The Instigator
DucoNihilum
Con (against)
Losing
22 Points
The Contender
Yraelz
Pro (for)
Winning
40 Points

It is as likely or more likely that 9/11 was an inside job as compared to any other scenario.

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  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/24/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,774 times Debate No: 3361
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (32)
Votes (19)

 

DucoNihilum

Con

When further investigated, conspiracy theories do not hold water. They are ill informed, and rely on misunderstanding incompetence for 'evidence' for their claims.

I have nothing to refute yet as my opponent has not posted his opening argument.
Yraelz

Pro

So in order to prove that this scenario was as likely as any other scenario I will begin my discrediting the official scenario.

I'm going to start with the Pentagon because it is the strangest of them all. I'm going to be using this photo for reference its an easy one. I would have liked one of the photos with people walking in front of it for perspective but I can't seem to find a large one of those. So here goes. http://images.google.com...

1. Like the photo says where is the Plane? Last time I checked steel melts at 2750 degrees Fahrenheit (http://www.chemicalelements.com...). Meanwhile jet fuel burns at what? About 1500 degrees farenhiet? But this is an over simplification. We are not talking about the plane melting in this scenario we are talking about is simply vaporizing and we are not talking about steel we are talking about alloys. How do you manage to vaporize a plane made of steel alloys within seconds and somehow leave the building only looking as if a couple stories collapsed. Not to mention the impact, wouldn't there be at least a wing or something somewhere.... Which brings me to point number two.

2. Where are wings holes.... We have a hole in this building, that on the left side at least, is a complete straight line. Where are the holes where the wings hit on either side....? Did those just happen to fall off and vaporize on the lawn?

3. Perhaps the most disturbing point. Our government, not only has not released a tape of a plane flying onto the pentagon but actually seized the tapes from private businesses that had vantage points of the Pentagon.

Source: http://911research.wtc7.net...

The only pieces of evidence that have been cited to show a Plane hitting the Pentagon were from Pentagon cameras and the evidence looks like this:

http://911research.wtc7.net...

Very conclusive. Can someone point me to the plane in this picture....?

If a plane had actually hit the pentagon why has our government seized the tapes and has not bothered to show us them despite multiple inquiries?

4. Watch this if you have time. It has some of my ideas and is fairly short.
http://www.pentagonstrike.co.uk...

Scenario 2: The Hijackers

1. The planes... Once again of the four planes that crashed, not a piece of wreckage is shown anywhere for any of them. The official story once again being that they vaporized on impact.

2. We found the passports for four of the hijackers, Ziad Jarrah, Abdulaziz Alomari, Saeed Alghamdi, Satam Al Suqami , in the rubble and on the streets below (http://www.cooperativeresearch.org...). So let me explain this situation briefly. The plane and passengers are vaporized on impact, but the passports, made of paper, are hurdled through the flames and found by a random passersby on the street below unsinged. 4 paper passports survive where 12 tons of jet steel and titanium was vaporized. What....?

3. The FBI report comes to the conclusion that there were 19 hijackers. 4 or 5 per plane. Yet mere days later at least 6 of the suspected hijackers are still alive. (http://news.bbc.co.uk...)
And yet, to date, the FBI list hasn't been revised, ummm what? Also we have the issue that not one of the flight manifests actually contained any of the hijackers names or any names of middle eastern origin for that matter.

Offense 3: WTC 1 2 & 7

1. Despite popular belief 3 world trade centers actually fell on September 11th. Official report cites fire melted the 3 however all three fell at nearly the speed of free fall. The only feasible scenario for such would be controlled demolition. No building has ever been known to collapse in this way from fire, yet on Sept. 11th three building collapsed.... Care to explain?

The official cause of these collapses was that fire melted the supports to the main beams of each tower. Thus the tower collapsed in a pancake fashion 1 floor hitting the next. Unfortunately this would leave the main beams still intact, which it didn't, and would not allow the towers to fall at the speed of free fall.

2. These building were purposefully made to sustain the impacts of an airliner hitting them.

"The building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it, that was the largest plane at the time. I believe that the building could probably sustain multiple impacts of jet liners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door - this intense grid - and the plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. It really does nothing to the screen netting."

http://www.prisonplanet.com...

also from the same source:

"FACT: BUILDING 7 COLLAPSED IN THE SAME MANNER AS THE TWIN TOWERS YET IT WASN'T HIT BY A PLANE AND HAD MINIMAL FIRE DAMAGE

FACT: THE OWNER OF THE WTC COMPLEX, LARRY SILVERSTEIN ADMITTED THAT BUILDING 7 WAS PULLED (THE INDUSTRY TERM FOR DEMOLISHING BY MEANS OF EXPLOSIVES)

FACT: FDNY Chief of Safety Reported Bombs Both Within the Towers and on the Planes on 9/11

FACT: CBS News Channel Eyewitness Describes 'Secondary Explosions' in WTC

FACT: Rescue Fireman Louie Cacchioli - "We think there was bombs set in the building"

FACT: New York Firefighters Discuss Bombs in WTC Towers"

3. Entertaining pools of molten steel are found under the buildings. () Jet fuel doesn't burn this hot, nor does a common fire. Most likely scenario would be a bomb, in fact people on the scene at the time felt that there were multiple explosions happening.

I think this is probably enough about the 9/11 attacks for now. I have a bit more if you'll be wanting it, but I will save for next round. Now I am going to focus on the probability that our government could do an act like this.

First point, our government isn't above acts of violence on its own citizens. Throughout history we have been lied to by the government to lead us in to multiple wars. The Tonkin bay incident is a good example. Better yet is operation northwoods: "Operation Northwoods, or Northwoods, was a 1962 plan by the U.S. Department of Defense to stage acts of simulated or real terrorism on US soil and against U.S. interests and then put the blame of these acts on Cuba in order to generate U.S. public support for military action against the Cuban government of Fidel Castro." http://en.wikipedia.org...

Does this sound familiar at all.

Second point, George bush is certainly not above lying to us. In fact we counted how many times he lied right after September 11. http://www.news.com.au...

Third point, George Bush's family is not above being crooked. In fact his grand father secretly was responsible for helping Hitler during world war II. http://www.guardian.co.uk... Bet that was a new piece of info for most people reading this. =)

Fourth point, George Bush's family is friends with the Bin Ladens. Bush actually ordered that investigations on the Laden family to be stopped before Sept. 11 ever occurred. http://www.webcom.com...

So while I cannot deny planes flew into the two towers I can state that it was also potentially done with controlled demolitions and the help of Bush's friends.
Debate Round No. 1
DucoNihilum

Con

1R. The biggest problem with your photo references is that it's a photo that is very far away. You cannot clearly see a plane in those photos as the plane crashed into a building going over 400MPH- something that would cause immense damage to a plane, especially considering the reinforced walls of the pentagon. Nobody claims that the plane literally vaporized, so you are essentially shooting down a straw man here. The plane did not vaporize, but it did disintegrate. I have compiled a significant amount of photos proving that there was in fact debris all over the field of the pentagon. (http://dnpen.com...), located on my own website for convenience.
2R. There's a simple explanation for why you see no wings and why there are no 'wing holes'. To understand this, you need to think of what you would expect to see in this situation. The pentagon is surrounded by very strong reinforced concrete, while it was not strong enough to hold back a plane going ~500MPH- it will cause weak structures on the plane to collapse. The wings simply snapped off and into the hole along with the rest of the plane. Logic does not dictate that when a plane crashes into a reinforced building that there should be a cookie cutter outline of the plane, nor that the plane should be fully intact.
3R. Seizing video of tape and other evidence relating to the criminal investigation regarding the attacks on 9/11 is typical. I would find the government even more incompetent if it had not seized the tapes involved. I can understand why the government did not release tapes of the incident on private property, I'm sure that there's some standard of evidence which prevents tapes seized on private property from being made public. The videos they released were indeed of poor quality, so much so that you cannot clearly see the plane. This is to be expected, when you consider the videos were ~1FPS security videos, the chances of a plane going ~500MPH being caught in more than one frame are actually rather low. If you watch this video carefully, you can see a plane coming in () at about 1:25 and at this video () at about 24 seconds. The government not releasing tapes of the planes hitting (the ones taken on private property) means nothing; absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Furthermore, video evidence is not the only evidence that you can clearly see, the most important being the large chunks of debris scattered all over the field.
4R. Very fun video, it's what first got me started on this sort of thing from your side. I too believed that 9/11 was somewhat questionable; however, as I researched more and started using my logic I had to come to the conclusion that the only plausible explanation was the normal story.
Scenario 2.

1R. Refuted in S1R1

2R. My research has indicated that only one passport was found, which is not surprising considering the 'official' story mentions nothing of a plane vaporizing. In fact, shortly after the first plane hit, plane debris and paper was found all over the road (http://www.911myths.com...). Furthermore, how would having someone drop off a passport help their case enough to do it? If the government has the massive power to stage this whole thing, why would dropping off a single passport help their case?

3R. You're confused here. Simply because people have the same name as the hijackers does not mean that they were the hijackers. This was an article on mistaken identity, not an article trying to prove or show that hijackers are still alive, rather, some people have been perhaps mistaken as hijackers. The BBC made an effort to refute all conspyracy claims that came out of this story here (http://www.bbc.co.uk...), which I believe they did rather well.

S3

R1. This should not need much explanation, so I'll make this somewhat quick- while still being thorough as possible. There is no special reason why the buildings should somehow be slower than usual in such a catastrophic collapse like this. Furthermore, the claim that simply because it has never happened before that it is impossible, unlikely, questionable, odd, etc is a outright fallacious argument, argumentum ad antiquitatem. A lot of firsts happen in the world, surprisingly. Before I had my first girlfriend was it impossible for me to ever get one? After all, she would have been my /first/. Was flight possible before our first flight? While no plane has ever hit a tower, fully loaded, going over 500MPH hour either, it's absolutely unquestionable that it happened. It's clear that the building was not falling at free fall. Parts of the building were falling ahead of the cloud of debris (http://dnpen.com...) , furthermore the collapse took around 16 seconds, much more than it would fall in free fall () FURTHERMORE, the 'official' report mentions nothing of melting. It does however mention that the fireproofing was blown off, and that the structure was allowed to weaken (the floor started to collapse) after the main supports (Both in the center, and on the side, as in this specially designed building) were severely damaged.

2R. The building was designed to be hit by a 707, landing or taking off in foggy weather. The building was not designed to be hit by a fully loaded plane going 500+ MPH, furthermore, the issue involving fire insulation was not anticipated. The collapse was not caused by the 'netting' being damaged, rather the fireproofing being knocked off and the subsequent fire.

"FACTS"

1. Building 7 did not have "minimal" fire damage, it was hit rather hard by debris, and was likely being fueled by a massive fire from fuel stockpiles. IT also had severe structural damage. A good deal of the building was on fire.(http://dnpen.com...)

2. A. I'd like you to prove that "Pull" is a real industry term for 'demolish'. I've looked around and have been unable to find this term used outside of 9/11 conspiracy websites. What he was speaking of was in fact, literally pulling building 6 down, sacrificing it. They were worried that building 6 would damage the slurry wall, and decided to pull it- not with explosives, but a crane (http://dnpen.com...)

3. Taken in context, this is what he said shortly after "at that time I didn't know what it was. I mean, it could have been as a result of the building collapsing, things exploding,"

4- all other explosion related material--- You don't really cite anything, so it's hard to refute anything that's not very specific. It was a confusing day, many things sounded like 'explosions', including debris, or possible electrical fires. That means nothing. Please provide specific examples if you want a more thorough examination.

3 There is no evidence of molten steel. Although some 'molten' substance was spotted, this was shown to be aluminum. Aluminum can melt at much lower temperatures, temperatures of around 500- whereas the fire reached temperatures of over 1000. A bomb could not simply melt steel, thermite would be required to melt steel .If you know how thermite works, you would realize that this is far less bomb like, rather it's a very hot burning fire that simply 'melts' the metal. Now, how would this work, considering the columns are sideways? Thermite uses gravity as it's aid, how would this thermite travel sideways? In fact, if thermite was used, why would we hear these explosions you mentioned earlier? Thermite is entirely quiet, it's not a 'bomb'.

Your attacks on bush and his family are ad hominem attacks, irrelevant to the discussion, as are your mentioning of ON, ETC. Sorry, hit character limit. Had to remove some stuff.
Yraelz

Pro

Alright, I will be covering each of my opponents claims in turn.

1. I will go with my opponents statement that the plane was denigrated, that is fine by me. My opponent goes on to state that debris litter the lawn in front of the pentagon. This is true, but all I can see is scrap metal and concrete. More on this later.

2. I agree to the fact that concrete could hold back the weaker structures on a plane. In fact I believe I saw a study from '98 where a plane was flown at a concrete wall and it did little damage. However the fact is, there would still be damage from the wings. It is very logical to assume that they broke off of the plane, that however doesn't mean they just disappeared. We would still have immense amounts of damaged from large metal objects going 500+ mph.

3. My opponent states that the cameras being seized is typical, then goes on to state that private cameras seized cannot be disclosed to the public. I would like my opponent to prove that all of these cameras had any justifiable reason for being seized. Then I would like him to turn around and prove that there is a stature that prevents seized evidence from being disclosed. A few of these security cameras had a direct view of the interstate which would have easily shown the plane flying in. All it would take on the governments part would be a quick release of this footage.

4. Most of what the video says is interesting, nothing is definite. -shrug-

5. Furthermore, a more plausible situation. A missile hit the pentagon. Why would this be more plausible. Because whatever did hit the pentagon managed to blow through 5 different walls. Here is an aerial photograph http://www.freewebs.com...

Once again there is no definite wreckage.

Hijackers:

1. No definable evidence.

2. Not true, I believe at least 4 of the passports were found. Here is evidence of at least two being found http://www.rense.com...
Anyways this still doesn't explain the fact that this fire melted through enough steel to cause the entire building collapsed but somehow left multiple passports unscathed. Furthermore the terrorists names do not appear on the flight manifesto so there is literally no reason for them to bring a passport.

My opponent goes on to question why planted passports would help. Scapegoat.

3. My opponent claims that BBC got it wrong, that these men were just men with the same names. This is fallacious as the FBI actually displayed the mens faces 2 days after the attack on 9/11, perhaps this clipping of the following article will shine some light on the situation,

"The stunning news prompted FBI Director Robert Mueller to admit that some of the hijackers may have stolen identities of innocent citizens. In September 2002, Mueller told CNN twice that there is "no legal proof to prove the identities of the suicidal hijackers." After that admission a strange thing happened - nothing. No follow-up stories. No follow-up questions. There was dead silence and the story disappeared. It was almost as if no one wanted to know what had happened. In fact, the FBI didn't bother to change the names, backgrounds or photographs of the alleged 19 hijackers. It didn't even deny the news reports suggesting that the names and identities of at least six of the hijackers may be unknown. Mueller just left the door open."

http://www.prisonplanet.com...

Scenario 3: WTC 1 2 & 7

1. My opponent begins by stating, "There is no special reason why the buildings should somehow be slower than usual in such a catastrophic collapse like this." This is completely and utterly untrue. The official cause of collapse remains the pancake theory which would not allow for a building to collapse at free fall. Why not? Energy conversion, each floor hits the floor below it thereby lending its energy to that floor until the speed of each floor meets that of the last floor. This scenario does not allow for free fall at all. In fact you can test this by lining up 5 plates in a row and then dropping a heavy rock through them. The rock will not fall at free fall.

The only difference with this scenario is the fact that it is not plates being broken but rather concrete and steel.

The buildings if allowed to fall at free fall would have done so in 9.2 (http://www.911blimp.net...) seconds, entertainingly enough they fell in just under 10 seconds (http://911research.wtc7.net...)

Finally my opponent mentions the interior of the building was allowed to weaken through fire. This in turn lead to the collapse. The official theory consists of the floors breaking free from the 46 or so support beams and collapsing. Which in turn means that the support beams would still be standing afterwards. Not the case.

2. As my opponents theory is that the buildings collapsed via fire this point is rather moot.

"FACTS"

1. This is covered in my point below

2. Silverstein ordered the demolition of WTC 7. Here is the article http://www.prisonplanet.com...

...............................

3. I don't understand your point.... please clarify.

4. I'm clearly stating that not only is the federal government lying to us on multiple accounts but also that the WTC building could not have collapsed as they did. Controlled demolition was necessary for such.

"End-FACTS"

3. There is a plethora of evidence of molten steel at WTC specifically:

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com...

In fact the temperature of some of these spots ranged above 3000 F. This situation alone could not have been created by jet fuel fires. Finally there was thermate found under both of the WTC buildings. This being found by a professor at BYU. http://portland.indymedia.org...

My opponents last argument is that my last four points were all ad hominem. This is all true, they only serve to remind the readers that the government has done acts like this before. It also serves to remind the readers that the bush family itself is not above such acts.

Thank you.
Debate Round No. 2
DucoNihilum

Con

1. Because the plane disintegrated.

2. Most of the holes were caused by the strongest structure of the plane, the landing gear (Official story). I don't see why physics would somehow require the plane to create a cookie cutter outline.

I would like to address your idea of a missile right now before I move on.

The idea requires you to prove that the government hired hundreds of people to plant derbies all over the field, paint "AMERICAN AIRLINES" on it, plant plane derbies, ETC ETC. All of the families would have to be fake, the friends of the families of those on the plane.... Are you able to prove all of that?

3. More on this later.

4. K.

5. If you look though the photos I showed, there's photos of lamp poles knocked down by the plane.... Now.... How would a missile do that? Furthermore, the explosion is clearly seen from the outside- are you to suggest the missile went all the way though the building, turned 180 degrese around, came back out, and exploded again?

-

1-2. The passport was in poor condition. Many papers and other parts of the plane were found, there's no reason to suggest that some items from the plane could not have possibly made it- especially considering some DID make it.

3. The BBC was doing a report on mistaken identity.

--

1. The buildings didn't fall at free fall either. 10 seconds is made up, the videos I showed clearly show at least 14 seconds, perhaps 16.

1-2 facts -- did you ignore my entire part about me explaining how you misunderstood what 'pull' meant?

"My opponents last argument is that my last four points were all ad hominem. This is all true,"

Which nullifies them.

Sorry that I was so brief, I promise my next arguments will be better.
Yraelz

Pro

1. Agreed.

2. Physics doesn't require the plane to create a cookie cutter outline, it does however still deem structural damage from where the wings would hit the pentagon.

As far as the bomb scenario goes I cannot prove that the government did hire people as much as you cannot prove they didn't. I agree that it would require at least a few people to be hired by the government to say that they were sad a family member had died.

On the other hand scrap metal and debris is also created by a missle and the pentagon, we don't have to place the debris. The painting that was found looked like the words on the side of American Airlines, this doesn't mean it was, no letters were found, just painted panels.

The idea behind a conspiracy theory is questioning the facts put forth by the government. As they control the information in the case of a conspiracy it is possible for them to change the "facts".

3. My opponent drops probably the largest point on the Pentagon. That being that multiple cameras from privately owned businesses were seized shortly following the attack. Why?

5. A missile has thrust in the same sense that a plane does. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. The propulsion behind a missile shoots the same amount of force backwards as goes forwards into propelling the missile. Meaning anything that the missile goes by has the potential of being knocked over. This is why you don't stand directly behind a jet or a missile for that matter when it takes off.

Secondly I'm not suggesting that the missile went into the building and then came back out and exploded. I'm suggesting part of the missile exploded on impact while the rest of the missile punched through 5 different walls. You can say it couldn't happen all you want but it doesn't change the fact that something went through those walls.

Hijackers:

1&2: Nope pretty positive that passport was unsinged. Not to mention there was not plane debris found on the ground. The only thing I have ever heard of being found in the WTC wreckage was part of a landing gear.

3. That doesn't make sense considering the fact that the CIA released pictures of the people 2 days after the attack. Unless of course you are saying that two people also look exactly the same with the same names.

Here explain this: http://news.bbc.co.uk...

WTC 1 2 & 7

1. Those buildings definitely fell in just under 10 seconds. If we examine my opponents first video the building actually begins falling around 18 seconds. The cameraman looks back around 27 seconds and the building is all but gone. Here is another amazing video of the collapse. Takes about 11 seconds on this one as far as counting off of Youtubes counter goes.

"FACTS"

Let me quote from the article I sited.

"We know that the term 'pull it' means to bring the building down by means of explosives because in the same documentary a cleanup worker (in December 2001) refers to the demolition of WTC Building 6 when he says, "...we're getting ready to pull the building six." The term is industry jargon for planned demolition."

and

"Some defenders of the official 9/11 story say that the term "pull" is not demolition lingo for "bring down by controlled demolition". However, the same PBS video in which Silverstein makes his admission, contains the following exchange:

(unidentified construction worker): "Hello? Oh, we're getting ready to pull building six." Luis Mendes, NYC Dept of Design and Construction: "We had to be very careful how we demolished building six. We were worried about the building six coming down and then damaging the slurry walls, so we wanted that particular building to fall within a certain area.""

3. My opponent decides to drop this:

"3. There is a plethora of evidence of molten steel at WTC specifically:

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com......

In fact the temperature of some of these spots ranged above 3000 F. This situation alone could not have been created by jet fuel fires. Finally there was thermate found under both of the WTC buildings. This being found by a professor at BYU. http://portland.indymedia.org......
"
Debate Round No. 3
DucoNihilum

Con

DucoNihilum forfeited this round.
Yraelz

Pro

My opponent drops his round, thus I have nothing to say, perhaps next round my opponent will post and then I will also.

Extend my points.
Debate Round No. 4
DucoNihilum

Con

DucoNihilum forfeited this round.
Yraelz

Pro

My opponent drops both of his final rounds. I ask that my points are extended. I also realize that most people are in firm disapproval of the topic which I stand for in this debate so I ask that you set your personal opinions aside and simply judge this as a debate and not a personal preference.

This debate or the outcome of it has no bearing on the real world what-so-ever.

My position: 9/11 is as likely to have been an inside job as compared to any other scenario. This is because all of the evidence combined offers substantial doubt on the official story, enough so for there to have been other possibilities.

Thank you.
Debate Round No. 5
32 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Korezaan 8 years ago
Korezaan
"Defensiveness" is a coincidence.
Posted by sweatycreases2 8 years ago
sweatycreases2
KOREZANN: "Oh, so that's why all my debates had a couple more votes for the other side."

- NO, I WAS ACTUALLY RESPONDING TO YRAELZ'S COMMENT. YOU KNOW, YOU'RE AWFULLY DEFENSIVE.
Posted by Aietius 8 years ago
Aietius
Definitely going pro, despite the droppped rounds. Just, a wonderful point-by-point rebuttal. Meanwhile Yraelz did not really introduce any original thinking, and merely paraphrased the overworn arguments of others.
Posted by Aietius 8 years ago
Aietius
Definitely going pro, despite the droppped rounds. Just, a wonderful point-by-point rebuttal. Meanwhile Yraelz did not really introduce any original thinking, and merely paraphrased the overworn arguments of others.
Posted by beem0r 8 years ago
beem0r
He got banned again, lol. I wonder if #3 is coming.
Posted by Logical-Master 8 years ago
Logical-Master
You reak of troll.

25 characters.
Posted by THEmanlyDEBATER2 8 years ago
THEmanlyDEBATER2
I AM THE ULTIMATE EVOLUTION OF SOLARMAN. SMARTER, STRONGER, AND MORE RUTHLESS THAN HE EVER WAS.
Posted by Pluto2493 8 years ago
Pluto2493
ATTENTION: THE MANLYDEBATER2 = SOLARMAN1969
Posted by THEmanlyDEBATER2 8 years ago
THEmanlyDEBATER2
HEY, MY REP IS BAD ENOUGH WITHOUT YOU SAYING I DAILY VISIT THIS WEBSITE. AND I LIKE THIS WEBSITE. JUST BECAUSE I FIND IT SILLY DOESN'T MEAN I DON'T LIKE IT.
Posted by beem0r 8 years ago
beem0r
KNOW WHAT IT FEELS LIKE TO HAVE MORE IN YOUR LIFE THAN DAILY VISITING SITES YOU DON'T LIKE AND TROLLING.
19 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Logical-Master 8 years ago
Logical-Master
DucoNihilumYraelzTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Vote Placed by Yraelz 8 years ago
Yraelz
DucoNihilumYraelzTied
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:07 
Vote Placed by DucoNihilum 8 years ago
DucoNihilum
DucoNihilumYraelzTied
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 
Vote Placed by jiffy 8 years ago
jiffy
DucoNihilumYraelzTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Issa 8 years ago
Issa
DucoNihilumYraelzTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by brittwaller 8 years ago
brittwaller
DucoNihilumYraelzTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by WeaponE 8 years ago
WeaponE
DucoNihilumYraelzTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by colbert4prez 8 years ago
colbert4prez
DucoNihilumYraelzTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by Crust89 8 years ago
Crust89
DucoNihilumYraelzTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by keenan 8 years ago
keenan
DucoNihilumYraelzTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03