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

Bryan Mullins, The St. Jude's Memory Terror: Child patients sexually assaulted and beheaded women

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/3/2018 Category: Society
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,252 times Debate No: 107225
Debate Rounds (1)
Comments (72)
Votes (0)




Watch this video:

It is basically describing that St. Jude's child patients made this "9/11 hoax" so they can behead and sexually assault 1,750,000 women every year since September 11th 2001, as explained in this video. They fake this "tragedy" to prove that being exposed to smoke causes cancer. Cancer is fake, If anybody can get exposed to smoke, nobody will die.
If you smoke cigars, you will still live over 100 years like this old Vietnam veteran, as shown here:

They also do it for money (charity)

This video pretty much proves my point!

My conclusion is Child Patients beheaded and sexually assaulted millions of women and faked it all for money (charity). 9/11 is a hoax trying to desperately prove that Cancer is real. This video explains everything.

The choice is clear.

Vote Pro!



This is rediculous but here goes:

Pro I assume is Bryan Mullins, the same Bryan Mullins in the youtube clip. There is absolutly no evidence to support this claim about St' Jude's patients. Nothing on the internet anywhere besides his made up theory.
Based on Bryan Mullins own comment: "I made this theory up based on the fact that 56,000,000 people die every single year and made up the rest of the theory.A279;"
Key words, "made this theory up", So that's debunked.

The second point which doesn't seem to make any connection to the first is clearly "hogwash" and personal rehetoric.
Where is the connection between 9/11 event and smoke causing cancer?
Nowhere to be found in this one round debate.

To debunk the video and he rest of the claims: @2.46, his secret is god for life longevity. God is a figment of the imagination,debunked.

Very easy to read article about cancer, what causes it, the different types and so on:
Debate Round No. 1
72 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Cherrypalm 3 years ago
You are a cry baby, KwLm.
Posted by whiteflame 3 years ago

a) The "unconventional debate" you're talking about had no win condition and therefore cannot be prescribed one by vote moderation. You can be upset by it all you want, but unless we're given some tool by the debaters to actually moderate a debate, we don't moderate it.

b) I don't see how this is sufficiently explained. As I explained in my reasons for removal, the voter is required to assess specific points presented by both sides. That requires more than just stating that one side didn't have the evidence to support their points for whatever reason - the voter is required to assess the arguments and sources of both sides, not just one. This is an actual debate, ergo it's subject to the basic standards for voting on any debate. Those standards include specific assessment of any points awarded, which in this case are arguments and sources.
Posted by KwLm 3 years ago
@whiteflame, You allow a vote in an unconventional debate where the reason for the vote is, "for your service" and "f'uck Airmax", yet a vote that is SUFFICIENTLY explained, you removed, the hell is wrong with you?
Posted by Cherrypalm 3 years ago
Bryan Mullins will be debating face to face with other people on

Goodbye DDO!
Posted by Cherrypalm 3 years ago
Ha ha, stupid con!
Posted by whiteflame 3 years ago
>Reported vote: SupaDudz// Mod action: Removed<

5 points to Con (Arguments, Sources). Reasons for voting decision: PRO admits that the theory is made up and the evidence is from hos own channel. This is unfair in the debate as it could be biased. The evidence can't prove and he doesn't extend the arguments well enough that allows him to won. Claiming the theory is made up is saying that your argument is made up. Con. also Con on sources due to his being bad and unreliable

[*Reason for removal*] (1) Arguments are insufficiently explained. The voter is required to specifically assess arguments presented by both sides. Solely pointing to the evidence presented by one side and generalizing about what he did is not sufficient. (2) Sources are insufficiently explained. The voter assesses Pro"s sources, but does not assess Con"s.
Posted by frankfurter50 3 years ago
And you are a troll.
Posted by frankfurter50 3 years ago
I think vote will be accepted for stating obvious fact.
Posted by BryanMullinsNOCHRISTMAS2 3 years ago
Vote reported for bias.
Posted by BryanMullinsNOCHRISTMAS2 3 years ago
If this debate goes to con, that's okay, because nobody wants me to win, because they think I'm a troll.

This is a horrible debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.