The US government is funding ISIS!
Debate Rounds (3)
Well, thanks for this debate. While I do enjoy getting screamed at as much as the next guy, let's try to tone it down a little bit.
I just have a couple things to say.
1) In order for my opponent to win, he must substantiate his claims. His substatiation consist of claiming that guns aren't cheap and that the guns must be coming from somewhere. And exclamation points. He used lots of those to back up his claim. Here's the thing though, he's making a claim against the norm, which means he needs to back it up with some reputable evidence.
2) The guns could be coming from literally anywhere else. Some country in the Middle East could be funding them, some rich guy could be funding them, they could just steal everything they need, they could be supplied by a country that's not even in the Middle East that's not even America. There are so many other options that what my opponent presents is like a fraction of the possibilities out there. That means the resolution is not affirmed.
Thanks for reading.
I'm just going to do a line-by-line style rebuttal:
"So, your first argument is you explaining your rulesand trying to tell honest voters what to do, basically calling them stupid, which they arent,"
Actually, I'm attempting to help the voters out. See, generally voters shouldn't vote for something that's not said in the debate. So I was explaining my personal standpoint against my opponent's case in order to ensure that voters could use that as a voting point for sure. Not that they couldn't vote on that anyway, but I'm just making this more comfortable and clear.
"so quit trying to bribe them to win."
That dangling modifier is killing me. But now onto the actual statement, I'm going to define bribe for you. Bribe: to try to get someone to do something by giving or promising something valuable (such as money) : to give or offer a bribe to (someone).  I didn't offer anyone anything to get them to vote for me. I just reminded everyone that you need to give us evidence.
"The guns COULD be coming from anywhere else but they AREN'T!!!"
You could at least give a little evidence considering the vast amount of possibilities you're just casually dismissing.
"What do you think the CIA does with their weapons overseas,"
Probably keep them handy or use them in some possible scenarios.
"why are they mysteriously dissapraring out of the blue."
Well you know how to use periods and exclamation points thoroughly, but I guess question marks got lost on you. Aside from my grammar nazi reign, I do have something to say about this. According to all of the evidence you posted in the last round, no guns are disappearing from the CIA.
"It is George Bush and the CIA funding ISIS in order to bring more attention away from the fact that they are brainwashing society, and it looks like it has worked on you."
Well, it's a good thing that George Bush still has a signficant pull in the CIA, and you still don't have evidence.
Now, I'm going to remind you of my arguments:
My opponent hasn't presented reputable evidence, and there are literally hundreds of other ways that ISIS could be getting their weapons. These two points haven't actually been properly disputed. My points carry on, and my opponent has nothing supporting his case. Thanks for reading.
I've asked my opponent several times throughout the debate to provide me with evidence, and he doesn't even acknowledge that I said that. The best he offered was to say that we could triangulate the position of where the guns were coming from.
First of all, that's not even how it works. Second of all, unless he actually posts the evidence, he is asking you as the voters to go to the Middle East, infiltrate an ISIS hideout, steal some of their guns, identify them, then do some incredibly difficult research to find out if those guns came from the CIA.
That's not even close to proper evidence.
So yeah, I saw where my opponent claimed that George Bush and the CIA we're finding ISIS, but I didn't see where that claim was backed up.
My opponent currently has the credibility that a bag of marshmallows has on the contents of earl grey tea.
Thank you for reading this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by MisterMittens 1 year ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||3|
Reasons for voting decision: Pro makes the claim that ISIS is receiving funding from the US Government. The only evidence he has to back up this assertion is another assertion: "the CIA and George Bush are supplying the guns for ISIS" Neither of which he has given any empirical data to prove. The CIA weapons are disappearing? I've heard no such thing. The guns aren't coming from elsewhere? That's a broad claim. Prove it. I have no reputable source to go by on any of these claims, and I'm not going to simply believe Pro's arguments just because he says so. Needless to say, Pro fails to fulfill his burden of proof. Now let's look at Con. It is implied that Con's win condition was to show that ISIS isn't funded by the US Gov. She gives me what I was probably supposed to assume is a case on probability: "there are literally hundreds of other ways that ISIS could be getting their weapons" A.k.a. it is likely that other sources are responsible for ISIS funding. While it's weak, Pro doesn't provide a refutation.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.