The Instigator
left_wing_mormon
Pro (for)
Winning
27 Points
The Contender
badger
Con (against)
Losing
4 Points

President John F. Kennedy's Assassination was Organized by high ranking Government Officials

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
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: 3/6/2010 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 3,609 times Debate No: 11347
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (9)
Votes (5)

 

left_wing_mormon

Pro

This may offend some, so I want to point out that this is not a debate to bring down America and is designed in no way to challenge patriotism of anyone.

Debate Structure:
For this debate round 1 is only for opening statements and introductions.
Round 2 will be for Pro and Con to post their arguments and evidence.
Round 3 is for rebuttals to the posted arguments. Save rebuttals for Round 3.

Definitions:
I don't think there is a need for any definitions this is all pretty self explanatory, however I figure one word will be used and I think it should be defined:
Conspiracy: an evil, unlawful, treacherous, or surreptitious plan formulated in secret by two or more persons.

My contention here is that President John F. Kennedy was not murdered by a solitary gunman that had no help. I believe that the Warren Commissions findings are flawed and is a falsified account of the events before the assassination all the way to the event itself. Lee Harvey Oswald did not act alone. High ranking government agencies and officials plotted the assassination of the president.
badger

Con

Thanks for the debate.
Debate Round No. 1
left_wing_mormon

Pro

Thank you for accepting.

When analyzing the Kennedy Assassination, we must break it into three categories to try and understand the full picture.
1. Motive- Why would anyone feel the need to murder President Kennedy?
2. Method- How was President Kennedy killed?
3. Who did it- Who was the actual shooter and who made the plan.

I will start with the very basics. How was Kennedy killed. JFK was riding in a roofless vehicle with his wife, Jackie, in the back seat waving to the crowd. In the front passenger seat sat the Governor of Texas. Then, of course, the driver. To show you exactly what happened here is the famous Zapurder film taken from the grassy knoll (Warning: This is the video showing Kennedy getting shot. Do not watch if you are afraid of violence. This is a violent video):
you for accepting.

When analyzing the Kennedy Assassination, we must break it into three categories to try and understand the full picture.
1. Motive- Why would anyone feel the need to murder President Kennedy?
2. Method- How was President Kennedy killed?
3. Who did it- Who was the actual shooter and who made the plan.

Method
I will start with the very basics. How was Kennedy killed. JFK was riding in a roofless vehicle with his wife, Jackie, in the back seat waving to the crowd. In the front passenger seat sat the Governor of Texas. Then, of course, the driver. To show you exactly what happened here is the famous Zapurder film taken from the grassy knoll (Warning: This is the video showing Kennedy getting shot. Do not watch if you are afraid of violence. This is a violent video):

The Warren Commission concluded that only three shots were fired from Oswald. One missed, the second through the throat, and and the fatal blow to the head. However, countless examinations of that day forced the House Select Committee on Assassinations in 1979 to review the evidence. They found out that the FBI investigation said four shots were fired, which was neglected in the Warren Commission. The fourth shot came from some where different than the Book Depository. Although the fourth shot was not given a location in the HSCA there are multiple possible places. For example, countless witnesses said they heard a shot from the grassy knoll about eye level to Kennedy. If you see in the footage, Kennedy's head goes back into the left when the head shot happens. If the shot came from the back, which the government concluded in 1964, then his head should of thrusted forward before falling back. But the force of the shot which came from the grassy knoll would have forced his head back into the left, which is what happened.

Motive

Why would anyone besides the "crazy-no-good" Oswald want Kennedy killed? Since I am contending that high ranking government officials are responsible than I must explain their motives. First of all, as we know the series of events leading up to the Vietnam War show America was getting heavily involved, through sending money to the South Vietnamese and sending a couple thousand "advisers", aka soldiers. The tensions were building in that part of the region and Kennedy knew it, and several months before his death he was taking action to end it before it got out of hand. It was his belief that the Vietnamese should handle this on their own and America had no business trying to get involved. This belief was not shared by the CIA, who already had huge contracts with the military industrial complex. With money involved, there was a guarantee for more if the war were to start. Who would be willing to do the CIA's dirty work and start the war? Lyndon B. Johnson, as we know was that man for the job. When he was sworn into office he did not waste any time lying to the American public through the famous "Gulf of Tonkin incident" and thus the war began. Also, the FBI and CIA were very upset by Kennedy's handling of Cuba. He did not offer aid to the Cuban people during Fidel's uprising and the bay of Pigs fiasco proved that Kennedy was not "anti-communists" enough to fight their wars. The Kennedy assassination marked the dawn of a new era. It showed that our government would not tolerate and self-thinking man as president.

Who
Who pulled the trigger. I know Oswald was in the School Book Depository and he did fire the first two shots. However, a man named Jack Ruby was also there in Dallas on the grassy knoll. Jack Ruby was also the man who killed Oswald two days after Oswald was arrested. Jack Ruby was a notorious mobster who would have loved to have seen Kennedy and his brother killed so that his enterprise could expand. He also would have been the ideal guy for the government to do the deed. They promised him immunity as long as they did this for him, he was taken out of any investigations about the assassination, even though he was a witness on the grassy knoll. Here is a video, yes 10 minutes, but I think that this articulates alot of what I'm trying to say better than I an myself:
http://www.jfkmurdersolved.com...

Thank you.
badger

Con

In my opinion, my opponent has, as of yet, done nothing to prove his resolution. He tells us that we must break the assassination into three parts in order to understand it fully. I disagree (I said I might as well given the venue).

"1. Motive- Why would anyone feel the need to murder President Kennedy?"

Motive is only partially relevant to the resolution. Motive brings suspects into the light, who we can then investigate further. I don't think I'll end up arguing against what my opponent has said about motive, because I really don't see the need.

"2. Method- How was President Kennedy killed?"

Method is completely irrelevant to the resolution. How John F. Kennedy was assassinated offers no evidence as to who gave the order (if there even was an order given).

"3. Who did it- Who was the actual shooter and who made the plan."

Finally, the only section that really matters.

"Jack Ruby was a notorious mobster who would have loved to have seen Kennedy and his brother killed so that his enterprise could expand."

This debate is the first place I've heard of this guy, so I looked him up. Wikipedia doesn't really know what to say about him; it has both a "For" and "Against " regarding whether he really was connected. The latter sounded more convincing to me. The fact that it is up for debate calls for you to prove that your belief is the right one.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

"They promised him immunity as long as they did this for him, he was taken out of any investigations about the assassination, even though he was a witness on the grassy knoll."

Have you got evidence for any of this?

My opponent has done nothing to prove that "high ranking government officials" were behind the assassination of John F. Kennedy. It is even my opinion, that he has hurted his case. He claims that Jack Ruby was given the contract to silence Oswald, but why didn't they just give him the contract to murder Kennedy? Also, my opponent shows us a video, in which Jack Ruby speaks of how he was following orders from government officials, yet Jack Ruby was not silenced and died over 3 years later of lung cancer.

You're welcome.
Debate Round No. 2
left_wing_mormon

Pro

I thought I made it clear through my premise that the government had a clear motive and ran with it. It's not a stretch to point the finger to since he wanted Kennedy dead, has handled a weapon before, and also took care of Oswald before Oswald could talk. There was no need for Ruby to be silenced.

Before I go on, my opponent did not follow the outline for this debate I put in place above:
"Round 2 will be for Pro and Con to post their arguments and evidence.
Round 3 is for rebuttals to the posted arguments. Save rebuttals for Round 3."

He/She was supposed to use their round to make the case for the Warren Comission and proove Oswald acted without any conspiracy. My opponent did not do this, in turn making my round for a rebuttal useless. I was supposed to rebuttal his case here and then his closing was to rebuttal my case from above. Without anything to use I can't go on. So for the sake of entertainment I will throw in some more facts to proove my case for multiple shots fired.

All the doctors who viewed Kennedy's body in Dallas all confirmed that there was an exit wound from the left back part of his skull. An EXIT wound from the BACK of his head.
There is a movie on this link (http://www.jfkmurdersolved.com...). Only three points from it though, not the whole thing it's pretty long.
1. The magic bullet. (About 11:00 minutes, watch this segment enough for the single bullet explanation)
2. The exit wounds (3:00-8:10)
3. The transfer of the body at the airport (About 30:00 into the film watch from there)
How come the autopsy in Dallas concluded that the wound on his head had an exit wound on the back but in D.C. they decided all those doctors were wrong. Also what prooves the government was in on the whole thing involves the corpse of Kennedy on the plane. It was apparently multilated as shown in the movie very well. Some one altered the wound on the head at some point between dallas and D.C.

Conclusion
It is not hard to point out that the assassination of John F. Kennedy was a conspiracy. It's not a far-fetched idea, it's not insane or abstract. What is insane is believing that a single bullet made 7 wounds between two people, and remained in pristene condition. What is crazy is that the notion is true that Oswald shot from behind some how creating exit wounds from the back of the head!

The video explains these things in depth forgive me for not eloborating more but I have to run short I will be gone for a few days, the video holds the case. It's the truth against tthe Warren Comission folks. My opponent should not try to rebuttal too much since he did this out of sequence and since I will not be able to respond to his/her case then their round should focus on defending the Warren Comission's conclusions.

Thank you.
badger

Con

"I thought I made it clear through my premise that the government had a clear motive and ran with it."

You thought wrong. You gave reasons for your belief that the government had a motive, but the only evidence you provided to show that they "ran with it" were comments made by Jack Ruby, whose credibility is in question.

"Before I go on, my opponent did not follow the outline for this debate I put in place above: Round 2 will be for Pro and Con to post their arguments and evidence.
Round 3 is for rebuttals to the posted arguments. Save rebuttals for Round 3."

Wrong again. Regarding your outline for round two, a rebuttal is an argument, and given that you held the burden of proof, my evidence was your lack of evidence. For round three, well, I'm still rebutting, amn't I? ;)

"He/She was supposed to use their round to make the case for the Warren Comission and proove Oswald acted without any conspiracy."

Pro bears the burden of proof.

"I was supposed to rebuttal his case here and then his closing was to rebuttal my case from above. Without anything to use I can't go on."

My opponent seems to have forgotten that I posted a second round?

Thanks for the debate.
Debate Round No. 3
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by left_wing_mormon 6 years ago
left_wing_mormon
I guess that's why you should have read the outline to the debate. Who ever has the better case wins the debate.
Posted by badger 6 years ago
badger
But aren't conspiracy theory debates kinda like God debates, don't they have to be proven rather than disproven? If I had come up with my own arguments we would have both just ended up using sources that contradicted each other and where would that have left us. My aim was to keep him from affirming his resolution, which I believe I did by calling Ruby's credibility into question.
Posted by tBoonePickens 6 years ago
tBoonePickens
"President John F. Kennedy's Assassination was Organized by high ranking Government Officials"...well if it wasn't, it sure should as hell should have been!
Posted by feverish 6 years ago
feverish
To be fair badger, I pretty much agree with Koopin on who won the debate.

I've never paid much attention to this conspiracy theory before but I thought Pro explained his case very clearly and persuasively, whereas you didn't really make arguments of your own or even address all of his points.

Good read from both though.

Peace.
Posted by badger 6 years ago
badger
Actually, I only noticed this part now:

My contention here is that President John F. Kennedy was not murdered by a solitary gunman that had no help. I believe that the Warren Commissions findings are flawed and is a falsified account of the events before the assassination all the way to the event itself. Lee Harvey Oswald did not act alone. High ranking government agencies and officials plotted the assassination of the president.

but it doesn't make a difference.
Posted by badger 6 years ago
badger
How did he do a great job? Any chance you'd post an RFD?
Posted by Koopin 6 years ago
Koopin
Even though I do not agree with Pro, he did a great job. I am stunned.
Posted by CrappyDebater 6 years ago
CrappyDebater
I was not sure before, but now im positive there was a conspiracy and more than 1 shooter.
Posted by CrappyDebater 6 years ago
CrappyDebater
LOL good luck badger....
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by Itsallovernow 5 years ago
Itsallovernow
left_wing_mormonbadgerTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Vote Placed by philosphical 6 years ago
philosphical
left_wing_mormonbadgerTied
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:34 
Vote Placed by emmalmalcolm 6 years ago
emmalmalcolm
left_wing_mormonbadgerTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Rockylightning 6 years ago
Rockylightning
left_wing_mormonbadgerTied
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 Koopin 6 years ago
Koopin
left_wing_mormonbadgerTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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:50