The Instigator
Quantumhead
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Raymond_Reddington
Con (against)
Winning
56 Points

Are You Intellectually Retarded If You Believe The Bush Administration's Version Of The 9/11 Attacks

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 8 votes the winner is...
Raymond_Reddington
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/2/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,606 times Debate No: 58490
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (35)
Votes (8)

 

Quantumhead

Pro

Yeah, the laws of physics aren't important. We'll forget about those and convince half a billion people there were no explosives in the WTC buildings. Lmao.
Raymond_Reddington

Con

I accept. Full burden of proof is on Pro to show empirically and verifiably that EVERY SINGLE person that believes the Bush Administration's version of the 9/11 attacks is intellectually retarded.

Definitions
Retard: A mentally handicapped person

Good luck!
Debate Round No. 1
Quantumhead

Pro

Agree with contender on his former point. Shall elaborate.

Anybody who doesn't understand that in order to initiate a total symmetrical collapse you must severely damage an object below its own centre of gravity is intellectually retarded. To not understand this is to not understand that pushing a brick down really hard on your roof won't make your house collapse.

I consider burden of proof satisfied, given that the official story violates the Newtonian laws of motion and invents its own (self-contradictory) version of classical mechanics. Specifically, it gets around the law of equilibrium by ignoring it, and f=ma by claiming 1 x 93 gives a different answer than 93 x 1.

NIST failed to test for the explosives residue it was pretty obvious was there, ignored the FEMA metallurgical report about molten steel, contradicted itself by first backing the "pancake" theory and then retracting its own position when this was disproved as physically impossible, contradicted itself by being forced to admit building seven collapsed at freefall speed for its initial eleven seconds, and conducted an "investigation" which was as far removed from science as any investigation in the entire recorded history of man. This was however, clearly to be expected, when said investigation was organised and supervised by the very same people who planned the attacks (aka Cheney, Rumsfeld, L. Paul Bremer, Bernard Kerik etc...)

There is a mountain of evidence available in the public domain that the Bush administration's version of events is laughably false, including a stack of peer-reviewed research. Recently, physics professor David Griscom offered to debate any other physicist on the impossibility of the official story. Despite contacting over thirty universities, no physicist accepted. Professor Niels Harrit proved the existence of high-energy thermate residue at GZ, and that research has now been peer-reviewed at least four times by different people.

In sum, there is no defence outside the stinking realm of deception and lies. If you believe that 9/11 was not an inside job, sanctioned by Cheney and his corporate goons, then you are either: a) stupid b) a liar c) a stupid liar.
Raymond_Reddington

Con




******************************Important Part!!*****************

All I have to do to win is show 1 person that is not mentally retarded and believes in the Bush version of the 9/11 attacks. I can completely refute my opponent's argument in two different ways without having to go in depth at all. After this I will go more into detail, but it's more for the use of my opponent than anyone else.
1. I am not mentally retarded, and I believe in the Bush version of the 9/11 attacks. My IQ is 139, mental retardation is defined as below 79 [1]. I also regularly get straight A's and B's, and perhaps most telling of all, I am capable of debating you right now. This alone completely defeats the resolution.
2. It is completely impossible. The 2010 US census reports that about 18.7 percent of the US population had a disability [2] (that includes all physical and mental disabilities including deafness, blindness, alzheimer's, dimensia, etc. Also includes severe and nonsevere disabilities. This means that 19% is waaaayyy above the actual number of mentally disabled people, but even going with this number I still have a clear victory.) A variety of polls have assessed public opinion on 9/11. All of them have shown that at least 30% of the US population believe the Bush Administration's version of events [3]. So to summarize, about 18% of the population is disabled, at least 30% believe in the Bush interpretation events. This means it is literally impossible for everybody who believes in the Bush administration's version of events to be mentally retarded. The resolution is defeated.
*********************************That's All Folks!!************************

The rest is for my opponent, who will hopefully be enlightened. Feel free to read if anyone else is interested. The events of 9/11 have been thoroughly investigated by the National Institute of Standards and Technology, the technology magazine Popular Mechanics, and the 9/11 commision consisting of 5 democrats and 5 republicans. [4][7]

"The commission interviewed over 1,200 people in 10 countries and reviewed over two and a half million pages of documents, including some closely guarded Classified National Security Documents. The commission also relied heavily on the FBI's PENTTBOM investigation. Before it was released by the commission, the final public report was screened for any potentially classified information and edited as necessary.

After releasing the report, commission chair Thomas Kean declared that both Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush were "not well served" the FBI and CIA."

In addition to identifying intelligence failures occurring before the attacks, the report provided evidence of the following:

  • Airport security footage of the hijackers as they passed through airport security
  • Excerpts from the United Airlines Flight 93 cockpit voice recording, which recorded the sounds of the hijackers in the cockpit and the passengers' attempts to regain control
  • Eyewitness testimony of passengers as they described their own final moments to family members and authorities on airphones and cellphones from the cabins of doomed airliners" [4]
Independent mechanics and engineers have reached a general consensus on 9/11- "As generally accepted by the community of specialists in structural mechanics and structural engineering though not by a few outsiders claiming a conspiracy with planted explosives, the failure scenario was as follows: [continues with a four part scenario of progressive structural failure]" [5]
"Universally though has the foregoing explanation of collapse been accepted by the commu-
nities of structural engineers and structural mechanics researchers, some outside critics have
nevertheless exploited various unexplained observations to disseminate allegations of controlled
demolition. The objective of this paper, based on the report by BaG1;zant et al. (2007), is to ex-
amine whether those allegations might be scientifically justifiable, and to show that the concept
of gravity-driven collapse does not conflict with any observations." [6]

The claim about achieving a symmetrical collapse only by striking an object below it's center of gravity is actually false. I will refer you to the collapse of the Ronan Point Apartments in the UK in 1968 resulting from a kitchen gas explosion on the 18th floor. The building was 25 stories.

The Progressive Collapse
"Although the structural damage inflicted by aircraft was severe, it was only local. Without stripping of a significant portion of the
steel insulation during impact, the subsequent fire would likely not have led to overall collapse. As generally accepted by the community of specialists in structural mechanics and structural engineering though not by a few outsiders claiming a conspiracy with planted explosives, the failure scenario was as follows:

1. About 60% of the 60 columns of the impacted face of framed
tube and about 13% of the total of 287 columns were severed, and many more were significantly deflected. This caused stress redistribution, which significantly increased the load of some columns, attaining or nearing the load capacity
for some of them.

2. Because a significant amount of steel insulation was stripped, many structural steel members heated up to 600"C, as con-
firmed by annealing studies of steel debris the structural steel used loses about 20% of its yield strength already at 300"C, and about 85% at 600"C; and exhibits significant viscoplasticity, or creep, above 450"C, especially in the columns overstressed due to load redistribution; the press reports right after September 11, 2001 indicating temperature in excess of
800"C, turned out to be groundless, but Ba"ant and Zhou"s analysis did not depend on that.

3. Differential thermal expansion, combined with heat-induced viscoplastic deformation, caused the floor trusses to sag. The
catenary action of the sagging trusses pulled many perimeter columns inward by about 1 m,. The bowing of these columns served as a huge imperfection inducing multistory out-of-plane buckling of framed tube wall. The lateral
deflections of some columns due to aircraft impact, the differential thermal expansion, and overstress due to load redis-
tribution also diminished buckling strength.

4. The combination of seven effects"

1 Overstress of some columns due to initial load redistribution;
2 overheating due to loss of steel insulation;
3 drastic lowering of yield limit and creep threshold by heat;
4 lateral deflections of many columns due to thermal strains and sagging floor trusses;
5 weakened lateral support due to reduced in-plane stiffness of sagging floors;
6 multistory bowing of some columns for which the critical load is an order of magnitude" [5]

Link [6] explains most of the science behind the collapse of the WTC's but I will only provide a summary since I am short on characters.
"Although NIST did not analyze the overall process of dynamic progressive collapse below the fire zone, it verified a sequence of effects that triggered the collapse: (1) scraping of much of steel insulation by flying objects during aircraft impact
(without which the towers would not have collapsed, as concluded by NIST); (2) cutting of many columns, and damage with large deflections of others during aircraft impact; (3) subsequent load redistributions among columns; (4) sagging of heated floor trusses and their catenary action, evidenced by multistory inward bowing of perimeter columns; and (5) viscoplastic buckling of
heated, damaged and overloaded columns." [6]

A team at Purdue University was able to actually create a computer simulation of how events took place, demonstrating sufficient knowledge about the science behind the collapse. It is the third video.


To conclude, it does not require mental retardation to believe the Bush Administration's version of events. The vast majority of mechanics and structural engineers believe it and they are far more intelligent than you or I.

[1] http://www.123test.com...
[2] http://www.census.gov...
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[4] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[5] http://web.archive.org...
[6] http://www.civil.northwestern.edu...
[7] http://www.popularmechanics.com...


Debate Round No. 2
Quantumhead

Pro

"All I have to do to win is show 1 person that is not mentally retarded and believes in the Bush version of the 9/11 attacks"

I believe I used the phrase "intellectually retarded" and you have rather bizarrely now changed that to the clinical definition of mentally disabled. Intellectual retardation is in fact the state of being in which one accepts an alternative interpretation of the laws of physics as can be demonstrated by empirical reality, and as is written in every major physics textbook since the early fifteenth century.

"1. I am not mentally retarded, and I believe in the Bush version of the 9/11 attacks. My IQ is 139, mental retardation is defined as below 79 "

IQ averages are constantly being reset as people get smarter, so posting yours means nothing given that in one thousand years we will all be considered retarded. In this particular situation, it is what you believe which makes you retarded, since it is obviously false, yet you believe it anyway. I said nothing about your retardation being genetic (clinical). It is indoctrinated into you through the abuse of ideology.

" I also regularly get straight A's and B's"

Lmao. You can't be serious now. Having a memory doesn't mean you aren't retarded and neither does saying the right things to the people who are indoctrinating you.

"I am capable of debating you right now"

Everybody is capable of expressing an opinion, but the world cares not for anybody's opinion. It is objective, and not subject to a political debate. You should take this on board and understand that it applies to the laws of physics. It is OK that you do not understand the laws of physics. What is not OK is that you believe that you do when you obviously do not.

"18.7 percent of the US population had a disability [2] (that includes all physical and mental disabilities including deafness, blindness, alzheimer's, dimensia, etc"

You seem to be having trouble grasping this mate, so permit me to spell it out: YOU ARE USING A FALSE CLINICAL DEFINITION OF MENTAL RETARDATION, WHEREAS I CLEARLY USED THE TERM "INTELLECTUAL RETARD" FIGURATIVELY TO EXPRESS THE STUPIDITY IT TAKES TO BELIEVE SUCH NONSENSE. PLEASE LEARN THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN FIGURATIVE AND LITERAL SPEECH.

"This means that 19% is waaaayyy above the actual number of mentally disabled people,"

No, it means you stumbled across the words "intellectually retarded" and changed them to "mentally disabled" to manufacture an obvious straw man. I define intellectual retardation as those with an intellectual disability which prevents them from separating emotional/religious/political ideology from the reality of the world we live in (i.e you).

"The commission interviewed over 1,200 people in 10 countries and reviewed over two and a half million pages of documents, including some closely guarded Classified National Security Documents. "

The 9/11 Commission contradicts both itself and the verifiable 9/11 timeline in several important places. Most notably, the testimony of Norman Mineta incriminates Cheney directly by inferring he ordered fighter jets stand off flight 77. Offering the false rhetoric of a commission set up and overseen by the very administration under question is yet further proof of your mental retardation. You are doing a great job proving me correct, so I am eager that you continue.

"The commission also relied heavily on the FBI's PENTTBOM investigation."

Funny, because the FBI investigation concluded with the official statement: "We have not yet uncovered a single piece of paper "" either here in the U.S. or in the treasure trove of information that has turned up in Afghanistan and elsewhere "" that mentioned any aspect of the September 11th plot.."

I don't really need to point out the stupidity of relying on evidence from a commission set up by the perpetrators to exonerate the perpetrators. Again, your failure to acknowledge the obvious outcome of this is further evidence that you are intellectually bacward. Here is some pertinent information about the chairmen of that commission:-

"What about the 9/11 Commission? Its report gave the impression that it was in possession of solid evidence of bin Laden"s guilt. But the Commission"s co-chairs, Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton, undermined this impression in their follow-up book, which they subtitled: "The Inside Story of the 9/11 Commission." From: http://www.globalresearch.ca...

"In addition to identifying intelligence failures occurring before the attacks"

These were not failures. They were deliberate. The National Review political magazine obtained 15 of the 19 alleged hijacker's VISA applications after 9/11 and discovered that all 15 should have been rejected by the US government. Ex-Pakistani foreign minister Nials Naik told the BBC he was informed by US officials in July 2001 that Afghanistan would be invaded by October that year (http://news.bbc.co.uk...). The evidence simply goes on and on and on, and mental cases like you just keep ignoring it and ignoring it. It is more important to you to win this argument than it is to confront the mountain of evidence that members of your own government orchestrated the murder of 3,000 people, and that in itself is just plain retarded.

"Independent mechanics and engineers have reached a general consensus on 9/11"

Yes, for the other side!! There are thousands of engineers that have signed the 9/11 petition who claim the only consensus is that the Bush admin lied. I am yet to see any evidence which disputes this from any other qualified engineers. There are also dozens of physicists who claim the official story is impossible, like Griscom, Jones and Chandler. In fact, on the A/E Truth website there's an article about how they called thirty different universities to find just one physicist willing to go on record and defend the official story against Profesor Griscom. They failed.

Your links are hilarious by the way. This is from your own source:-

"NIST lead investigator Shyam Sunder tells PM. Those clouds of dust may create the impression of a controlled demolition, Sunder adds, "but it is the floor pancaking that leads to that perception.""

Except, hang on, the NIST FAQ says:-

"NIST's findings do not support the "pancake theory" of collapse"

So which is it? Were there pancakes or were there no pancakes? Lmao. Your own sources contradict themselves, but you wouldn't know that would you? Because you haven't even read or assessed their content. You've simply searched for something which will validate your insane beliefs, again proving that you are an intellectual retard who forges his opinions first, and then looks for the evidence to back them up afterwards.

"1...2...3...4...5...6..., yada yada yada"

This, again, is just retarded. It's an attempt to blind laymen with technical terminology in an effort to misdirect them away from the fact that what they are saying defies the most basic laws of physics. The north tower was 110 floors high and was impacted between floors 93 and 99. Heat from fire rises, so you can talk about "lateral deflections" and "sagging floors" all you like. What you can't do however, is explain why you think the top 17 floors of a 110 floor building crushed it to the ground from a resting position, because that requires ignoring the laws which govern the behaviour of opposing forces. It also requires ignoring the FEMA report which stipulated there was molten steel everywhere and that the core columns looked like "Swiss cheese".

Anything you show from those official channels is stupid because their given job was NOT to investigate. They were commissioned to validate a pre-concocted story. When millions of people watch three buildings get blown up on live TV, and NIST do not even test for explosives residue then clearly that is not a investigation: it's a media tactic to fool stupid people like you.
Raymond_Reddington

Con

Pro is now contesting the definition of retard that I provided in round 1. His protests are meaningless; however, since he did not have any qualms with it in round two. His real problem is that the resolution is so easily defeated. He attempts to fall back on a figurative interpretation of "intellectually retarded", but this should have been stated in round 1 or round 2. His attempts change the resolution have failed.

Defense of my Arguments
1. Actually what someone believes never makes them retarded. Retarded is a medical term used to describe someone that is mentally handicapped. The widespread medical stance is that an IQ below 79 is considered mentally handicapped. Since mine is above 79, I am not mentally handicapped/retarded.

Straight A's and B's in a non special ed class are virtually impossible for a mentally handicapped person. The fact that I'm not in special education classes also attest to the fact that I am not mentally handicapped.

Debating in this manner on this site, requires at least average cognitive faculties, which I am demonstrating right now. I'm also not sure which doctor told you that not understanding the laws of physics makes someone mentally handicapped, but it's not true.

"YOU ARE USING A FALSE CLINICAL DEFINITION OF MENTAL RETARDATION, WHEREAS I CLEARLY USED THE TERM "INTELLECTUAL RETARD" FIGURATIVELY TO EXPRESS THE STUPIDITY IT TAKES TO BELIEVE SUCH NONSENSE. PLEASE LEARN THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN FIGURATIVE AND LITERAL SPEECH."
My opponent did not protest the definition given in round two, and never stated that the resolution should be taken as figurative, so this can be ignored.

My opponent accuses me of straw manning him by defining "retard" as mentally handicapped. It is a fair definition that comes from Oxford English Dictionaries and he never protested it in round 2.

My opponent's problems with the definition of retard are much to late to be taken seriously. Clearly he realized he was not in a winning situation and has attempted to shift the goalposts. Unfortunately I gave a fair definition in round 1 that Pro did not protest in round 2. He never claimed the resolution was "figurative" in his rules, so it was fair to interpret the definition as literal.

9/11 Commission
My opponent claims the 9/11 commission contradicts itself and the timeline but gives no actual evidence.

The Air Defense Stand Down Theory is easily refuted.
"On 9/11 there were only 14 fighter jets on alert in the contiguous 48 states. No computer network or alarm automatically alerted the North American Air Defense Command (NORAD) of missing planes. "They [civilian Air Traffic Control, or ATC] had to pick up the phone and literally dial us," says Maj. Douglas Martin, public affairs officer for NORAD. Boston Center, one of 22 Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) regional ATC facilities, called NORAD's Northeast Air Defense Sector (NEADS) three times: at 8:37 am EST to inform NEADS that Flight 11 was hijacked; at 9:21 am to inform the agency, mistakenly, that Flight 11 was headed for Washington (the plane had hit the North Tower 35 minutes earlier); and at 9:41 am to (erroneously) identify Delta Air Lines Flight 1989 from Boston as a possible hijacking. The New York ATC called NEADS at 9:03 am to report that United Flight 175 had been hijacked"the same time the plane slammed into the South Tower. Within minutes of that first call from Boston Center, NEADS scrambled two F-15s from Otis Air Force Base in Falmouth, Mass., and three F-16s from Langley Air National Guard Base in Hampton, Va. None of the fighters got anywhere near the pirated planes.

Why couldn't ATC find the hijacked flights? When the hijackers turned off the planes' transponders, which broadcast identifying signals, ATC had to search 4500 identical radar blips crisscrossing some of the country's busiest air corridors. And NORAD's sophisticated radar? It ringed the continent, looking outward for threats, not inward. "It was like a doughnut," Martin says. "There was no coverage in the middle." Pre-9/11, flights originating in the States were not seen as threats and NORAD wasn't prepared to track them." [1]
No stand down order was given by Cheney.

FBI's PENTTBOM Investigation
Here is the full quote- "The hijackers also apparently left no paper trail. In our investigation, we have not yet uncovered a single piece of paper "" either here in the U.S. or in the treasure trove of information that has turned up in Afghanistan and elsewhere "" that mentioned any aspect of the September 11th plot. As best we can determine, the actual hijackers had no computers, no laptops, no storage media of any kind. They used hundreds of different pay phones and cell phones, often with prepaid calling cards that are extremely difficult to trace. And they made sure that all the money sent to them to fund their attacks was wired in small amounts to avoid detection." [2] This was in 2002. They have actually found an evidence about the plot by now [3][4][5]. Another problem with this theory is how ridiculously easy it would have been for any people involved in the "conspiracy" to make fake documents. This theory is absurd.

My opponent continues to make unsupported claims with an enormous lack of evidence. My opponent claims there is a "mountain of evidence" but has failed to produce it. My opponent tries to claim mechanics and engineers are all conspiracy theorists which is a blatant lie.
"
  • The reports from government investigations " the 9/11 Commission Report (which incorporated intelligence information from the earlier FBI investigation (PENTTBOM) and the Joint Inquiry of 2002), and the studies into building performance carried out by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)
  • Investigations by non-government organizations that support the accepted account " such as those by the National Fire Protection Association, and by scientists of Purdue University and NorthWestern University.
  • Articles supporting these facts and theories appearing in magazines such as Popular Mechanics, The Scientific American, and Time.
  • Similar articles in news media throughout the world, including The Times of India, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC), the BBC Le Monde, Deutsche Welle, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC), and The Chosen Ilbo of South Korea.
  • U.S. President Barack Obama's June 2009 speech to the Muslim world where he said "I am aware that some question or justify the events of 9/11. But let us be clear: al-Qaeda killed nearly 3,000 people on that day."
These sources concluded that al-Qaeda crashed United Airlines Flight 175 and American Airlines Flight 11 into the twin towers of the World Trade Center, and crashed American Airlines Flight 97 into the Pentagon. The impact and resulting fires caused the collapse of the Twin Towers and the destruction and damage of other buildings in the World Trade Center complex. The Pentagon was severely damaged by the impact of the airliner and the resulting fire. The hijackers also crashed a fourth plane into a field near Shanksville, Pennsylvania after the passengers and flight crew attempted to regain control of the aircraft." [6]

"The hosts of "The Skeptics' Guide to the Universe" (the "SGU") have spoken repeatedly about the absurdity of 9/11 conspiracy theories. In addition to critiquing the theories using the same or similar arguments as the above, the "SGU" hosts say that, like most conspiracy theories, this one collapses under its own weight and contradicts itself. In order for the 9/11 conspiracy theories to be correct, the U.S. government would not only have to orchestrate the claimed false flag operation regarding the airplanes that crashed into the World Trade Center, but they would also have to orchestrate a superfluous controlled demolition and cover their tracks so flawlessly that it becomes indistinguishable to physicists from the "official story," yet the plan would have to be flawed enough so that "losers in their mothers' basement" will discover the conspiracy."[6]

"Michael Shermer, writing in Scientific American, said: "The mistaken belief that a handful of unexplained anomalies can undermine a well-established theory lies at the heart of all conspiratorial thinking. All the evidence for a 9/11 conspiracy falls under the rubric of this fallacy. Such notions are easily refuted by noting that scientific theories are not built on single facts alone but on a convergence of evidence assembled from multiple lines of inquiry."[6]

To make baseless accusations like this one is to trivialize one of the greatest tragedies in the history of the USA, and it is not only wrong, but downright disgraceful. The resolution has been defeated in multiple ways, all of them sufficient by themselves. The only way to vote is Con.


[1] http://www.popularmechanics.com...
[2] http://www.fbi.gov...
[3] http://www.9-11commission.gov...
[4] http://news.bbc.co.uk...
[5] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[6] http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 3
35 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by YamaVonKarma 2 years ago
YamaVonKarma
In any other case, you'd be right. But! I hold no allegiance to a political party, can guarantee you that no one else on this backwater planet comes close to being me, laugh at your attempt to disprove our existences, and stand by the fact that there is no one alive who could understand my sexual preference.
Posted by ShadowKingStudios 2 years ago
ShadowKingStudios
So stop crying. And I said I believe the official story to be BS, yet you keep ignorantly lumping me as a believer.
https://www.youtube.com...
Posted by Quantumhead 2 years ago
Quantumhead
Buddy, I genuinely don't care that you voted against me. I didn't really make an argument. I posted the logical conclusion of a series of facts which my opponent chose to respond to by using fallacy and then cheating. The official story contradicts itself, and therefore to believe a story which contradicts itself you must be intellectually retarded.

I did not claim that half of Americans are clinically disabled, so to attack that claim is a straw man fallacy.

It is a further fallacy to claim that because I didn't point out a straw man definition in the first round that makes it a valid definition in the second round.

I have no interest in debating people unprepared to remain truthful, I have no interest in debating people who cheat, and I have no interest debating people trying to claim they voted against me despite agreeing with me.
Posted by ShadowKingStudios 2 years ago
ShadowKingStudios
I believe the official to be bullsh!t too. But you still did a lousy job in convincing through your argument. I believe in a Supreme God, I believe in the non-contradictory Bible in it's non-English versions, yet I have voted against Christian-based arguments in favor of Atheistic arguments simply because the Atheist "present a more coherent, practical discourse".

Voted for Doomswatter TWICE even though he vilified biblical texts TWICE.
http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
Voted for Truthhurts even though he vilified biblical texts.
http://www.debate.org...
Voted against GodChooseLife 12 hours after accepting her friend request.
http://www.debate.org...

So my political allegiance has about an iota of influence in my judgement of argumentative facts. I voted against you because "Pro shot himself in the head from the beginning with "Intellectually Retarded"...." You used this term to as a pillar in your offense; you misapplied this term, therefore your base argument was fallible, and Raymond exposed it's fragility, crumbled it, shat on it, then threw it back in your face.

My Conservatism had nothing to do with my vote against you.
Posted by Quantumhead 2 years ago
Quantumhead
No, I am losing by 42 points because the person I was arguing against:-

A) Used a series of sock accounts to vote for himself within 2 minutes of him posting his closing "argument".

B) Invited every one of his friends to come and vote against me.

This can be evidenced in a myriad of ways. Firstly, as I mentioned, the timing of the first two or three votes was extremely suspicious. Secondly, the first voter and the second voter used precisely the same diction in their comments. Thirdly, every single person who has thus far voted on this debate is Conservative, and identify themselves as such on their profile. In fact the last person to vote on this debate has an account which is less than two weeks old, and an open debate in which he argues that being gay is morally wrong.

The proof that you are cheating is to be found in the fact that any random set of voters would contain a mix of both left and right wing voters, and I would win some points as people who share my political point of view would feel obligated to vote for me. It is statistically extremely unlikely that every visiting voter has a new profile and is arguing a hard-right Conservative position, if those visits were made by chance alone. That is evidence of cheating. Of using sock accounts and of sending emails to friends asking them to vote.

It doesn't really matter however, because all you're doing is working to solidify me as the winner. Your story was shown to contradict the facts and therefore by cheating the results, you just show that the GOP mentality is to lie when you're wrong and cheat when you've lost. The entire world knows by now, that literally every word which leaves the lips of American Conservatives is a deliberate untruth. That is why when the matter of 9/11 was raised in Germany, 89 percent of people said they believe that the official story is untrue.
Posted by ShadowKingStudios 2 years ago
ShadowKingStudios
Ditto, Yama. Ditto.
Posted by YamaVonKarma 2 years ago
YamaVonKarma
This is why you're losing by 42 points.
Posted by Quantumhead 2 years ago
Quantumhead
Trolling doesn't have a minimum word count, spastic.
Posted by ShadowKingStudios 2 years ago
ShadowKingStudios
One comment doesn't constitute trolling, but all your umpteenth ones surely does.
Posted by Quantumhead 2 years ago
Quantumhead
Your obvious trolling unfortunately betrays you as the sort of person who would respond to peer-reviewed chemistry research with a South Park clip.
8 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Vote Placed by LordEnglish 2 years ago
LordEnglish
QuantumheadRaymond_ReddingtonTied
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: ok
Vote Placed by YaHey 2 years ago
YaHey
QuantumheadRaymond_ReddingtonTied
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: Why is this debate even happening?
Vote Placed by FuzzyCatPotato 2 years ago
FuzzyCatPotato
QuantumheadRaymond_ReddingtonTied
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: Con trolled and provided better sources. Pro was offensive.
Vote Placed by YamaVonKarma 2 years ago
YamaVonKarma
QuantumheadRaymond_ReddingtonTied
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 made a claim and didn't prove it. That is an automatic forfeit. After posting my original vote, con proceeded to claim that I and every other voter was a 'sock' account. Pro has now lost the conduct point I originally gave him.
Vote Placed by neutral 2 years ago
neutral
QuantumheadRaymond_ReddingtonTied
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 is using typical conspiracy theory tactics, ignores evidence when it conflicts and attempts to employ absurdity to ignore strong case against his position.
Vote Placed by ShadowKingStudios 2 years ago
ShadowKingStudios
QuantumheadRaymond_ReddingtonTied
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 shot himself in the head from the beginning with "Intellectually Retarded" as Con pointed out its literal meaning with common sense understanding. The first 2 votes go to Con because upon reading the debate title it was apparent, since I'm not intellectually retarded, the term was wrongly applied thus I was bound to agree with Con after. Con stuck to the religion of Common Sense which is what I worship daily (Conduct). Besides, arrogance is a cardinal sin in intellectual debates. Pro stated VERY early, "I consider burden of proof satisfied." Tight, concise sentences (S&G). Self-explanatory (last 2 votes).
Vote Placed by Martley 2 years ago
Martley
QuantumheadRaymond_ReddingtonTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 failed to provide any evidence or any sources for their position. Con argued their position well, Con sighted sources and provided "real" position on the topic. All points go to Con.
Vote Placed by Codedlogic 2 years ago
Codedlogic
QuantumheadRaymond_ReddingtonTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 failed to prove anyone (much less everyone) who believes the Bush version of 9/11 is intellectually retarded. Con stated the definition of Retarded in the opening round and Pro did not dispute it in the second round. It was not until the closing round that Pro disputed the definition. Con also showed that they were not intellectually retarded and also believed the Bush version on 9/11 which alone defeated the Pro position. Con also provided greater source material. Pro made a number of claims about the physics of 9/11 which were thoroughly rebutted by Con and Pro failed to make any argument linking belief of the official report with intellectual retardation. All points to Con.