The Instigator
IsObamaASpaceLizard
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Varrack
Con (against)
Winning
27 Points

Did hitler do 9/11?

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...
Varrack
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/30/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 5,580 times Debate No: 74549
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (4)

 

IsObamaASpaceLizard

Pro

alright mah niqqas we all noe doe that mah niqqa hitler is still alive. But it still stands did mah niqqa do it doe we will see.
Evidince1 http://www.virginmedia.com...
#king kunta
Varrack

Con

I accept. The full BOP is upon Pro to affirm such an extraordinary claim.
Debate Round No. 1
IsObamaASpaceLizard

Pro

I have come to he conclusion Hitler along with the Illuminati is behind 9/11. Hitler was born on 4/20 the day many major events occurred all orchestrated by the Illuminati. Bay of Pigs Invasion failure, Apollo 16 moon landing, Columbine massacre, and only one year ago, BP Oil spill. So here is the evidence behind my reasoning.

The 4 perpetrators of the 9/11 plot were born on 1978, 1975, 1972, and 1968. That adds to 7893. When you add those digits together you get 27. 27 divided by 4 (the number of 9/11 perpetrators) gives you 6 (1945 US troops capture Leipzig, Germany minus 1939 Hitler's 50th birthday) remainder 3 (The Third Reich). 6 multipled by 3 gives you 18. April 20, 1918 german physicist Karl Ferdinand Braun, Nobel Prize winner, died. The winner that year was another german physicist Max Planck. His son Erwin Planck was part of the July 20 plot (attempt to assassinate Hitler). The plan after Hitler was killed involved 17 conspirators running the country. 4 plus 2 plus 0 plus 9 plus 1 plus 1 is 17. The Illuminati saw the plot ahead of time and to prevent Hitler's assassination they planned 9/11.#king kunta
Varrack

Con

1. Pro's claims are all bare assertions, and are not backed up by any sources or evidence, rendering them logically fallacious [http://rationalwiki.org...]. Pro needs to actually prove that these assumptions are correct and not just throw out random numbers

2. Pro has not yet shown why Hitler was responsible for 9/11. All Pro has shown is a bunch of numbers that come together to prove exactly nothing. Coincidental numbers do not confirm the Illuminati's "plan" to carry out such an act.

3. Hitler died in 1945 [http://www.historyplace.com...], so even if the Illumanti was responsible for 9/11, this does not mean that Hitler was, which Pro has yet to prove.

4. Pro is obviously trolling, which is why he/she should not be taken seriously in any regard.
Debate Round No. 2
IsObamaASpaceLizard

Pro

1. Hitler directed the Holocaust
2. Holocaust led to formation of Israel
3. Muslims hate the West for taking a piece of their Holy Land for a nation devoted to an opposition religion
4. Muslim hatred for the West leads to terrorist attacks.
Varrack

Con

Pro's claims are bare assertions. Even if they were true, it doesn't prove that Hitler was the cause of 9/11. Pro hasn't shown how the Holocaust led to the formation of Israel, or that the West took a part of their land. Hitler wasn't even alive at the time of the terrorist attacks. Pro has also scrapped the earlier Illuminati argument and has attempted to make a new one in the last Round, which goes against the norms of this site.

The BOP has not been fulfilled. Vote Con for obvious reasons.
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by Ragnar 2 years ago
Ragnar
Nice plagiarism. https://answers.yahoo.com...
Posted by Varrack 2 years ago
Varrack
Bro you have problems.
Posted by IsObamaASpaceLizard 2 years ago
IsObamaASpaceLizard
gg ked. ur bad git gud
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Lumberjay85 2 years ago
Lumberjay85
IsObamaASpaceLizardVarrackTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Con's argument was purely based on facts while Pro's was based on loose assumptions. Neither debaters receive conduct points. Pro does not receive conduct points for his opening statement, and Con does not for attacking Pro with accusations. Even if said accusations are most likely true, it is poor form.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 2 years ago
Ragnar
IsObamaASpaceLizardVarrackTied
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: Drivel... S&G: I only award this when it's so bad that it interfers with the argument, which it clearly did; "alright mah niqqas we all noe doe that mah niqqa hitler" ARGUMENT: Con turned pro's case into mincemeat, to include pointing out some of the logical fallacies present, actual history... And then pro concluded with a Gish Gallop aimed at suggesting Hitler's historical impact influenced the chain of events which lead to 9/11; which isn't even on the resolution. CONDUCT: I see no justification for awarding this, being awful at debate, isn't the same as say plagiarizing his case or forfeiting. ... OH WAIT, pro's Gish Gallop was copy/pasted from https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080909152610AADDubF
Vote Placed by tajshar2k 2 years ago
tajshar2k
IsObamaASpaceLizardVarrackTied
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 was trolling, provided 0 facts, gave no sources, and his grammar was horrible. Con fulfilled all of them.
Vote Placed by theisticscuffles 2 years ago
theisticscuffles
IsObamaASpaceLizardVarrackTied
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's case never really showed any convincing or plausible links between the claims that were being set forth and the evidence which was cited. The link between evidence and claim is called "warrant" and there was no warrant in the "pro" argument.