The Instigator
truther1111
Pro (for)
Winning
1 Points
The Contender
ararmer1919
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Has any of the scientific explanations given by the truther side actually been debunked.

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 1 vote the winner is...
truther1111
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/1/2014 Category: Science
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 621 times Debate No: 44578
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (4)
Votes (1)

 

truther1111

Pro

I challenge con to provide an example of something the truther side ( ae911truth.org and scholarsfor911truth.org) have been actually debunked 100 percent.
ararmer1919

Con

You know what, I wasnt going to take this cause frankly Im sick and tired of seeing the same crap from you over and over again but hey, fu(k it. Im bored and have nothing better to do for the next few hours.
Debate Round No. 1
truther1111

Pro

Go ahead then
ararmer1919

Con

ararmer1919 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
ararmer1919

Con

ararmer1919 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
truther1111

Pro

come on aramer list one thing that has been debunked by scientists
ararmer1919

Con

ararmer1919 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
truther1111

Pro

aramer is a coward hahahaha
ararmer1919

Con

Actually no. I intentionally didn't post any arguments up until now just as for some mild troll value. As I said in acceptance I didn't have anything going on for the "next few hours" and that's why I accepted. Was on 24 hour duty and was bored out of my mind so thought I would fu(k around with you. But then it took you over a day to respond and by that time I had more important things going on and no longer wished to play. So I decided to just pretty much troll you a little and get some small amusement out of it. So here is my argument now that you can't have one.

Conspiracy theories that have been scientifically proven to be false.

"The towers were never hit by planes, but by cruise missiles DISGUISED as planes with the use of super sci-fi military holographic projectors!"
Cause you know. That makes total fu(king sense. The guy on this site does an excellent job describing the stupidity of people who believe this. [1]

"There was a nuclear bomb in the basement!"
Yup. Cause you know. The evil government and Jews have been able to cover up the fact that half of New York City was actually wiped off the map and the death toll was actually over 5 million and they were successfully able to cover up the massive destruction and death that would have been caused over the years by the nuclear fallout. Maybe the New York City you can go and visit today and all the New Yorkers you see are all holograms too??? Dun dun dun. Any way here is a list of the characteristics of a nuclear explosion. Please find one of them present on 9/11. [2]

"The towers were actually destroyed by laser beans... FROM OUTER SPACE! Dun dun dun!!!"
Yea I'm not even going to touch this one. The level of stupid is beyond the pale.

"Crab people"
This one I actually do believe. Crab people, crab, people, crab people... [3]

Anyway here's just a few of them. There are plenty more. And I have quite clearly proven my point that there are truther theories that can and have been debunked. Have fun with that knowledge.

To the voters.
You must give me points for argument as Pro has not countered any of my arguments nor has he provided any of his own. He has failed to prove his side of the case or, at the very least, disprove mine. Thus I clearly win in the argument department. He has provided no sources whatsoever while I provided several so I must also receive points for sources. He made several personal ad hominem attacks against me and thus I must also get points for conduct. Also, I'm his finally round he didn't capitalize my name and so I also must receive points for grammar. Pro has failed in this debate and I have, beyond the shadow of a doubt, proven my case. Please. Vote con. Or the Jews.. Ehem, "terrorist" win.

[1] http://scienceblogs.com...

[2] http://www.fourmilab.ch...

[3] http://mirror.uncyc.org...
Debate Round No. 5
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by Double_R 3 years ago
Double_R
Wow truther, you're still at it? lol
Posted by truther1111 3 years ago
truther1111
LOL LMAO nice tactic "Aramer the coward"
Posted by truther1111 3 years ago
truther1111
I haven't been presented one piece of evidence just lame as excuses like oh no they couldn't have put explosives in the building and gotten away with it lol , lmao I laugh at you deniers of truth got no balls to even name one thing that has been debunked.
Posted by ararmer1919 3 years ago
ararmer1919
Hell. No. Iv already watched you do this debate literally a dozen times and I was even one of them and the thing they all had in comin was that no matter what anyone said to you, no matter what evidence was brought forth, it simply went in one ear and out your other. Anything that was presented to you you imediately wrote off as some sort of part of the conspiracy or that the only reason people thought that was true was due to illuminati brainwashing. It's sad. It's pathetic. And I will not waste my time on the likes of you. Good day sir.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Krazzy_Player 3 years ago
Krazzy_Player
truther1111ararmer1919Tied
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: Except for the conduct, I'm not rating the other areas. Con said, he intentionally forfeited the rounds and came back in the last round, Pro couldn't make arguments nor refute because there was no round left when Con made his return.