The Instigator
Dilara
Pro (for)
Losing
12 Points
The Contender
ChosenWolff
Con (against)
Winning
26 Points

Jahar is innocent. Whoever debates this watch this one hour long documentary.

Do you like this debate?NoYes-2
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 11 votes the winner is...
ChosenWolff
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/22/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,600 times Debate No: 56985
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (119)
Votes (11)

 

Dilara

Pro

I don't want to insult anyone. I'm not starting this debate to make anyone mad or upset. I have family in Boston and I was very saddened at what happened last year but I believe that Jahar is innocent. He didn't bomb the Boston marathon. His brother Tam did not bomb the Boston marathon. They're both innocent. They were setup. Whoever debates this with me has to WATCH this DOCUMENTARY on YouTube. The documentary is called "marathon day: Boston 15.4.13 "operation Paul Revere infowars.com contest" the documentary is by "BraveArcherfilms" (YouTube account/username). Please watch the whole movie and pay very close attention to it. If you don't want to watch this film than please don't accept this debate. It's an hour long so I'm sure someone on DDO has time to watch it.
Thank you.
ChosenWolff

Con

I accept, although I refuse to watch a hour long documentary courtesy of infowars.com (JK, Alex Jones totally isn't a idiot)




Obviously Sandy Hook was a set up by Obama. Alex Jones said it, and he wouldn't lie to us, would he?
Debate Round No. 1
Dilara

Pro

Thank you for agreeing to watch the documentary and debate this with me.
ChosenWolff

Con

Extend BOP waiting time
Debate Round No. 2
Dilara

Pro

Ok. If it gets messed up we can debate it in the comment section.
People at the marathon where the bombs went off say that they were told "it's a drill stay calm" also with all the bomb sniffing dogs that were at the marathon I find it hard to believe that those dogs didn't sniff the bomb. Remember the bag that contained the bomb matched the bags that the navy seal guys were carrying.
ChosenWolff

Con

I. The BOP has not been filled

I considered my opponents time on this site would of taught her what a debate looks like. This is not it. The opposition has not provided even a slight resemblance to having argued, and her BOP is 100% negated. If Pro is unwilling to engage in a serious debate, then all points should be forfeited to me.

Sorry audience, but me and my opponent have different ideas on what constitutes a debate, and the responcibility of holding a BOP. Perhaps this debate can serve as a lesson to my opponent, and maybe she will not make the same mistake in the future.
Debate Round No. 3
119 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Wylted 2 years ago
Wylted
I tend to get a lot of heat, because I do everything I can to eliminate the human element.
Posted by Wylted 2 years ago
Wylted
I talked to Whiteflame about it and I think I understand the reasoning better. I disagree, but atleast I understand it now.

I considered her arguments dropped arguments, because you didn't respond. I assumed I'd have to treat her arguments as fact without a rebuttal.

When you get into the reasonable doubt area, I believe judging gets a little more subjective, than I like and for somebody as analytical as me. Subjectiveness is the enemy.

I understand your view better now, which is all I wanted.
Posted by ChosenWolff 2 years ago
ChosenWolff
Did she fill the BOP? There is no use arguing when her only reasoning was sentence on dog sniffing. The BOP is what holds all debaters accountable. In some debates, you are only required to prove the BOP within the context of net good. In this case, she made an assertive claim in the manner of, yes he did it, or no he didn't. In these situations, she is required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Jahar is innocent. Franly, I don't even see how the dog thing even correlated to her resolution that Jahar is innocent.

Are you still claiming her BOP was filled?
Posted by Wylted 2 years ago
Wylted
@chosen, she provided reasoning. She mentioned that people were told it was a drill, that the navy seal bags resembled what the bomber supposedly carried. She also mentioned that bomb sniffing dogs were suspiciously present prior to the incident.

I'm not saying I'm impressed by the argument, but those are premises that support her conclusion. She made an argument and no attempt was made to undermine her premises nor show how conclusion doesn't follow from the arguments.

Do you understand my reasoning?
Posted by Ragnar 2 years ago
Ragnar
There is very little to say about anyone who takes offense at their word being believed.
Posted by ChosenWolff 2 years ago
ChosenWolff
I don't think you understand the nature of a BOP. Are you aware, that when someone makes an affirmative stance, they are required to prove it beyond a doubt? That is how debating works. She proposed Jahar is innocent, yet provided no reasoning on why. We call this a negated BOP. I only have to refute what the OP says, and so far, that's nothing.
Posted by Dilara 2 years ago
Dilara
Thanks Adam
Posted by YamaVonKarma 2 years ago
YamaVonKarma
@neutral you have not upheld your name.
Posted by YamaVonKarma 2 years ago
YamaVonKarma
Almost all of the votes on this are [Redacted]. Dilara should either be winning (She was the only one who treated this as a debate) or it should be a tie.
Posted by Dilara 2 years ago
Dilara
Thanks wylted. Many of my arguments were completely ignored.
11 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by whiteflame 2 years ago
whiteflame
DilaraChosenWolffTied
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:13 
Reasons for voting decision: Args to Con because Pro just overtly never met his BoP. If you're going to make a claim that the government was responsible for the bombing, make it. Don't insinuate. Make a claim and then support it with evidence. The video doesn't make your arguments for you, and you absolutely must post reasons for Jahar's innocence. Failing that, Con takes this debate by default. I will, however, grant Pro conduct, as Con accepted a debate where he was explicitly told to watch a movie and did not do so. It may be an unreasonable demand, but then Con shouldn't have accepted the debate if he thought so.
Vote Placed by GOP 2 years ago
GOP
DilaraChosenWolffTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: 1. Pro didn't fulfill the BOP 2. Pro didn't use proper punctuation. She put a period instead of a comma for round 3. 3. Con used rich text (good conduct).
Vote Placed by Sagey 2 years ago
Sagey
DilaraChosenWolffTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's assertions are evidently part of a nonsense Conspiracy theory which has been orchestrated using fallacious material. The scenes are false, it also incorporates other conspiracies that make it even more unsound and stupid. Hardly a debate argument. Just an Assertion and footage that doesn't support Props BOP.
Vote Placed by Wylted 2 years ago
Wylted
DilaraChosenWolffTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro did actually make a few arguments. Even though they were extremely weak and easy to provide rebuttals for, con mysteriously didn't respond to those arguments. Con, why didn't you address the eyewitness testimony pro provided?
Vote Placed by FuzzyCatPotato 2 years ago
FuzzyCatPotato
DilaraChosenWolffTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:13 
Reasons for voting decision: BOP, Con broke rules.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
DilaraChosenWolffTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: pro failed to meet BoP
Vote Placed by EndarkenedRationalist 2 years ago
EndarkenedRationalist
DilaraChosenWolffTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: In this case, PRO had the BOP and didn't meet it. PRO didn't argue but instead used a video as an argument. This is unacceptable. Quote the video, cite the video, but the video is not your argument, and using as such is plagiarism. PRO did try to raise a few points in the last round, but as CON pointed out, it was insufficient to fulfill a BOP. In the future, PRO, use the video (or any evidence) to support your case rather than the other way around.
Vote Placed by ESocialBookworm 2 years ago
ESocialBookworm
DilaraChosenWolffTied
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:13 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct- While it was unreasonable for Pro to ask voters and Con to watch an hour long video (when you could have summarized and sourced it), Con accepted the debate, agreeing to the terms and then refused to watch the debate. Also, he brought up the Sandy Hook incident, which has nothing to do with the Boston bombing. Arguments- I am giving Con arguments, reluctantly, because although he did not stay on topic, Pro did not meet the BOP.
Vote Placed by lannan13 2 years ago
lannan13
DilaraChosenWolffTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: This was an interesting debate in terms of how a debate works. Pro gets s&g due to the fact Con had one more grammatical error than Pro. Arguments go to Pro because Pro actually made arguments here. Though Con states the BOP wasn't filled Con made no counter arguments against Pro's. Silence is confirmance. Thus showing that Pro wins that part of the debate. Conduct goes to Pro due to Con's unreluctance to watch documentary that is only a couple hours long. I assume the response time was a day or so. If you didn't want to fulfill the terms then you shouldn't have accepted this debate.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 2 years ago
Ragnar
DilaraChosenWolffTied
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 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: CONDUCT: While I dislike the stipulation, con accepted the debate then admitted to having violated the terms agreed to by accepting the challenge. ARGUMENT (tied): "BOP is 100% negated" not met, is different than negated. Pro did not advance their case, con did not even stay on topic (Sandy Hook has what to do with this?).