The Instigator
Pro (for)
3 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

The Boston bombing was a false flag perpetrated by the US government.

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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/31/2016 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,370 times Debate No: 85824
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (23)
Votes (1)




First round acceptance


Let's do this.
Debate Round No. 1


Evidence continues to accumulate across the internet from vigilant free-thinkers and conspiracy researchers proving that the Boston marathon bombing, just like the Sandy Hook and Aurora shootings, just like 9/11 and 7/7, was a false-flag operation carried out by the government. I've compiled the following key bullet points, pictures and videos which completely blow open the mainstream media version of this event:

-The two suspect's backpacks aren't even the same color or design as the exploded backpack

-Two other men with the same color and design backpacks as the exploded backpack have been completely ignored by the "investigation" and mainstream media reports. They are wearing wires, built and dressed like military, and wearing the logo of a private security firm (like Blackwater) called Craft. Not only that, but one of them is on film running away from the explosion with his backpack missing!

-Several of the suspect's family members including their parents said they were being set-up and that the FBI had been controlling them for years

-The Boston Bomb squad was there at the marathon running bomb drills, just like 9/11, 7/7, Oslo, and other false-flags where they "coincidentally" just so happened to be doing terror drills. This "simultaneous drill" excuse has been used again and again in false-flag operations

-The wheelchair double amputee victim "Jeff Bauman" has been positively identified as being Nick Vogt, an Afghan war vet whose legs were already blown off!

-Three of the same policemen at Sandy Hook have also been positively identified at the Boston bombing

-While being interviewed the Boston police chief in a likely Freudian slip referred to the suspects as "actors"

-The predictive programming cues were there with an in-depth Family Guy reference to bombings at the Boston marathon and a "Joggers" Illuminati card

-There was even a Boston bombing facebook aid page set up two days before it happened



As anyone knows, a conspiracy theory deserves to be taken in a very critical light. You have to be very careful buying into very strange ideas without first accepting a serious amount of evidence, so let's analysis the evidence.

First Photo : It has no time stamp or location, they are blurry poorly produced photos with no substance that really inspires us to believe an extra-ordinary claim of a hidden conspiracy.

Second Photo : Did the FBI say this? Was the bomb in that bag? Is that even a photo of the bag at the event? I can't tell anything from this.

Third Photo : No idea what the third photo is, too many lines going in no obvious direction. Is that a known symbol? Is that relevant? Where was the photo taken?

Fourth Photo : Terminology distinction. Even if he said that, which a meme of a photo won't tell us, then so what?

Fifth Photo : I don't understand this photo? Is that Putin? Is that an 'actor'? Is that someone relevant to this debate?

Sixth Photo : Two independent photos of one guy doesn't convey a 'set', it doesn't convey a 'false flag', it really doesn't convey anything, apart from in one photo he's helping someone .

The rest of the photos are either memes, poorly display and I can't read or simply irrelevant.

There has been no evidence that this attack was a false flag, the standard narrative is sound, I don't need to prove it didn't happen, only that it wasn't a false flag event, and as we have seen it isn't.
Debate Round No. 2


It is traditional, if one claims that photos are fake, doctored or in any way not geuine, that person provides some sort of proof. All of these images and statements are provable with a simple search, however I will provide this information where I can.

Whether or not my opponent chooses to properly research this argument, as I have done, is irrelevant in its accuracy. Con should research and provide at least one source, reliably disproving any of my points. Since this has not been accomplished, and my opponent seems to just brush my evidence off with no apparent reason other than pure speculation, I stand by all my points and forward them to the next round, urging a vote for pro.


It is not my job to 'research' your argument, if you cannot properly explain, support and expand on it in this debate then you will lose. I could have an argument about how fairies exist, but if my evidence is a collective of poorly produced photos with no evidence connecting them, then I'd lose. No matter how much outside research I've done.

Secondly, I don't need secondary sources, if you provided me with a specific narrative backed up more than memes and interrelated photos that are hard to make out, then I'd be compelled to investigate further. Out of the various photos shown, you've only provided one source. That source is the man actually saying 'Actors'. Now if this was a mega conspiracy with false flag twist, then we need more than just one person saying 'actor'.

It's not speculation to demand the following.

1. A narrative for why this was a false-flag operation.

2. The specific people behind this operation.

3. The theoretical and practical outcomes and motive for this operation.

4. Names, Locations and specific details regarding the event.

The first three have literally not been touched, for all we know this was a false-flag operation by Canada not the U.S. In fact we have no reason to believe it was a false-flag operation at all, this is a serious claim to make. I want details, I want names and I require a narrative that would necessitate this sort of bomb event.

The Twitter account of the Globe is irrelevant because Twitter fails to time stamp its tweets, so we don't have any idea about the connection between a controlled event and a terrorist attack.

I'm watching the videos and seeing little evidence. We see some point about men on the roof but again, it's hearsay and there's a blurry photo of a man standing on a roof, nothing indicates much. Remember, this was a huge event with a lot of runners and civilians, the police and special forces would be present regardless. Post- 9/11 the increase in security due to terrorist threats is significant and for good reason. Pointing to security as in someway evidence for a False-Flag operation is lazy, it assumes no other decent narrative could be given.

This is where I get confused, my narrative is the simple but layered narrative of the standard event that took place. Bombs blew up an event, security were present, the government was not directly involved in its execution. The narrative is of course naive if we accept memes as our evidence, but it is consistant and we have no reason to suspect a motive by the government.

The other video of the suspect leaving with his backpack, well he's not. Again, a blurry photo but it looks to be his arm in full swing. It is not sufficient to hinge your entire belief system on 2 minute YouTube Clips. I won't return in kind because it's not decent enough evidence to owe a response.

In conclusion, no evidence has been given, that is if our standard for evidence is not memes or YouTube clips consisting of Google Maps-esque detective work and loose 'it's possible' narratives.

Also, my sources contain the narrative I believe with two eye-witnesses who didn't point to anything out of the ordinary. If it is so obvious, then we should expect overwhelming disbelief in the narrative given by the 'Mainstream Media'.

Sources :
Debate Round No. 3
23 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by dannyc 2 years ago
"I understand you are upset, but honestly you are not good at debating"

It's a cheap tactic to call someone upset or angry when you have little substance to your argument. Allow me to explain, usually when someone states that their opponent should "calm down", or "relax", it is a deflection on themselves, it's a poor tactic and usually dishonest. I pointed out you're a weak vote and that you don't understand the criteria for voting, if you have such a personal issue with that claim that you need to resort to silly tactics to divert the conversation so be it. I'll be a bigger man per usual and tell you this conversation is over.

So, thank you for showing your true colours, to be honest, I avoid this site often as I actually have studies and exams, but seeing how much you use it, this must be very meaningful to you in a broader scope than mine. Have a good one.
Posted by Edlvsjd 2 years ago
Here rather
Posted by Edlvsjd 2 years ago
Hey, at least you're not this guy.
He must really suck to lose a flat earth debate.
Posted by Wylted 2 years ago
I agree it is a bare assertion, but you have to atleast point that out or the argument stands. If you merely ignore the assertions than voters will and should consider that a dropped argument on your part.

I understand you are upset, but honestly you are not good at debating and you should take my words to heart so you can improve.
Posted by Edlvsjd 2 years ago
It looks like he debates quite a bit actually.
Posted by dannyc 2 years ago
It's not an argument, it is an assertion with no evidence, clearly from your record you don't debate, but that is not my issue. This site has constantly shown it cannot produce serious debates nor can it provide consistent voters.
Posted by Wylted 2 years ago
How did you respond to the argument that his family pointed out it was a set up?

If you did not respond to it, it's a dropped argument. You honestly did a horrible job of debating. The fact is your opponent sucks, but you suck worse. Atleast in this instance. Go recruit some competent voters to vote on this, I am sure all competent voters will agree. I would start your search for competent voters on the debater leader board
Posted by dannyc 2 years ago
This site has gone to the dogs where memes count as evidence and people can vote on the worst pretenses possible. Lazy arguments and weak arguers has ruined this site as per usual. A false flag claim is a positive claim, that was all I had to argue against, I didn't need any positive case. You're incorrect as usual, but seeing your record it is no surprise.
Posted by Edlvsjd 2 years ago
Using pictures to point out my point was crucial to my case, and all of them genuine from the incident. The fact that they were memes is irrelevant.
Posted by Wylted 2 years ago
I think I skipped over the memes and mentioned dropped arguments that were written out also. The criticism that memes should be ignored was irrelevant, and also untrue
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Wylted 2 years ago
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 actually did better than I thought. Virtually every single one of con's rebuttals is succesful, pointing out the bad citations for some of the photos, or just lack of being able to see anything meaningful from them. The problem with Con's arguments is the stuff he fails to address, and the lack of positive argumentation. You should always provide some form of lositive argumentation just incase you accidently drop an argument or a rebuttal just doesn't work, but con just opts for rebuttals and does not address the predictive programming or the argument about training exercises as well as a few other indicators that pro points out that it is a false flag. The comment about being framed by the FBI and the training exercises makevthe link from not only false flag but U.S government involvement. Next time please offer rebuttals for everything and use some positive arguments, this should have been an easy win, but instead dropped arguments got to you. Congrats pro