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

Is the CIA better than the MI-5?

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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/22/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,072 times Debate No: 53131
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (0)
Votes (1)





The topic we will be debating is as follows: Is MI-5 better than the CIA. This resolution must, most definitely stand.

This debate's resolution covers all aspects of both organizations, not just spying.

In the first round, debaters can only define and agree/disagree to the resolution.
In the second round, each side can bring up a maximum of one point to argue why the resolution must stand/fall.
In the third round, debaters can bring up a maximum of two points to argue why the resolution must, most definitely stand/fall.
In the fourth round, debaters cannot bring up any new points. The can only summarize their previous points and refute their opponents points.

I hope you accept the definition of the resolution, understand the rules and I look forward to debating against you.

Good Luck!


We accept

Your move
Debate Round No. 1



Before I make my point this round, I would like to make one thing clear. The resolution "Is the CIA better than MI-5" must, most definitely stand.

There is lots of spying from both organizations, but the CIA other branches.

The CIA has a branch for the World Factbook, a section available to the Public to find out things.




Now. I would like to point out 1 thing. The CIA is international. MI-5 is domestic meaning the MI-5 only operates within Britain while the CIA is international. Thus it is incorrect to compare the two. Oh well. Too late to turn back.

Argument #1: Drone Strikes

"At least 35 people were reportedly killed over the weekend in Yemen, as a series of air strikes hit the country, including the biggest reported drone strike of the year so far.

Multiple sources including military officials and eyewitnesses described how a US drone attacked a truck that was carrying alleged members of al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) and also hit a vehicle carrying civilians. At least 10 " and possibly as many as 21 " were reportedly killed in the attack, including at least three civilians. They were described as "construction workers" or "labourers" by some reports."

Innocent people are killed by drone strikes yearly like these poor innocent civilians in Yemen. If the CIA wants to protect people then these drone strikes are sure not helping. Does the MI5 ever do drone strikes. Two letters: N O.

I await your response
Debate Round No. 2


MIKSTERBOSS forfeited this round.


What a shame, I was looking forward to your two points

Argument #2: Dirty International Operations

"PBSUCCESS was the code name for a CIA-backed coup led against the democratically elected government of Jacobo Arbenz, the President of Guatemala, in 1954. It’s one of the first in a long line of suspected or acknowledged CIA interventions in the governments of foreign countries, and it was indeed a tremendous success from the Agency’s point of view.—the first indication that such a feat could be accomplished relatively smoothly."

Do you know what two words in this quote rub me the wrong way? Democratically elected. Guatemala elected Jacobo Arbenz but yet the CIA took him down in the name of their democracy. American Democracy. Actually, I will disagree. It'd not democracy, it's the American hold on the world. All we are to the CIA are pawns in the game. Beasts that need to be controlled. I do not doubt that both the MI-5 and the MI-6 do some dirty stuff as well, but seriously, the CIA takes it to an extreme

Argument #3: Human Right's Violations

"Project MKUltra is the code name of a U.S. government human research operation experimenting in the behavioral engineering of humans through the CIA's Scientific Intelligence Division."

Seems safe? Let's continue.

"The program engaged in many illegal activities, in particular it used unwitting U.S. and Canadian citizens as its test subjects, which led to controversy regarding its legitimacy."

Not getting any better, eh? Onwards.

"MKUltra used numerous methodologies to manipulate people's mental states and alter brain functions, including the surreptitious administration of drugs (especially LSD) and other chemicals, hypnosis, sensory deprivation, isolation, verbal and sexual abuse, as well as various forms of torture"

Not a happy program. The last quote is where I draw the line. I'm not sure how many UN Right's violations that breaks, but there is one in particular that get's me angry.
"The Universal declaration of human rights.

Article 5:

No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment."

There you have it. Project MKUltra broke a human right. The people who are here to protect destroy. Is this right? Is this proper? Did these people deserve such a cruel fate? These people were tortured in the name of control. The CIA wanted to control humans. We are humans. They want to control us. Think about that.

Like I said before. We are just pawns in their game.

Your turn
Debate Round No. 3


MIKSTERBOSS forfeited this round.


Well, at least you posted something


How do you know that the CIA posts what people need to know about themselves? How come the CIA denies so many things? Just because it has a branch of it's website dedicated to the world Factbook does not mean it is honest.

This is a short rebuttal but you gave me very little to work with

Thanks for debating me, somewhat.


Debate Round No. 4
No comments have been posted on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Quinnciferlium 7 years ago
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Con posted very strong arguments although this debate was a little weak, at least Con posted anything at all!

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