The Instigator
Double_R
Pro (for)
Losing
14 Points
The Contender
Sieben
Con (against)
Winning
24 Points

Asking for a new 9/11 investigation is highly unreasonable

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 7 votes the winner is...
Sieben
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/2/2011 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 6,453 times Debate No: 16811
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (93)
Votes (7)

 

Double_R

Pro



In a previous post I asked for an intelligent debate on weather 9/11 was an inside job. I think I may have been asking too much. I decided to change my subject line to adapt to the evolved message the 9/11 truth movement continues to spread today.

Rules

If you do not believe we should reopen the investigation or if you do not plan on making an intelligent case against my point then please do not accept this challenge.

This challenge is in response to the 9/11 truth movement who to this day, continue to advocate for reopening this investigation generally based on evidence which implies that forces within the US government may have been involved in the planning of these attacks. In the spirit of this fact my opponent should stay consistent with the general message given by the majority of this movement, rather then finding some obscure reason to argue for the simple purpose of winning a debate.

My Case

To investigate something one must have a logical reason to assume that that investigation will reveal something of significance. In the past decade no one has made this case on 9/11, although many have tried. And although many claims have been made, they have all proven to be just that: claims. Supported by circumstantial evidence in which the implications contradict empirical evidence, logical fallacies, or in some cases flat out incorrect information.

I look forward to hearing my challenger’s case so that I can prove my point.
Sieben

Con

Framework:

Pro's brightline for Con victory is for me to provide "a logical reason to assume that investigation will reveal something of significance."

I will add to this and say that we should also consider the costs of the investigation. If it would cost $10,000,000,000 for 1% chance to uncover something new, it is probably not worth it. Conversely if it only cost $500 for a 10% chance to uncover something new, lets go for it.

Inherency:

A large portion of the support for the official version of 9-11 is ipse dixit. "We assure you that the FBI did a good job and were honest and they assured us that 9-11 happened just how we say it happened".

1) NIST reports

Virtually the only part of the official story that made any attempt at transparency or rigor was the 2005 NIST reports. Several hundred pages long, NIST utilized ANSYS software to analyze the collapse of WTC 1, 2, and 7 [1]. There are several problems with this approach that significantly discredit its accuracy.

A) ANSYS Multiphysics Limitations

Fires from the impact continued for up to 90 minutes, burning up a mixture of leaking jet fuel and building materials [2]. ANSYS Multiphysics cannot model chemical reactions such as burning [3]. The NIST reports attempt to estimate fire distribution using photographs [4], which is problematic because it does not indicate internal distribution of fire, or distribution of fire over time. The NIST conclusion relies heavily upon thermal induced structural weakness [5], and is therefore poorly substantiated.

B) WTC 7 Analysis Incomplete

NIST claims: "The analysis focused on the WTC1 and WTC2. Although no steel was recovered from WTC 7 [...] properties for steel used in its construction were estimated based on literature and contemporaneous documents." [6]

So they just used average properties for steel, not the actual steel from the tower. To a skeptical observer, this would allow NIST to pick and choose which steel properties to use in order to cook their calculations.

C) Collapse Simulation Omissions

NIST explains: "The parts of structures below the impact zones (Floor 89 to Floor 91 in WTC 1 and Floor 73 to Floor 77 in WTC 2) contributed little to the overall behavior of the buildings. Previous analyses of subsytem [SIC] models and preliminary global models showed that the elements below the impact zone did not experience plastic deformations or buckling. Therefore, they were eliminated to further reduce the size of the models." [7]

So they took out the floors directly beneath where the planes hit. Their defense is that they did not matter in local-simulations, but the tower is thousands of feet high so even a 0.1 degree change could result in enormous shear lower in the tower.

They have essentially simulated it so that planes hit the weakest part of the tower.

2) Norad nonresponsiveness

Norad was notified it 8:34 AM. I don't know what a good response time is, but they should probably be able to do SOMETHING about flight 93 which crashed nearly 90 minutes later [8].

The failure to intercept the planes is due to several factors. One suspicious fact was that military exercises coincided with the 911 attacks, precluding NORAD and FAA response [9]. This implies that a $400bn military budget was undermined by $4 boxcutters. This is a prima facie bad explanation.

Plan:

It basically won't matter if we run another better simulation of the tower's collapse. There are too many unknown variables, such as the distribution of fire and structural creep [10]. The engineering is just impossible.

Fortunately, the claim of most 9-11 conspiracy groups is that people within the government know something they're not telling us about the attacks. Maybe it was all faked and they flew missiles into the buildings. Maybe George Bush and Osama are secretly collaborated on the project. Maybe the White House knew about the attacks but let them happen anyway as an excuse to start the War on Terror.

Who knows.

Plan A

George Bush and Dick Cheney were not under oath when questioned about 911 [11]. Why not? There is a chance they know something they're not telling us. There is also a (slim) chance that they respect oaths. It would be worth a shot to put them under oath and ask them some questions.

But sure, it is not likely that either heads of state respect the oath system enough to incriminate themselves. This can be ameliorated if we shoot them up with Sodium Thiopental [12] and employ the various torture techniques used by the Bush Administration to uncover vital intelligence for national security purposes.

This is helpful because Sodium Thiopental and torture are *somewhat* reliable. They are certainly better than nothing. Dick Cheney himself thought that "dunking terrorism suspects in water during questioning was a "no-brainer.""[13].

Even if you think there's only a 5% chance this will reveal something new, the benefits far outweigh the costs. The physical "procedure" is itself very simple and cheap, while the benefits of uncovering the True 9-11 story measure at least in the billions. There is also the intangible weight of justice that could be done to so many suffering families.

The only possible objection to this plan is that George Bush and Dick Cheney would have their rights violated. But they are mass murderers. They have collaborated in the killing of hundreds of thousands of innocent people [14]. So from a moral standpoint, we can do just about anything we want to them.

Plan B

The bureaucratic response structure of NORAD and the FAA should be evaluated. Is there evidence of foul play? Does it look like the institutions were deliberately designed to fail? The architects of our national defense system need to be investigated. At the very least, they have endangered American lives by building such flimsy institutions. I suggest starting with Ralph Eberheart, who was the Commander of NORAD at the time [15]. To my knowledge he has never been conscientiously [16] evaluated.

Sources:

[1] http://tinyurl.com...
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[3] http://www.ansys.com...
[4] http://wtc.nist.gov...
[5] http://wtc.nist.gov...
[6] http://wtc.nist.gov...
[7] http://wtc.nist.gov...
[8] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[9] http://liberatingmemes.wordpress.com...
[10] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[11] http://www.msnbc.msn.com...
[12] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[13] http://www.msnbc.msn.com...
[14] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[15] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[16] http://en.wikipedia.org...

Debate Round No. 1
Double_R

Pro

Framework:

I accept Cons addition that cost should also be considered, however I do not feel that it will play any significant role. Many people have looked into the conclusions and concerns of the accepted version of events. Most have very strong feelings about weather we should or should not reinvestigate these attacks. I do not think cost has ever been considered as a factor in those beliefs.

Furthermore I would also like to point out that reinvestigating these attacks would be opening a door this country has closed long ago. Doing so would cause a very emotional response across the country, waste our attention and recourses, and would also in my opinion make us look foolish to ourselves and the rest of the world investigating our own former leaders in a crime that was committed by terrorists who besides taking credit for it, are still plotting ways to kill us to this day. Therefore I strongly reject Con’s premise that “for a 10% chance to uncover something new, lets go for it.” This is a serious matter and should be treated as such. The people we lost can not be brought back. The threat to this country has been demonstrated many times before and after 9/11. A 10% chance is not good enough, and I contend that we are no where near that.


Inherency:


“A large portion of the support for the official version of 9-11 is…”


It doesn’t matter why people support the official story. That doesn’t change the argument.


NIST Reports:


Con makes what might be good points about potential issues with the NIST reports. However there are 3 main issues with his argument:


1. None of his points prove NIST’s conclusions to be wrong but rather suggest that their methods might not produce accurate results.

2.
He fails to take into account the fact that the vast majority of the scientific community accepts the conclusions of the NIST reports, not simply because they believe what they are told but because many scientists and engineers have done the work themselves. The following is a list of just some of the many peer reviewed scientific papers that have been published supporting the official story:



“Behaviour of lightweight composite trusses in fire: A case study,” STEEL AND COMPOSITE STRUCTURES 7 (2): 105-118 APR 2007


“Mechanics of progressive collapse: Learning from world trade center and building demolitions,” JOURNAL OF ENGINEERING MECHANICS-ASCE 133 (3): 308-319 MAR 2007


“Finite element code for impact collapse problems of framed structures,” INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL FOR NUMERICAL METHODS IN ENGINEERING 69 (12): 2538-2563 MAR 19 2007


“Impact of the Boeing 767 aircraft into theWorldTradeCenter,” JOURNAL OF ENGINEERING MECHANICS-ASCE 131 (10): 1066-1072 OCT 2005


“Effect of insulation on the fire behaviour of steel floor trusses,” FIRE AND MATERIALS 29 (4): 181-194 JUL-AUG 2005


“Stability of theWorldTradeCenterTwinTowersstructural frame in multiple floor fires,” JOURNAL OF ENGINEERING MECHANICS-ASCE 131 (6): 654-657 JUN 2005


“Structural responses of world trade center under aircraft attacks,” JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING-ASCE 131 (1): 6-15 JAN 2005


“Use of high-efficiency energy absorbing device to arrest progressive collapse of tall building,” JOURNAL OF ENGINEERING MECHANICS-ASCE 130 (10): 1177-1187 OCT 2004


“How did the WTC towers collapse: a new theory,” FIRE SAFETY JOURNAL 38 (6): 501-533 OCT 2003


“A suggested cause of the fire-induced collapse of theWorldTradeTowers,” FIRE SAFETY JOURNAL 37 (7): 707-716 OCT 2002


The following site has links to many more: http://www.debunking911.com...
I challenge Con to show how many scientific papers have been published refuting NIST’s conclusions.

3.
Con fails to explain what his own points imply. I would argue that Con has made a simple case that there is more work needed on learning the science of the collapses. However I would also argue in light of my previous point that his case is negated. But either way this has nothing to do with America being attacked on 9/11. If Con would like to make a case as to why any of his points are relevant to his support for a new investigation I would be happy to look more closely at them.


NORAD non responsiveness:


"One suspicious fact was that military exercises coincided with the 911 attacks, precluding NORAD and FAA response”


Coincidences are not evidence. In a massive event such as 9/11, there will be many, many elements. It is by no means surprising that coincidences were discovered. Furthermore in 2001 (before the wars), our military was allocated over $292 billion(1). It is not suspicious to me that they would perform exercises to protect us.


“This implies that a $400bn military budget was undermined by $4 boxcutters. This is a prima facie bad explanation.”


Our military was undermined by the determination of the terrorists, the element of surprise, and the use of that surprise coupled with fear to take over the planes. To suggest that they were undermined by $4 box cutters is a demonstration my opponent’s willful inability to see the reality of a situation when that reality contradicts his position.


Plan A


“George Bush and Dick Cheney were not under oath when questioned about 911… It would be worth a shot to put them under oath and ask them some questions.”


I do agree that they should have been under oath but for reasons I mentioned earlier, I do not feel it’s “worth a shot” to put them under oath and ask them some questions. Unless you have a real reason to, which I am still waiting for.


“This can be ameliorated if we shoot them up with Sodium Thiopental [12] and employ the various torture techniques used by the Bush Administration to uncover vital intelligence for national security purposes.”


At this point I must question if my opponent is taking this subject seriously. He is suggesting that the United States literally torture it’s former President and Vice President because a handful of conspiracy theorists can not accept that we were attacked by Al Queda.


“The only possible objection to this plan is that George Bush and Dick Cheney would have their rights violated.”


Only possible objection? The voters may draw their own rebuttals. If Con is serious I’ll refute this in later rounds. For now I would advise Con that is he wishes to be taken seriously in this debate he should focus on making a case for an investigation before making a case that that investigation should include torturing our former President and Vice President.


Plan B


“The bureaucratic response structure of NORAD and the FAA should be evaluated. Is there evidence of foul play? Does it look like the institutions were deliberately designed to fail?”


One usually finds reasonable suspicion of foul play before deciding to evaluate it for that purpose. This statement characterizes what is wrong with this debate as 9/11 truthers have made it throughout the years. It is not the government’s responsibility to refute the claims of the conspiracy theorists. That is not the way science and investigation works in our society. Anyone can point the finger at someone else and say “I think they are guilty”. The burden of proof falls on the person making the claim.


Summary:


To investigate something one must have a logical reason to assume that that investigation will reveal something of significance.”

Con accepts this basic premise but fails to provide any logical reasons whatsoever. Instead he makes random points that he feels deserve better answers. The original investigation may not satisfy our expectations when looking at the events in retrospect, but the human desire to have answers to every question imaginable is not a reason for an investigation.

Con also makes many references to his belief that an investigation is warranted because we “might” find something. As I mentioned, the process of gathering reasonable suspicion occurs before an investigation, it is not the reason we investigate something.


(1) comptroller.defense.gov/defbudget/fy2001/fy2001_greenbook.pdf
Sieben

Con

Framework:

If people feel strongly both ways about new investigations, we're tied. However, the truth would enhance justice, so I gain resumption in favor of investigation.

Pro says it might be embarrassing to re-open investigations. But so far I have only named 3 people to be investigated. This can be discrete.

Inherency:

NIST reports are the objective support for the official story. Since the engineering is flawed/impossible, we just have the government's word on it. We need to re-open investigations to get sound and transparent evidence.

My case does not depend on crazy conspiracy theorists.

1) NIST Reports

Dropped all my tags...

A) My points show the reports are either inaccurate or wrong. If they simulate the planes hitting a superficially weak part of the tower, then assume that the fires are burning at maximum strength for 90 minutes, it skews their answer significantly towards collapse.

B) Pro relies on authority. He says there is consensus that NIST science is good. This is a bad argument for 3 reasons:

i) This is a debate. You use arguments to support your ideas. An appeal to authority is a logical fallacy. He's just given bunch of paper headers. He is running his case off an external website without even giving us the links. This defeats the point of having a character limit.

ii) I pointed to UNKNOWABLE engineering variables like fire distribution or initial stress/strain conditions. The NIST reports admitted they didn't use actual steel from WTC 7. I could find other things wrong with their reports. The engineering data to solve this problem doesn't exist. Pro's reports must have the same (or worse) defects than the NIST reports.

iii) Somehow, I have space to address all his sources. He will not get back to me. This is because he is just spamming and does not understand engineering.

http://www.fire-research.group.shef.ac.uk...
-Circular reasoning. They tinkered with variables until their structure collapsed. They did not estimate actual variables from evidence.
-Contradicts the NIST report by pointing out that insulation would minimize the effects of fire.

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu...
- Self fulfilling prophecy because it assumes one floor has collapsed, and that the collapsing energy is (by their definition) greater than the energy required to collapse subsequent floors.
-States that there was an order of magnitude greater energy than required for collapse. Doesn't explain why the tower wouldn't collapse instantly if there were >10x the energy required to fall it.
-Pancake model disregards truss/beam mechanics that make structures significantly stronger.

“Finite element code for impact collapse problems of framed structures,”
Can find no free copy

http://trid.trb.org...
-Does not model the collapse.
-Explains that the plane wouldn't be able to penetrate exterior columns of the WTC.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com...
-"Unlike the actual event in the WTC with multiple floors exposed to fire, this analysis only considers a single floor, hence the results from this analysis do not confirm the actual behaviour of the buildings while they collapsed."

http://ascelibrary.org...
-This is a 2d model. Real life is 3d
-No full free copy online...

http://ascelibrary.org...
- They assumed that the structure collapsed due to official reasons and then tried to reverse-engineer what the internal floors would have looked like. More circular reasoning.

http://ascelibrary.org...
-Only tries to explain why collapse won't stop once its begun. It does not prove that the tower would START to collapse if they were hit by a plane.

http://www.sciencedirect.com...
-"A complete consensus on any detailed explanation of the definitive causes and mechanisms of the collapse of these structures is well nigh impossible given the enormous uncertainties in key data (nature of the fires, damage to fire protection, heat transfer to structural members and nature and extent of structural damage for instance)."
-This report exists because the NIST report is bad. This proves we need to re-open investigations because the government did a bad job at explaining the scientific case.

http://www.sciencedirect.com...
-Another parameter fitting exercise. Another circular claim.
-No analysis of plane impact or fire distribution.
-The models they used are insanely simple. No finite element analysis or anything.

http://tinyurl.com...

C) Pro doesn't understand the engineering points I'm making. Engineering mechanics is sound. We just don't have the data to model THIS collapse accurately.

It is unproductive to try for another simulation. Accurate simulation is impossible because we are missing key information. Without Pro's reports, the government's version of 911 has no scientific support. All we have is their word. That is not good enough.

2) NORAD Unresponsiveness

Pro says it is not suspicious that NORAD and FAA failed because 911 was a surprise attack. He gives no proof for this claim.

The ongoing war games precluded any response from the ENTIRE Northeast Air Defense Sector. It is suspicious that the USA would be entirely defenseless at any point in time, let alone the exact same time the largest terrorist attack on US soil is unfolding.

It is also suspicious that NORAD would remain defenseless throughout the entire event. NORAD had 90 minutes to do something - ANYTHING - about the Pentagon. Apparently the Department of Defense is unable to defend itself with a 90 minute warning.

Pro gives no direct rebuttal to these facts. He just says coincidence isn't evidence. Coincidence is actually inductive evidence. It is enough for us to suspect foul play and investigate the situation. I don't need a certain proof.

To my knowledge, NORAD has never been investigated. No reason has been given. I'm totally getting a clue right now... http://tinyurl.com...

Plan A

Pro concedes they should have been under Oath. There is no reason why we can't discretely order them to appear in court and re-testify under oath.

But I don't think the Oath will work. Employing "advanced interrogation" techniques is more thorough. The sodium thiopental is *kind of* a joke but not really. If it works, it works. We can also employ an fMRI machine to achieve upwards of 80% accuracy [1].

As I said before, Bush and Cheney are both mass murderers. From a moral standpoint, they have no rights. If it's okay to torture innocents in Gitmo to figure out where Osama Bin Ladin's cat was 6 months ago, it's okay to torture guilty people to help uncover the truth of 911.

I don't care if there are a bunch of crazy conspiracy theorists out there. I have presented uncontested evidence and reasoning that suggests foul play and dishonesty from the authorities.

Plan B

Pro gives no reason why we can't investigate NORAD and friends. He just says it's not their responsibility. Well, they failed to prevent a $4 terrorist attack. You should at least figure out why they failed. Why were they playing war games at that exact time? Why did the FAA and NORAD fail to communicate? Why couldn't NORAD react within 90 minutes? These are reasonable questions.

Summary

My points prove the official story is implausible. Investigations were hidden from public view and the science is flawed. We need new investigations that are transparent and thorough.

Will we find something? There's a chance we will simply confirm the official story. Since there is virtually no cost to implementing my plans, you should just flip the coin. Heads, we get a new truth. Tails, we get a better version of the old truth. It's a win-win.


[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...

Debate Round No. 2
Double_R

Pro

Framework:

Con suggests that we’re tied because as I stated, people feel strong both ways about a new investigation. However, those who feel strong that we should investigate have not made a case as to why. I’ll continue demonstrating my point in this round.



Inherency

Con contends that the NIST reports are objective support for the official story. Curious statement, being that when it comes to the collapse of the buildings the NIST reports are the official story.


NIST reports

A)
Con contends that he has shown the NIST reports to be either inaccurate or wrong. The voters should re-read his points. He gave reasons to doubt the techniques used by NIST. This does not prove their conclusions to be inaccurate or wrong.


B)
I’ll get back to this in a minute…



i)
Con says that I am not arguing my points and running my debate off an external website. Aside from the list of 10 papers I cited, every other point I made was a rebuttal to his points. This is impossible to do from an external website.


Con then moves on to rebut certain points in each of the 10 different scientific papers I provided (there are also 20 more in the link I posted, are they all flawed?). He ignored my request to show how many scientific papers have been published refuting NIST’s conclusions. Apparently Con is more educated about building collapses then the entire scientific community. Con will probably complain again that I am using appeal to authority here, and that this is not how we debate. The purpose of a debate is to make your case. If the science of the collapses had anything to do with the attacks of 9/11 (which Con has yet to make any implications of) then I would argue them. But since he hasn’t drawn any connections to the attacks, his case has nothing to do with the resolution. Even if I were to concede this particular argument Con has proven nothing other then the idea that the scientific community is apparently incapable of understanding the collapses. Yet this would have to be the same scientific community who would re-investigate them. This would be an obvious waste of time and energy. (BTW the NIST report cost 16 million(10))


Con states that it would be impossible to try for another simulation because we are missing key data. If we are missing key data then a new investigation would be pointless.


He then states:


“Without Pro's reports, the government's version of 911 has no scientific support.”


Correct. If you take away all the papers that support the official story, you'll no longer have papers that support the official story. Glad we agree.


2) NORAD non responsiveness

Cons entire NORAD argument fails to consider 1 very important concept: nothing like this had ever happened before. Our defense system was set up to focus on defending against external threats, not internal. And there was no reason they should have been. By 2001 there hadn’t been a hijacking in the US in 10 years (1).


“Pro gives no reason why we can't investigate NORAD and friends.”


It is not NORAD’s responsibility to prove that they should not be investigated, It is the accuser’s responsibility to provide a reason that they should be.


I stated earlier that questions are not evidence. As Con pointed out, this is only partially correct. It depends on the type of question. Let’s look at the questions and points Con has brought up:


“Norad was notified it 8:34 AM. I don't know what a good response time is, but they should probably be able to do SOMETHING about flight 93 which crashed nearly 90 minutes later”


NORAD was notified at 8:32 of the hijacking of flight 11. Fighter Jets were scrambled at 8:46 but they didn’t know where to scramble to because the transponders were turned off. It was also at 8:46 that Flight 11 crashed into the WTC. At this point they had no reason to think this was anything more then an isolated incident. American Airlines received its first reports of anything going wrong with flight 93 at 9:34, and at 9:49 we had the famous “Uh, God, I don’t know, everybody left the room” phone call where the FAA couldn’t decide if they should scramble another jet. At 10:03 the plane crashed. By that point fighters were already sent to DC where NORAD suspected the plane was heading.(2)(5) But by then it didn’t matter. The reason it takes 15 minutes to get to the person who makes these decisions is because the people in charge have very serious responsibilities and can not sit around all day waiting for a phone call we had not received in 10 years. There were unfortunately procedures in place that had to be followed. If we had any reason to believe something like this would ever happen, we would have fixed that system before 9/11 instead of after. This is not suspicious, its human nature.


“The bureaucratic response structure of NORAD and the FAA should be evaluated.”

We do not need a new investigation for that. Just a computer and a phone line. Here are the procedures. If you read it you will see that it helps to explain why it takes so long to respond in pre 9/11 days. I’d explain it myself but I don’t have space. (9)


“NORAD had 90 minutes to do something - ANYTHING - about the Pentagon. Apparently the Department of Defense is unable to defend itself with a 90 minute warning.”

Same point repeated, same answer. But if I didn’t make it clear enough, this 90 min claim comes from the time of the hijacking of the first plane to the crash of the last plane which had nothing to do with each other. It completely disregards the reality of how hectic and confusing that day was.


“Well, they failed to prevent a $4 terrorist attack.”

“I already refuted this. I don’t quite understand your need to emphasize that they were $4 box cutters. Would you be satisfied if they were $20?


“Why were they playing war games at that exact time?

Nice tactic. Ask a question that no one could ever answer, then claim that I did not answer your question therefore you win. Here is more on your war games(7)


“Why did the FAA and NORAD fail to communicate?”

They didn’t. Their conversations are all documented.(2)(3)(4)(5)(6)(8)


“These are reasonable questions.”

They have all been answered.


Plan A


Con states there is no reason we can not discretely place our former President and Vice President under oath to testify about the largest mass murder in our nations history with the intent to find out something suspicious. This is not reality. And if it were, how would we know that this has not been done already?


Con also states that they are mass murderers and that we can do anything we want to them. His definition of a mass murderer apparently comes from his round 1 statement when he said that they collaborated in the killing of hundreds of thousands of innocent people in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Being that every president presides over a many operations that result in mass loss of life, by his logic Barrack Obama, Joe Biden, Bill Clinton, Al Gore, George H. Bush, Dan Quale, Jimmy Carter and every other former President and Vice president still alive are all mass murderers and apparently have no rights. (guess I won't be running for office)


I do actually have things of my own to say but I’ve reached my limit and will have to save it till the next round which I look forward to.

(1) http://www.bts.gov...

(2) http://www.npr.org...

(3) http://www.npr.org...

(4) http://www.npr.org...

(5) http://www.npr.org...

(6) http://conspiracies.skepticproject.com...

(7) http://911myths.com...

(8) http://911myths.com...

(9) http://www.dtic.mil...

(10) http://wtc.nist.gov...

Sieben

Con

Framework:

I said we were "tied" on the "people feeling strongly both ways" point. This shows Pro doesn't secure advantage by pointing it out. He then shifts goalposts saying that people who want new investigations are wrong, which is a cop out since he's filibustering by predicating the argument on the debate's conclusion.

Inherency:

Pro takes me out of context. The NIST reports are the (attempted) objective support for the story. Nothing else the government has said is transparent or objective.

NIST Reports:

A) Pro wants you to re-read my points and come up with arguments for him. Even if you can come up with counterarguments, it doesn't mean he beats me.

Pro concedes that the report is inaccurate, so the reports probably don't have the right answer. Not being right is called "being wrong".

The reports are also biased towards showing tower collapse. See the removal of floors at the impact point, artificially weakening the tower.

B)

i) Pro is running his case from an external website because he wants us to look at tons and tons of sources he won't even give us URLs for. All he gives us are titles as if they were arguments. Even though I went through and responded to every source he gave, he still wants me to look at 20 more. He's not debating, he's spamming.

ii) Dropped. There are unknowable variables that frustrate engineering analysis.

iii) See guys! I told you he wouldn't respond!

Pro's papers do not demonstrate what he thinks they demonstrate. Many of them are micro-studies of phenomena peripherally involved in the collapse. Some of them even contradict the NIST report, claiming that fire would not appreciably alter the metallurgy of structural beams etc.

Moreover, Pro has no response to my critiques of these documents. So from the judge's standpoint, he's failing to defend his sources. He can only cry "authority". I deny that they are sources of authority since I can poke holes in them after skimming for 5 minutes. There are a few papers he cited in mainstream journals, but the majority of them appear in fire safety publications. They don't give a Nobel Prize for fire safety.

It is plausible that a bunch of professors saw a chance to gain recognition in the aftermath of 911, so published a bunch of hasty unserious papers on the event to gain recognition. The pancake model is laughable. I want to meet these professors and laugh at them.

Pro wants me to provide counter-spam to his spam, but I don't have to. First, it is sufficient for us to be agnostic about the event to re-investigate it. Second, a "correct" paper doesn't exist because key variables are missing. Pro's OWN REPORTS say this.

The reason this matters is it's the only attempt at an objective account of 911. But the engineering is bad, so we just have the government's word on it. That's not transparent. Pro has never told you why we shouldn't try to get more transparency. A new investigation needs to focus on illuminating the institutions surrounding 911, not the physical collapse of the buildings.

2) Norad unresponsiveness

Pro says it was a supersurprise because there hadn't been any plane hijackings in the past 10 years. This is actually false [1]. If you look at Pro's own source you'll see that foreign hijackings had also been on the rise, so it never should have escaped the imaginations of all the DOD thinktanks.

Pro continues to give no reason why we can't investigate NORAD and friends. He just says it isn't NORAD's responsibility to prove they should not be investigated. I don't really care who's responsibility it is. All that matters is that NORAD and the other failing institutions have never been publicly investigated and Pro can't justify why.

Pro goes through a TLDR attempt to try and explain NORAD's failure. He says they thought the first crash was an isolated incident. Why would you automatically assume its isolated? They even received subsequent reports of deviating aircraft...

Part of the delayed response was omission by the FAA. Even though they knew at 8:56 that Flight 77 turned off its transponder and refused contact, they did not report it to NORAD for nearly 30 minutes [2]. Why?

Pro wants you to believe that these planes literally disappeared off the map, and that the US cannot monitor its own airspace. The wiki page also mentions that primary radar information of flight controllers had been disrupted. Why?

Lastly, Pro concedes that the reason that it took a long time to respond was because of bureaucracy. These institutions would have failed to stop ANY surprise attack. Why were they structured so poorly in the first place?

Pro says that the response structure of these institutions is available online, but if you follow his link it only lists what they are responsible for, not their response procedures. Good job.

Pro says that the Department of Defense couldn't defend itself because it was a confusing day. This is a bad explanation because the DOD currently handles hundreds of military situations daily in the Middle East. They can probably keep track of 3 planes...

The reason I emphasize that terrorists used $4 boxcutters to bring down the world's largest military power is because it is prima facie implausible. For a hundred billion dollars you should be able to monitor your own airspace. You shouldn't be playing war games with all your response pilots. You shouldn't have to wait 15 minutes for bureaucrat A to tell bureaucrat B to press a button.

Pro gives a link on the war games. If he's right, then it means that there were jets ready to respond to the event but they sat on @$$. If he's wrong, it means we need to figure out why they just happened to be playing war games with all their northern air defense forces during the most significant terrorist attack of the decade.

Pro gives more spam saying that FAA and NORAD did communicate. But I'm saying they communicated slowly, which Pro concedes. If it is too slow, then you have a "failure of communication". See the 30-minute delay on reporting flight 77.

Plan A

Pro only says that putting the ex P/VP under oath is "not reality". This is not an argument. Pro CONCEDED that they should have been put under oath. So I guess they should re-testify.

Pro says that if Bush/Cheney are mass murderers, then every other president is a mass murderer. That is probably right.

Pro has no response to my "advanced interrogation" plan. It costs nothing except the discomfort of mass murderers.

Plan B

No Answer from Pro.



==Vote Guide==

Conduct

Pro is spamming - Wants us to read upwards of 30 sources he won't even link.

Pro is dropping - Drops tons of arguments in favor of new points and sources. It's lame when your opponent spreads his case across 3 rounds (more to come!). It's an abusive tactic because he can just throw frivolous arguments at me and pick up ones I drop.

Pro is a Liar - Claimed to have run out of space in his response. He actually had 500 characters left. If you read his post you can find many paragraphs that could be rewritten much more economically. The truth is that he just churned this out and didn't want to proof read it.

Sources:

Pro sources turned - I rebutted every paper he cited in round. He doesn't even try to defend them.

Con use of NIST reports - The NIST reports are the most comprehensive studies on the tower collapses. I analyzed them, but got silence from Pro.

Arguments:

Inherency - There is no transparent report explaining the failure of government institutions.

Plan A - Conceded by Pro because he agrees Bush/Cheney should have been under oath. Advanced interrogation never rebutted.

Plan B - Never rebutted.

S&G:

Spelling - I can spell pneumoencephalography [3].

Grammar - I have space to mess around, so I must have superior sentence structure.


[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org...

Debate Round No. 3
Double_R

Pro

First of all…

Pro is a Liar - Claimed to have run out of space in his response. He actually had 500 characters left.”

If you look at the links I posted in the last round you will notice that this website cuts them off. I checked the cut off portion of the first 2 links and found 115 characters cut off. There are still 8 more links. That would equal around 500 characters cut off when I submitted my argument. You should know what you are talking about before you call someone a liar. Voters should consider this in the conduct vote.

This point is just another example of Cons inability to see the answer to a question if it does not fit his argument. It is ridiculous that I have to waste my space refuting this point. However it is necessary because due to these character limits I can not continue to go back and fourth with Con on his unfounded points and strawman arguments as much as I SOOO badly want to. Despite my constant attempts to bring this debate back to the resolution, Con continues to use those attempts as a means of attacking my conduct. I will make this final round to show how Con has not even bothered to make a case.

Purpose:

The purpose of a debate is to convince your opponent, your audience, or both that your position on the resolution is correct. Con is very good at playing games with this. He is very good at finding ways to convince the reader that he is making better points. His problem is that to do this he takes the focus away from the resolution (which is the point) and onto whatever point he feels makes him look stronger.

The Resolution:

“Asking for a new 9/11 investigation is highly unreasonable”

When I say 9/11, it is common sense that I am talking about the attacks of 9/11. I have also made this clear by pointing this out many times throughout the debate.

I will also remind the voters of this statement in the Rules portion:

This challenge is in response to the 9/11 truth movement who to this day, continue to advocate for reopening this investigation generally based on evidence which implies that forces within the US government may have been involved in the planning of these attacks. In the spirit of this fact my opponent should stay consistent with the general message given by the majority of this movement.”

Logic:

Although Con stayed away from what was supposed to be the point of this debate (implying that the US Government was involved). he still uses the same dirty little debate tactics that every advocate for a new investigation uses.

No coherent theory: It is very easy to point out inconsistencies and suspicious facts in any story. But if the official story of 9/11 is not true then something else is. Con has stayed safe from debating this reality by just asking questions. This is a very cowardly tactic because without providing any alternative possibilities, his overall position can never be scrutinized. If I answer his question he can criticize my answer. If he can not criticize my answer he can just turn to another question. And so it goes.

Shotgun Fallacy:This fallacy goes something like this… ask 101 questions, get back 100 answers, highlight the 1 question that was not answered, claim victory! I spent the entire last round (all 8,000 characters) just refuting his points. Yet in his response he says that I did not answer some particular point of his 11 seperate times which is somehow supposed to mean that I conceded them(victory!). All this really shows is that he is just throwing out points instead of actually finding good ones to focus on. Here are the paragraphs #’s as I counted to show where he does this (4,7,8,10,13,15,19,24,25,27,28).

This just goes to show why re-investigating 9/11 is so unreasonable. Those who advocate for it don’t have a theory of their own, they just ask question after question. A new investigation would do nothing more then to just give them more explanations for them to question.

Cons Case:

Con has focused his entire debate on 3 main points:

Building collapses: I was actually prepared to debate this subject but I was pushing for Con to make an implication of any kind as to what he thinks might explain the collapses. Instead he focused on proving the supporting science to be flawed. Proving the scientific community to be incompetent in evaluating building collapses has nothing to do with the attacks of 9/11. When finally acknowledging this point Con simply suggests that the investigation should focus the institutions. Why? Are they all in on some massive government plot of faking scientific papers to help the government cover up the murder of 3,000 of its own people? I can not refute any of his points on this because he did not make any. Case Rejected.

NORAD: Con asks a series of questions and points he feels are suspicious. Yet his questions make no implications as to what he thinks NORAD might be guilty of besides inefficiency. Investigating NORAD’s inefficient system before 9/11, 10 years after 9/11 when major changes have since been made, would be completely pointless and has nothing to do with the resolution. Case Rejected.

Bush and Cheney: Earlier I stated that they should have been under oath, I was not talking about in 2011. Con believes that we should re-open this investigation 10 years later and “discretely” place them under oath on the basis that we might find something, yet he has no idea of what we would possibly find. This argument lacks common sense. When pointing this out to him he says that that’s not an argument. There is no reason to debate an assertion that lacks common sense. Case Rejected.

Just a few more examples of why we should not re-investigate (Just because I had 500 characters left):

“Pro says it was a supersurprise because there hadn't been any plane hijackings in the past 10 years. This is actually false [1].”

I specifically stated that there hadn’t been a hijacking in the US for 10 years. Cons source points to foreign hijackings. Con finds something wrong with every explanation even if he has to make one up, with no counter theory to measure these explanations against. A new investigation would only result in more of the same.

First, it is sufficient for us to be agnostic about the event to re-investigate it.”

What??? In other words… ignore the explanations, then say we have to re-investigate because we have no explanations. I would ask Con if he is serious, but by this point I think he has shown that he is. (uh ooh looks like a concession… victory!)

“Pro has no response to my "advanced interrogation" plan. It costs nothing except the discomfort of mass murderers.”

By mass murders he is admittedly talking about every current and former President and Vice President still alive. How do you debate someone who lives in a reality like this one? (I would have just said the 4th amendment but somehow I don’t think that matters to him)

Conclusion:

Con never focused on the resolution. His responsibility in this debate was to make a somewhat reasonable case that we should re-investigate the attacks of 9/11. Instead he made a case that our scientists are incompetent, that our old structure at NORAD should be evaluated for efficiency 10 years later, and completely disregards common sense in why we investigate something. All this, despite my pointing these things out to him several times throughout this debate. The only thing he had to fall back on is attacking my debate tactics which again, has nothing to do with the resolution. Any new arguments at this point should be disregarded because I will not have a chance to refute them.

When someone trying to argue that we should re-investigate 9/11 can not find any reasonable alternative theory as to what might have happened other then the official story, and has to resort to suggesting that we torture our former President just to “see what we might find”, it just proves my point that Asking for a new 9/11 investigation is highly unreasonable. Case Closed.

Sieben

Con

Wow Pro's really all over the place there... Good thing he dropped all my tags! Would be a lot easier if he realized he could run his framework arguments under "Framework", and NIST arguments under "NIST"...

What are debate? [sic]:

The purpose of debate is to figure out who is a better debater, not to decide if the resolution is objectively true. Many of you probably agree with Pro but think he's made worse arguments than me. That means he loses.

My Mistake:

It turns out if you copypaste his response it cuts off the URLs. So Pro probably really did run out of space. My bad. I direct you to his horrible sentence structures and formatting as reasons why he'd run out of space. No pity.

Framework:

Pro tries to argue that I'm not being topical. He wants me to stick with the spirit of the 911-truth movement saying that "forces within the US government may have been involved in the planning of these attacks".

Plan A would also cover just about everything the 911 truth movement asserts. You can ask Bush any question. If they were involved in 911 planning, we'll find out about it.

My Plan B wants to investigate NORAD, a US federal institution. There are many within the 911-truth movement who think the US knew about the attacks but let them happen anyway. So when I say NORAD sat on @$$, they could be intentionally aiding terrorists.

Both plans are topical because they would investigate whether the USFG had a hand in the attacks.

Pro complains that he doesn't see the point of exposing the NIST reports. This is the ONLY transparent report the government has attempted to put out. The NIST reports are glaringly wrong and potentially fraudulent. So all we have left is the government's word that they weren't involved.

It seems like a bad idea to take the government's word at face value when you could just investigate the institutions.

Quick note - this is the first time Pro has argued topicality. Saving the real arguments for the last round hmm?

Logic:

No coherent theory:

No one has a coherent theory. The 911 movement has guesses. Some of them are more plausible than others. We need more facts before we can come to a reasonable conclusion. That is the whole purpose of re-opening investigations.

I don't need a coherent theory. If I blast holes in all theories it means we need to investigate more.

Shotgun Fallacy:

Well this is kind of rich. The guy who wants us to read 30 academic papers that are heavily flawed and don't even confirm his case accuses me of asking too many questions. I tried to follow Pro's complaint about me tacking on points, but I see a total of maybe 4 questions in my round 3 point 2) NORAD. Is that too much?

First, there's been a very small, consistent, set of questions since the very beginning.

-Why was NORAD playing war games with all its available response pilots?
-Why couldn't NORAD do anything to help the pentagon even with a 90 minute warning?

(The NIST reports actually made up the bulk of my case, but it was dropped so fast...)

Pro's response was a minute-by-minute description of the event which prompted even more questions. This is because his explanation is so bad, not because I'm trying to spam. So when he says the US can't monitor its own airspace because its radars were turned off, I have to ask why.

He doesn't even try to give me answers. He just cries that I'm asking too many questions, which is exactly what would happen if his explanations were full of holes. I'm doing my best to make lemonade, but Pro's giving me some pretty crappy lemons.

Cons Case:

Building Collapses:

Actually the point of this is to show that there isn't a scientific explanation for what happened. This means we have to investigate the institutions surrounding 911. There COULD be foul play, but I don't have to prove that there's foul play in advance before we investigate. My criticisms of the institutions merely point in that direction.

NORAD:

Pro says I only criticize NORAD's inefficiency. Well if you are intentionally inefficient and let the terrorists do their thing... that's what a lot of 911 truthers are saying.

Pro also brings up the new point that investigating NORAD would be pointless because its 10 years later. Obviously I meant we should investigate what NORAD was doing BACK THEN, which is probably why I named NORAD's 2001 director instead of its current director. The point is to discover if NORAD intentionally aided terrorists, maybe by being grossly ineffective.

Bush and Cheney:

Pro says he thought they should have been under oath in 2001, but gives no reason why he doesn't want them under oath in 2011. It's better than nothing...

I don't know what we'd find. We might find out the government has been lying. We might find out that they've been telling the truth and are just really stupid. Either way, we get TRANSPARENCY. This is the primary advantage I secure as Con.

Other Examples

If Pro actually read the source I linked, it shows a US hijacking in 1994. My point on foreign hijackings being on the rise demonstrates that the government doesn't have an excuse to forget that planes can be hijacked.

We are at least agnostic about the event because all we have is the government's word on it. There have never been transparent investigations. We need transparency before we can come to a reasonable explanation.

Pro really just can't get it through his head that Bush and Cheney are mass murders. Sorry. I proved this in round 1 and Pro can't even seem to comprehend what I'm saying. Mass murderers have no moral rights, so you can't be morally outraged if something bad happens to them. Pro gives no arguments against their interrogation.

=== Final Voting Guide ===

Conduct

Pro is Spamming - I repeatedly accused him of spamming abusively and running his case off an external website. He has never rebutted these charges.

Pro is Dropping - He dropped almost every argument in his last response. He has not talked about my plans at all. He just comes up with new points every round and throws out all the tags. No wonder things get disorganized.

Sources:

Pro sources turned - I rebutted every paper he cited. He no longer contests this.

Con use of NIST reports - The NIST reports are superior to all of Pro's sources on the tower collapse because they are more comprehensive. Pro doesn't even touch them.

Arguments:

Inherency - There is no transparent report. I have been hammering on this and gotten silence from Pro. We need transparency in 911 investigations. We currently have none because it is simply the government's self account.

Plan A - Getting more reliable information from key leaders like Bush/Cheney/NORAD's Director potentially uncovers new facts. More importantly, the process is transparent so whatever information we get, we can be more sure of.

Plan B - The institutions failed. Horribly. Pro wants you to believe that a $300bn military budget IN PEACETIME can't even monitor its own airspace or keep track of 3 planes at once. I call shenanigans. Foul play is a real possibility, and these institutions need to be investigated.

S&G:

Grammar - Again, Pro's sentence structure is really bad. He runs out of space even though he drops most of the debate. My organization is superior because I can address all his spam and flow my old arguments. Nuff said.

Debate Round No. 4
93 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Sieben 5 years ago
Sieben
"When appeal to popularity works for you:"

I never tried to use it deductively. http://en.wikipedia.org...

"Because I know I have to slow down to retard level to get you to understand what things mean these quotes show that you are a hypocrite. Do you understand or should I start slurring to make my point more clear to you?"

Looooooooseeeer
Posted by Double_R 5 years ago
Double_R
Hey, your hommies are back on TV!
Posted by Double_R 5 years ago
Double_R
Just the lattest example of why debating you is so pointless...

When appeal to popularity is used against you:
"Also, appeal to popularity. You need to cut out the logical fallacies man"
"Ahh. Appeal to popularity. The masses are as¬s¬es bro"

When appeal to popularity works for you:
"Everyone else agrees with me except OreEle, who is the spokesmen for Retards Against Sieben."
"It makes me feel a little better if everyone on a debate website says you're a sh¬itty debater. If the debate website were 50/50 on the issue, then I wouldn't be able to conclude anything."

Because I know I have to slow down to retard level to get you to understand what things mean these quotes show that you are a hypocrite. Do you understand or should I start slurring to make my point more clear to you?
Posted by Sieben 5 years ago
Sieben
"Instead of starting with basic algebra I have to start aaaaall the way at the beginning with 1+1."

Because you think 1+1=3. The presidents are mass murderers. Sorry.

"You want an appeal to popularity? You think everyone agrees with you?"

I think most people on this site agree that you're a retard.

"Ok then please explain to me why George Bush, Dick Cheney, and every other president have never been interrogated and still have rights?"

Because the government is judge in its own case. Also, Bush has been charged with war crimes in international courts http://deoxy.org... Its just that the US media doesn't care to cover it.

"Please tell me why no one in the real world that is actually taken seriously will stand by your presidents are mass murderers theory? "

Maybe they're stupid like you. Maybe they don't care. Maybe they never thought about it because people are rationally ignorant of politics.

"Please tell me why conspiracy websites and debate .org are the only places where people actually take re-investigating 9/11 seriously?"

Because people like you just want everyone to be brainwashed and drink the kool-aid.

"Sorry (not really) to break it to you, everybody does not agree with you"

They're stupid.

"But if that is what makes you feel better, keep telling yourself that."

It makes me feel a little better if everyone on a debate website says you're a sh­itty debater. If the debate website were 50/50 on the issue, then I wouldn't be able to conclude anything.
Posted by Double_R 5 years ago
Double_R
"Ahh. Appeal to popularity. The masses are as­s­es bro."

You just don't get it. Seriously. You will never understand how to have a normal conversation in disagreement without referring to "debate rules" in your brain. It is pointless to debate you because you do not understand very basic things about life. Debating you is like trying to teach algebra to a kindergartener. Instead of starting with basic algebra I have to start aaaaall the way at the beginning with 1+1. I am not willing to do that which is why I have not bothered trying to match your "logical" arguments you seem to think you are winning and have no desire to continue this pointless back and fourth with you. BTW since you are so against appeal to popularity...

"You sir, are a retard. Everyone else agrees with me except OreEle, who is the spokesmen for Retards Against Sieben. Why don't you and all the other Re Re's leave DDO and create your own Special Olympics style debate website?"

You want an appeal to popularity? You think everyone agrees with you? Ok then please explain to me why George Bush, Dick Cheney, and every other president have never been interrogated and still have rights? Please tell me why no one in the real world that is actually taken seriously will stand by your presidents are mass murderers theory? Please tell me why conspiracy websites and debate .org are the only places where people actually take re-investigating 9/11 seriously? Sorry (not really) to break it to you, everybody does not agree with you. But if that is what makes you feel better, keep telling yourself that.
Posted by dcarvajal1990 5 years ago
dcarvajal1990
haha someone's being a sore looser...
Posted by Sieben 5 years ago
Sieben
"It is so far beyond the pale of what is considered acceptable in our society, which is how most people would define the word crazy. But to you it is a valid point."

Ahh. Appeal to popularity. The masses are as­s­es bro.

"It goes way beyond that. Not everything in life can be explained with logic. Some things you just know or you don't."

AAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

So no matter how fu­cking stupid I make you look using logic, you have faith that you're right?
Posted by Double_R 5 years ago
Double_R
I was thinking that common sense was... common. This is exactly what I mean when I say that I feel like I have to downgrade my intelligence level to win a debate. Pointing out what you were saying by expanding on it is enough to make any normal person laugh. It is so far beyond the pale of what is considered acceptable in our society, which is how most people would define the word crazy. But to you it is a valid point. I think you have been debating for so long that you forgot some of the most basic things about life. I do have logical explanations for some of these things you keep saying but I don't offer them because that is not where you and I differ. It goes way beyond that. Not everything in life can be explained with logic. Some things you just know or you don't.
Posted by Sieben 5 years ago
Sieben
Me: George Bush is a mass murderer
You: That would make every other president a mass murderer
Me: Yeah that's probably right

What are you thinking?????
Posted by Double_R 5 years ago
Double_R
"You didn't realize that you'd have to debate in order to win debates?"

No, I just didn't think I would have to lower my intelligence level to win one.
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by ExNihilo 5 years ago
ExNihilo
Double_RSiebenTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: Con conduct bad
Vote Placed by LaissezFaire 5 years ago
LaissezFaire
Double_RSiebenTied
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: Countering ExNihilo's absurd votebomb.
Vote Placed by Haasenfeffor 5 years ago
Haasenfeffor
Double_RSiebenTied
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:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Much better arguements, better use of words, win!!!!!! Also, much better sources
Vote Placed by m93samman 5 years ago
m93samman
Double_RSiebenTied
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:06 
Reasons for voting decision: No brainer really
Vote Placed by Grape 5 years ago
Grape
Double_RSiebenTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Con clearly wins on the argument that the former Bush Administration should be investigated since Con responses with non-arguments. Pro's claim that we don't have enough evidence to investigate NORAD is also insufficient when he has no arguments of his own. The sources vote is obvious because Con plainly had superior knowledge and understanding of how to apply data like the NIST reports to the debate. I don't buy the points about argument spamming from either side so tied conduct and grammar.
Vote Placed by Ore_Ele 5 years ago
Ore_Ele
Double_RSiebenTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:41 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct - Pro, obviously. Calling your opponent a liar along with several other personal comments made by Con. S&G - There were some mistakes on both sides but Pro suffered from it far more. Arguments - Con defeated his own arguments by saying that it is reasonible to re-open the case, but also saying that there are too many unknowns that we can never know. He also misconstrued Pros arguments several times.
Vote Placed by Cliff.Stamp 5 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
Double_RSiebenTied
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:25 
Reasons for voting decision: As noted in the comments in detail, Pro did make an attempt (1 pt) and Sieben at times is a bit hostile (but well behaved for Sieben) 1 pt, but for everything else it was very lopsided. Pro spammed, dropped, and resorted to appeals. 5:2 Con.