The Instigator
EHS_Debate
Con (against)
Losing
11 Points
The Contender
ZKnecht
Pro (for)
Winning
35 Points

The incident of 9/11 was planned inside a failed nation(s).

Do you like this debate?NoYes-1
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 8 votes the winner is...
ZKnecht
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/6/2010 Category: Politics
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,507 times Debate No: 10727
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (18)
Votes (8)

 

EHS_Debate

Con

I contend to show that the bombing of the twin towers in Manhattan, New York was not planned in a failed nation, or failed nations.

By PLANNED I mean trained for and prepared for.

Judges should keep this term in mind as the debate progresses.

9/11 is short for the September 11, 2001 terrorist attack on the United States.

For this debate FAILED NATIONS will follow the list provided by the Fund For Peace's Failed States Index. The only countries that will be considered Failed are the ones in the RED or ALERT sections.

I have provided a few defintions and will ask my opponent to essentially begin.
ZKnecht

Pro

Before I begin building my case, I would like to lay a bit of groundwork.

First: With regards to my opponent's definitions, I will agree to using the Fund For Peace's index to determine what exactly is a failed nation.
There is only one change I would like to make to my opponent's definition of "planned." In defining planned as "trained for and prepared for" my opponent neglects an obvious aspect of planning. That is, the act of planning involves developing and actually coming up with the plan.
Thus for this round the term "planned" ought to mean "formulated, trained for, and prepared for."
In addition, I would like to clarify that when the resolution says "planned inside a failed nation" it means that during the length of time between the plan's inception by Khalid Sheik Muhammed and its use against the United States it was, at least in part, formulated, trained for and prepared for in a failed nation.
One final observation before I begin. In this round the affirmative is only required to show that 9/11 was planned, at least in part, in a failed nation. It is not required to show that all of 9/11 was planned in a failed nation or that a majority of the 9/11 plot was planned in a failed nation. On the other hand, in order to win the negation MUST show that absolutely no amount of planning for the 9/11 plot took place in a failed nation, that the entirety of the 9/11 plot was developed and prepared for inside of nations who were not failed.

All of this being established, I will now begin my case.

Contention 1: Formulation of 9/11 Took Place in Failed Nation(s)

Khalid Sheikh Muhammed (From here on to be referred to as KSM) began planning the 9/11 attacks well before 2001. According to the 2004 9/11 Commission Report (Page 166), KSM first proposed the idea of hijacking airplanes and crashing them into U.S. buildings to Osama Bin Ladin in mid-1996 at a meeting with him in Tora Bora, Afghanistan. Over time, this plan would develop into the 9/11 plot. In 1997, KSM relocated with his family to Karachi, Pakistan. I believe it is reasonable to assume that he must have developed this plot somewhat during this time. Around late 1998 or early 1999, KSM moved to Kandahar in Afghanistan to work directly with al-Qaeda "supervising the planning and preparations for the 9/11 operation (pg. 167)." In the spring of 1999 Bin Ladin discussed the 9/11 plan, now known as the "planes operation," with KSM and one of his partners at the al Matar complex near Kandahar. It was there that they selected the World Trade Center as a target for the attacks.
I think I have made it abundantly clear that, at least in the early stages of its development, the 9/11 incident was formulated in failed nations such as Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Contention 2: Preparation and Training for 9/11 Took Place in Failed Nation(s)

In his case, my opponent is going to bring up the Hamburg Cell. He will say that the pilots who actually flew the planes learned how to fly in nations that were not failed. However, there were preparations that took place in failed nations. According to an article in the Boston Globe, preparations for the 9/11 attacks, including indoctrination and weapons training, took place at the Al Farouk camp in Afghanistan. While not all of the terrorists who were trained at this camp carried out the 9/11 attacks, 3 hijackers, Ahmed Al Haznaw, Ahmed Alghamdi, and Hamza Alghamdi, were all trained there. In addition, going back to the 9/11 Commission Report, Khalid al-Mihdhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi, 2 more of the hijackers, were both trained specifically for the 9/11 attacks at the Mes Aynak training camp in Afghanistan. Also, in late December of 1999, Khalid Sheikh Muhammed held a training meeting in Pakistan to teach them about Western culture and travel. All of these are examples of preparations and training for the 9/11 attacks that took place in failed nations.

The evidence is overwhelming. Planning and preparation for the 9/11 attacks did indeed take place in failed nations. The negation will be hard-pressed to defend himself.
Debate Round No. 1
EHS_Debate

Con

I will keep my case short and sweet.

All NEG has to do to win is show that any part of the planning of 9/11 was outside of the United States. If I cannot show that, then AFF deserves the win.

Because I am keeping this short and sweet I will argue off the top of my head and with common sense. These terrorists used public transportation aircraft from the United States. Weapons training and push-ups, as terrorists in Failed Nations do, would have had no effect on the training of the 9/11 attacks.

These terrorists would have had to gain control of a PASSENGER AIRCRAFT, mainly because the controls and devices for one such one is radically different than ones of MILITARY AIRCRAFT. As far as I'm concerned, terrorists in FAILED NATIONS do not have possession of any form of passenger aircraft.

Additionally, there have been intelligence reports that these terrorists used these specified aircraft in countries such as Germany and western parts of Spain.

Using this knowledge I believe I have shown that in some form the planning of 9/11 was partly conceived in a stable nation, therefore, based on the criterion, a NEG ballot should be casted.
ZKnecht

Pro

Following my opponent's example, I will try to keep this rebuttal concise and to the point.
The debate topic reads: "The incident of 9/11 was planned inside a failed nation(s)."
In affirming the topic, it is my job to show that some amount of planning took place in a failed nation(s). On the other hand, in negating the topic my opponent must disprove it. In other words, EHS_Debate has to show that no planning for the 9/11 attacks took place in a failed nation(s). The negation makes the statement that "All NEG has to do to win is show that any part of the planning of 9/11 was outside of the United States. If I cannot show that, then AFF deserves the win." However, this is not the case. It is the burden of the negation in this debate to show that planning for 9/11 took place exclusively in nations that are not failed. What we have to see is that while part of the planning for 9/11 took place in nations such as the U.S. and Germany, parts of 9/11 were planned in failed nations such as Afghanistan and Pakistan (I would like to just make the observation that according to the Fund for Peace Index both Afghanistan and Pakistan are failed nations. It hasn't been debated, I just thought it deserved mention).

Now, I have shown this. My entire 1st contention describes the development of the 9/11 plot as Khalid Sheikh Muhammed formed it, and how parts of this process did take place in Afghanistan and Pakistan. This part of my case went undisputed by my opponent and so remains strong. That in and of itself is enough to win the debate round for me, because that first contention described how parts of the planning process took place in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

In addressing my 2nd contention, my opponent referred to "Weapons training and push-ups," and said they would have had no effect on the training of the 9/11 attacks. However, 2 things must be made apparent.
1) The definition of "planned" decided on for this round (as my opponent did not pose any objection to my own) is "formulated, trained for, or prepared for." This definition does not specify the type of training, nor the type of preparation. Indeed, to do so would be to narrow the scope of the word "planned" irrationally. Now then, according to this definition, even if the 5 9/11 hijackers mentioned in my case only received "weapons training and push-ups" at these al-Qaeda training camps in Afghanistan, that does constitute training. What must be understood, though, is that training in proper use of weaponry and indoctrination into the suicide bomber mindset were necessary to carry out the 9/11 attacks.
2) In addition to this "basic" training, some of the hijackers were brought to Pakistan to be taught about Western culture and travel by Khalid Sheikh Muhammed in order to better infiltrate their destinations. This was another crucial piece of training as it enabled the hijackers to penetrate the societies they did and go unnoticed until the time was right.
So, too, we see that my 2nd contention remains strong in the face of my opponent's argumentation.

Looking at my opponent's case:
His entire argument is that some of the planning, training and preparation for 9/11 took place in nations like the U.S., Germany and Spain. Now, that's all fine and dandy, but as has already been established he does not merely have to show that planning took place in these countries, but that, in addition, NO planning took place in failed nations. He has not done so. Thus, I urge an affirmative vote.

1] 9/11 Commission Report: http://govinfo.library.unt.edu...
2] Boston Globe Article: http://www.boston.com...
Debate Round No. 2
EHS_Debate

Con

My opponent is debating over semantics. He argues that I must prove that in no way was 9/11 planned inside a failed nation(s).

However, it is the PRO's burden to fully uphold the resolution "The incident of 9/11 was planned inside a failed nation(s)."

The resolution does not state "The incident of 9/11 was SOMEWHAT planned inside a failed nation(s)."

As of now, this whole debate focuses soley on wether or not this is the case.

It is known that the PRO must uphold the resolution. That the incident of 9/11 was planned inside a failed nation(s). All the NEG needs to do is refute that resolution in some way, wether it be refuting is fully, or refuting it to where just part of it is false. I have chosen the later and therefore NEG deserved the vote.

Because I have proved that some training MUST have been done in a STABLE NATION I do not need to refute my opponent's case, only the criterion in which this debate should be judged.

Thank-you and I urge a NEG vote.
ZKnecht

Pro

While the wording of the resolution is indeed vague about the degree of planning it intends, this much is at least true: Whether it be planned in part or planned entirely, if planning for the 9/11 attacks took place in failed nations then it cannot said that they were not planned there. Thus, in showing that this did indeed happen I have affirmed the resolution, and merely countering that planning happened in stable nations as well is not sufficient to warrant a negative vote.

Bearing all of this in mind, I thank my opponent for this debate and respectfully urge a vote in affirmation of the resolution.
Debate Round No. 3
18 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by ZKnecht 7 years ago
ZKnecht
I realize that I could have challenged the "trained" part of my opponent's definition, but considering I could use it in my favor b showing that all 3 aspects of "planned" did take place in a failed nation I decided to let it be.
Posted by RoyLatham 7 years ago
RoyLatham
This was posed as a debate on semantics, so t was appropriate for Pro to challenge con's deinition of "planned" that, absurdly, did not include "developing a plan." Pro should have challenged training and executing, which are not part of planning. Anyway, the planning part of the planning was in two of the nations on the failed list, so it goes to Pro.
Posted by sherlockmethod 7 years ago
sherlockmethod
I focus on the instigator more than Pro/Con, but here Con made some errors and Pro did not grab them. This debate could have been nice, but I'm going with WJ on his votes as mine are very close.
Posted by EHS_Debate 7 years ago
EHS_Debate
Different then Pofo then :( For Neg all you have to do is prove the resolution faulty.
Posted by wjmelements 7 years ago
wjmelements
The resolution states:
"The incident of 9/11 was planned inside a failed nation(s)."
The negation of this is:
"The incident of 9/11 was not planned inside a failed nation(s)."

This means that if 9/11 was planned inside a failed nation AT ALL, then the resolution is affirmed. Thus, the debate was conceded in the second round.

This entire debate relied on the semantics of the resolution. Sad.
Arguments: PRO (semantics)
Sources: PRO (CON used no sources)
Conduct: TIED (no major infractions)
Grammar: TIED (no major infractions)
Posted by EHS_Debate 7 years ago
EHS_Debate
Keep in mind I did'nt say it wasn't planned in a FAILED NATION.
Posted by ZKnecht 7 years ago
ZKnecht
I just realized that while I had the links to my sources as hyperlinks in a word document, they didn't show up when I copied it to this website. I'll look those up and post them here soon.
Posted by Puck 7 years ago
Puck
I doubt Saudi Arabia counts as a failed nation.
Posted by EHS_Debate 7 years ago
EHS_Debate
I will get rid of commenced because I did mean to use it like Cody_Franklin said.
Posted by bambiii 7 years ago
bambiii
oh
i just read in a nation and assumed.
8 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 7 years ago
RoyLatham
EHS_DebateZKnechtTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by EHS_Debate 7 years ago
EHS_Debate
EHS_DebateZKnechtTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by ErodingEthos 7 years ago
ErodingEthos
EHS_DebateZKnechtTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by ricky78 7 years ago
ricky78
EHS_DebateZKnechtTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Sky_ace25 7 years ago
Sky_ace25
EHS_DebateZKnechtTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Vote Placed by sherlockmethod 7 years ago
sherlockmethod
EHS_DebateZKnechtTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by bonnieluvs 7 years ago
bonnieluvs
EHS_DebateZKnechtTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:42 
Vote Placed by wjmelements 7 years ago
wjmelements
EHS_DebateZKnechtTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05