The Instigator
jackjackson
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
rienafairefr
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

Report Topic Do you believe the Boston Marathon bombing suspects ACTUALLY DID IT "No Evidence"!

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/29/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,174 times Debate No: 33035
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (1)
Votes (0)

 

jackjackson

Con

They didn't do it. All the evidence doesn't add up they've been framed. How did police know of bombing prior with k9. Why would they realize a hostage unharmed but kill an unaware officer. No 19 year old could outsmart the FBI and his backpack was grey. Not only that the government had previously questioned the older brother years back and found no evidence yet now say he had searched radical videos? AND to top it off the FBI now says they had no escape plan?!! Terrorists always would either bomb themselves and commit suicide or have a crazy escape plan... even shoplifter would have an escape plan... WTF?!!
rienafairefr

Pro

I think this debate will clearly levitate around dispelling the misunderstandings of Con. His whole arguments seems to be the argument from ignorance "I can't understand how they could have done it therefore they didn't". It is definitely not a rational position.

Now, I won't deny I also share a part of the BOP, because my position as P is "they actually did it". I believe there is sufficient evidence to have them prime suspects in this investigation. Every suspect is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law though, and the actual guilt in the face of the law will be decided by trial, not by my position. Not all evidence that is against them is currently public because we want them to have a fair trial. But even with the limited information we have, for now the position that is most reasonable is there guilt. Taking the opposite position seems to require believing in massive evidence falsification and a lot of cognitive dissonance (i.e. requiring that the people that supposedly framed them are at the same time incredible manipulators and as dumb as a fly).

Con, bring your case, and please stay focused, address one point at a time, not thousands in a paragraph like in your opening round.
Debate Round No. 1
jackjackson

Con

Well since they made sure to shoot him in his throught, disable his tongue, have someone write for him " I still don't get how someone would read someone else's mind and write down the information?!!" and Miranda rights wasn't read for him either... then this thing stinks big time! what's gonna happen is they will get a corrupted judge and show him the irrelevant pictures as evidence and they will get a plea deal out of the poor kid in order for him to avoid the death penalty. I just feel sorry for all of those families who lost their loved ones for some missed up government plan to make us feel that we need more security, it's like they trying to say: hey Americans, don't ever think if Binladen is dead that you are safe!". We'll have more incidents like this one over and over again to keep us busy and feeling insecure. If you want me to believe that these guys actually did it then I would like to see all of the FBI being investigated for not doing their and job of protecting us and having ZERO intelligent information regarding this indecent.
And again how come the K9's weren't able to detect bombs material?!! I actually did a search and found that there are certain materials that have the ability to disable dog's sense of smell,,so here we go again!!! NON of the evidence adds up and this bombing just got more Americans thinking more seriously about how missed up our government is and how it would go in order to protect its own agenda. Sorry again to all of our victims and my heart goes out to all of you.
rienafairefr

Pro

"Well since they made sure to shoot him in his throught, disable his tongue, have someone write for him " I still don't get how someone would read someone else's mind and write down the information?!!" "

Who's "he" ? Can you please be more clear. I understand form context you talk about Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, but please be more precise . Anyway. Yes, Dzhokhar apparently suffered injuries in the throat or neck. But he's perfectly capable of communicating. He talks, e.g. he responded "No" when asked a question during its hearing, and probably mostly communicates via writing. His lawyers are there to ensure that everything is done according to the rule of the law. And if it weren't done through the rule of the law, then the trial would be finished in no time, and he would be free.

"and Miranda rights wasn't read for him either..."

He was read his Miranda rights during the hearing. He wasn't at first, because they needed to know if he had any urgent plans or hidden explosives somewhere ready to blow up. Even if he isn't read his miranda rights, he still has them and has every right to stay silent. Anyway, the fact that he wasn't read his rights is actually in his favor, because everything he said before that point cannot be used against him in the future trial.

"then this thing stinks big time! what's gonna happen is they will get a corrupted judge and show him the irrelevant pictures as evidence and they will get a plea deal out of the poor kid in order for him to avoid the death penalty."

Please present evidence of that, because it's just speculation on your part.

"I just feel sorry for all of those families who lost their loved ones for some missed up government plan to make us feel that we need more security, it's like they trying to say: hey Americans, don't ever think if Binladen is dead that you are safe!". We'll have more incidents like this one over and over again to keep us busy and feeling insecure."

Then you have to agree that if it's a plan, it's a shitty plan. Look at now, a few weeks after the bombing, nothing has changed in the status quo. People's attention is shifted to other news, nobody is going to change anything. We'll have incidents like this, sure, because there are bad people that do bad things all the time. If you want to argue that every single shooting or bombing is a government conspiracy, you have to explain why it's absolutely impossible for shootings or bombings to occur without a government conspiracy involvement.

"If you want me to believe that these guys actually did it then I would like to see all of the FBI being investigated for not doing their and job of protecting us and having ZERO intelligent information regarding this indecent."

It's an hindsight bias fallacy. You know, now, that these guys were dangerous. And you want to blame someone. What about you blame the bombers ? They did the thing. Failure to predict hard to predict events shouldn't be prosecutable. Otherwise, be ready for a shitstorm. Any accident you have, you will have to respond to it criminally, and investigated why you didn't do this or that that might maybe have prevented it. Let's say your brakes break while driving, and you accidentaly kill a kid who was there on the driveway. NOBODY would prosecute you for it if it's truly an accident. Even if you could have done something to save that kid (maybe, if you changed your brakes the week before, you'd have save him. Maybe, you should have turned left at the previous intersection, maybe, maybe...). The FBI is composed of people trying to do the best they can with the resources they have. The only way to have perfect intelligence and avert any possible bombing scenario would be to have every single fbi agent following every single person on this planet, i.e. a police state. And even that wouldn't be perfect. So you can't have it both way, loathe a police state that "they" want to implement by putting fear by faking bombing incidents, and blaming that state when it doesn't implement the police stat that YOU demand in order to have been able to avert every bombing incident.

"And again how come the K9's weren't able to detect bombs material?!!"

The K9 isn't perfect either. The tsarnaevs went, put the bombs, in and out, fast and quick. K9 is not a perfect "smell a bomb from 10 miles", it's done in the off chance that the K9 would be close to the bomb material before it detonates.

"actually did a search and found that there are certain materials that have the ability to disable dog's sense of smell,,so here we go again!!!"

So what ? There are plenty of things that exist to make anything deadlier and/or more difficult to detect. It's not an argument. We don't stop trying to arrest burglars because 95% of them get away with it. (it's a pulled-out-of-my-butt stat) We try our best, and we perfect the countermeasures the best we can. The other option, giving up, is not preferable.

"NON of the evidence adds up"

You haven't really looked at it a lot.
- The Tsarnaevs brothers seen on camera at the marathon, with the backpacks containing the bombs, seen on camera putting them on the floor where bombs detonated, then seen fleeing the scene like nothing happened. Them admitting openly to having done it.

"and this bombing just got more Americans thinking more seriously about how missed up our government is and how it would go in order to protect its own agenda. Sorry again to all of our victims and my heart goes out to all of you."

The Boston bombing don't indicate there is an hidden agenda in the government. That is just speculation on your part. You have to provide evidence of that, and your intervention provides none.
Debate Round No. 2
jackjackson

Con

"Who's "he" ? "
is whomever interrogating the suspect.

"he responded "No" when asked a question during its hearing"

Really?!! is NO or YES a sufficient answer (especially to you since you keep asking me to be clear and specific) ?!! and how come they set up a hearing for someone with serious injuries and is still recovering. By the way the "NO" that you're talking about couldn't be something else like "NAHHH UHHH..MMMHHH" that is coming from the pain he is still suffering since he got injuries to his mouth!!

"Even if he isn't read his miranda rights, he still has them and has every right to stay silent. Anyway, the fact that he wasn't read his rights is actually in his favor, because everything he said before that point cannot be used against him in the future trial."

"Better?!!" how about canceling Miranda right since it's BETTER THAT IT WASN'T READ FOR HIM AS YOU SAID ?? obviously you start sounding like our government! how about taking out traffic lights so people can get to work fater?!!! Please no one should decide what'S better or worst, THE LAW IS THE LAW.

"Please present evidence of that, because it's just speculation on your part"

It's not speculation since the evidence that was provided by the the authorities are very weak from criminal justice point of view and I laughed when I read that they appointed some random public defenders to "defend" the suspect right away without the suspect consent.

" The Tsarnaevs brothers seen on camera at the marathon, with the backpacks containing the bombs, seen on camera putting them on the floor where bombs detonated, then seen fleeing the scene like nothing happened. Them admitting openly to having done it."

Who are "them" openly admitted doing it?? there is one that is dead already and one that can't communicate ?!and how did you see the bombs inside those backpacks??? I'm laughing at you right now because I just imagined you must be a superman with laser eyes that could see through things easily, is that how you saw the bombs inside that backpacks??!!!! and there was no actual full video that shows the suspects doing what you said, there are separate clips of them with backpacks (didn't see a bomb though!) and other clips without the the backpacks?!! really?? how about showing me just one consistent clip that showing them both clearly putting their backpacks on the floor at the same spot where the bombing had happened?? did you see the type of the backpacks before and after ?? they are totally different backpacks!! what a surprise?!!!
The suspects might have simply sat their backpack somewhere like we all do when we go to a festival or watch a marathon!!

"What about you blame the bombers ? "

You already jumped to the conclusion assuming that they are the bombers!! even though there is no enough evidence, no conviction and no trial yet. What happened to the simple rule "innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial"?? do you even believe in that ?? this is one of the basic rule of our freedom rights, did you know that?? so please call them suspects until proven guilty.... and even after that how many people went to jail and proven innocents years later. All I hope that they don't give him the death penalty so there would be a chance for the truth to uncover one day at least.

I'm like a lot of other people know deep in my heart that they didn't do it based on the evidence provided plus the fact that the suspects had no escape plan in the first place.

By the way salute to our american people as 75% of the nation want Tsarnaev tried in nonmilitary court! and please don't waste your time responding and sounding like an FBI agent. Be subjective, don't jump to conclusions and choose your words accordingly .
Thanks!

"That is just speculation on your part. You have to provide evidence of that, and your intervention provides none."

All of the nonsense evidence that was provided by the authorities and interrogating a suspect that is still in pain and recovering provide more than enough evidence that this bombing stinks big time.
rienafairefr

Pro

I'd like to point that Con is engaging in a deep Gish gallop, not focusing on any point, but throwing many wrong things that I will probably have no chance to fully address in the limited number of space that is allocated for this response.
  • Really?!! is NO or YES a sufficient answer (especially to you since you keep asking me to be clear and specific) ?!! and how come they set up a hearing for someone with serious injuries and is still recovering. By the way the "NO" that you're talking about couldn't be something else like "NAHHH UHHH..MMMHHH" that is coming from the pain he is still suffering since he got injuries to his mouth!!
You've clearly never read the transcript of the hearing and apparently not heard that he was even heard. Please, inform yourseld, http://documents.latimes.com... .
The fact that hearings are done even when the suspect is still in an hospital is not that extraordinary. What is the alternative ? Do you wait til he can walk ? Wait til he can run ? Wait til he doesn't have any more migraines ? Wait til the bruises are not visible ? What's the threshold ? The threshold has been put when the suspect can respond, and that's what's been done. At ANY point before the hearing started he could have just communicated "No, I can't talk I'm too bad" but he chose not to. Read the transcript, and the questions asked by the court.
If you claim that No is in fact Naaah Uh Mmmmh, you're essentially calling the person who did the transcription of the hearing a liar. read the transcript. Tell to James Gibbons, the court reporter, there's his email in the transcript, that he is a liar then. His lie would probably be prosecutable, go on, sue him, prove your assertion. What ? you can't ? Why then should we listen to what you have to say if all you say is speculate and accuse without evidence ?
  • Better?!!" how about canceling Miranda right since it's BETTER THAT IT WASN'T READ FOR HIM AS YOU SAID ?? obviously you start sounding like our government! how about taking out traffic lights so people can get to work fater?!!! Please no one should decide what'S better or worst, THE LAW IS THE LAW.
I'm not deciding it's better, you're misinterpreting. Inform yourself on what is miranda rights and why they are said and you'll notice a thing or two. It's not what you think.
  • It's not speculation since the evidence that was provided by the the authorities are very weak from criminal justice point of view and I laughed when I read that they appointed some random public defenders to "defend" the suspect right away without the suspect consent."
You know that's exactly the same for any other citizen in the US, right ? If you're accused of a crime and can't defend yourself, you'll be appointed a "random public defender". How horrible. Gimme a break. That's freaking great. What's the alternative ? No defense ? What are you ? A tribe member in a prehistoric society ? I'd like to point out that the investigation doesn't have any duty to report to the public any of the evidence they have on hand. They have that duty during the trial, not before. Every single piece that is public right now is just a piece in a puzzle, there are undoubtedly many more pieces that are not public because if they were the trial would have no chance of convicting the suspect.
  • Who are "them" openly admitted doing it??
The two brothers
  • there is one that is dead already and one that can't communicate ?!
Dzokhar can communicate just fine.
  • I'm laughing at you right now
What a mature statement. How old are you ?
  • and how did you see the bombs inside those backpacks??? because I just imagined you must be a superman with laser eyes that could see through things easily, is that how you saw the bombs inside that backpacks??!!!! and there was no actual full video that shows the suspects doing what you said, there are separate clips of them with backpacks (didn't see a bomb though!) and other clips without the the backpacks?!! really?? how about showing me just one consistent clip that showing them both clearly putting their backpacks on the floor at the same spot where the bombing had happened??"
There's plenty of video evidence, as I said all of it is not publicly released but talked about in the affidavit. I'd like to add that any video evidence that I could provide you'd immediatly say they are tampered with or frauds or whatever, you wouldn't accept them so I don't even see the point.
  • did you see the type of the backpacks before and after ?? they are totally different backpacks!! what a surprise?!!!"
Yeah, what a surprise that someone who desperately WANTS them to be different backpacks will find them different.... Not a surprise in fact. The backpack "after" (seen after the bomb explosion) might not even be the backpack where the bomb was....
  • The suspects might have simply sat their backpack somewhere like we all do when we go to a festival or watch a marathon!!
Yeah sure, we all freaking do that.</irony> Yeah no, myself I'd never do that in the middle of a crowd
  • You already jumped to the conclusion assuming that they are the bombers!! even though there is no enough evidence, no conviction and no trial yet. What happened to the simple rule "innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial"?? do you even believe in that ?? "
Do you even know how to read ? I already told you they are innocent until proven guilty in the face of the law, and their final guilt will be decided in a trial. But in the face of the evidence, to me, it's just much more likely they are the bombers than not. My opinion of their guilt bear NO FREAKING WEIGHT on their right to be "innocent until proven guilty": They are, no matter what I think.
  • this is one of the basic rule of our freedom rights, did you know that?? so please call them suspects until proven guilty....
Not possible, because no matter their guilt, they are suspects, it's unavoidable.
  • and even after that how many people went to jail and proven innocents years later. All I hope that they don't give him the death penalty so there would be a chance for the truth to uncover one day at least.
yeah, keep hoping. How about you stop chasing unicorns and work on what you have instead of hoping for whatever might maybe possibly happen in the future ?
  • I'm like a lot of other people know deep in my heart that they didn't do it based on the evidence provided plus the fact that the suspects had no escape plan in the first place.
yeah, deep in your heart, that's really deep[sic] evidence. In order to ascertain criminal guilt we need concrete physical evidence. And we have it. And it shows they are the bombers. What do you mean they had no escape plan ? Escape from what ? The bombing ? The shootout ? What's the problem with no escape plan anyway ? If they wanted to die martyr anyway, no need for escape plan.
  • By the way salute to our american people as 75% of the nation want Tsarnaev tried in nonmilitary court! and please don't waste your time responding and sounding like an FBI agent. Be subjective, don't jump to conclusions and choose your words accordingly ."
And I don't want them tried in military court either, what's your point ?
And I can see not surprisingly that my intervention has now woven into your conspiracy theory in your mind that I am an undercover FBI agent, that shows anyone the depth of the paranoia that is needed in order to shield this kind of theory from any criticism.
  • All of the nonsense evidence that was provided by the authorities and interrogating a suspect that is still in pain and recovering provide more than enough evidence that this bombing stinks big time.
They are nonsense evidence only if you firmly, a priori, want to believe that the bombing is a vast nefarious conspiracy for nefarious purposes by the government. Please think about what kind of evidence we would see if there were absolutely no conspiracy ? If you can't answer that question then your assertion that the present evidence "stinks" is just a belief founded on dogma.
Debate Round No. 3
jackjackson

Con

"You've clearly never read the transcript of the hearing and apparently not heard that he was even heard. Please, inform yourseld, http://documents.latimes.com...... .
The fact that hearings are done even when the suspect is still in an hospital is not that extraordinary. What is the alternative ? Do you wait til he can walk ? Wait til he can run ? Wait til he doesn't have any more migraines ? Wait til the bruises are not visible ? What's the threshold ? The threshold has been put when the suspect can respond, and that's what's been done. At ANY point before the hearing started he could have just communicated "No, I can't talk I'm too bad" but he chose not to. Read the transcript, and the questions asked by the court."

I did and it's soooooo shady, it speaks for itself. It's clearly stating that the suspect's responses are all by nodding his head "not even talking". So yo obviously didn't read from a bias point of view and you read it based on feeling that they are bomber and they should be dead just like any conservative would read and think. And no don't wait until he is up on his legs so he can run away. They just need to wait until he is some what recovered so he is in a stable condition and is able to talk and think straight. You've never been injured and hospitalized that's why you don't know how it feels. I have been to a minor surgery to my knee and I wasn't able to think straight for the next 2 weeks because of the pain "even with pain relievers", as any one how it feels while recovering from an injury or a surgery. I believe you are talking emotionally and all what is going on in your head is "damn it! these terrorist did it again!!". How about reading between the lines and uncovering the lies and see what you'll find out. It looks like I'm just wasting time responding to you. Just please go ahead and re-read the court hearing but with open mind and if you can't be open minded have someone else in your family to read it for you, young or old and just don't tell them that this is the bombing terrorist and you'll be surprised of their responses as they gonna say that it is inhuman to have a hearing in someone's hospital room after a couple days of sustaining a serious injuries all over his body!! Did you see the grenade that blew up in his face in the boat in one of the videos. I don't wish you bad but if you had one blow up in your face I don't think you'll be able to recover for months or think straight for weeks. Sorry for the harsh example but you seem to block your brain from receiving any information in opposition to what you believe as solid evidence that are actually very weak and inconsistent. Thanks!
rienafairefr

Pro

rienafairefr forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
jackjackson

Con

jackjackson forfeited this round.
rienafairefr

Pro

"You've clearly never read the transcript of the hearing and apparently not heard that he was even heard. Please, inform yourseld, http://documents.latimes.com......... .
The fact that hearings are done even when the suspect is still in an hospital is not that extraordinary. What is the alternative ? Do you wait til he can walk ? Wait til he can run ? Wait til he doesn't have any more migraines ? Wait til the bruises are not visible ? What's the threshold ? The threshold has been put when the suspect can respond, and that's what's been done. At ANY point before the hearing started he could have just communicated "No, I can't talk I'm too bad" but he chose not to. Read the transcript, and the questions asked by the court."

"I did and it's soooooo shady, it speaks for itself. It's clearly stating that the suspect's responses are all by nodding his head "not even talking". So yo obviously didn't read from a bias point of view and you read it based on feeling that they are bomber and they should be dead just like any conservative would read and think. "

What ??? You're aware that his lawyer was there right ? Do you think his lawyer is "in on it" too ? Yeah, I obviously did not read from a "bias point of view". I read what is written. You read what you want to believe.

"And no don't wait until he is up on his legs so he can run away. They just need to wait until he is some what recovered so he is in a stable condition and is able to talk and think straight. You've never been injured and hospitalized that's why you don't know how it feels."
I've been hospitalised, thanks. And you also don't have any freaking idea how he was. You assume he was bad, because your theory demands that he was. Not because you have any proof of that. He was judged to be clearly able to handle that. And, BEFORE THE HEARING BEGAN, he was asked if everything was fine and he would be able to do that hearing. He agreed.

"I have been to a minor surgery to my knee and I wasn't able to think straight for the next 2 weeks because of the pain "even with pain relievers", as any one how it feels while recovering from an injury or a surgery. I believe you are talking emotionally and all what is going on in your head is "damn it! these terrorist did it again!!"."
Yeah, your own experience is a great way to prove that it was the same case for Dzorkhav. Not.
No, I don't think that. I think people did something very stupid like bombing innocents. They are not terrorists for me because they don't terrorize me.

"How about reading between the lines and uncovering the lies and see what you'll find out. It looks like I'm just wasting time responding to you. Just please go ahead and re-read the court hearing but with open mind and if you can't be open minded have someone else in your family to read it for you, young or old and just don't tell them that this is the bombing terrorist and you'll be surprised of their responses as they gonna say that it is inhuman to have a hearing in someone's hospital room after a couple days of sustaining a serious injuries all over his body!! Did you see the grenade that blew up in his face in the boat in one of the videos. I don't wish you bad but if you had one blow up in your face I don't think you'll be able to recover for months or think straight for weeks. Sorry for the harsh example but you seem to block your brain from receiving any information in opposition to what you believe as solid evidence that are actually very weak and inconsistent. Thanks!"

If he couldn't get the hearing, he could have delayed it probably however long he wanted, I said that already. What you say is pure belief without evidence.

Conclusions:

My opponent dropped some points he raised at the beginning that I addressed and never talked about it again:
- He thinks the backpacks of the bomber are different from the one found at the scene. I explained that you can have difference in lightning, and the fact that the bag shown found at the scene might not be the bomb bag anyway.
- He thinks he wasnt mirandize, while he was at the hearing.
- He blames the FBI for not predicting the future and that would prove the bombers did not bomb, how, anyway ?
Final point I'd like to add, is that the position of my opponent is an understandable one, he basically doesn't care about the truth, he just doesn't want that the world he lives in is a world where two young men can go freely, buy stuff to make bombs and blow up a crowd. He wants a world where that chaos doesn't happen. He wants a world where the bombing is done "for a reason", by "powerful people", to "advance an agenda". Because it's much more comforting, having *someone* to blame and not be afraid of the chaos.

Vote Pro
Debate Round No. 5
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by rienafairefr 4 years ago
rienafairefr
sorry iI couldn't post round#4 on time, too busy with my family.
No votes have been placed for this debate.