Is any conspiracy true?
Debate Rounds (4)
The definition of a "conspiracy theory" is: "a belief that some covert but influential organization is responsible for a circumstance or event".
Pro must show their chosen theory is true. It can either be an existing one, or one they made up.
1. The conspiracy has to deal with the government.
2. Forfeiting a round is an automatic loss.
3. The Burden of Proof is on Pro. I only have to show the conspiracy false, or unreasonable.
4. Kritiks are acceptable.
5. You must have at least 2 completed debates to accept.
There are plenty of crazy conspiracy's ranging from the holocaust to the moon landing, many of these illogical, but I've seen one that is true. MKUltra.
Note: There are plenty of conspiracy's the branch off from this, like murder against ones will, but I will be focusing on the project as a whole.
MKUltra was first introduced in the 1950's. The CIA was attempting to learn how to control the minds of their enemies, especially the Russians since this was the height of the Cold War. This was an illegal act by the CIA and was eventually shut down in the 1970's.
The CIA attempted to control the minds of citizens by using drugs, hypnosis, mental abuse, sexual abuse, etc. Soon after the Watergate scandal Richard Helms (CIA director at the time) tried to destroy all the evidence. If you walk into a CIA building and see everyone shredding paper, you would be convinced that they were trying to hide something wouldn't you?
Here were the CIA's goals:
"Substances which will promote illogical thinking and impulsiveness to the point where the recipient would be discredited in public.
Substances which increase the efficiency of mentation and perception.
Materials which will cause the victim to age faster/slower in maturity.
Materials which will promote the intoxicating effect of alcohol.
Materials which will produce the signs and symptoms of recognized diseases in a reversible way so that they may be used for malingering, etc.
Materials which will cause temporary/permanent brain damage and loss of memory.
Substances which will enhance the ability of individuals to withstand privation, torture and coercion during interrogation and so-called "brain-washing".
Materials and physical methods which will produce amnesia for events preceding and during their use.
Physical methods of producing shock and confusion over extended periods of time and capable of surreptitious use.
Substances which produce physical disablement such as paralysis of the legs, acute anemia, etc.
Substances which will produce a chemical that can cause blisters.
Substances which alter personality structure in such a way that the tendency of the recipient to become dependent upon another person is enhanced.
A material which will cause mental confusion of such a type that the individual under its influence will find it difficult to maintain a fabrication under questioning.
Substances which will lower the ambition and general working efficiency of men when administered in undetectable amounts.
Substances which promote weakness or distortion of the eyesight or hearing faculties, preferably without permanent effects.
A knockout pill which can surreptitiously be administered in drinks, food, cigarettes, as an aerosol, etc., which will be safe to use, provide a maximum of amnesia, and be suitable for use by agent types on an ad hoc basis.
A material which can be surreptitiously administered by the above routes and which in very small amounts will make it impossible for a person to perform physical activity."
Many documents have been declassified and have become public. If you look at my second source, you will see a document from the 1950's proving that MKUltra existed. In 1975, even the U.S. congress admitted that it had happened and made it fully public. In 1977, over 20,000 documents relating to MKUltra were released by the government. There are thousands of documents proving its existence, it is impossible to deny it. Vote for pro.
I thank TheWorldIsComplicated for accepting.
His conspiracy is MKUltra. To be honest, this is my first time hearing about this. But I don't think it exists.
The actual existence: First, we'll check out Pro's source saying the MKUltra exists. We will be looking for the CIA's attempt at mind control. If there's no evidence of this, then MKUltra is false.
This seems to be the big sentence in the 2nd source: "In 1977, a Freedom Of Information Act request uncovered a cache of 20,000 documents relating to project MKUltra, which led to Senate hearings later that same year." Can you try to find a few documents for me? The only way we can be certain that MKUltra exists is if we see evidence.
Motives: Next, we need to check its reason for existing. They wanted to attempt to find a way to control people. But through what method?
Apparently through amnesia, getting them drunk, confusion, paralysis, and blisters. Drunk, I don't know if you become obedient. Confusion, maybe? Paralysis, how am I supposed to follow orders if I can't move? Blisters... I don't even know. It's a little bit questionable.
Conclusion: Okay, this might be difficult. But MKUltra is still a bit questionable. Let's see what Pro responds with.
I've provided you with sources with documents. Here is a document exposing it: https://en.wikipedia.org...
There is your evidence. If anyone is curious just google "MK Ultra," there are thousands and thousands of websites exposing the truth.
You don't seem to understand what an attempt is. That is why they did all those things. There are a ton of chemical changes in the brain when someone is drunk, they relax (Which is a fact) so,yes, they could use it to temp mind control. Paralysis can drive someone insane, hinting the mind control.
Like I said earlier, MK Ultra is not questionable, seeing that there are 20,000 documents released. Don't try to get away from the problem by asking for "proof" every time a document is brought up.
My opponent offered no valid points, they have all been debunked, for this reason vote pro.\
PowerPikachu21 forfeited this round.
To be honest, I never thought a conspiracy was true. Until now, of course. It's incredibly difficult, if not impossible. So, yeah. Vote Pro. I concede, I forfeited Round 3, and he overall had the better arguments.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by SJM 8 months ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||5|
Reasons for voting decision: Pro had better arguments to the point where con conceded his whole case, so it would be illogical to vote for someone for convincing arguments to someone who conceded their whole case. Also pro had several source.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.