The Instigator
SilverishGoldNova
Pro (for)
Winning
13 Points
The Contender
FanboyMctroll
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

The Las Vegas shooting was a hoax

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 3 votes the winner is...
SilverishGoldNova
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/2/2017 Category: News
Updated: 1 month ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 979 times Debate No: 105437
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (111)
Votes (3)

 

SilverishGoldNova

Pro

My position is that the Las Vegas shooting never happened, but rather, was a government organized hoax designed to push for gun control. Like the gay club shooting in Orlando, the Paris Shooting, Sandy Hook, all of these were faked. But Orlando, Paris, and Sandy Hook are different topics.

I attempted to debate this topic previously with Fanboy in the forums, in which he and his buddies quickly turned to turned to ad hominem attacks (with the occasional appeal to the stone and appeal to emotion arguments). He failed to provide any reliable evidence that the Las Vegas shooting actually happened. I decided I would give him one last chance to prove his case and I plan to abandon this topic after this debate. To make sure you we have plenty of space to argue, I will allow up to 10,000 characters. A few opening arguments:

1. Crisis actors hired before the shooting. Other crisis actor site remains: http://archive.is...

2. No blood showed in official photographs.

https://gyazo.com...

3. The gunshots sound like a BB gun and are coming from different directions, implying that there would be more than 1 shooter. No screaming or running to get away from gunfire. The concert continues. Sounds like about 30 shots were fired, which shouldn't be able to kill 58 people and injure 546. By the way, I've never heard of a BB gun killing someone. Unless you think we need stricter sound effect control.

https://www.facebook.com...

Rules

1. Ad hominems or failure to respond in time will result in an automatic loss.
2. You may only use things like Google Docs if you don't have enough space to write a rebuttal

Con argues first.

Round 1: Con's arguments
Round 2: My argument and rebuttal, con's rebuttal to my points.
Round 3: Closing statements.

Failure to respond in time and ad hominems will result in an automatic loss. Also, don't use anything such as google docs unless its because you don't have enough room for a full rebuttal.
FanboyMctroll

Con

To suggest that the Las Vegas shooting was a hoax is just preposterous. That would be like saying 9/11 never happened. Now only real crackpots and conspiracy theory fanboys would suggest that.

I mean why would every news broadcaster station just make up a story in unison, why. Plus all these victims and their families. To suggest such travesty never happened is like a slap in the face to the families of the 59 people that lost their lives.

So I will just have to provide examples of how it DID happen.

https://en.wikipedia.org...
https://www.cbsnews.com...
https://www.nytimes.com...
http://www.independent.co.uk...

These are just a few sources, now if the Pro debater disbelief's all these sources then he is delusional

Case is closed (mic drop)
Debate Round No. 1
SilverishGoldNova

Pro

1. Extend all arguments from round 1 into this round.
2. https://www.youtube.com... - Hey if I have to read a bunch of media articles and watch a long video then... its fair.
3. Stephen Paddock found alive after shooting - https://www.youtube.com...

Rebuttals:

"To suggest that the Las Vegas shooting was a hoax is just preposterous. That would be like saying 9/11 never happened. Now only real crackpots and conspiracy theory fanboys would suggest that.

I mean why would every news broadcaster station just make up a story in unison, why. Plus all these victims and their families. " I literally showed you a Craigslist ad for paid crisis acting. Is that not a good explanation? That's easy, as I have said before, the Las Vegas shooting is yet another false flag attack set up to push for gun control. Notice that as soon as attacks like these happen, the blame is immediately placed on the NRA and guns rights, followed by immediate calls for strict gun control? The end goal is an unarmed, police state country.

https://www.billboard.com...

I'm not sure if my opponent actually thinks I'll be able to respond to all of this. If you take into account their previous comments, then I would say it is likely they are committing what is called a gish gallop fallacy (drowning your opponent in a flood of weak, often unrelated and/or inconsistent arguments in order to prevent rebuttal of the whole argument collection without great effort). His evidence it actually happened? A wikipedia article and a video explaining what allegedly happening without giving proof, followed by what could easily be turned into an extension of my 2nd argument, as well as a bunch of CBS and Independent articles that really aren't proof it happened, just a bunch of random articles referencing the shooting, such as discussing how people are suing a gun company who manufactured a weapons part allegedly used in the shooting, and how Paddock was mentally ill. You've proven a bunch of sheep are suing a gun company, congrats.

"These are just a few sources, now if the Pro debater disbelief's all these sources then he is delusional" I don't neccessarily "disbelief" in any of these sources.
FanboyMctroll

Con

My opponent is posting fake news, and is also delusional with OCD, or schizophrenia, or bi-polar disorder or any other form of mental illness. Therefore he is not a credible witness or sane individual to be posting debates.

My opponent is deemed mentally ill and does not want to accept clear facts presented to him, therefore at this time I have to withdraw from debating with an insane mind as his douchebag fallacies and fake news facts presented will not prove events that clearly happened, yet are not recognized by this mentally ill patient.
Debate Round No. 2
SilverishGoldNova

Pro

It is now the closing statements and conclusions round.

My opponent hasn't addressed any of my points, instead choosing to call me a "douchebag" and "mentally ill".

His arguments either referenced the shooting or simply further proved my points.

I believe I have won this debate.
FanboyMctroll

Con

I know you are very lonely, hanging out in your moms basement on the computer all day long, no friends, no social life, still wearing those same Hulk pj's from 2 days ago, eating pizza pockets and just hanging out online as your only outlet.

This is why you post these outlandish debates on here. So as your evidence I'm just going to post a little interesting reading as evidence for you, something to think about. Because there is no point in debating with a lonely basement dwelling individual who can't go outside or he will be bullied for his nerdy look and the acne covered pasty face.

Take comfort in the fact that I'm the only one you have socialized with here, and I understand you are lonely

https://www.menshealth.com...
Debate Round No. 3
111 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by BryanMullinsNOCHRISTMAS2 1 week ago
BryanMullinsNOCHRISTMAS2
I hate DDI. I love debate.org
Posted by SilverishGoldNova 2 weeks ago
SilverishGoldNova
I love you too.
Posted by FanboyMctroll 2 weeks ago
FanboyMctroll
Ignore me all you want, but I'm starting a nice new debate of proving you are literally insane and should be locked up in a rubber room, unless you are sending this already from a mental hospital library wing?
Posted by SilverishGoldNova 2 weeks ago
SilverishGoldNova
Goodbye now. Accept that you have lost and stop pretending smack talking is gonna change that.
Posted by SilverishGoldNova 2 weeks ago
SilverishGoldNova
He always tries to derail the conversation when called out, regardless of the topic. Just like you did in this debate and the forum thread. Also, I know I am trying to ignore you, and your comment isn't an argument, but it's still better than childish smack talking.
Posted by SilverishGoldNova 2 weeks ago
SilverishGoldNova
I will actually deactivate my account for 1 day if you keep yours deactivated for the rest of the year.
Posted by FanboyMctroll 2 weeks ago
FanboyMctroll
So you know how to deactivate your account, why don't you go ahead and do it then

At least Goldtop has credible topics to discuss not some fictitious stories and crap you pull of Craigslist
Posted by SilverishGoldNova 2 weeks ago
SilverishGoldNova
Also PS: There was this guy on the TF2 forums who would insult everyone who disagrees with him, but played victim when people called him out. This is basically a repeat of that.
Posted by SilverishGoldNova 2 weeks ago
SilverishGoldNova
PS: It's actually hilarious how you're ok with ad hominems and smack talking when it comes to my debates, but you're so concerned about other people doing it.
Posted by SilverishGoldNova 2 weeks ago
SilverishGoldNova
So yeah no, I'm not gonna be leaving until I get banned, no matter how many people insult me. I'm gonna be ignoring you 2 starting now.

PS: If you don't want to deal with me, then just leave. It's pretty easy, click on your profile picture, view messages, then go to settings and click on "deactivate account".
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by SupaDudz 1 month ago
SupaDudz
SilverishGoldNovaFanboyMctrollTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct goes PRO because he clearly called him delusional and sitting in his room with no life which is bad conduct in the debate. My vote goes PRO in arguments because CON does not even give any response and insults him. Since he drops all his points and just relies on blant insults, I would have to vote PRO because it is all his arguments compared to none by CON. However he would have easily won if he used evidence from people who were directly affected from this and how concert are heard to hear. My vote goes PRO sadly.
Vote Placed by breakingamber 1 month ago
breakingamber
SilverishGoldNovaFanboyMctrollTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: I awarded a point to Pro for conduct because Con stated that Pro had "douchebag fallacies", and was "mentally ill". Since Pro did not use In these tactics, I awarded him the point for conduct. Pro used the more convincing arguments because Con, in his second round, merely decided to post a bunch of links instead of doing any arguing using those links as sources. In his second and third rounds, also, Con merely attacked his opponent, and as I said, called him a douchebag and mentally ill. I believe this is enough evidence to cast the vote for Pro.
Vote Placed by Kescarte_DeJudica 1 month ago
Kescarte_DeJudica
SilverishGoldNovaFanboyMctrollTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD: Conduct goes to Pro. Con brashly bashed Pro on his personal character, calling him "delusion with OCD" which had nothing to do with the debate. This was simply a personal attack. S&G goes to Pro. A slight error on Con's part, but one none the less is his use of the term "disbelief's" at the end of Round 1. The correct spelling of the word is "disbelieves". Arguments go to Pro. While Pro actually made an argument for his side, and backed it up with sources, Con did not. He only said that Pro's argument was ridiculous and than proceeded to engage in labeling. That isn't an argument, that's an attack based on the controversy of the subject matter, and is no more than an opinion without evidence. Con then went on to list sources and tried to let them make his argument for him, stating that anyone who disbelieved his sources was "delusional" Again, not an argument, only an appeal to authority and popular opinion. This concludes my RFD.