The Instigator
imabench
Pro (for)
Tied
3 Points
The Contender
Strategery
Con (against)
Tied
3 Points

The IMF and its agents could beat MI6 and its agents in a fight

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...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/9/2015 Category: Movies
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 724 times Debate No: 80747
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (10)
Votes (2)

 

imabench

Pro

3 rounds
4000 characters
24 hours between rounds

IMF = The Impossible Missions Force, the spy agency featured in the 'Mission Impossible' films starring Tom Cruise

MI6 = The spy agency that is the Britain equivalent of the CIA that is featured in the 'James Bond' films

https://en.wikipedia.org...
https://en.wikipedia.org...

In this debate I will argue that the IMF, if it were real, would outmatch MI6 in a showdown. Con will argue that MI6 would outmatch the IMF. Con CANNOT argue that MI6 would win because the IMF doesn't truly exist, con MUST treat the IMF like it is an actual agency that does exist, and argue that MI6 would still outmatch them, or they will forfeit the full debate.

Arguments for why the IMF would outmatch MI6:

1) Number of agents in the field.

MI6 has many agents in the field, but as shown throughout the James Bond franchise, MI6 agents never really team up with each other to accomplish their objectives. Its always James Bond doing missions on his own with the help of some gadgets he's previously been provided with. The IMF on the other hand frequently fields multiple agents on the same missions, as evidenced in Mission Impossible Ghost Protocol, Mission Impossible Rogue Nation, etc. In a field battle between agents of MI6 and the IMF, IMF forces would triumph over MI6 because IMF agents work as very integrated teams while MI6 agents routinely fly solo and fight on their own. While James Bond and Ethan Hunt might be equals, the teammates that Ethan Hunt has with him on missions would greatly assist him in beating James bond in battle, and the same would be true in other matchups between agents of the IMF, and agents of MI6, since MI6 agents fight solo, while IMF agents fight in teams.



2) Level of Funding

The IMF is funded by the United States government, a nation that is very notorious for pouring boatloads of money into intelligence and military agencies when such funding arguably isnt even needed in the first place. Great Britain on the other hand is far more limited in providing funding to its intelligence services and military branches, and spends only a fraction (1/7th) on its military that the US does ($581 billion from the US compared to $62 billion by the UK)

https://en.wikipedia.org...

While both the IMF and MI6 are even in terms of high tech weaponry, a prolonged fight/struggle between the IMF and MI6 agencies would favor the IMF since the IMF has far better funding from the US government than MI6 does from their UK government.



3) Level of secrecy

In 'Mission Impossible Rogue Nation', the IMF conceals its activities in the field from a Senate oversight committee trying to shut the IMF down, as indicated in the opening and closing scenes, with Jeremy Renner saying "I can neither confirm nor deny any details about any operation without the permission of the Secretary" whenever he is asked a question. The IMF though doesnt have an acting secretary, meaning that through this loophole the IMF can deny any request by Congress to explain its activities in the field and avoid oversight as a result.

http://www.imdb.com...

In 'Skyfall' however, MI6 is brought before a public inquiry from Parliament to explain how it failed on one of its missions, and MI6 cannot easily explain dismiss their mistakes or their activities that led to the negative result.

https://en.wikipedia.org...

This means that the IMF can operate more covertly without fear of government oversight than MI6 can, allowing the IMF to fight dirtier when MI6 cannot. This gives the IMF that much more of an edge over MI6 since MI6 has to answer to the UK government for its conduct than the IMF has to do to the US government.



It is the nature of how their field agents operate, the disparity in funding between both agencies, and the difference in oversight that is held over each agency that is why the IMF could beat MI6 in a fight.
Strategery

Con

MI6 would defeat IMF in the real world for the following reasons:

1) IMF has too much secrecy.

Contrary to what imabench would have us believe, outside comic books and blockbuster films, secrecy is typically not seen as a very good operating formula for intelligence agencies these days. It's actually more or less a political liability, only conducted in situations calling for strict need to know info on a personal basis (like Iranian nukes). Especially in the aftermath of Gitmo water boarding and the Eric Snowden leaks - which have hurt the CIA & NSA as a whole far more than any foreign government has.

In this scenario, we're we to expect IMF agents to engage in armed hostilities against agents of Mi6 (who is a publicly acknowledged entity of the Queen's government) we could expect that an attack on Mi6 is also an attack on the United Kingdom - and HMG will respond in kind with the fully fury of the UK Armed Forces & Ministry of Defense.

PRO may not make the claim that IMF is backed by the Pentagon, the US Government, or the American public at large because, according to Mission Impossible lore:

"Situations that are too hot politically, too dangerous for politicians to be trusted to confront, or too absurd for the CIA are all pursued by this top-secret organization. The IMF is a specialized group of expert agents that remain hidden from the public eyes. If the IMF were revealed to exist, the United States would be expelled from the United Nations and banned as a "pariah state." (http://missionimpossible.wikia.com...)

Whereas "fighting dirty" imabench style only gives more political clout for why the U.S. Government would never assist the IMF in a struggle against MI6 and the UK. Meanwhile, seeing as how IMF is basically now a terrorist orgiastic (not legally backed by any country), in our the real-world scenario, MI6 would be free to disregard many of the rules and international laws that govern the use of military force against other nations.

2) Ghost Protocol is unconstitutional.

A covert order by the U.S. President that blacklists an entire wing of the U.S. intelligence community from Congress to the point that members can evade judicial proceedings, jail-time, and federal/state laws, but are still free to conduct clandestine spying operations on any country overseas -including U.S. citizens at home- while still privileged enough to access any number of classified military secrets and government funds from American taxpayers is going to cost IMF big time. In the real-world, what's to stop MI6 from finding out and leaking this info to the American public at large? This blackmail tactic is just another easy way MI6 could doom the IMF.

3) Organizational Depth > Money

Contrary again to what imabench says, MI6 typically works close in hand and can recruit from the Ministry of Defense and other elite organizations, especially the SAS, a Tier 1 Special Operations Direct-Action group. (http://www.eliteukforces.info...). Even in the James Bond movies, 007 is typically shown as backed up by the military or traveling in force; such as with the Royal Navy in Tomorrow Never Dies, US Marines in GoldenEye, most likely SAS operators in Die Another Day, the Russian Mafia in the World is Not Enough, and of course, some hot chick down the road. Agents are rarely ever totally alone.

Therefore, in a prolonged conflict, MI6 would have a recruiting & operating advantage to fill in ranks and swell their numbers. Seeing as how IMF is so secretive, and so small, and so elite, it is a huge mystery to whom they can recruit, whom they can even talk to, where they can get assistance from, and to who they could trust to handle the type of classified materials that IMF deals with (like nuclear codes).

In an actual attrition game (prolong war), IMF can’t afford to lose anybody. Imabench should know that elite undercover operators (of the Tom Cruise mold) do not grow on trees and money can't replace them.

Debate Round No. 1
imabench

Pro

1) Level of secrecy

I find it hilarious that someone would actually try to argue that an agency that is allowed to conduct operations with more freedom from its government oversight is somehow supposed to be a weakness...

"Especially in the aftermath of Gitmo water boarding and the Eric Snowden leaks"

First off, MI6 is just as susceptible to a hypothetical whistleblower shining a light on their actions than the IMF does, if not even more so, since MI6 answers to the government and the public more than the IMF has to... If MI6 engaged in the exact same operations that the IMF engaged in where some whistle-blower blew their cover, MI6 would feel far more pressure from the UK government to cease their actions and play by the rules set by the UK government than the IMF would feel from the US, on account of how little control Congress actually has over the IMF, as evidenced in Mission Impossible Rogue Nation.

This gives the IMF more freedom to conduct its missions the way it wants without government interference than MI6 otherwise could.



"we could expect that an attack on Mi6 is also an attack on the United Kingdom"

Not really. A fight between the IMF and MI6 could very well be fought in a neutral area in the Middle East simply because the objectives of both agencies conflict with each other. One side's mission may be to support a Middle East regime at all costs, the other agencies objective might be to depose the regime. That would bring the IMF and MI6 into conflict with one another without it having to be the IMF attacking the UK.



" 'fighting dirty' only gives more political clout for why the U.S. Government would never assist the IMF in a struggle against MI6 and the UK."

The IMF gives the US the ability to fight battles and accomplish objectives that the US government themselves does not want to be caught involved in. If the IMF is defending a significant US asset that MI6 wants to terminate, than the US would very feasibly be willing to support the IMF, since the US government has an extensive history in secretly fighting proxy wars (Arming the Mujahadeen against the USSR, Arming Saddam against Iran, Arming Iran against Saddam, bombing Thailand and Cambodia during the Vietnam War, etc.) A struggle between the IMF and MI6 wouldnt mean the US would not support the IMF and cut off their funding.



2) Ghost Protocol is 'unconstitutional'

"what's to stop MI6 from finding out and leaking this info to the American public at large?"

The Patriot Act is arguably unconstitutional yet it still exists, the mass collection of info by the NSA is also arguably unconstitutional yet that still continues, Guantanamo and the activites that took place inside it are also arguably unconstitutional yet Guantanamo is still in operation, you could even argue that the drone strikes the US carries out in Pakistan and Yemen constitutes war crimes, but guess what, they still going on....

If the IMF is 'unconstitutional', its entire existence could be made known to the world, but that wouldn't mean it would lead to the organization getting shut down on the spot, since so many other things that are considered by many to be 'unconstitutional' is still in operation more than 10 years later



3) Organizational depth

"MI6 typically works close in hand and can recruit from the Ministry of Defense and other elite organizations, especially the SAS"

In Mission Impossible 3, some agents of the IMF have a front as employees of the Virginia Department of Transportation. This indicates that the IMF also works close with the Government and can recruit agents from US elite organizations, such as the CIA, FBI, or other military branches.

https://en.wikipedia.org...

"in a prolonged conflict, MI6 would have a recruiting & operating advantage to fill in their ranks"

Except there is evidence that indicates that the IMF works closely with agencies of the US the same way MI6 works closely with the UK to recruit agents.


I extend all other arguments.
Strategery

Con

"I find it hilarious that someone would actually try to argue that an agency that is allowed to conduct operations with more freedom from its government oversight is somehow supposed to be a weakness"

I find it even more amusing that someone would try to defend the existence of a top secret group of paramilitary assassins answerable only to the President and funded by the American taxpayer (and immune to all forms of government oversight and lawful persecution) would somehow be politically feasible to the American public at large. In the real-world (not Hollywood) which this scenario is built on, IMF -upon discovery- would be disavowed immediately by the Executive Branch and branded a terrorist organization, or the President himself would face immediate impeachment. In fact, the last time a POTUS tried to run his own private spy ring he was forced to resign in disgrace: https://en.m.wikipedia.org... (Nixon&Watergate).

"MI6 is just as susceptible to a hypothetical whistleblower shining a light on their actions than the IMF does, since MI6 answers to the government and the public more than the IMF has to"

No. MI6 is not as vulnerable to political fallout precisely because MI6 already answers to the government and enjoys far greater awareness from the public than IMF does. The whole reason why IMF is so extremely more secretive than MI6 in the first place is because IMF engages in covert activities that are too politically risky for the U.S. government to even acknowledge, let alone assume. MI6 operations & the British govt do not have this same problem, seeing as how anything revealed by MI6 was already likely sanctioned through government oversight, procedures, other branches of govt, and ultimately backed by public policy and elected officials.

"on account of how little control Congress actually has over the IMF, as evidenced in Mission Impossible Rogue Nation."

Precisely why your politics suck. If you think for a minute that the IMF would survive long without congressional approval in the real world of Watergate, Iran-Contra, Waterboarding, Warrantless Wiretapping, NSA Surveillance, CIA Drone Strikes, Clinton emails, Wiki Leaks and Eric Snowden, think again! Reality is on your way.

"A fight between the IMF and MI6 could very well be fought in a neutral area"

Ima misses the point here. MI6 is a publicly acknowledged department of Her Majesty's Government. IMF and its people in comparison, are not officially associated with the U.S. or any other country- they can't afford to. And after initial hostilities (MI6 vs IMF battle), the public record will show that British servicemen were engaged by non-state actors. The UK can therefore be expected to respond in kind with all out military force to defend its servicemen.

"The IMF gives the US the ability to fight battles and accomplish objectives that the US government themselves does not want to be caught involved in."

"If the IMF is defending a significant US asset... than the US would very feasibly be willing to support the IMF"

No, because your second quote is a flip-flop to the first quote above. Remember, the U.S. DOES NOT WANT TO BE INVOLVED!

"The Patriot Act is arguably unconstitutional"

Every single one of those measures you named are not / no longer secret and were sanctioned by elected officials in all three branches of the US govt. All are susceptible to Congressional oversight and are considered legal by US courts.

"Except there is evidence that indicates that the IMF works closely with agencies of the US the same way MI6 works closely with the UK to recruit agents."

No. The evidence suggests that IMF does not work the same way MI6 does. IMF is not officially supported by the U.S. govt and cannot possibly call on the same level of assistance from their govt as MI6 does - especially without assuming grave risk to US national interests. The US must do everything it can to remain publicly hidden from the IMF or risk political catastrophe.
Debate Round No. 2
imabench

Pro

1) Independence from oversight

"The last time a POTUS tried to run his own private spy ring he was forced to resign"

There's no evidence that the IMF answers directly to the President... For all we know the IMF could answer to the head of the CIA, as evidenced in 'Rogue Nation'. (See later link)



"MI6 isnt as vulnerable to political fallout"

In 'Skyfall' MI6 is literally investigated by a parliament judiciary committee on their failures to conduct their operations. Your claim that MI6 is not as vulnerable to the fallout of their actions is therefore completely false.



"If you think for a minute that the IMF would survive long without congressional approval"

In 'Rogue Nation' the entire IMF is disavowed by Congress yet they still manage to take down 'the Syndicate', an anti-IMF organization that was made by the UK government.

https://en.wikipedia.org...

So not only could the IMF survive for a lengthy period of time without congressional approval, they already HAVE proven that they can. When the IMF was disavowed by Congress, they still remained capable in bringing down an organization created by the British that tried to defeat the IMF. Therefore it is very plausible that a disavowed IMF could beat MI6, and thats assuming the IMF gets disavowed in the first place.



"after initial hostilities, the public record will show that British servicemen were engaged by non-state actors"

Con keeps trying to paint a conflict between the IMF and MI6 to make it seem like the ONLY possibility for a fight to start is if the IMF attacked first, but its NOT the only possibility.... Its more then possible that the IMF was fired upon first by MI6 which led to the conflict between them. Also, if con knew anything about how governments work, he would know that the actions of the spy agencies of governments are not immediately, if ever, listed on public records.



'the U.S. DOES NOT WANT TO BE INVOLVED!'

Just because the US doesnt WANT to be involved in a situation, that doesnt mean that they CANT be involved. The US is involved in many situations that it does not otherwise want to be involved in, yet the US still involves itself in those situations because they have some sort of asset or interest at stake. If the IMF is the only feasible option the US has in defending a very valuable asset from MI6, it doesnt matter if the US doesnt want to be connected with the IMF, they would still work with the IMF to defend the asset at risk.



2) Constitutionality

"Every single one of those measures you named are not / no longer secret and were sanctioned by elected officials in all three branches of the US govt. "

Yet they still exist, so your argument is moot :)




"All are susceptible to Congressional oversight and are considered legal by US courts. "

If borderline unconstitutional acts are still considered legal by US courts and allowed to continue, then the IMF by extension would also be allowed to continue even if its constitutionality was questioned, since many other things that are argued to be unconstitutional still function...




"The US must do everything it can to remain publicly hidden from the IMF"

Except they don't, thats simply your opinion which is not backed by any facts, reasoning, or evidence.



Summary:

1 - The IMF can receive far better funding from the US than MI6 has from the UK
2 - MI6 does not have a recruiting advantage over the IMF
3 - The IMF works close with the US government like MI6 does with the UK government
4 - IMF agents operate as teams in the field whereas MI6 agents routinely go solo.
5 - The IMF has shown that it can operate even without the backing of its government, whereas MI6 has not
6 - The IMF can keep its actions discrete from the US better than MI6 can from the UK

And most importantly

7 - The IMF has previously defeated UK-created spy agencies even when the IMF was disavowed by Congress

Therefore the IMF would beat MI6 in a fight

Vote Pro
Strategery

Con


“There's no evidence that the IMF answers directly to the President... For all we know the IMF could answer to the head of the CIA, as evidenced in 'Rogue Nation'.”


Completely false. In the beginning of Rouge Nation, CIA Director Alan Hunley actually demands before a senate oversight committee that “the IMF be disbanded and absorbed into the CIA.” (http://missionimpossible.wikia.com...)


Meanwhile, Ghost Protocol –a secret executive order that can transform IMF into a black operations group- establishes pretty clearly that the U.S. President is directly responsiible for IMF operations. (http://missionimpossible.wikia.com...)


“In 'Skyfall' MI6 is literally investigated by a parliament judiciary committee.. Your claim that MI6 is not as vulnerable to the fallout of their actions is therefore completely false.”


MI6 is still NOT AS vulnerable to political fallout because the UK government is willing to publically acknowledge MI6 operations. In contrast, IMF, if discovered by the American public, would have to be disavowed or disbanded.


“In 'Rogue Nation' the entire IMF is disavowed by Congress yet they still manage to take down 'the Syndicate', an anti-IMF organization that was made by the UK government.”


This happened in a movie, not in real-life, which you said this scenario is based on. In the REAL WORLD of political sensitivity and strict interpretation of the laws, IMF would have major trouble surviving.


“Con keeps trying to paint a conflict between the IMF and MI6 to make it seem like the ONLY possibility for a fight to start is if the IMF attacked first,”


It doesnt matter who attacked first. Unless the U.S. government is filling to publically acknowledge that IMF consists of American agents, the public record will show that British servicemen engaged in a firefight and were killed by non-state actors (aka terrorists).


“Just because the US doesnt WANT to be involved in a situation, that doesnt mean that they CANT be involved.”


Unless the United States of America wants to be thrown out of the United Nations and labeled as a “pariah state," the US government cannot afford to be directly connected to the IMF (http://www.debate.org...) . In contrast, the UK govt can be directly involved with MI6 operations and support them with the military.


My argument that MI6 has more organizational depth than IMF –and is better supported- still stands.


“Yet they still exist, so your argument is moot :)”


They all still exist because they have government oversight, so your argument is crap.


"since many other things that are argued to be unconstitutional still function..."


Not when argued unconstituional by the US Supreme Court.


"Except they don't, thats simply your opinion which is not backed by any facts, reasoning, or evidence."


Yes they do. Ghost Protocol was established and used by the US President to explicitly deny any official US government ties to IMF.


“The IMF has previously defeated UK-created spy agencies even when the IMF was disavowed by Congress”


Not in the real-world.


Summary



  1. -At risk of impeachment or being thrown out of the United Nations, IMF is a huge political risk to the POTUS and the US government if discovered.

  2. -Imabecnh's Round 1 rules established that this is a “real-life” scenario, and politics matter.

  3. -Ghost Protocol is politically indefensible by a US President and will be akin to Watergate.

  4. -MI6 has superior organizational depth compared to IMF and will be backed by the Ministry of Defense.

  5. -Elite IMF operators (like Tom Cruise) do not grow on trees and money can’t replace them.



Debate Round No. 3
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
RFD (Pt. 1):

This vote is being cast on behalf of the Voters Union.

There are essentially 3 main points to cover, though they all have a number of specific pieces to them, so I'll try to cover everything.

1) Agents

There's two major pieces of this, one that focuses on the short term and one on the long.

The former is not contended " it's clear that MI6 is not prepared in its current state to handle attacks from the IMF, mainly due to the amount of personnel and cooperation involved in the latter's activities. Con doesn't contend that James Bond is likely to outdo thoir efforts, and so I'm automatically buying this.

The latter is more contentious. Both debaters point to the personnel available to both their governments, and each tries to explain how those troops will likely become available to the groups in question. Pro never contradicts Con's argument that the British are likely to bring their A game beyond arguing that attacks that happen elsewhere aren't likely to incite full scale military action. That's just mitigation, but even if I'm buying that, the idea that they wouldn't support MI6, with whom they clearly have a public connection and a vested interest, seems a bit difficult to believe.

What's not difficult to believe is that the U.S. stands to risk quite a bit more by participating. Con cited the potential to be thrown out of the UN, and I find this persuasive since Pro's not giving me much to go against this. I don't doubt that the U.S. might have incentive to help, but that incentive requires the U.S. to put their international power and reputation at massive risk. Maybe they'd still be willing to risk some support, but Pro doesn't provide much reason to believe that they'd even risk this level of involvement, let alone be willing to go to war for the purpose of accomplishing whatever task the IMF is placed on.
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
(Pt. 2)

So, if it were up to me to decide at this point who's winning this argument, I'd be torn. The short term effectiveness of the IMF may have long term implications for the battle between these agencies, and their success may even suffice for a sort of victory to be won even if the IMF is utterly annihilated on the other end. But Pro doesn't really give me those arguments. He does argue that they will be likely to defeat MI6, even if their funding and support are stripped, but it's never clear that they're able to erase them completely, which appears to be the focus of the debate. Thus, the debate turns chiefly into one of the long term implications of combat between these groups, with it being assumed by both sides that any short term victory will be incomplete. Given that, since Con is winning the long term argument, he takes down this point.

2) Funding

This follows similar lines as the long term argument. Perhaps funds are easier to hide, but Pro never makes that argument, so the potential for support is once again counteracted by the potential for the U.S. to be noticed and ostracized from the UN as a result. While I buy that the U.S. is willing to engage in overtly illegal actions within the U.S., it's actions abroad are clearly restricted by a desire to remain within the UN, so while the U.S. may be capable of funding the IMF more powerfully than the British government can MI6, it's likelihood of doing so is so much lower that funding goes to MI6.

3) Secrecy

This is all pretty completely focused on the short term implications. The ability of the IMF to play it fast and loose and fight dirty may benefit them to a degree, but I'm already buying that the IMF is going to be dominant in the opening salvos of this conflict. 007 will likely die, and he'll be replaced and reinforced. I can buy that secrecy will put the IMF in the dominant position to start, but that's not enough by itself.
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
(Pt. 3)

Conclusion:

I didn't really find the rest of the arguments, particularly political indefensibility, to be potent since it's unclear why Con's examples outweigh Pro's when it comes to what the government will allow for. Each side is winning an aspect of the debate, but the question of which agency would win in this conflict is almost entirely focused on the eventual outcome. Since that is the basis for how this turns out, and since Con's argument is winning that argument, I vote Con.
Posted by tajshar2k 1 year ago
tajshar2k
Sources were tied since both provided them. Spelling and grammar was tied.
Posted by tajshar2k 1 year ago
tajshar2k
I could read the the rest of the debate, but Con basically lost it from the start, because he didn"t even refute the opening arguments. Simply refuting the rebuttals isn"t going to do you any good. Since, Pro arguments went unrefuted, arguments to Pro.

Pro wins the debate.
Posted by tajshar2k 1 year ago
tajshar2k
I recognize that the BOP is on Pro, to prove that the IMF could beat the MI6 in a fight.

Pro brings up good points on the fight, and how the # of agents, would greatly assist them. He talks about how IMF members work together, compared to the MI6 being more of a lone wolf. His other points talk about the level of funding, and how the it would have vastly more funding. This is convincing because it gives me an idea of how far the IMF would go to beat the m16. The Secrecy part isn"t too convincing, because Pro doesn"t give me a good enough reason as to why the mI6 wouldn"t be more secretive as the IMF. Simply citing one reason isn"t convincing. Con, what the hell?? You didn"t even refute his arguments in round 1. This is such a huge blow, and Con needs to completely destroy Pro to even make it close.

Con says the IMF haas too much secrecy. So? Why does this matter in a fight? Con keeps talking about why the U.s would be expelled from the UN if their secrecy is revealed, but how is this relevant? I really think you missed the point of the debate. And bringing in the UK armed forces totally defeats the purpose, because the fight is between the m16 and IMF. If I"m in a fight with somebody, and all I do is call my boys to shoot you, it doesn"t mean I outmatch you, it means me and my boys as a whole outmatch you. Pro even says that the IMF isn"t completely independent, and it works with the U.S.

So, in Con"s 2nd round ,he simply says the Ghost Protocol is unconstitutional, but he contradicts what he said earlier. "IMF is too secretive". Con, you need to give me a good reason as to why the MI6 would find out. Just say they will, isn"t convincing for a reader.

This is the only point I actually thought was convincing. Con shows the Depth of the MI6, and how they are better at recruiting people for the cause. I didn"t find Pro"s rebuttal to be convincing. I felt he should have elaborated a bit more.
Posted by Blade0886 1 year ago
Blade0886
Well, seeing as Kingsman has a better level of secrecy, I though we could debate about it. I don't think a sequel is in production, so that one movie is all we have. Maybe you and I could debate about it once you finished this one?
Posted by imabench 1 year ago
imabench
I thought about doing that actually, but the thing is that Kingsman only have one movie for them, whereas MI6 and the IMF have entire franchises, so you can go far more in depth in analyzing how the IMF and MI6 function compared to the Kingsman :P
Posted by Blade0886 1 year ago
Blade0886
Although after reading the arguments, I find myself unable to take MI6's side, another fun debate would be: IMF and MI6 vs Kingsman.
Posted by 16kadams 1 year ago
16kadams
I originally thought that IMF was International Monetary Fund lololol
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
imabenchStrategeryTied
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.
Vote Placed by tajshar2k 1 year ago
tajshar2k
imabenchStrategeryTied
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: Rfd in comments.