The Instigator
RevNge
Pro (for)
Losing
2 Points
The Contender
Wylted
Con (against)
Winning
10 Points

Contender's Pick

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 4 votes the winner is...
Wylted
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/13/2014 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,423 times Debate No: 66951
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (25)
Votes (4)

 

RevNge

Pro

I'm starting to get pissed because everyone's assuming I'm a dumbass (partly true), and I've decided that maybe I should focus more on the debating aspect of the site, as I think most people only think of me as a social butterfly, and am pretty sure lots of people would want to ban me if they could.

Whoever accepts; make sure you have a topic ready. If you're arguing for Pro, post your constructive case first. If you're Con, simply state your topic and only acceptance.

Depending on the topic, BoP is on Pro or shared.

No new arguments in the final round.

Best of luck to whoever accepts!
Wylted

Con

The topic is "Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone in the assassination of JFK".

I'm con. I accept and look forward to my opponent's arguments.
Debate Round No. 1
RevNge

Pro

Many thanks to Wylted for accepting this debate and for his topic.

Also, I apologize for the extreme lack of content in this argument and will aim to post much more in Round 3 as I am on break. It seems that I've overestimated the amount of time and devotion I'd have along with procrastination. I will only have time for a single contention and then it'll be on to Con. I will make sure to post a legitimate case in Round 3.

I will assume that the BoP is shared in regards to this topic. Pro must prove that Lee Harvey Oswald has acted alone in the assassination of JFK, while Con goes against the status quo and proves that more than one person was directly involved in the assassination.
________________________________________________________________

C1: Lee Harvey Oswald was the only one who directly shot Kennedy.
On November 22, 1963, Kennedy was fatally shot in the head while traveling in a presidential motorcade. 80% of the 51 witnesses have reported they heard three gunshots in total.[1] Furthermore, in the Warren Commission Hearings, three bullet shells were found in the sniper's nest where Lee Harvey Oswald had been seen in the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository.[2]

Due to this, it's highly unlikely that there was another person physically involved in the assassination of JFK, and Lee Harvey Oswald was directly the sole perpetrator in the crime.

[1]http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
[2]http://history-matters.com...
Wylted

Con

I decided to give my opponent a fair chance by rushing like hell also.

Lee Harvey Oswald was a KGB spy and likely was on a secret mission from them to kill the president. He also showed signs of brain washing.

'GULAG KGB spies still use brainwashed people to set up murders, suicide-murders, massacres and many other crimes (like 4 suicide-murders in Fairfax in December 2005-2006 to "greet" the exhibition about GULAG labor camps) and since GULAG KGB agents recently organized a successful campaign against President Obama in 2009 (see links below), it looks logical to suggest that Lee Harvey Oswald could be a KGB spy, and JFK assassination was organized by the same or similar KGB people."

http://www.normalbreathing.com...
Debate Round No. 2
RevNge

Pro

Thanks for the fair chance, Wylted.

I've written this in approximately fifty minutes, so I suppose you can say that I rushed. Then again, I didn't have really anything to rebut.
______________________________________
Con has not provided a rebuttal to the correlation between the three gunshots and the three bullet shells found in the sniper's nest, although I will expect one in the next round. I will continue on with my contentions.

C2: During the aftermath of the assassination, LHO had also shot police officer J. D. Tippit.
According to the Warren Commission, at approximately 1:15 PM, the Dallas Patrolman identified as J. D. Tippit confronted Oswald in his police car due to his resemblance to the description of the shooter given by witness Howard Brennan. When Tippit exited his car, he was killed by Oswald with four shots from a revolver. At least twelve eyewitnesses claimed to have seen him at the shooting or directly afterwards,[1] which eliminates the possibility of Oswald not being the one who has murdered Tippit.

If Oswald was brainwashed into an assassination for the KGB, why would he blatantly kill a minor patrolman and ultimately draw even more attention to himself, risking the exploitation of the KGB conspiracy? This must be as follows:

P) If Oswald was brainwashed into an assassination for the KGB, his captors would make sure he would do it discreetly in order to avoid the exploitation of their conspiracy.
Q) Oswald instead killed Tippit in plain view, thus drawing even more attention to himself with more compiled evidence.
R) Therefore, Oswald was not brainwashed or he did not constitute the behaviors of being brainwashed, which Con must prove to fulfill his part of the BoP.

C3: Oswald was killed by Jack Ruby two days after the Kennedy assassination.
Prior to Oswald's delivery to the county jail, a nightclub operator named Jack Ruby stepped from the crowd and shot Oswald in the chest, effectively killing him due to a hemorrhage.[2] Many theories suggest that Ruby was a part of the same conspiracy as Oswald and disposed of him to prevent the revelation of secret information. However, there are two major flaws that loudly outcry this speculation and contrarily is an aid in proving the lone gunman theory.

1. Ruby was a nightclub operator.
I've already addressed this, but why would a nightclub operator be trusted to join the KGB conspiracy? Furthermore, unlike Oswald, Ruby had no contact with the Soviet Union whatsoever. Although Ruby had records of juvenile delinquency and truancy, this does not support the notion of Ruby being a member of the KGB, as in that logic, all juvenile delinquents and truants should be in the KGB.[3] One proposition could be Ruby's role in World War II where he was drafted into the Army Air Forces in 1943, and could have had contact with the Soviet Union. However, this is invalid as he was merely a mechanic for the US bases.[4] He later managed many nightclubs and strip clubs (that's right, Wylted), and developed friendly relationships with the local cops with free liquor and prostitutes (maybe you should be a cop).[5]

Due to his history not pertaining to the KGB at all, it's virtually impossible for Ruby to be a member of the same conspiracy as Oswald. Which leads to my next flaw.

2. An autopsy on Oswald was performed.
This is a key negation of my opponent's theory that Oswald was brainwashed by the KGB. After Oswald was shot, his body was examined to have died of a hemorrhage, but was otherwise perfectly healthy.[6] Had he been brainwashed, doctors and medical examiners would have picked up on any possibility of whether his mind was being influenced or controlled. Instead, they have said that "he was a physically healthy male".[7]

This can be summed up in the law of contrapositive:

1. If Oswald was brainwashed, the results of the autopsy would have discovered his mind being controlled.
2. The autopsy has had no such result or confirmation.
3. Therefore, Oswald was not brainwashed.

Further, this clears up the premise of Ruby being a member of the KGB as well:

1. Suppose the theoretical existence of the conspiracy. The death of Oswald would bring an earlier autopsy, and therefore an earlier exploitation of his brainwashing, which leads to the discovery of the KGB conspiracy.
2. Ruby has killed Oswald, which resulted in an earlier autopsy, and an earlier discovery of the KGB.
3. As the conspiracy would not want to be exploited, Ruby should not be a part of the KGB, and has therefore acted on his own.

I believe this will be a suitable rebuttal to my opponent's claim that Oswald was brainwashed by the KGB.

Back to you, Wylted.

Sources:
[1]http://www.archives.gov...
[2]http://www.jmasland.com...
[3]Summers, Anthony. Not in Your Lifetime, (New York: Marlowe & Company, 1998), p. 332.
[4]http://www.archives.gov...
[5]http://www.aarclibrary.org...
[6] and [7]: http://news.google.com...
Wylted

Con

My opponent has failed to forward any case for Oswald acting alone. He's only forwarded one about him being the only shooter which does nothing to to prove he wasn't financed by outside forces.

The guy literally worked as a double agent, being a spy in the United states before defecting to the KGB. Whether he was brainwashed or not it's unlikely he acted alone. Being a double agent, it's possible and even likely that either the CIA or the KGB orchestrated the president's assassination.

In order for my opponent to win this, he must not only destroy my case but he must forward his own as to why Oswald acted alone.

"If Oswald was brainwashed into an assassination for the KGB, his captors would make sure he would do it discreetly in order to avoid the exploitation of their conspiracy."

Not if the KGB/CIA needed a Patsy. Somebody had to take the fall so the true conspirators aren't being investigated because authorities think, they've found their man.

"Due to his history not pertaining to the KGB at all, it's virtually impossible for Ruby to be a member of the same conspiracy as Oswald. Which leads to my next flaw."

No but Ruby is proof of a conspiracy. Sure it's possible he acted alone and wasn't part of the conspiracy but I doubt an ultra successful business man is randomly going to start assassinating people. The narrative just makes no sense. How was that guy smart enough and sane enough to climb to the upper echelons of economic and social stratospheres but he is this nuts? The narrative is full of holes.

"1. If Oswald was brainwashed, the results of the autopsy would have discovered his mind being controlled.
2. The autopsy has had no such result or confirmation.
3. Therefore, Oswald was not brainwashed."


Autopsies aren't going to show things like changes in psychology or being hypnotized.

"Oswald had been brainwashed to kill President Kennedy. Dick Russell also alleged Oswald had been a hypnotized assassin in his book, The Man Who Knew Too Much, an account of Russell's investigation into the subject of Richard Case Nagell. Nagell stated that during the summer of 1963 he had discovered that Oswald was "undergoing hypnotherapy" from JFK conspirator David Ferrie." http://oswald.jfkassassination.net...

Later on Russell took back what he said, presumably because he was threatened by insiders for getting too close to the truth.

Oswald was most certainly brainwashed'
Debate Round No. 3
RevNge

Pro

RevNge forfeited this round.
Wylted

Con

So.... In summary. Pro hasn't forwarded a case. He said that Lee Harvey Oswald pulled the trigger which isn't disputed. His actions being taken alone without the single support of or contributions is what's disputed.

With both sides having equal Burden of proof and with me being the only one to forward a case relevant to the resolution with my opponent focusing merely on negation, the victor is clear.

Vote Con
Debate Round No. 4
25 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by RevNge 2 years ago
RevNge
Meh, you'll probably win. Didn't give this round much thought due to the Beginner's tourney...
Posted by Wylted 2 years ago
Wylted
We don't know how voting will go. Neither one of us did our best.
Posted by RevNge 2 years ago
RevNge
GODDAMN IT, I forgot about this. :/

Well, good debate, I guess...
Posted by RevNge 2 years ago
RevNge
LOL, KGB theory? Nice.
Posted by bsh1 2 years ago
bsh1
Rev, I doubt anyone wants you banned. If they do, they're a twit...
Posted by RevNge 2 years ago
RevNge
Meh. I only debated legitimately three times on DDO anyway and never IRL. XD
Posted by Wylted 2 years ago
Wylted
Awe, it will be fine.
Posted by RevNge 2 years ago
RevNge
*amusing, not funny.
Posted by RevNge 2 years ago
RevNge
What I find funny is that the preface is actually longer than the contents of my argument. LOL
Posted by Wylted 2 years ago
Wylted
Okay, looking forward to that.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Tweka 2 years ago
Tweka
RevNgeWyltedTied
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:01 
Reasons for voting decision: ff
Vote Placed by Blade-of-Truth 2 years ago
Blade-of-Truth
RevNgeWyltedTied
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:24 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct - Con. Pro forfeited the final round which is rarely acceptable conduct in any debate setting. S&G - Tie. Both had proper spelling and grammar throughout. Arguments - Con. I felt like there were ALOT of assumptions being made throughout this debate. With that said, Pro really did only build a case upon the fact that Lee Harvey Oswald was the sole shooter, but as Con pointed out, that doesn't mean there weren't other people involved. This was Pro's biggest hurdle to overcome, and unfortunately, without any rebuttals given by him in the final round - Con's case was left standing unchallenged. Furthermore, Con rebutted each major point raised by Pro, which further gave rise to the need for a response from Pro. With Con left standing unchallenged, he wins arguments. Sources - Pro. While both utilized sources, Pro's were far greater in terms of quality and quantity. For that, he wins source points. This is a clear win for Con, and would have been a close match if Pro stuck with it.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 2 years ago
dsjpk5
RevNgeWyltedTied
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:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro ff a round
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
RevNgeWyltedTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: conduct due to ff. It's hard to tell for me whether Wylted strolling around was enough to defeat RevNge punching him in the face as hard as he could, but then fainting under pressure. But it seemed Wylted managed to stroll RevNge's arguments under his feet and put much doubt in them.