (30)
Votes (2)

 

Quantumhead

Pro

American Republicans are not simply liars; they have developed it into an art form. They frequently use a technique popularised by Hitler whereby they reverse the truth entirely and attack their opponent with it. They do this because they know that politics is a game of public opinion and not fact.

One academic study reported by CNN concluded that Bush and his immediate aides publicly told 985 lies about Iraq alone in a two year period.

Republicans are simply a milder version of the Nazis, except more concerned with economic gain than territorial expansion. They also know full well that 9/11 was an inside job, but have not stopped lying about it since 2001.

"Niaz Naik, a former Pakistani Foreign Secretary, was told by senior American officials in mid-July (2001) that military action against Afghanistan would go ahead by the middle of October. " http://news.bbc.co.uk...

"This was controlled demolition. Without a doubt. A team of experts did this." (demolitions expert Danny Jowenko upon seeing WTC 7 collapse on video) http://www.dailypaul.com...

Therefore, I claim American Republicans are bigger liars than the Nazis, and if you consider the total amount of Muslims and Communists they've killed, only marginally less genocidal.
Spedman

Con

Okay, I accept your challenge so I'll get to it. I think Republicans are liars too but to compare them to the Nazis is a little extreme. As a matter of fact I would say the Democrats or at least the far left are FAR worse with lying than the Republicans. Almost everything that has come out of President Barrack Obama's mouth has been an outright lie. Not to mention his cronies Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid. Obama lied about the ACA when he said you can keep your health care plan and doctor. He lied about Al-Qaeda being on the run and defeated when they were in fact very much still a threat. He lied about there being no Government corruption during the IRS scandal. Obama and those who support him are the worst of the liars in office not the Republicans. As far as Iraq is concerned Republicans and Democrats supported the invasion of Iraq including former Secretary of State, Hilary Clinton. 9/11 was an inside job?????? Okay, I think your argument went no where with that statement because Democrats also support the official story and just because WTC 7 was demolished doesn't mean it was an inside job. The building could of been to unstable to keep intact so they demolished it. 9/11 was not an inside job, but I do believe there are things about that day that have not been told.
I would not trust a Pakistani official since they hate Americans almost more than anyone in the world and would probably say anything to discredit us. http://www.huffingtonpost.com...
And making Republicans the only ones responsible for the killing of Muslims and Communists is completely unfair since Democrats have contributed to all of that as well. Lyndon Johnson was a Democrat and he was the one who sent us into Vietnam.
Debate Round No. 1
Quantumhead

Pro

Con makes no attempt to refute the argument that Republicans are bigger liars than the Nazis, makes no attempt to address any of the evidence presented in the introduction, and instead responds by attacking Obama. This is the reaction of a typical Republican in that they are insane liars, incapable of defensively justifying their own position on any political issue, given that the only thing they know how to do is attack other people with lies, fallacy and slander.

Other Republican tricks include (but not exclusively): posting debunked sources; using sock accounts to vote in their own debates; posting 6,000 word defences of global warming denial; accusing Obama of being a Kenyan terrorist, confirmation bias and of course the classic straw man.
Spedman

Con

Okay, Pro I addressed every single one of your points and you are accusing me of only attacking Obama. I was merely trying to point out that Bush wasn't the only one who lied during his Presidency. You obviously did not read my argument. How can you accuse me of slander when that is all you are doing for this round. I am not a Republican supporter I am a Libertarian voter so saying that my argument is a "typical Republican response" is not relevant.

You said in Round 1 that Republicans murdered millions of Communists and Muslims. President Obama ordered more drone strikes than Bush did and Bush used a lot. As to your Communist argument think of the wars we fought during the Cold War. The Korean Conflict and Vietnam all of which US involvement in those wars was started by Democratic Presidents, Harry Truman and Lyndon Johnson. Although Kennedy ordered advisers into Vietnam initially he did not escalate it to 500,000 troops like Johnson did. Eisenhower and Nixon were the ones who ended US involvement in both of those conflicts who were BOTH Republican. During Korea, General Douglas MacArthur after being relieved of his command ran for President against Eisenhower as a Democratic candidate and wanted further US involvement in Korea. I am not trying to make Democrats look bad I am merely pointing out that your argument against Republicans for murdering Communists is not relevant since they were not responsible for any of the major Cold War conflicts fought by the US.
My last point for this round is that ALL POLITICIANS LIE. Republican, Democrat, Liberal, Conservative, etc. Comparing any of our parties though to the Nazis is simply unfair and distasteful. I therefore retract my argument that Democrats are more like the Nazis because that is not valid argument. My entire argument of the first round was pointing out that Democrats lie just as much as the Republicans. Today's politics are absurd even by our standards and they are becoming more and more like Roman politics with each day. THEY ARE ALL LIARS!!!!!!!!!!
However, even though they are liars a lot of them do it for good reasons but also they do it for bad reasons. It is still unfair to call either party Nazis since both parties have their uses.
Debate Round No. 2
Quantumhead

Pro

Quantumhead forfeited this round.
Spedman

Con

Okay, so now that my opponent has seemed to have forfeited let me say this as my closing argument. All politicians lie, but comparing any of ours to the Nazis who murdered millions of people is way too extreme of a statement and just plain distasteful.
Debate Round No. 3
30 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Quantumhead 3 years ago
Quantumhead
Spedman, the only thing which is disgusting is the way you and Hanspete swap votes with each other to cheat the results of this website. The fact that it is easy to cheat does not make cheating valid or acceptable. I've just read another of Hanspete's comment's on a nearly identical debate in which he claimed he had no opinion before reading the debate. This is outright false, and your medieval view of the world is further exposed by your vote swapping to falsely win debates in which you have made incredibly poor arguments. This is what the church of scientology often does, and also Fox news. Congratulations on actively contributing to the cosmic stupidity of the human race.
Posted by Spedman 3 years ago
Spedman
Hanspete, while I agree with you I think comparing of our parties to the Nazis is disgusting. None of our parties are on the level of the Nazi party. Every party has its faults and I think the reason they are a mess right now is due to poor leadership of each party. Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi turned the Democratic party into a laughing stock.
Harry Reid recently said: "The border is secure." That is an example of poor leadership.
Posted by Hanspete 3 years ago
Hanspete
It is a shame to compare the Nazis to Republicans, just disgusting. Your comparing those who slaughtered my family ( I have Jewish roots) to my brethren in the Republican Party! You sir should be completely and totally ashamed in yourself how dare you make such claims if you don't like this country then get the f*** out and go to a country that you like!! Do not under any circumstances compare my friends and family (who are republicans) to the nazis who murdered millions of my brethren! Shame on you! If you don't like this country just get the f*** out! I am horrified by your claims and am disgusted that I am compared to a nazi!
Posted by Spedman 3 years ago
Spedman
Dude, the debate is over because you didn't have the balls to finish it so shove off. I was not ruling out that there was no controlled demolition of WTC 7. I SAID IT IN THE FREAKING DEBATE, ONCE AGAIN YOU FAILED TO READ MY ARGUMENTS!!!!!!!!!!! NEO-NAZI!!!!!????????? You're resulting to name calling now which is pretty pathetic on your part. I said in my debate if WTC 7 was part of controlled demolition it was due to the fact that it was probably unstable and too damaged to keep standing. THAT DOES NOT PROVE THAT THE WHOLE THING WAS AN INSIDE JOB!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Bringing religion into this doesn't make sense BECAUSE IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH WHAT WAS BEING DEBATED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I NEVER said you were crazy, but you certainly are acting crazy. I respect Atheist thinkers minus Richard Dawkins who is more concerned with being an Atheist prophet than Biology.
The Twin Towers collapsed as a result of the damage done by the impact of the planes(JUMBO JETS) and the heat from jet fuel which weakened NOT MELTED the structure of the Twin Towers which collapsed the upper floors and causing them to destroy the floors below them.
Posted by Quantumhead 3 years ago
Quantumhead
"Thank you Martley for sharing that. Yeah I don't think the WTC 7 collapse is an effective argument to prove that 9/11 was an inside job even if it was controlled demolition."

You should get it through your empty, indoctrinated head that al Qaeda does not have access to military-grade nano-thermite. Whatever your stupid neo-Nazi religion has convinced you of, the fact remains that Professor Harrit has a peer-reviewed paper in which he concludes the existence of high-energy thermitic material at GZ.

You're just so stupid that it's pointless even trying to convince you. It's like trying to convince a Christian that God does not exist. Fire does not melt steel you banana-brained idiot. This from the FEMA report:-

"It is much more difficult to tell if melting has occurred in the grain boundary regions in this steel as was observed in the A36 steel in the WTC 7."

http://www.fema.gov...

It doesn't matter what is said to you, or what evidence is presented to you, you will continue to use the bizarre argument that we are all crazy, with precisely the same disease, simply because we have enough brain matter to understand the official story is physically impossible.

You hate us in the same way the Catholic Church hated Galileo, pal. Because we pursue reason instead of comfort.
Posted by Spedman 3 years ago
Spedman
Thank you Martley for sharing that. Yeah I don't think the WTC 7 collapse is an effective argument to prove that 9/11 was an inside job even if it was controlled demolition. The only questionable thing about 9/11 is the Pentagon, but even that can be an easily solved question. The plane that went into the Pentagon was going pretty fast and even though there wasn't a lot of damage the hole was at least four car lengths deep. Think of it this way, when a traditional arrowhead penetrates a target fired by a bow the edges of the arrowhead appear to have not had an effect on the target. However, the shape of it is made for penetration not for damage. The plane that hit the Pentagon in this case is the arrowhead penetrating the wall of the Pentagon while not damaging the wall with its edges (its wings). However, when an arrow hits a solid target the arrowhead will shatter into pieces. In which case large remnants of the plane could not be recovered. If you do not believe my theory pay attention to the videos of the WTC attacks and notice the area where the plane collides with the building and no visible wing marks are shown where the plane initially crashed.
Posted by Martley 3 years ago
Martley
I didn't think 9/11 conspiracy nutjobs were still using the "pre-planned attack" route anymore. Since the 9/11 Commission Report details contingency plans and various levels of military action planning being considered in the DOD dating back to Clinton days from the "least to the most aggressive"... this is the job of the DOD, to plan contingencies... and it was certainly not done with any secrecy, in fact all of our allies knew, and the taliban was long preparing for it. Many consider 9/11 to be a preemptive attack, knowing the US was going to go after global terrorism more strongly after WTC1 and USS COLE. But to quote the Niaz Naik account.?.. which has been widely debunked since literally NO ONE who was at the Berlin meeting with Naik could confirm his account. And many of his fellow diplomats accused Naik of grossly exaggerating his claims in order to fit his own agenda. Smooth....
http://www.911myths.com...
Posted by JohnMaynardKeynes 3 years ago
JohnMaynardKeynes
Anyway, I've made my point again and again, but you insist on having the last word because for some reason it helps you project this sanctimonious bravado in repeating the same thing again and again, even though all you're doing and is ducking and weaving through my arguments and attacking me personally -- my arguments still stand.

I'd debate you any time on anything.
Posted by JohnMaynardKeynes 3 years ago
JohnMaynardKeynes
"You don't have any arguments, buddy. You don't even possess the ability to properly read what you reply to."

That's interesting, because earlier you accused me of writing an essay. Perhaps the reason you think I have "no arguments" is because YOU cannot read them or comprehend them. Not to mention, my 49-0 record defecates on your assertion that I "cannot properly read what I reply to."

How about you take caution before personally attacking your intellectual superiors?
Posted by Quantumhead 3 years ago
Quantumhead
You don't have any arguments, buddy. You don't even possess the ability to properly read what you reply to.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by lannan13 3 years ago
lannan13
QuantumheadSpedmanTied
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: FF
Vote Placed by Mray56 3 years ago
Mray56
QuantumheadSpedmanTied
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: Forfeit.