The United States government would possibly be responsible for disaster or catastrophy
Debate Rounds (5)
I accept this debate and shall argue that the US government is NOT trying to implement highly undesirable living conditions for its people to empower themselves.
You may state your case
First off, I'd like to point out that spending resources and money to further the U.S. military arsenal is unnecessary, for it can be used for the society, such as for education and food, and not on just a small group of elite. With that, The pro argues that the intervening of third-world countries to gain resources should be used to promote societal welfare, which should be con's goal, but it is not. Instead, the seized resources are used to support the government and the top 1% of the United States economy (which rather hurts living conditions of society).
Secondly, people who try to speak for themselves and "badly" about the government are violated of their freedom of speech, because that person will be considered a "terrorist" and be silenced immediately ("we don't negotiate with terrorists ordeal). Other forms of government "silencing" are cover-ups, in which celebrities such as Micheal Jackson and Robert Williams trying to speak of what the "truth is, are killed and covered p in cases such as suicide and overdose. Basically, using the phrase "oh no! terrorist!" is the ultimate weapon of government to have an excuse to justify the killing of people, especially those who try to reveal the truth about the government. Even trying to mention the Constitution (which is against their proposed New World Order) will endanger you! Thus, hurts the living conditions of its citizens.
Thirdly, there are many, many terrorists out there in the world. But the U.S. government only cares about the terrorists that live in the countries that have oil, such as the ISIS group. For example, the U.S. claimed that the Middle East had in their possession "weapons of mass destruction." The ultimate excuse for going over there, killing off hundreds of thousands of people. After they obtained the resources, there was no so-called "weapons of mass destruction," so they needed someone to blame. That person was Osama Bin-Ladin. This strikes fear in the citizens of the U.S. who apparently lied, which mentally hurts lives of the citizens. Why? because these citizens will depend on the government even more to resolve this "problem," and thus will allow the government of the U.S. to cause a disaster even easier.
Fourth of all, Subliminal messages are being implemented everywhere. And for the record, subliminal messages are a sort of marketing technique used by famous companies to control the mind, encourage money spending, sex, and death. Totally not sustaining the life of it's citizens and striving to cause a "disaster."
Lastly, there is a sort of racial discrimination towards minorities, especially towards Blacks and Hispanics when it comes to shootings and arrests. It may seem as if I am only complaining because my race is being discriminated against, but the fact is, I try to stay leaniant about it. I always try to assume that what officers do is fair. But it is hard to believe now. I am only 14 years old, and I have to worry about what I do, say, or put my hands because white police (race presented by media) would shoot first, then ask questions. I have to learn what to do and what rights not to use (yep, you heard that right) in order to stay alive and not shot, because for example, in a Cops show, a black man was coming out of a house, and the police immediately tackled him down. But a white man was asked to come out in another episode, and he even put his hands in his pocket! Nothing happened to him! People like me and Black people get shot for even a sudden movement! Another more "professional" example would be the right in which if a sheriff stops you in the middle of the highway, and he is not wearing his hat, your ticket is voided. But, you need proof. And again, if we minorities try to pull out a camera, we will be shot. We can not even exercise our rights! Again, no good living condition of citizens, and a plan to rid of minorities; a possible disaster.
**evidence available upon request**
"spending resources and money to further the U.S. military arsenal is unnecessary, for it can be used for the society, such as for education and food, and not on just a small group of elite."
Maintaining a very strong military does not benefit just a small group of elite people pro.... The US military is in place to protect ALL people in the United States, as well as all people who live in nations that are closely allied with the United States as well. World War 2 for example. The US military was vital into protecting the lives of people in nations being invaded by, attacked, or occupied by Nazi Germany, meaning that those people certainly benefitted from the US military being as big as it was.
Military spending doesnt just benefit a small group of elite people, you mistake benefit for profit.
"Instead, the seized resources are used to support the government and the top 1% of the United States economy "
The US doesnt invade 3rd world nations to seize their resources.... Some believe that Iraq was invaded for their oil, but an overwhelming amount of Iraqi oil doesnt go to the US. Its currently India, then China, then South Korea, followed by Italy and Spain to round out the top 5
So the US gets almost no oil from Iraq, and the US hasnt invaded any other third world nation for their resources. Feel free to post evidence or sources of countries the US did invade for their resources, because to claim that the US government does this is completely false and there is no evidence that supports such an unfounded claim.
"people who try to speak for themselves and "badly" about the government are violated of their freedom of speech, because that person will be considered a "terrorist" and be silenced immediately"
Not all people who speak ill will of the government are terrorists..... In fact the overwheming majority of people who sh*t on the government are not terrorists either.
85% of the entire nation thinks that Congress is doing a bad job, which in other words means they think the government is doing badly. Does that make 85% of the entire United States population 'terrorists'? Of course it doesnt. The entire WORLD sh*ts on the US government, that doesnt make them all terrorists, and those who do speak badly about the government are certainly not 'silenced immediately'
"Celebrities such as Micheal Jackson and Robert Williams trying to speak of what the "truth is, are killed and covered p in cases such as suicide and overdose"
Ok im getting the feeling that you're a complete retard right about now. The government cant even cover up a simple burglary (WaterGate) yet they are somehow behind the deaths of famous celebrities who didnt even say anything bad about the government to begin with like you claim?
"Even trying to mention the Constitution (which is against their proposed New World Order) will endanger you! Thus, hurts the living conditions of its citizens."
Ok now i'm SURE that youre retarded, even for a 14 year old.
"These citizens will depend on the government even more to resolve this "problem," and thus will allow the government of the U.S. to cause a disaster even easier."
You act as if terrorists are somehow NOT a problem or DONT pose a threat to society, when they clearly do, as evidenced by 9/11, the Boston Marathon Bombings, etc.
" Subliminal messages are being implemented everywhere"
You cant claim something so blatantly stupid to be factual without providing any sort of evidence in the first place.
"We can not even exercise our rights! Again, no good living condition of citizens, and a plan to rid of minorities; a possible disaster."
You rail against the US government for its treatment of minorities yet somehow you completely miss the extensive history the US government has in trying to IMPROVE the lives of minorities. A damn civil war was fought to end slavery, you have Affirmative Action programs in place specifically designed to help minorities get ahead in life, at one point the US even imposed quotas for companies to hire minorities into high-level positions. The Constitution itself has been amended several times now just to ensure that minorities are able to exercise their rights like any other citizen in the US.
"**evidence available upon request**"
Go ahead and start citing evidence for just about everything from this point on since half of your entire arguments arent even grounded in reality.
I'd first like to point out that the U.S. military include ALL units of the military force, including militarized police forces. This is emphasized because these units of the U.S. military arsenal are the closest and most influential towards the lives of U.S. citizens, which is the argument here. There is a benefit. yes... a benefit for the military. The more that the police force is armed, there is only more hurt towards people. The only strength here, again, can only be profit and if not, still is definitely not helping the U.S. citizens.
These two sources support my cases completely on their own, but I will refer to them and other sources anyways.
"So the US gets almost no oil from Iraq, and the US hasnt invaded any other third world nation for their resources."
First off, if you want to prove that oil is not being taken by force, you should not post a link to a website about legal import/exports of oil that is willingly TRADED among the countries. So this "http://atlas.media.mit.edu...; link is irrelevant to the debate, as for one: any oil taken by force is obviously not documented in a trading stock imports/exports website, and two: the reason why the United States receives no oil legally (hence the con side), is because of the seizures illegally.
"Not all people who speak ill will of the government are terrorists..... In fact the overwheming majority of people who sh*t on the government are not terrorists either. "
First of all, nowhere do I state that everybody is a terrorist, and the con argues upon that solely. I argued, in which the con has failed to understand and respond adequately, that people who speak of the government in an opposing way can be CONSIDERED a terrorist, and killed or seized at any time. the very second source I have provided has a specific statement:
"President Obama has just stated a policy that he can have any American citizen killed without any charge, without any review, except his own. If he"s satisfied that you are a terrorist, he says that he can kill you anywhere in the world including in the United States."
"The government cant even cover up a simple burglary (WaterGate) yet they are somehow behind the deaths of famous celebrities who didnt even say anything bad about the government to begin with like you claim?"
To begin with, the simple mentioning of Watergate is highly invalid, because the Nixon Administration has ordered to basically harass the authorities of Washington, D.C. and their security. One, this is harder to cover up that a death of one person and two, this is obviously not being covered up by the U.S. because of it's tensions with Cuba. The only possible way that the con may win this particular argument is if Cuba and the U.S. are allied, but the fact that Cuba is in the U.S.' State Sponsor of Terrorism List out rules this possibility.
There is plenty of PROOF that celebrities are trying to "reveal the truth," and those who speak directly are found to be dead the next day.
"Ok now i'm SURE that youre retarded, even for a 14 year old. "
Despite the fact that this argument was not answered in a universal way in which we can understand, it is safe to assume that the con's argument neither harms my side nor benefits his side of the argument. To that, I may extend my argument to a more obvious explanation, specifically to match with the con's intellect, in which is apparently weak.
"You act as if terrorists are somehow NOT a problem or DONT pose a threat to society, when they clearly do, as evidenced by 9/11, the Boston Marathon Bombings, etc."
This is obviously misunderstood by the con. Of course, destruction of national establishments is quite a concern, but the argument here is that the government is trying to get full and nieve trust from its citizens so that they can cause a sort of "disaster," such as 9/11. This inside job occurred so that the U.S. government has an excuse to further security and invade more privacy, all while telling it's citizens that "it's going to be ok, we will fix this." There will be many types of posibilities of this, in which will force citizens to fall for the government's trap of New World Order, a "solution" to the problem of the disaster. Just think about this:
1) why do we need flu shots? The U.S. causes fear among its citizens about the flu, and makes the flu shot look like such an essential thing. It is a sort of brainwashing.And if they wanted to cause a disaster, all they have to do is put it in the shot(which everyone has to take at least once every year, for several years). I know that we didn't need those shots before, and the flu was not even that bad as previous epidemics.
2)You see it in the movies. There are zombies, disease, or some sort of post-apocalyptic occurrence, and the citizens rely on some sort of "hero." This is what the U.S. government is trying to be. Look back at 9/11, the "Osama Bin Ladin" ordeal, and the recent Ebola epidemic. What has the citizens of the U.S. do? Panic. And this led the U.S. government easily able to play that "hero," and lead the citizens to trust them, and lead that possibility of that trust leading to something bad.
3) Brainwashing. It's another vulnerability in tricking people in trusting government. It happens all the time. Just think about it: have you ever realized that ever since we were kids, we had to sing the Pledge of allegiance every single day in school, to the point where we know it word by word, and easily recognize from even the smallest reference. We are being brainwashed in this sense of "my country is honored by God," and "we are the mighty ones."
"You cant claim something so blatantly stupid to be factual without providing any sort of evidence in the first place. "
Obviously we see that con strongly argues that we (or at least he) lives in the make-believe world in which the U.S. government is completely justified in every way and that it is terribly "stupid," as the con suggests, to say that something that has been going on and proven many times, as well as there being thousands upon thousands of page result on the Google web engine by itself, cannot be factual. Sure, I can provide evidence. And by that, I will automatically win the argument because that is the only offensive attack that the con has made.
1) Military Spending
"The U.S. military include ALL units of the military force, including militarized police forces."
Police using military grade gear in riot situations does not make them part of the military
" still is definitely not helping the U.S. citizens."
For every one instance of police using excessive force there must be a thousand cases of police doing their job and helping people.
The point still stands that military spending benefits everyone, not just those who actually make profit from military spending.
2) Invasion of third world countries for resources
"oil taken by force is obviously not documented in a trading stock imports/exports website, and two: the reason why the United States receives no oil legally (hence the con side), is because of the seizures illegally."
You're seriously trying to argue that the reason why it appears that the US doesnt get oil from Iraq is because they are doing it illegally, and because they are doing it illegally that is the reason why it doesnt appear on reports?
First off feel free to provide actual proof of how much oil the US gets from Iraq instead of just alleging that they are, because neither of your two sources provide any indication about how much oil the US gets. In fact theyre just hair-brained denunciations of the war in Iraq by using the big and scary 'big oil' as their boogeymen.
After you do that, go ahead and point to any other countries the US invaded for their resources, because right now you only have one disputed example of the US allegedly doing such a thing, which really makes your whole belief fall flat on its a**.
3) Speaking ill of the US government
"nowhere do I state that everybody is a terrorist"
You stated that everyone who speaks ill about the US government is labeled as a terrorist and silenced immediately.
I provided proof showing that almost literally, EVERYONE speaks ill about the US government
That would make everyone terrorists according to your original claim. Since you deny it, you then concede that your original argument is completely wrong.
"The very second source I have provided has a specific statement"
Obama being able to put people on a drone strike list =/= Everyone who speaks out against the government is silenced immediately. Your source is meaningless and doesnt even come close to supporting your claim that the government silences everyone who speaks out against them.
"One, this is harder to cover up that a death of one person and two, this is obviously not being covered up by the U.S. because of it's tensions with Cuba. The only possible way that the con may win this particular argument is if Cuba and the U.S. are allied"
Let me go ahead and stop you halfway through your rant of stupidity to spell out the point i tried to make that you missed.
You claimed that the US is behind the killings of famous celebrities who allegedly spoke bad of them, and to prove that such a claim is as retarded as it sounds, I brought up how incompetent the government is at covering up anything, including a simple burglary that was Watergate.
Try to keep up kid.
"There is plenty of PROOF that celebrities are trying to "reveal the truth," "
LOL. Your first article is literally titled 'Illuminati Sacrificed RobiR03;n Williams, Family Guy Repeat Proves'.
Using one dumba** conspiracy theory as evidence for another dumba** conspiracy theory doesnt prove your argument, it only makes you look like a dumba**.
".....This (9/11) inside job occurred so...."
Im going to go ahead and stop you there again since any argument built on the idea that 9/11 was an inside job by the government never holds any water in reality.
Not only has Pro revealed himself to be a completely retarded conspiracy theorist, even for a 14 year old, but he has completely failed to substantiate any and all of his original arguments from the first round, and has instead turned this debate into a waterfall of brainless dribble about how he believes the world works.
Its simply a waste of effort arguing that a Family Guy rerun saying that the Illuminati sacrificed Ryan Williams to the US government as proof that the US government silenced him because he spoke badly about them could even possibly be true.
racsomv forfeited this round.
There is the answer. Because this is again, as the topic states, a possibility, and cannot be proven(but instead have examples provided, in which I've done many times), and shows why I win the debate. Also, the argument that Wikipedia is an unreliable source for this particular subject is invalid because of . Thus, because it labels why things such as predictive programming in Family Guy is relevant and important,( https://www.youtube.com... ) and in which the con was not sure how to respond and therefore inadequately. Point proven. Although the sources are from Wikipedia and YouTube, those videos and articles have credible sources provided.
"^ Surprisingly the forfeited round has been Pro's best performance yet."
Due to the equal amount of effort made by both sides of round 4, it is to be dropped from debate.
Additionally, the most sense the con made at all was in round four, but does not have any relevance towards debate and instead tries to make a debate into a battle of insults.
I have proven what I had to; while I was showing how it may be possible for the U.S. government to cause any sort of destruction, and the con takes my arguments into a statistical debate and shows how it is not happening at the current time, which is another reason why I win the debate.
Sorry con, you tried.
"Basically, I defend that The United States government is trying to achieve a highly undesirable living condition for its citizens and empower themselves."
^ This is what Pro said he would argue in favor for in the very first round. Pro's attempt to change the resolution in the very last round just goes to show how even HE recognizes how poorly he has argued his case thus far, as evidenced by the dropped arguments listed near the bottom.
"The United States government is the the ultimate possibility for chaos, disaster, and destruction upon the United States, and possibly the world"
Things that could and are more likely to reign chaos and disaster on the US and the world:
- Global Warming
- A Super Virus or Bacteria that triggers a pandemic
- Meteor strike, eruption of a super Volcano like Yellowstone, or other catastrophic natural disasters
- Artificial Intelligence in computers
- Scarcity or loss of resources such as water and farmable land.
- Rise of an authoritarian leader hellbent on war (See WWII)
There are a far greater and ever prevalent list of things that could wreak chaos and destruction upon the US and the world then the US government, which currently could only barely even pass a budget on the Department of Homeland Security http://www.cnn.com...
"instead tries to make a debate into a battle of insults."
If you could have posted even a single competent argument, or even one sensible sentence, without making a complete imbecile out of yourself, then I would have had something to work with. Sadly though this wasnt the case, and you have only succeeded in killing more brain cells in this debate then alcohol has in the past 5000 years.
List of arguments Pro has argued that he has failed to defend or just outright dropped:
1) Pro dropped the argument that spending on the military benefits far more than just those who actually make money from military spending.
2) Pro dropped the argument that a strong US military benefits the people of the US and the people of closely allied countries to the US
3) Pro dropped the argument that the US does not invade third world countries for their resources, failing to provide more than a single example (Iraq) which he also dropepd
4) Pro fails to provide any evidence that the US gets even a significant share of Iraqi oil, when all evidence suggests it doesnt
5) Pro drops the argument that the US immediately silences all those who speak ill of the US government
6) Pro fails to provide any evidence for how the US was behind the deaths of Robin Williams and Michael Jackson
7) Pro drops the wildly stupid claim that people who mention the Constitution are put in danger
8) Pro drops the argument that the US government cant be behind ANY of the conspiracy theories he has advocated sicne it couldnt even cover up Watergate.
9) Pro fails to prove that the US government has planted subliminal messages all around us
10) Pro fails to prove that the US government is somehow trying to get rid of minorities
11) Pro fails to acknowledge that the US government has done loads to try to improve the lives of its citizens, including minorities
12) Pro drops the argument that police in riot gear =/= the military
13) Pro drops the argument that the police by far are a benefit for US citizens then a harmful influence
14) Pro fails to support his claim that everyone who speaks out agains the US government is labeled a terrorist
Pro has failed across the board to argue his stance, even going so far to try to change the resolution of what he was arguing for at the very end of the debate, like a common coward. Nearly half of Pro's sources are complete crap, and the other half dont even support the wild and unrelated claims he was trying to support in the first place.
Therefore, you as the voter should vote con on all counts.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by donald.keller 1 year ago
|Who won the debate:||-|
Reasons for voting decision: To start, Pro made a confusing resolution. Would possibly be? I'm not sure what this is meant to be... Might be responsible? Would be responsible? Carrying on, I interpret the resolution as "The US Government would most likely be responsible for a disaster or catastrophe." That being said, Pro has a massive BOP. In the first round he makes a lot of unsourced claims, such as the US invading countries for resources, or the military costing too much money for the elite to profit on. Con refutes these easily. Examples being how the US brings in little to no oil for Iraq, and how the military protects a lot of people. This continues until Pro ff's a round. The next round he drops numerous points. What really lost Pro this debate though was that he never argued the Resolution. He argued that the US Government oppressed the people and hurt standard of living... Not only was this refuted, but it wasn't even relevant.
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.