The Instigator
Joshua22
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
ConserativeDemocrat
Pro (for)
Winning
9 Points

government cover up

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 2 votes the winner is...
ConserativeDemocrat
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/24/2016 Category: Society
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 320 times Debate No: 90134
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (2)

 

Joshua22

Con

I think the government is covering up things from the people. Like the caves in the grand canyon that with artifacts that predates recorded history.and shut down the article about it. And why do they say ufo sightings are fake when they are eye witnesses mabe even our ancestors what are they trying to hide. They forget that we have the power to decide not them. This is all a cover up.
ConserativeDemocrat

Pro

I accept.

The government is not a "Cover up." You have the BoP to show that the government is covering things up. You said that the government shut down a webpage about caves in the Grand Canyon and they deny UFOs. Source please. And eyewitnesses are not always reliable.

Plus, you know how hard it would be to keep all the things the government is supposedly covering up in the age of WikiLeaks and conspiracy theorists? Not to mention the government has 22,000,000 employees. I'm pretty sure that a few of them would of said something about how the government is covering up everything.

Source: http://cnsnews.com...

Your move
Debate Round No. 1
Joshua22

Con

Really then how come they never answer strait questions. I agree some eye witnesses aren't reliable. What about military witnesses who reported the same thing. And the government only give the public half truths. If you want to make a good argument do more research and get back to me.
ConserativeDemocrat

Pro

The BoP is on you to prove this. Please provide a source for your argument. Also, explain the rest of my points.
Debate Round No. 2
Joshua22

Con

My source is the internet and a retired army officer that asks that I don't give out his name so he doesn't get in trouble. My other source is look up mofan sorry if I miss spelled that.
ConserativeDemocrat

Pro

I can understand that you want to protect that person's identity, but that means that they are not a valid source. And it is your job to post the link. Con didn't provide any links, therefore his arguments are not valid. Vote Pro!
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by zookdook1 1 year ago
zookdook1
Feel free to cite some sources. Oh, and eyewitnesses are a terrible source of information.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by SkyLeach 1 year ago
SkyLeach
Joshua22ConserativeDemocratTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: I agreed with con before the argument, but his argument was very weak. He claimed special knowledge (informal fallacy) and 'the internet' as sources. Rather than reinforcing his argument, he degraded it. Pro was correct in that the burden of evidence and proof was on Con. Without providing even weak evidence and through the use of logical fallacies and sophistry Con actually made Pro's argument for proof stronger.
Vote Placed by KingEnder101 1 year ago
KingEnder101
Joshua22ConserativeDemocratTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 
Reasons for voting decision: Con refused to give valid sources, and when he did, he simply said the "internet" and an unnamed military officer. This debate was boring overall, but con's arguement collapsed from the beggining.