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

The Orlando gay club 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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/19/2016 Category: Society
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,495 times Debate No: 92913
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (16)
Votes (1)




Nobody died at this shooting except the alleged perpetrator. My opponent will argue that it was a real event. Any media may be used until it is proved falsified or unreliable. Any forfeiture is auto loss.


Some Pulse club goers have said that there were possibly 2 or 3 gunmen which was later debunked [1]. Law enforcement officials have said repeatedly that Mateen was the only shooter, and Orlando Mayor Buddy Dyer reiterated that point. Dyer said some witnesses might be confused because of the volume of gunshots they heard or saw [2]. If this were a hoax, the "crisis actors" would have been coached to provide consistent and therefore believable stories.

The names of all of the victims have been published and their family members have come forward. These people can easily be searched and found on social media with family and friend contacts, whom can also be searched [3]. If these people did not really exist or did not really die, they would be unknown and unable to be found or have completely manufactured histories.

Federal authorities have recovered video from security cameras inside Orlando's Pulse nightclub that shows shooter Omar Mateen firing his assault rifle and systematically killing 49 people [4]. In order to pull off a successful false flag, you would need hundreds of actors - some of whom were preparing their entire lives to pretend to die or be related to people who died in this event. They would also need the full cooperation of a ton of police and media outlets to not reveal what was happening. My opponent will have the burden of explaining how this is possible or likely.

Debate Round No. 1


While there isn't conclusive evidence that the shooting was a false flag, investigations into this event show several anomalies that don't match the official story. I will go over some of these, and hope common sense prevails over media accounts. First, not all false flag events can include actors only. Meaning not everyone knows it is a hoax. The Boston bombing was an example of this type of false flag. This event meets most if not all of the symptoms of a false flag.
1. High profile event
The fact that this event is widely televised meets this sign.
2. Changing stories.
1, 2 or 3 shooters?
3. simultaneous drilla
While the drill was not at the same time, it's apparent that the pasty was not ready until later, well after the drill happened in the same city.
4. Cui bono?
Alterior motives include more pleas for gun control, the death of Mohammed Ali spawned celebration of his life, and the muslim religion. President obama is currently on the verge of granting Palestine the rights to it's pre-1967 borders. This event would do great against this action.
5. Unanswered questions
Does security exist at all at this night club? And more.
6. Case is quickly closed.
Questions about the event are largely ignored, and anything other than the evidence that supports the mainstream account is ignore and discredited.
7. Suspects" Connection to CIA, FBI, or Other Intelligence Agencies:
One key aspect suggesting a false flag that should be looked for soon after the attack is any possible connection the suspect or group of suspects may have had with intelligence agencies. The FBI had been keeping tabs on the suspect for some time, even being on a terrorist watch list. How did he purchase the weapons on a FBI watch list?
8. Convenient Scapegoat
Self explanatory.
9. Media Promotes A Narrative Against Scapegoat Groups and/or An Agenda To Take Liberties:
Gun control, anti lgbt advocates, anti Muslims, fearmongering.
10. Government Begins to "Take Action" Against the Scapegoat or Moves Along the Lines of the Media Narrative
11. Predictive programming.
Perhaps the most compelling sign of all is this one. This often involves the portrayal of the very incident occurring in a movie or television show. In other instances, it may involve the conspicuous or even inconspicuous placement of random details of the attack into movies and television. For instance, The Lone Gunman, a short-lived spinoff of the X-Files carried a storyline in which a passenger plane was hijacked via remote control and was being flown into the World Trade Center towers. In The Dark Knight Rises, a very curious reference was made to Sandy Hook with a map of Newtown, Connecticut on the wall.
America's got talent reference
Simpson's reference

The bouncer
Luis Burbano has had interviews with the press. Upon further investigation, this man is actually an actor, a bad one, but an actor nonetheless. This is coincidentally in line with a major question : how did a man with thousands of rounds of ammo and a semi automatic rifle get into a gay club to begin with? Surely the Pulse has had the occasional run in with bashers, why was security so loose on this night? Questions like this may never get answered.

The shooter
A man with no military background, essentially a rent-a-cop, got nearly a 50 kill streak, and wounded many others while reloading, not one person was able to overcome the man, who was also making several calls to 911, media stations, etc. starting as little as 20 minutes into the shooting.


My opponent has listed several criteria that proves a false flag, including a high profile event, changing stories, ulterior motives, a convenient scapegoat, etc. However not all events that have these factors qualify as false flags. I can think of innumerable examples, but let's start with the OJ Simpson trial. The murder of Nicole Simpson was a high profile event with changing stories, ulterior motives, a convenient scapegoat, etc. yet that was not a false flag. President Bill Clinton's multiple affairs reveal high profile events with changing stories, questionable motives, a connection to politicians, the media promoting a specific narrative, etc. and again that was not a false flag.

So just because an event has some elements of a false flag, doesn't mean that a false flag exists.

Pro has the burden of proving that this incident, specifically, is a false flag beyond that criteria.

My opponent has said that the "bouncer" Luis Barbano is an actor; however, Barbano was not the bouncer. Adam Gruler, an Orlando police officer working security for Pulse nightclub that night, traded gunshots with the gunman near the club"s entrance [1]. The fact that patron Luis Barbano is an actor is not relevant or credible, considering many young people in thriving cities are hopeful actors. More importantly, Pro was only able to cite a single actor out of the hundreds of patrons. This actor (nor any other) has come forward to suggest any conspiracy.

It's not surprising that there was conflicting information that emerged immediately after the attack. This is common in today's society because social media is increasingly used to report the news. This means untrained, non-professional people are sharing information without knowing how to properly fact check or vet sources. A number of social media items were rapidly spread in the shooting's aftermath, ranging from mostly true to entirely false. Pro has not proven that the false information that was being spread was intentionally being spread to promote misinformation. According to Snopes, rumors of that stripe reflect a number of reactions to tragic acts of violence, helping to dissipate fear by providing citizens with a sense of security from being "in the know."

On the shooter, Pro acknowledges that Omar Mateen was making several calls to 911 and media stations while shooting. This has already lost Pro the entire debate considering he acknowledges that the massacre took place, and therefore could not be a hoax.

But let's assume Pro is saying that by "hoax" he means false flag operation. He's suggested that it would not be possible for Mateen to be as successful as he was. However "If confronted with danger during egress, most occupants will flee with little regard for where their flight takes them. In nightclubs in particular, this is dangerous because of poor lighting, potential slip or trip hazards, and the dense crowds common to the occupancy type. Nightclubs are also very distracting environments which makes it more difficult for occupants to detect emergencies in the first place" [2].

"The preliminary eyewitness accounts seem to indicate the shooter entered the club and opened fire somewhere on the main dance floor targeting the bar. One common thread between most of the eyewitness accounts and videos is that many patrons of the club didn"t realize anything was happening at first due to the club"s distracting environment... Once the crowd realizes there is shooting though, people panic. On top of the poor lighting, every fallen victim is a trip hazard for the fleeing survivors. This is another case where most of the crowd can not attempt to incapacitate the shooter simply due to crowd movement; if you"re in the middle of the crowd, you"re moving with it" [2].

It takes just just a few seconds to swap magazines. Manuals for similar weapons state an effective firing rate of 45 rounds per minute, but if he was just spraying around and didn"t care about accuracy, he could have been shooting considerably faster than that. There is allegedly audio where you can hear Mateen shoot 24 rounds in 9 seconds [3].

Debate Round No. 2


My opponent starts with a rebuttal to the basic signs of a false flag by saying that the O.J. trial was not a false flag, as well as the Clinton Lewinsky scandal, but how does my opponent know for sure? O.J. was in a movie exposing the fake moon landings, and although it took a while to set it up, he got his payback. As for ole Willy, well let's just say the same people are basically responsible for all of these major events.

"So just because an event has some elements of a false flag, doesn't mean that a false flag exists."

This event is the most blatant of the false flags since 911! Even referencing another "here come the MUSLIMS" scare false flag, the Boston Bombings. All of these signs are presented, not just a few, ALL.

"My opponent has said that the "bouncer" Luis Barbano is an actor; however, Barbano was not the bouncer"

Apologies, "door blocker" is the term that was used by the media, I'm not sure how I was mistaken...;

"More importantly, Pro was only able to cite a single actor out of the hundreds of patrons. This actor (nor any other) has come forward to suggest any conspiracy."

It turns our that the shooter himself was an actor, playing in a few movies. Also a very bad, literally unknown one.;

And another one...

It's clear that "Big Brother"s budget has shrunken greatly since 9/11, but, the show must go on!

"It's not surprising that there was conflicting information that emerged immediately after the attack. This is common in today's society because social media is increasingly used to report the news. This means untrained, non-professional people are sharing information without knowing how to properly fact check or vet sources"

No, it means that some actors were intervied and questioned by the media, and some "real people" were questioned by "untrained" media, or through social media.

"Pro has not proven that the false information that was being spread was intentionally being spread to promote misinformation."

Remember how Omar supposedly called 911 and pledged allegience to ISIL? Ya, me too. It didn't happen.

"On the shooter, Pro acknowledges that Omar Mateen was making several calls to 911 and media stations while shooting. This has already lost Pro the entire debate considering he acknowledges that the massacre took place, and therefore could not be a hoax"

Really? You are going to argue semantics?

"But let's assume Pro is saying that by "hoax" he means false flag operation. He's suggested that it would not be possible for Mateen to be as successful as he was."

Successful? All while making calls and texting, the guy was the envy of marksmen the world over, who will tell you that it takes an average of 26 rounds to kill a person, even at close quarters.

Even outfitted with one of these:
AR-15 tactical rig
Mateen would have about 345 rounds of ammo, "Talk to any soldier. Even at close ranges, that is not much ammo. According to the official story, Mateen averaged 3.45 rounds per casualty. That short of sheer killing power would make him the envy of even trained special operations soldiers." Again, I ask, how did he get through the door with an AR-15, at least 50 lbs of ammo, and a pistol? Mateen was texting, making calls etc while this is going on. Don't tell me you believe this crap.

All in all voters, I have shown that this is a false flag beyond doubt. It has all the signs, and while it's entirely possible that someone may have gotten hurt, although all the media is going to show us are injured. This is entirely possible with someone holding the doors closed as heard in this cut-off interview on

Even if my opponent chooses not to wake up at this time, I'm sure this lowsy false flag will wake someone up. Research.;


Pro points out that one single club patron and the shooter have been identified as actors. Extend my argument that it's not unheard of for gay people in major American cities to pursue acting. It does not prove anything; it doesn't prove these people were hired to literally die in the line of fire. This is one glaringly obvious point that Pro has ignored. Why would an actor volunteer to die -- what purpose does that serve in their acting career?

These "crisis actors" were killed and their names, social media accounts, etc. are all public. As I've explained in the last round, these people have jobs, friends, families and lives that have all been verified and accounted for. If they were actors, they would have had to be willing to be killed and/or have thousands of friends, families and coworkers go along with the lies about them being killed. That is extremely unlikely and Pro has dropped this contention because of that. There is no way this massive secret would be able to be kept by thousands of people. Their names, identities, etc. would all become obsolete after this event. Pro says the government lacks the budget to use really good actors when the fact of the matter is that budget is not the only issue. It's about secret keeping and the possibility of massive fraud being exposed if this were actually a hoax... but it's not.

You can derive a conspiracy theory out of almost every occurrence or start rumors about anyone and everything. Consider the fact that Beyonce is reportedly in the "Illuminati" and some people actually believe the moon isn't real [1]. Pro is required to provide evidence for his claims, not just propose theories, and no such legitimate evidence exists.

Regarding the alleged actors from the shooting, people respond to tragedies and trauma differently. The media is encouraged to spice things up and provide details as quickly as possible, sometimes at the expense of accuracy. It is also far more likely the media would allow on false witnesses to make things up about the shooting (and these people would get their 15 minutes of fame) than for the government hire people to make things up. That would put a lot of people at risk. The media has an incentive to not properly vet sources, but it would be incredibly problematic for government.

It has been suggested this "false flag" was set up by the Obama administration to push the Democratic narrative on gun control. And yet Donald Trump and the Republican party have also had something tremendous to gain from this shooting: vilifying Muslims. Both sides of the aisle had political ground to lose from this shooting.

Moreover, if the Obama administration wanted to stage a hoax to promote gun laws, why choose a radical Muslim (to help the GOP narrative) and draw attention to our government's massive failure in Iraq? Indeed that is how ISIS and ISIL were created, so I doubt Obama would want to draw attention to this and remind everyone that our policy has failed and created terrorism here at home.

Pro says that the 911 calls from Mateen prove that there was no link to ISIS or ISIL. And yet his very own source says the exact opposite! While the original calls were censored (supposedly to protect the victim's families) some politicians have called for the full release and transcript of the audio which has been provided. Per my opponent's very own source, the shooter did pledge allegiance to terrorist groups [2].

Pro claims that Mateen was texting his wife which is an exaggeration. Mateen sent a total of two text messages to his wife, which would take less than 15 seconds to send during this several hours-long massacre [3]. Pro also claims that it would take "26 rounds to kill a person at close quarters" which is patently absurd. Experts note that you can absolutely be killed by ONE single bullet, though sometimes it takes as many as 20 but definitely not always -- that is not usually the case [4].

Some conspiracy theorists have suggested that "too many bullets" were fired (since the audio is all over the internet, proving the shootings actually occurred) and thus a lone wolf couldn't be responsible. Yet police were inside the club shooting as well as Mateen. In fact, reports indicate that some patrons may have been accidentally shot by police [5] which explains all of the bullets, sounds and casualties.

Records from Orlando have revealed the floor plans of the Pulse club that verify many of the eyewitness accounts and testimonials including Luis Barbano's and several others [6]. Furthermore, USA Today provides information explaining how club patrons escaped that includes information about holes in the wall [7] which have also been verified vs. conspiracy theorists faulty images that do not contain all of the relevant information [6]. People have been injured escaping through these holes which has been documented; why would actors hurt and theoretically kill themselves on purpose [8].

In conclusion: The eyewitness testimonials and stories are consistent, per the YouTube video comparison [6]. The actual injuries of victims have been shown close up. It makes no sense whatsoever for "crisis actors" to volunteer to be shot and killed; surely that would end their lives let alone their careers. It would be impossible to silence the thousands of people who know these "actors" and the government could not possibly pay off every single one of them, assuming silence was even possible which it is not.

Pro has ignored my points about video surveillance inside the building [9]. I've explained that the (some) conflicting information that came out after the attack is due to the media trying to get out the information as fast as possible, sometimes without fact checking or vetting witnesses. Both the Democrats and Republicans had a lot to lose from this shooting, so it would not necessarily benefit anyone obvious for this "false flag." These two parties would also theoretically try and bring the other down with accusations and evidence of conspiracy, but no one was able to.

My opponent has acknowledged that Omar Mateen was seen and heard shooting in the club, so we know the event actually took place and that many people truly died. There is audio of Mateen pledging allegiance to ISIS and the full transcripts have been released. It would be possible for Mateen to pull off the feat of killing so many people given the layout and amount of weapons he had, however police were likely also responsible for killing some people on accident pet the eyewitness reports.

While you can create a conspiracy theory out of anything by asking a lot of questions, Pro has not provided any PROOF of a hoax. He simply asked how certain things were possible which I've answered. He also hasn't provided a shred of evidence for the "crisis actors" faking or explaining how so many people would be able to stay silent and risk their lives on behalf of government request... government that had a lot to lose in this endeavor.

Pro has not met his burden. He has not provided any meaningful evidence.

Debate Round No. 3
16 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by KthulhuHimself 2 years ago
"...put your critical thinking cap on and decide for yourself what you believe."

Which is what I do. Unlike you, I have no bias against the people whom run the US, or other countries for that matter; of course, I take everything said with a grain of salt, and have extensively studied the multiple conspiracy theories; but the rational conclusion still stays.

You, very much unlike me; have a bias about these subjects, partly because of your religious beliefs and partly because of paranoia. I really do hope you'll get a grip eventually.
Posted by Edlvsjd 2 years ago
FBI tries to set mateen up before
Posted by Edlvsjd 2 years ago
more actors, you guys are so gullible
Posted by Udel 2 years ago
Pro's is full of possibilities and theories, not actual evidence. First Pro says "Nobody died at this shooting except the alleged perpetrator" which is completely false. His other arguments are that this contains some elements of a false flag, and that the shooter and 1 victim were actors. He says that it would not be possible for the shooter to carry out such violence with those weapons in that time frame.

Con argued that the dozens of victims names and personal information has all been revealed, proving lots of people died. For this to be a false flag carried out by actors, people would have been willing to die since the friends and families of the actors would not have been able to keep silent on faking death so it wasn't an act. People were killed. Pro dropped the argument on it being too big of a secret to silence so many people.

Con explained that conflicting information and questionable witnesses are part of the media frenzy that surrounds tragedy, because media wants to be the first source and most compelling (for ratings) not the most accurate source. She said a lot of politicians had something to lose by this. Con showed the full 911 calls by Mateen have been provided. So we know there was a killer, that he pledged allegiance to Isis and according to all witnesses just 1 shooter and some police who may have accidentally killed people. In Con's last paragraph from round 2 she outlines how Mateen could have physically pulled off the attack. I laughed when Pro said you needed 26 bullets to kill someone though lol.
Posted by Edlvsjd 2 years ago
Does my opponent think that 9/11 was a real event too? Given everything that was once considered theory has been documented FACT, how many more lies will you believe from our government before you realize that you really DON'T know everything going on in the world. Take 5 minutes out of your regularly schedule corporate controlled media and get a dose of the truth. And then do your own homework on all the information presented here, put your critical thinking cap on and decide for yourself what you believe.
Posted by Edlvsjd 2 years ago
Oh well, like paul revere, I have more people to warn.
Posted by Edlvsjd 2 years ago
I can't believe you are falling for this crap
Posted by Edlvsjd 2 years ago
people should really stop watching TV
Posted by Edlvsjd 2 years ago
care to discuss the Kinopolis cinema shooting?
Posted by Edlvsjd 2 years ago
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Udel 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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: comment section rfd