The Instigator
lannan13
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
iamanatheistandthisiswhy
Con (against)
Winning
6 Points

Resolved: Hurricane Katrina was likely a Conspiracy.

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
iamanatheistandthisiswhy
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/6/2014 Category: Science
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,968 times Debate No: 59994
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (22)
Votes (2)

 

lannan13

Pro

THIS IS NOT A TROLL DEBATE.

I'd like to thank iamanatheistandthisiswhy for accepting my challenge and I hope to look forward to an amazingly great debate.


Rules
No Trolling
First round is acceptance and definitions
Round 2 is Contentions. There are no rebuttles in this round.
Round 3 is Reubuttles
Round 4 is Rebuttles and Conclusions.
Burden of Proof Is Shared.
A violation of any of these points will result in an automatic Forfeiture.

likely-having a high probability of occurring or being true: very probable<rain islikelytoday> (http://www.merriam-webster.com...)

Conspriacy- a secret plan made by two or more people to do something that is harmful or illegal (http://www.learnersdictionary.com...)
iamanatheistandthisiswhy

Con

I would like to extend my thanks to my opponent for allowing me to debate this topic.

As I said in the comments I am really fascinated at how my opponent intends to defend the proposition. As such, I hand the debate back to you.
Debate Round No. 1
lannan13

Pro

Contention 1: Telsa and HAARP

Subpoint 1: Telsa's Connections

In 1934, Telsa announces that he has discovered a death ray and also says he's invented a high frequency transmitter which can alter the ionosphere and control weather.

In 1943, Tesla dies and all of his personal papers and belongings are seized by men calling themselves "federal agents". For 37 years, whenever public requests for Tesla"s files are made the FBI denies it has any knowledge of their whereabouts. Military intelligence and The Library of Congress also deny ever holding Tesla"s files.

1989: The FBI declassifies the last pages of its Tesla file. It reveals that Nikola Tesla contacted the U.S. Department of War a day before his death. It also reveals that the FBI asked the Office of Alien Property to seize all of Tesla"s belongings despite the fact that it had no authority to do so.

1990: The U.S. government starts research project HAARP. It is based on Tesla"s weather control designs. (http://www.borderlands.com...) and (http://beforeitsnews.com...)

Subpoint 2: HAARP

HAARP stands for High Frequency Active Auroral Research Program. Here they shoot High Frequency radio transmittions into the atmosphere and can go up to 350 kilometers in altitude. That's when they create plasmas in the atmosphere. (http://www.haarp.alaska.edu...) That's how they alter the Earth's atmosphere. Here is a diagram of what happens. It has been reported that HAARP sends billions of watts in the 2.8-8.2 MHz range into the ionosphere, which isn't healthy for the ionosphere and can create "holes" per say in the sky much of those like the ones in the Ozone. (THough it's not exactly the same that's just a comparission)


Contention 2: HAARP caused Katrina

NASA has discovered that only three Hurricanes in Human history have produced lightening and they are; Katrina, Rita, and Emily. NASA has also found that Hurricanes on their own over open water cannot create their own electricity, because they do not produce electrical fields. It's simply, because Hurricanes do not have verticle winds, they have horizontal winds. Blakeslee, a NASA sciencetist, has said, "Hurricanes are most likely to produce lightning when they're making landfall, But there were no mountains beneath the "electric hurricanes" of 2005—only flat water." (http://science.nasa.gov...) HAARP's home page states that all are welcome to come observe it's station in Alaska, but many were actually turned away like former Minnesota Govenor Jesse Ventura. (http://juneauempire.com...) Also why was the HAARP organization at their highest activity in their history before Katrina?
Magnetic

Contention 3: HAARP has also caused Hurricane Sandy

In 1997, HAARP created a Hurricane 'Drill' called Hurricane Sandy in Rodchester, NY.
Drill
But during Hurricane Sandy, the real one, HAARP's frequencies were off the chart and you'll never believe where they were the most frequent. At the heart of the Hurricane. (http://www.skyshipsovercashiers.com...)

HAARP

Contention 4: Motive?

Now you must be asking yourself why in the world would HAARP want to do something like this. The answer is very simple. To help the US economy. Hurricanes cause massive destruction, but it gives the community jobs in construction and pumps hundreds of thousands of dollars into the insurence industry. We all know how the US economy was starting to fall into a recession in the mid 2000's. One year after Hurricane Katrina the US economy rating went from B+ to A. (http://abcnews.go.com...) The GDP went from down 4% for the first three months after Katrina to down 1.4% for the finial months of 2005 and then for the first 3 months of 2006 the GDP was up by 5.6% and gas prices fell under $3 a gallon and the economy began to look like it was on the upturn. (http://abcnews.go.com...)
iamanatheistandthisiswhy

Con


Thanks to my opponent for their opening argument, I look forward to rebutting it in the next round. In this round of the debate I am going to show that the natural disaster Hurricane Katrina was not a conspiracy.



History



Hurricane Katrina was a category five hurricane (157 mph+ wind speeds) that had reduced in strength to a category three hurricane (winds of 111-129 mph) when it eventually made landfall in the Gulf Coast.(1,2) According to these categories a category three storm will cause “Devastating damage will occur: Well-built framed homes may incur major damage or removal of roof decking and gable ends. Many trees will be snapped or uprooted, blocking numerous roads. Electricity and water will be unavailable for several days to weeks after the storm passes.”



However, as we now know the devastating damage was worsened by the failure of Levee's in New Orleans which resulted in further loss of life as the city descended into chaos. This chaos is attributed to many things, such as; people not being able to be evacuated, rioting, sanitation, supply problems, etc.(3)



How did it form?



Hurricane Katrina formed initially as a tropical depression in the Bahamas, then this tropical depression strengthened into a full Tropical storm which moved westward and eventually made landfall over South Florida where it weakened, however then when it entered the Gulf of Mexico it strengthened again before it made landfall a second time.(4)


<a href=http://upload.wikimedia.org...; width="475" height="293" />


A tropical depression can form when a tropical wave changes into a closed circulation system. When this happens either the depression can dissipate or it can acquire more energy from the warm sea and become stronger until it becomes a closed circulation system with very strong winds that we call a Hurricane or Typhoon.(5)


<a href=http://earthsci.org...; />


The fact are that there is satellite imagery and scientific theories which can explain the formation of Hurricane Katrina, and this evidence does not point to any conspiracy. In fact, these theories are so well tested that nowadays we are able to predict a Hurricanes path with a certain degree of accuracy.(6)



Conspiracies don't stay buried



Hurricane Katrina happened in August of 2005, which means this natural disaster happened 9 years ago. Yet there is no hard evidence that can point towards any conspiracy about Hurricane Katrina been organized by one or more people. In contrast if we look at other attempted cover-ups we find that usually they are exposed far quicker with significant evidence. For example, Watergate or the weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.(7,8) As such it seems highly improbable that Hurricane Katrina was a conspiracy as something would surely have leaked out by now, especially considering how many people died in this disaster.



I now hand the debate back to my opponent for rebuttals.



(1) http://www.nhc.noaa.gov...


(2) http://www.history.com...


(3) http://news.bbc.co.uk...


(4) http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov...


(5) http://www.hurricaneville.com...


(6) http://www.wunderground.com...


(7) http://www.telegraph.co.uk...


(8) http://www.history.com...


Debate Round No. 2
lannan13

Pro

First I'd like to clarify that last round I said Rodchester and meant Westchester. My bad.


Contention 1: Katrina's formation

This is the major part in this debate. Hurricane Katrina actually began to die off when it passed over Flordia, but once it enters the Gulf of Mexico the Tropical Strom then turns back into a Hurricane and grows stronger and stronger. (http://www.ldi.state.la.us...) I give you this graph showing HAARP's very active buisness towards the end of Katrina. Some of these readings are off the charts and I currently cannot find one of during Katrina only the beginning and end, but when we see the ending's significanly off the charts we can only see that it has to be catistropic.


Contention 2: Conspiracies don't stay burried.

There have been hundreds of conspiracies over the years that people have argued about like 9/11, the moon landing, the Prime Minister from New Zealand being a retile alien (he actually had to go to the doctor to get evidence that he wasn't an alien (http://www.buzzfeed.com...), the War on Terror, the Nixon-JFK election, the list can go on and on. There are even modern conspiracies like Newtown and more, but we don't have the time nor the character limit to get into it at the moment. My opponent says that WMD's were not found in Iraq, but I beg to differ in the city of Al-Qa'im there is a fertalizer plant. The funny thing about this fertalizer plant is that the fertilizer that is produced their only works on Western European soil not Middle Eastern. (http://en.wikipedia.org...'im_(town)) So what's so special about fertalizer you may ask? It's that throughout Iraq, Marines have reported finding bags of fertalizer in bunkers next to empty mortar shells. This was to be used for as chemical weaponry.
iamanatheistandthisiswhy

Con


Thanks to my opponent for an interesting rebuttal, although I believe my rebuttal of your arguments will essentially nullify yours.



Tesla and HAARP



Tesla, how many conspiracy theories surround the man? He was a genius and he had an infamous disagreement with Edison.(1) Now, I don't want to degrade Tesla's work, I am a fan, but to claim a link between Tesla and HAARP is absurd. In fact in your source it states “Enter HAARP. The assumed notion that the project known as HAARP (High-Frequency Active Auroral Research Project) is descended from Tesla's work, is something of an absurdity with reference to Tesla's previous affirmation. ”(2) As such my opponents contention that there is a link between Tesla and Harp is defeated. Additionally, all the scare stories in the other source cited by my opponent are surely nullified as it also works on the false assumption that HAARP is Tesla technology.



I would also like to note that there is apparently network of HAARP sites across the globe. Yet the only available pictures come form the one HAARP experiment in Alaska which has been inactive since 2013 and is also getting dismantled. I suppose we need to find something else to blame bad weather on now.(3) Then another dubious claim is the island of Bermeja in the Gulf suddenly disappearing in 2009. The only problem is that this island did already not exist in 1997.(4) It seems my opponent really needs more reliable source to prove his claim, as these two source disprove his claim that HAARP is anything but a scientific research program to probe the ionosphere and its effects on communication.(5) In fact, there is no evidence to show HAARP can cause weather changes.



HAARP caused Hurricanes Katrina and Sandy


My opponent makes this very bold claim that HAARP (hence the US government) was behind the creation of two Hurricanes. However, up till this point my opponent has absolutely zero proof to show that HAARP can be used to alter the weather.



To break it down my opponent claims Hurricanes cannot have lightening as “because they do not produce electrical fields. It's simply, because Hurricanes do not have verticle winds, they have horizontal winds.” This is false as a Hurricane is a self containing system, see my previous round, this means it must have both horizontal and vertical winds. However, even more important if we consult the people at the NOAA Hurricane Research Division we find out that Hurricanes do in fact have lighting strikes with about 100 strikes per hour.(6)



I would also like to add here that Ventura got rejected after making a request to HAARP, and importantly that request was for a conspiracy TV show. Understandably the government would turn down a non-scientific TV crew when this is scientific research and not to amuse conspiracy theorists. The other link my opponent gives is to another conspiracy site, which give images with no sources to real data. This makes me discredit this information as they also makes claims of UFOs being true as well as a variety of other lunatic ideas.



The Motive


My opponent goes into detail here why the government would be interested in creating a Hurricane. Now while interesting, I can't take these claims seriously until there is factual evidence to show that HAARP is in fact capable of creating these storms, earthquakes, island destructions etc.



In this round I have shown the claims of my opponent to be based on false assertions. As such I believe the argument is defeated.



I now hand the debate back over to my opponent for the final round.



(1) http://www.forbes.com...


(2) http://www.borderlands.com...


(3) http://rt.com...


(4) http://en.wikipedia.org...


(5) http://rationalwiki.org...


(6) http://www.aoml.noaa.gov...


Debate Round No. 3
lannan13

Pro

I'd like to thank my opponent for this debate. I really don't believe this theory, but I thought it would lead into an interesting debate here on DDO.

Contention 1: Tesla and HAARP

My opponent is incorrect. In 1957, the US military reported success using Telsa's theory of shooting 'beams' into the ionsphere to control the weather. (http://chemtrailsplanet.net...) I have also posted the link to the video that it is in and the historical evidence called Holes in Heaven- Secreate Telsa technology. (https://www.youtube.com...) I am unsure if it will pop open as a youtube video. If not I have provided the link.

I will address HAARP's weather changing abilities in my next contention.

Contention 2: HAARP caused Hurricanes Katrina and Sandy

I will first provide pictures of what happens when HAARP is turned on/online.


From the above pictures we can see how HAARP can control weather and how it has created holes across the nation. To add that my opponent has also dropped my evidence showing HAARP's activity compared to both storms. We can see that HAARP has a part to play in this. Then with my opponent dropping my evidence about HAARP creating both storms (which I'll extend across the board) we can see that there is plenty of evidence there.

I extend my Hurricane Electircal argument as it was from NASA my source trumps my opponent's as I have provided a scholary source and an author to go with it.

Contention 3: The motive

My opponent says that he will not argue until I prove that HAARP can alter weather. I have so I will extend this argument across the board.

My opponent has dropped his own contentions so I'll extend those arguments across the board.

In conclusion, I have provided photographic proof of HAARP's actions and that they have caused Hurricane Katrina. My opponent has dropped his own contentions so I can see no other way to vote in this debate, but Pro.

Thank You and please vote Pro!
iamanatheistandthisiswhy

Con

Thanks to my opponent for a fun debate.



In this debate, my opponent has claimed multiple times in this debate that HAARP caused Hurricane Katrina (and Sandy). However, as I have pointed out there is no evidence for this. My opponent however disagrees and quotes the Chemtrails (conspiracy theory) website as proof. I mean a website that is named after one of the most absurd conspiracy theories should not be taken seriously at all. The next source of information is from the Disclosure project, who believe UFOs are running free all over the planet. However, just like Chemtrails they have zero evidence for this claim. As such the sources presented as proof by my opponent fail.



Regarding the NASA source, I am not sure why my opponent says this disagree with my citations as it in fact agrees with my stance that lightening can occur in a Hurricane. It even says “"Generally there's not a lot of lightning in the eye-wall region," he says.” Not a lot means, there is but this was just more than normal.



Another important point my opponent keeps alluding to is the increased HAARP activity that occurred during Hurricane Katrina. However, as I pointed out these maps do not come from official sources but conspiracy websites. Additionally, even if this data was true (which I doubt) correlation does not imply causation. My opponent needed to show that there was a direct cause to prove that HAARP created Hurricane Katrina.



In contrast in this debate I showed that lightening can occur in Hurricanes as it is self containing. I showed that Hurricane Katrina formed under normal circumstances in the Bahamas. I also showed that it is highly unlikely that this is a conspiracy theory as HAARP has existed for a long time (1993) and yet no leaked information has come out that shows HAARP can alter the weather. Additionally, if it could alter the weather so well and create all these natural disasters that could be used as a weapon, then why is the program off-line and not ever restarting?



As such I have shown in this debate that Hurrican Katrina formed like any other Hurricane and was not created as claimed by my opponent. This is all I needed to do to win this debate.



Now I hand the debate over to my opponent.


Debate Round No. 4
22 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by whiteflame 3 years ago
whiteflame
So neither side is really giving me much to go for. I don't see any data from Con showing that it must have formed naturally, though obviously Pro's got the major burden in this debate to overcome that view. Lacking that argumentation, Con is dependent upon Pro's argument being insufficient to sway general opinion. The one thing Con did manage to do was argue against the points Pro made for why it cannot be natural, and I think that's where Pro fails to win this debate. The term used in the resolution is "likely," not "possible." It seems to me that that likelihood has to be higher than the natural system creating a hurricane of this sort. Without that analysis, even with most of Pro's argument dropped, the best he's managed to do is make it an equal likelihood. It doesn't seem to be the most likely, and perhaps even less likely than the natural method.

As such, I vote Con, though by a much closer margin than should have been possible.
Posted by whiteflame 3 years ago
whiteflame
Honestly, I wasn't impressed with either side in this debate. Pro makes a lot of statements that come with little to no evidence beyond assertions from conspiracy groups, and Con's contentions often fail to directly rebut Pro's arguments.

Pro states an argument that mostly utilizes conspiracy websites and youtube videos without any actual scientific support. The few pieces of actual evidence that are presented make for some interesting questions, but those questions have little or nothing to do with the debate. He proffers a NASA link, for example, that shows discrepancies between different hurricanes and the lightning they produce, but it's a gigantic leap to make these conclusions. The argument that HAARP may have the capacity to slightly modify weather patterns doesn't mean they can create hurricanes. There's an awful lot of assertions about what they're capable of doing. Worst of all is the motive - if the government engineered the whole thing, then why were they so awfully slow in responding? I think it's assuming a lot that the small boom in the economy following it was actually caused by the disaster.

Con's responses don't offer a whole lot of rebuttal to the points being made, and often just attack the sources. I understand that there are concerns with the sources, but just attacking them does little to actually hit at Pro's contentions. You don't have to respond to every link, but you do have to hit at the information they contain when you do so, and not just say that they're not worth touching.
Posted by iamanatheistandthisiswhy 3 years ago
iamanatheistandthisiswhy
LOL glad to hear that.
Posted by lannan13 3 years ago
lannan13
I'm crazy ... but not that crazy.
Posted by iamanatheistandthisiswhy 3 years ago
iamanatheistandthisiswhy
I didn't think you did. Otherwise I would have been very worried.
Posted by lannan13 3 years ago
lannan13
Welcome. I don't actually believe it was a conspiracy I just thought it would make for an interesting debate.
Posted by iamanatheistandthisiswhy 3 years ago
iamanatheistandthisiswhy
Thanks for the debate. :)
Posted by lannan13 3 years ago
lannan13
I meant Westchester not Rodchester.
Posted by gordonfan24 3 years ago
gordonfan24
The idea of Katrina being a conspiracy is ludicrous. 2005 was an especially horrid year for hurricanes. The last hurricane for the '2005 season' was in January of 2006. The National Hurricane Center had to use greek names, because they ran out of the conventional names (using Alpha, Beta, Gamma, Delta, Epsilon, and Zeta). There were numerous strong hurricanes during this season, including Wilma. Wilma is actually the strongest recorded hurricane in the Atlantic ever; despite it weakening before it hit, it still did a lot of damage to Southern Florida. A tornado from one of the early season hurricanes did a great deal of damage to the Atlanta Motor Speedway. In fact, Hurricane Katrina even killed two people near Miami as a category 2 hurricane. The severity of the 2005 hurricane season, as well as the extremly slim likelihood the the government controlling the weather casts a lot of doubt on the idea of Hurricane Katrina being a conspiracy.
Posted by iamanatheistandthisiswhy 3 years ago
iamanatheistandthisiswhy
I want to debate this topic so much. For one I want to see your reason and then secondly I mean it just makes no sense that the Hurricane was a conspiracy. I mean there are satellite images and body counts.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Blade-of-Truth 3 years ago
Blade-of-Truth
lannan13iamanatheistandthisiswhyTied
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: Conduct - tie. Neither had poor conduct. S&G - tie. Neither made any major grammatical or spelling errors worth a loss in points. Sources - Tie. A majority of Pro's sources did come from biased websites as well as the fact that his Nasa source actually admits to there being lightning in hurricanes. These balance out the far less amount of sources utilized by Con as well as the somewhat lacking quality of his as well. Arguments - Con. This is due primarily to the fact that Con was able to refute each of Pro's contentions with Pro failing to refute all of Con's. This is seen with the Nasa source which I expanded on earlier. This was originally a strong point made by Pro, but as soon as Con showed that the source itself admits lightning happens in hurricanes it was no help to Pro. I believe Pro did show how these storms occur naturally and the one in question formed. Pro lacked in providing strong rebuttals to these natural means as well as using biased evidence as his own foundation.
Vote Placed by whiteflame 3 years ago
whiteflame
lannan13iamanatheistandthisiswhyTied
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: Given in comments.