Datasets:

notaphoenix

/

debateorg_w_effect_for_conservative

like 0

I accept your challenge. Thank you. You have to understand the proper concepts of this before you take a stance on it. 1/3 equals to 0.3333 repeating, meaning it is infinite after that. It is not an approximation, it is INFINITY and repeating. Also, my original argument was simply that 0.99999999 REPEATING equals to 1. Approximations were never implied, as this is INFINITY we are dealing with. Also, I am not too clear on your math, as when you divide 0.333 (I assume this to be repeating, so it's 1/3) by 3, you get 0.<PHONE> repeating. Dividing 3 by 0.33333 repeating equals to 0.99999. And even if my logic is somehow flawed, there are many more scenarios which outnumber your premise. For all sake of arithmetic, 99.9999999999999% and repeating (no pun intended) of all mathematicians and scientists in the world will tell you that <PHONE>... = 1. Is this scenario approximate? .9_=x 10x=9.9_ minus x from both sides and you receive: 9x=9 x=1 Also, you cannot subtract from infinity. If you subtract 0.9999 repeating from 1.0, assume that the 0.1 will still be infinite, meaning your answer cannot be provided if it is to result in anything tangible. I hope this makes sense. Thank you.

Sorrow

I accept your challenge. Thank you. You have to understand the proper concepts of this before you take a stance on it. 1/3 equals to 0.3333 repeating, meaning it is infinite after that. It is not an approximation, it is INFINITY and repeating. Also, my original argument was simply that 0.99999999 REPEATING equals to 1. Approximations were never implied, as this is INFINITY we are dealing with. Also, I am not too clear on your math, as when you divide 0.333 (I assume this to be repeating, so it's 1/3) by 3, you get 0.11111111 repeating. Dividing 3 by 0.33333 repeating equals to 0.99999. And even if my logic is somehow flawed, there are many more scenarios which outnumber your premise. For all sake of arithmetic, 99.9999999999999% and repeating (no pun intended) of all mathematicians and scientists in the world will tell you that 0.9999999... = 1. Is this scenario approximate? .9_=x 10x=9.9_ minus x from both sides and you receive: 9x=9 x=1 Also, you cannot subtract from infinity. If you subtract 0.9999 repeating from 1.0, assume that the 0.1 will still be infinite, meaning your answer cannot be provided if it is to result in anything tangible. I hope this makes sense. Thank you.

Miscellaneous

.999-Repeating-is-Equal-to-1/1/

If a calculator cannot contrive the possibility of there being what you have stated, then how can humans possibly do so ourselves if we were the original inventors of the calculator? What separates a calculator's "mathematical conduct" and a human's "mathematical conduct"? The only way for CON to win this argument is through a sophist's use of semantics. This mathematical conduct you speak of, would you please care to elaborate? Multiplying 1/3 by 3 would guarantee you precisely 1, as you have mentioned, but only because the fraction is IMPLIED as a whole number. If we were to take it piece-by-piece, which would be 0.33_, times that by three, then it cannot possibly equal 1, by logic. HOWEVER, the resulting 0.000_1 value is so small, it would have no use in mathematical equations. That's like saying subtracting infinity from infinity, or multiplying infinity by infinity, to reinforce my previous argument. I do not see any theory here, just simple logistics. While indeed physicists employ calculus, what makes your physics professor have more merit than the word of a thousand other physics professors? Being a student myself, I know that there are at least a dozen ways of simplifying this equation in order for it to equal 1. I would not choose to go through that many variables, because it is time-consuming, but if you look at Wikipedia (oh God not Wikipedia!) then you'll find a plethora of premises which should satisfy you. While I'm on this rant, I wouldn't so far as to say that calculus is the most complex of all mathematical branches, as that is subjective to the beholder. A 6 year old could say addition and subtraction is the most complex thing they've ever seen. Also, I was exaggerating my claims with a hyperbolic expression, you took it far too seriously. BUT, while we're on the subject of statistics, my proofs of 0.999_ equaling 1 totals up to much more proofs than you can claim on paper. Practically, the statement is true. While it may not make sense from a logical point of view, in reality, that's all that matters. "Furthermore, my opponent's argument that .333 goes on forever is flawed, because it is a calculator value, not the true value. Again, 1/3 is actually 0.333 and one third." I don't see what you are trying to say here. Calculators can't input infinity, because it has no value. Therefore, CON saying that 1/3 is "actually 0.333 and one third" is false, because: 1. 1/3 is actually 0.333_ and so on... 2. You can't add a decimal ending in infinity to another ending in infinity "Continuing with my opponent's proof equation "scenario", it is not proper, because while it is true, I would again say that that does not conclude that .<PHONE>(forever and ever) equals 1/3. It doesn't prove it." If that equation cannot sustain your needs, then your words cannot sustain the given scenario. Words are not the same as numbers, either CON can start providing more mathematical proofs AGAINST 0.999_ = 1, or I am the victor. As I've mentioned earlier, semantics is the only way for CON to win, albeit I think I have established enough high ground, so please vote for me, PRO. Thank you.

Sorrow

If a calculator cannot contrive the possibility of there being what you have stated, then how can humans possibly do so ourselves if we were the original inventors of the calculator? What separates a calculator's "mathematical conduct" and a human's "mathematical conduct"? The only way for CON to win this argument is through a sophist's use of semantics. This mathematical conduct you speak of, would you please care to elaborate? Multiplying 1/3 by 3 would guarantee you precisely 1, as you have mentioned, but only because the fraction is IMPLIED as a whole number. If we were to take it piece-by-piece, which would be 0.33_, times that by three, then it cannot possibly equal 1, by logic. HOWEVER, the resulting 0.000_1 value is so small, it would have no use in mathematical equations. That's like saying subtracting infinity from infinity, or multiplying infinity by infinity, to reinforce my previous argument. I do not see any theory here, just simple logistics. While indeed physicists employ calculus, what makes your physics professor have more merit than the word of a thousand other physics professors? Being a student myself, I know that there are at least a dozen ways of simplifying this equation in order for it to equal 1. I would not choose to go through that many variables, because it is time-consuming, but if you look at Wikipedia (oh God not Wikipedia!) then you'll find a plethora of premises which should satisfy you. While I'm on this rant, I wouldn't so far as to say that calculus is the most complex of all mathematical branches, as that is subjective to the beholder. A 6 year old could say addition and subtraction is the most complex thing they've ever seen. Also, I was exaggerating my claims with a hyperbolic expression, you took it far too seriously. BUT, while we're on the subject of statistics, my proofs of 0.999_ equaling 1 totals up to much more proofs than you can claim on paper. Practically, the statement is true. While it may not make sense from a logical point of view, in reality, that's all that matters. "Furthermore, my opponent's argument that .333 goes on forever is flawed, because it is a calculator value, not the true value. Again, 1/3 is actually 0.333 and one third." I don't see what you are trying to say here. Calculators can't input infinity, because it has no value. Therefore, CON saying that 1/3 is "actually 0.333 and one third" is false, because: 1. 1/3 is actually 0.333_ and so on... 2. You can't add a decimal ending in infinity to another ending in infinity "Continuing with my opponent's proof equation "scenario", it is not proper, because while it is true, I would again say that that does not conclude that .9999999999(forever and ever) equals 1/3. It doesn't prove it." If that equation cannot sustain your needs, then your words cannot sustain the given scenario. Words are not the same as numbers, either CON can start providing more mathematical proofs AGAINST 0.999_ = 1, or I am the victor. As I've mentioned earlier, semantics is the only way for CON to win, albeit I think I have established enough high ground, so please vote for me, PRO. Thank you.

Miscellaneous

.999-Repeating-is-Equal-to-1/1/

.(9)=1---Part 2! I would like to thank PoeJoe for bringing up the point that this is an auto-win, because he effectively instigated your challenge. I won't dig too deep into this in the first round, but just to give you some ammo to work with, the simplest proof goes like this: .(9)=?=1 /3 /3 .(3)=.(3) Simple division property of equality proves it here. I'll save the slightly more complex proofs for later arguments. Also, just a warning: When I debated this last time, my opponent used only empirical observations, and I think that hurt him, because you can't solely use empirical evidence when working with infinity, because infinity isn't a number, and it acts differently than numbers. you can use it to supplement your argument, but please do not use only empirical observations to "prove" your point. Looking forward to your argument!

abard124

.(9)=1---Part 2! I would like to thank PoeJoe for bringing up the point that this is an auto-win, because he effectively instigated your challenge. I won't dig too deep into this in the first round, but just to give you some ammo to work with, the simplest proof goes like this: .(9)=?=1 /3 /3 .(3)=.(3) Simple division property of equality proves it here. I'll save the slightly more complex proofs for later arguments. Also, just a warning: When I debated this last time, my opponent used only empirical observations, and I think that hurt him, because you can't solely use empirical evidence when working with infinity, because infinity isn't a number, and it acts differently than numbers. you can use it to supplement your argument, but please do not use only empirical observations to "prove" your point. Looking forward to your argument!

Miscellaneous

.99999...-repeating-is-equal-to-1/2/

Every fraction in the world can be written as a perfect decimal. These decimals are what we know as rational numbers. Rational numbers either terminate or repeat. 1/3 cannot be written as a terminating decimal, so it has to repeat. And like you said, so does .(9)/3. Also, like I said, empirical evidence doesn't really work with infinity. It works with numbers, but infinity isn't really a number, and it doesn't follow patterns. It's like the whole thing with an infinite number of monkeys and infinite typewriters, one would eventually write Shakespeare. The odds are so slim that if you had a reasonable number of monkeys, or even every monkey on earth, there's no way that one could crank out Shakespeare, but the moment you put infinity into the equation, that implies that every combination of characters will come out at least once. I know that that was a bit of a tangent, but I'm just trying to explain how infinity doesn't work the same as any number, and your empirical pattern is therefore null and void. I simply refuted your simple refutation of my simplest proof But if you still don't like my first one, try this: x=.(9) 10x=9.(9) -x 9x=9 x=1 Here's another. It does rely on empirical observations, but it does not rely on patterns to infinity. 1/9=.(1) 2/9=.(2) 3/9=.(3) 4/9=.(4) 5/9=.(5) 6/9=.(6) 7/9=.(7) 8/9=.(8) 9/9=??? Based on the pattern, shouldn't it be .(9)? But wouldn't simple logic tell you that it's 1? Well, they're both right, because it's the same number. Looking forward to your response!

abard124

Every fraction in the world can be written as a perfect decimal. These decimals are what we know as rational numbers. Rational numbers either terminate or repeat. 1/3 cannot be written as a terminating decimal, so it has to repeat. And like you said, so does .(9)/3. Also, like I said, empirical evidence doesn't really work with infinity. It works with numbers, but infinity isn't really a number, and it doesn't follow patterns. It's like the whole thing with an infinite number of monkeys and infinite typewriters, one would eventually write Shakespeare. The odds are so slim that if you had a reasonable number of monkeys, or even every monkey on earth, there's no way that one could crank out Shakespeare, but the moment you put infinity into the equation, that implies that every combination of characters will come out at least once. I know that that was a bit of a tangent, but I'm just trying to explain how infinity doesn't work the same as any number, and your empirical pattern is therefore null and void. I simply refuted your simple refutation of my simplest proof But if you still don't like my first one, try this: x=.(9) 10x=9.(9) -x 9x=9 x=1 Here's another. It does rely on empirical observations, but it does not rely on patterns to infinity. 1/9=.(1) 2/9=.(2) 3/9=.(3) 4/9=.(4) 5/9=.(5) 6/9=.(6) 7/9=.(7) 8/9=.(8) 9/9=??? Based on the pattern, shouldn't it be .(9)? But wouldn't simple logic tell you that it's 1? Well, they're both right, because it's the same number. Looking forward to your response!

Miscellaneous

.99999...-repeating-is-equal-to-1/2/

First round acceptance. Second round, debate

futurepresident7

First round acceptance. Second round, debate

Miscellaneous

0-can-technically-equal-1./1/

0, although it might seem crazy can equal 1. When you find a number's factorial, you are finding the product of all whole numbers less than or equal to it. For example, 3! (Factorial),=3*2*1,or 6 Now, google search "0!" or "0 factorial" What did it come out to? It came out to 1. 0!=0x0=0=1 Therefore, 0 can equal 1 (The YouTube channel Numberphile does a great video on this search on YouTube, "0!=1") Point 2:Physics Physics states that everything must come to an end. Numbers never end. Therefore, numbers do not exist in and of themselves. 0 and 1 are numbers Therefore, 0 and 1 do not exist Therefore, they both equal nothing Therefore, 0=1 Point 3: Symbols are not universal. 0 and 1 are symbols Aliens may use the symbols 0 and 1 to as synonyms The quantity we call ' 0' does not equal the quantity we call '1' For aliens, however, who is to say that whatvthey call '0' does not equal the quantity they call '1' I did not specify the Arabic Numeral version of these. Ok, let's assume that I did specify that they had to be the Arabic Numerals Point 4:The Multiverse Several theories state that every possible outcome encompasses its own theoretical universe. It may be possible that the Arabic Numeral System states that 0=1,making it its own universe. These theories cannot be disproved, so you cannot disprove that in these universes 0=1 These universes may have different physics where somehow, 0=1 Rebuttal: 0/0 technically is any number you want it to be, since any number*0=0 Using this, lets say that 0/0=1 1/1=1 If 1/1=1=0/0 0/0=0 possibly 1/1=1 0=1 If 0/1=0 0/0 (CAN TECHNICALLY)=0, since 0x0=0 So 0/0=0 and 0/1=0 The 0 and the 1 have to be the same for it to work, so 0=1

futurepresident7

0, although it might seem crazy can equal 1. When you find a number's factorial, you are finding the product of all whole numbers less than or equal to it. For example, 3! (Factorial),=3*2*1,or 6 Now, google search "0!" or "0 factorial" What did it come out to? It came out to 1. 0!=0×0=0=1 Therefore, 0 can equal 1 (The YouTube channel Numberphile does a great video on this search on YouTube, "0!=1") Point 2:Physics Physics states that everything must come to an end. Numbers never end. Therefore, numbers do not exist in and of themselves. 0 and 1 are numbers Therefore, 0 and 1 do not exist Therefore, they both equal nothing Therefore, 0=1 Point 3: Symbols are not universal. 0 and 1 are symbols Aliens may use the symbols 0 and 1 to as synonyms The quantity we call ' 0' does not equal the quantity we call '1' For aliens, however, who is to say that whatvthey call '0' does not equal the quantity they call '1' I did not specify the Arabic Numeral version of these. Ok, let's assume that I did specify that they had to be the Arabic Numerals Point 4:The Multiverse Several theories state that every possible outcome encompasses its own theoretical universe. It may be possible that the Arabic Numeral System states that 0=1,making it its own universe. These theories cannot be disproved, so you cannot disprove that in these universes 0=1 These universes may have different physics where somehow, 0=1 Rebuttal: 0/0 technically is any number you want it to be, since any number*0=0 Using this, lets say that 0/0=1 1/1=1 If 1/1=1=0/0 0/0=0 possibly 1/1=1 0=1 If 0/1=0 0/0 (CAN TECHNICALLY)=0, since 0×0=0 So 0/0=0 and 0/1=0 The 0 and the 1 have to be the same for it to work, so 0=1

Miscellaneous

0-can-technically-equal-1./1/

I think that 0 isn't technically equals to zero and I can prove it .... See, 1/1= 1 ---------------(i) Now if 0 is equal to 1 then, 0/0= not defined --------------------because if we divide any number by 0 then it is not defined-------------------(ii) From (i) and (ii) 1= not defined But 1 is defined number as every number can be divide and multiplied by it Hence, proved

sharang123

I think that 0 isn't technically equals to zero and I can prove it .... See, 1/1= 1 ---------------(i) Now if 0 is equal to 1 then, 0/0= not defined --------------------because if we divide any number by 0 then it is not defined-------------------(ii) From (i) and (ii) 1= not defined But 1 is defined number as every number can be divide and multiplied by it Hence, proved

Miscellaneous

0-can-technically-equal-1./1/

My friend you are been confused by your own self I agree with 0!=1, zero factorial is equal to 1 , but zero isn't equal to one . I can prove it , If you want to say that 0=1,then Let's see 0=1 And 0!=1 0x0=1 But if we see minutely zero is multiplied only on one side of equal sign So we have to multiply it on both side 0x0=1x0 0=0 Hence zero is equal to zero but not equal to one Again as per your point 2 Physics states that everything must come to an end But the universe never ends Do you wanna say that universe do not exsist? In my terms that rule is not applicable for numbers Hence 1 exists but 0 doesn't Therefore, 1 is not equal to 0 Now your point 3 is not up to mark It seems that you are confused by your self 0 And 1 are used In Encoding They are not symbols , instead they are used to mark existence of matter by counting ! And secondly the numeral 0 was invented in India if 0 wasn't there then the numeral system had been collapse If you say that 0=1 then why is the need of inventing zero . We could place 1 in place of 0 Hence 0can't take place of 1 and hence are not equal There you go wrote g in point 4 1/1 = 1 But 0/0 is not defined Hence your point 4 is meaningless

sharang123

My friend you are been confused by your own self I agree with 0!=1, zero factorial is equal to 1 , but zero isn't equal to one . I can prove it , If you want to say that 0=1,then Let's see 0=1 And 0!=1 0x0=1 But if we see minutely zero is multiplied only on one side of equal sign So we have to multiply it on both side 0x0=1x0 0=0 Hence zero is equal to zero but not equal to one Again as per your point 2 Physics states that everything must come to an end But the universe never ends Do you wanna say that universe do not exsist? In my terms that rule is not applicable for numbers Hence 1 exists but 0 doesn't Therefore, 1 is not equal to 0 Now your point 3 is not up to mark It seems that you are confused by your self 0 And 1 are used In Encoding They are not symbols , instead they are used to mark existence of matter by counting ! And secondly the numeral 0 was invented in India if 0 wasn't there then the numeral system had been collapse If you say that 0=1 then why is the need of inventing zero . We could place 1 in place of 0 Hence 0can't take place of 1 and hence are not equal There you go wrote g in point 4 1/1 = 1 But 0/0 is not defined Hence your point 4 is meaningless

Miscellaneous

0-can-technically-equal-1./1/

I think 0 is an even number so I think it is neither neutral or odd.

Chunkymilk

I think 0 is an even number so I think it is neither neutral or odd.

Miscellaneous

0-is-an-even-number./1/

If you follow the pattern 3 is odd 2 is even 1 is odd so 0 is even. This just makes sense to me but I do not understand why people think it is neutral. Also, the definition of odd is an integer is even if it is 'evenly divisible' by two and odd if it is not even according to Wikipedia and Google. 0 divided by 2 equals zero therefore zero is neither neutral nor odd. This is the definition and the definition is what the word means and cannot be changed!

Chunkymilk

If you follow the pattern 3 is odd 2 is even 1 is odd so 0 is even. This just makes sense to me but I do not understand why people think it is neutral. Also, the definition of odd is an integer is even if it is 'evenly divisible' by two and odd if it is not even according to Wikipedia and Google. 0 divided by 2 equals zero therefore zero is neither neutral nor odd. This is the definition and the definition is what the word means and cannot be changed!

Miscellaneous

0-is-an-even-number./1/

First of all I understand Wikipedia is not always trustworthy. That is why I looked at the Google definition. If this is not enough Mathworld.wolfram.com/EvenNumber.html agrees that zero is an even number. This is stated in the second sentence. Second of all, you have not shown any prove that 0 is a neutral number. As long as it is divisible by two it is even. 0 is divisible by two. What do you not get about the definition. 0 divided by 2 equals 0. It is an integer that divides evenly into a whole number.

Chunkymilk

First of all I understand Wikipedia is not always trustworthy. That is why I looked at the Google definition. If this is not enough Mathworld.wolfram.com/EvenNumber.html agrees that zero is an even number. This is stated in the second sentence. Second of all, you have not shown any prove that 0 is a neutral number. As long as it is divisible by two it is even. 0 is divisible by two. What do you not get about the definition. 0 divided by 2 equals 0. It is an integer that divides evenly into a whole number.

Miscellaneous

0-is-an-even-number./1/

0 is not an even number or a odd number it is neutral (not helping or supporting either side) basically zero is neutral, because its not positive or negative. its also in between positive and negative integers.

pensfan

0 is not an even number or a odd number it is neutral (not helping or supporting either side) basically zero is neutral, because its not positive or negative. its also in between positive and negative integers.

Miscellaneous

0-is-an-even-number./1/

first of all you can't trust Wikipedia because anyone can go on there and change the answers. second of all 0 is a neutral number because it is in between negative and positive numbers, and it is not negative or positive. therefore it is neither even nor odd.

pensfan

first of all you can't trust Wikipedia because anyone can go on there and change the answers. second of all 0 is a neutral number because it is in between negative and positive numbers, and it is not negative or positive. therefore it is neither even nor odd.

Miscellaneous

0-is-an-even-number./1/

My proof for zero being neutral is that it is not negative nor positive (as I stated before) it is in-between positive and negative integers. Your second point is a false statement. zero divided by any number on a calculator = error. meaning that it can't be divided. zero does not correspond to anything in reality, because zero signifies the absence of reality. therefor zero is not divisible by 2 or any other number.

pensfan

My proof for zero being neutral is that it is not negative nor positive (as I stated before) it is in-between positive and negative integers. Your second point is a false statement. zero divided by any number on a calculator = error. meaning that it can't be divided. zero does not correspond to anything in reality, because zero signifies the absence of reality. therefor zero is not divisible by 2 or any other number.

Miscellaneous

0-is-an-even-number./1/

.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999 is not equal to .9999999999999999999999999999999999999998, by reason that two values, structures, objects, concepts, or any measurably comparable entity, however similar in structure they may be, must retain ALL characteristics of one another to be 2 of the same entity. Therefore, 0.9999(repeating) is NOT EQUAL to 1.

Ryvn

.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999 is not equal to .9999999999999999999999999999999999999998, by reason that two values, structures, objects, concepts, or any measurably comparable entity, however similar in structure they may be, must retain ALL characteristics of one another to be 2 of the same entity. Therefore, 0.9999(repeating) is NOT EQUAL to 1.

Science

0.999..-repeating-is-equal-to-1/1/

I am arguing that 0.9999... (going on forever) is equal to 1. My challenger is arguing that this is false. He may use the first round to make his argument.

The_Tom

I am arguing that 0.9999... (going on forever) is equal to 1. My challenger is arguing that this is false. He may use the first round to make his argument.

Science

0.999..-repeating-is-equal-to-1/1/

0.9999... = 1 (Note ... means repeating) This is a mathematically proven fact which most people find hard to believe. I will try an convince the readers that this is indeed a fact. My opponent claims "two values, structures, objects, concepts, or any measurably comparable entity, however similar in structure they may be, must retain ALL characteristics of one another to be 2 of the same entity." There are many ways to write the number 1: (4/2), (5 - 4), (0.25 x 4), these don't have all the same characteristics as each other, but they are all ways of writing the number 1 Here I will attempt to prove that 0.9... is another way of writing 1 Logical Proof: If there is no difference between two numbers then they are logically the same number So, 1 - 0.999999.... = 0.000000... Hence, they are the same number. Please note that because there are an infinite number of 9's, that there will be an infinite number of 0's Another way of saying this is that if you cannot fit a number between two other numbers, there is no difference between them. Proof using arithmetic: 1/3 = 0.333333... 0.333333... x 3 = 0.99999... And (1/3) x 3 = 1 Therefore 0.99999... = 1 Algebraic proof: Z = 0.999999... (multiply by 10) 10Z = 9.99999... (subtract Z from both sides) 10Z - 1Z = 9.99999... - 0.99999.. (reduce) 9Z = 9 (divide by 9) Z = 1 Here Z has started as 0.999 repeating, and has ended up as 1 Therefore 0.99999... = 1 I am sure that my opponent will argue that there will always be an infinitely small difference between .999.. and 1. I will refute that argument here: The rules of infinity: It is an accepted mathematical fact that an infinitely small number is equal to zero (1). Another way of writing this is (1/infinity = 0) Therefore, THERE IS NO GAP BETWEEN 0.999... AND 1 This seems counter-intuitive, but it has been proven true (2)(3). For other mathematical proofs and in depth explanations why, follow my references, or do a quick google search for "0.9 repeating = 1". References: 1. <URL>... (x)%3D+1/x+as+x+approaches+positive+infinity 2. <URL>... 3. <URL>...

The_Tom

0.9999... = 1 (Note ... means repeating) This is a mathematically proven fact which most people find hard to believe. I will try an convince the readers that this is indeed a fact. My opponent claims "two values, structures, objects, concepts, or any measurably comparable entity, however similar in structure they may be, must retain ALL characteristics of one another to be 2 of the same entity." There are many ways to write the number 1: (4/2), (5 - 4), (0.25 x 4), these don't have all the same characteristics as each other, but they are all ways of writing the number 1 Here I will attempt to prove that 0.9... is another way of writing 1 Logical Proof: If there is no difference between two numbers then they are logically the same number So, 1 - 0.999999.... = 0.000000... Hence, they are the same number. Please note that because there are an infinite number of 9's, that there will be an infinite number of 0's Another way of saying this is that if you cannot fit a number between two other numbers, there is no difference between them. Proof using arithmetic: 1/3 = 0.333333... 0.333333... x 3 = 0.99999... And (1/3) x 3 = 1 Therefore 0.99999... = 1 Algebraic proof: Z = 0.999999... (multiply by 10) 10Z = 9.99999... (subtract Z from both sides) 10Z - 1Z = 9.99999... - 0.99999.. (reduce) 9Z = 9 (divide by 9) Z = 1 Here Z has started as 0.999 repeating, and has ended up as 1 Therefore 0.99999... = 1 I am sure that my opponent will argue that there will always be an infinitely small difference between .999.. and 1. I will refute that argument here: The rules of infinity: It is an accepted mathematical fact that an infinitely small number is equal to zero (1). Another way of writing this is (1/infinity = 0) Therefore, THERE IS NO GAP BETWEEN 0.999... AND 1 This seems counter-intuitive, but it has been proven true (2)(3). For other mathematical proofs and in depth explanations why, follow my references, or do a quick google search for "0.9 repeating = 1". References: 1. http://www.wolframalpha.com... (x)%3D+1/x+as+x+approaches+positive+infinity 2. https://www.khanacademy.org... 3. http://polymathematics.typepad.com...

Science

0.999..-repeating-is-equal-to-1/1/

Well, since my opponent didn't refute me, I will refute myself. Dear the_tom, in the previous round you had stated that 4/2 is another way of writing 1. Well let me just say sir, this is blatantly incorrect! Not only this, but the number one looks bigger than 0.999.. therefore your proof is null! Seriously though, arguing with yourself is not fun, so I leave the floor to my opponent.

The_Tom

Well, since my opponent didn't refute me, I will refute myself. Dear the_tom, in the previous round you had stated that 4/2 is another way of writing 1. Well let me just say sir, this is blatantly incorrect! Not only this, but the number one looks bigger than 0.999.. therefore your proof is null! Seriously though, arguing with yourself is not fun, so I leave the floor to my opponent.

Science

0.999..-repeating-is-equal-to-1/1/

The out of context absolute that we have for our resolution is, as an absolute, false. 1 pair of shoes equals 2 shoes. 1 pint equals 2 cups in United States fluid volume measurement. If units were predefined in the resolution, it could probably be fixed, but 1 of a given unit can occasionally equal 2 of another given unit.

Ragnar_Rahl

The out of context absolute that we have for our resolution is, as an absolute, false. 1 pair of shoes equals 2 shoes. 1 pint equals 2 cups in United States fluid volume measurement. If units were predefined in the resolution, it could probably be fixed, but 1 of a given unit can occasionally equal 2 of another given unit.

Miscellaneous

1-does-not-2/1/

Well, unfortunately, such ambiguities in resolutions should be resolved before debates if one wishes them to go in one's favor. :)

Ragnar_Rahl

Well, unfortunately, such ambiguities in resolutions should be resolved before debates if one wishes them to go in one's favor. :)

Miscellaneous

1-does-not-2/1/

Kentucky fried?

Ragnar_Rahl

Kentucky fried?

Miscellaneous

1-does-not-2/1/

Good lawd

Ragnar_Rahl

Good lawd

Miscellaneous

1-does-not-2/1/

Finalmente

Ragnar_Rahl

Finalmente

Miscellaneous

1-does-not-2/1/

1+1=2 subtract 1 from each side (1+1)-1=2-1 multiply by a, a=1.999 repeating {(1+1)-1}A=[2-1]A 0=0 therefore, 1.999 repeating = 2, because 1.999 feet is pretty close to 2 feet

Rob1Billion

1+1=2 subtract 1 from each side (1+1)-1=2-1 multiply by a, a=1.999 repeating {(1+1)-1}A=[2-1]A 0=0 therefore, 1.999 repeating = 2, because 1.999 feet is pretty close to 2 feet

Science

1.999-repeating-2/1/

All rhetoric (j/k everything on here is all rhetoric). There is no reason why a rational number cannot be equal to an irrational number. Your definitions are great, but they don't necessarily preclude any possibility that the two could be equal to each other, only that the two cannot be IDENTICAL to each other. Tarzan's proof is rock solid and your semantical arguments are attempts at struggling to find any way you can not to believe something that is hard to accept. A board that is 1.999 repeating feet long is just as long as a board that is 2 feet long, because you can never identify the difference in length. How much less than 2 is 1.999 repeating? If they are in fact different values, than you should be able to extrapolate the difference between them. Also, a full third is 0.333 repeating. But if you simply look at the number, 0.333 repeating SEEMS like it is *just* a little less than a third, because the numbers don't do it justice, in the same way that 1.999 repeating doesn't quite do justice to represent 2. If you multiply .333 repeating by 3 you get .999 repeating, which is equal to 1 because three thirds are a whole. A=1.999 repeating multiply by 10 10A=19.999... subtract A from both sides 9A=18 <----- this is the part most people are uneasy about. but 19.999... minus 1.999... is equal to 18. How can you refute this? divide by 9 A=2 elementary, my dear watson How can you not add a repeating decimal??? Does this mean I can't add three thirds to get a whole? Aren't all numbers repeating decimals, with zeros on each end?

Rob1Billion

All rhetoric (j/k everything on here is all rhetoric). There is no reason why a rational number cannot be equal to an irrational number. Your definitions are great, but they don't necessarily preclude any possibility that the two could be equal to each other, only that the two cannot be IDENTICAL to each other. Tarzan's proof is rock solid and your semantical arguments are attempts at struggling to find any way you can not to believe something that is hard to accept. A board that is 1.999 repeating feet long is just as long as a board that is 2 feet long, because you can never identify the difference in length. How much less than 2 is 1.999 repeating? If they are in fact different values, than you should be able to extrapolate the difference between them. Also, a full third is 0.333 repeating. But if you simply look at the number, 0.333 repeating SEEMS like it is *just* a little less than a third, because the numbers don't do it justice, in the same way that 1.999 repeating doesn't quite do justice to represent 2. If you multiply .333 repeating by 3 you get .999 repeating, which is equal to 1 because three thirds are a whole. A=1.999 repeating multiply by 10 10A=19.999... subtract A from both sides 9A=18 <----- this is the part most people are uneasy about. but 19.999... minus 1.999... is equal to 18. How can you refute this? divide by 9 A=2 elementary, my dear watson How can you not add a repeating decimal??? Does this mean I can't add three thirds to get a whole? Aren't all numbers repeating decimals, with zeros on each end?

Science

1.999-repeating-2/1/

Your best argument is an inability to do the addition/subtraction to get the result in the proof. But this makes no sense. Addition cannot be undefined in this way, because we work with these numbers all the time. A third plus a third is two thirds. The fact that a third equals a repeating number does not automatically mean that a third is undefined and you can't add it. You try and make a distinction BETWEEN a third and 1.999 rep., because you can't divide two numbers to get it, but that leads us back to the same old argument: why can't a rational number not be equal to an irrational number? I still believe that your arguments are just not as convincing as Tarzan's proof is. You say that 19.999 repeating minus 1.999 repeating is equal to 18.000 repeating plus one. Maybe I should instruct you on what infinity is, so that you don't botch it in our debate. Infinity goes on forever, so you would never have the chance to put that one in there, and besides, I don't see any reason AT ALL to even think that there MIGHT be a one at the end anyway. your definition did not include that a rational number cannot be equal to an irrational number. You say that it can't but us debaters on here are probably not just going to take your word for it. Saying that I could check it in a math book is not enough to show your case. Give us some exact wording that can be cross checked so that we can indeed see that a rational number can never be equal to an irrational number. your definitions are simply not as convincing as actually doing the math, kennard. The math works, and your definitions seem somewhat indirect and possibly misinterpreted. If my opinion of tarzan's proof is subjective, then so is your interpretation and application of your definitions. I fail to see why your position is one of objectivity and mine is one of subjectivity. "I am pretty sure I wouldn't be able to identify the difference between a board that is 1.88 feet long and a board that is 2 feet long." Why did you write this? The difference is .12 feet. If you meant to say 1.888 repeating, then the difference is .111 repeating feet. This is such a bad argument that I am hoping you just mistyped something in there, otherwise the fact that you can't see something that is over an inch long is your error, not tarzan's. 1/3 + 1/3 + 1/3 =1, just like 0.333 rep. + 0.333 rep. + 0.333 rep. =1 . This leads to the conclusion that 0.333 rep. must be equal to that number that is *just* a little higher (~0.3334) that would more satisfyingly represent a full third, in the same way that 1.999 rep. represents that number that is *just* a little higher that is 2.

Rob1Billion

Your best argument is an inability to do the addition/subtraction to get the result in the proof. But this makes no sense. Addition cannot be undefined in this way, because we work with these numbers all the time. A third plus a third is two thirds. The fact that a third equals a repeating number does not automatically mean that a third is undefined and you can't add it. You try and make a distinction BETWEEN a third and 1.999 rep., because you can't divide two numbers to get it, but that leads us back to the same old argument: why can't a rational number not be equal to an irrational number? I still believe that your arguments are just not as convincing as Tarzan's proof is. You say that 19.999 repeating minus 1.999 repeating is equal to 18.000 repeating plus one. Maybe I should instruct you on what infinity is, so that you don't botch it in our debate. Infinity goes on forever, so you would never have the chance to put that one in there, and besides, I don't see any reason AT ALL to even think that there MIGHT be a one at the end anyway. your definition did not include that a rational number cannot be equal to an irrational number. You say that it can't but us debaters on here are probably not just going to take your word for it. Saying that I could check it in a math book is not enough to show your case. Give us some exact wording that can be cross checked so that we can indeed see that a rational number can never be equal to an irrational number. your definitions are simply not as convincing as actually doing the math, kennard. The math works, and your definitions seem somewhat indirect and possibly misinterpreted. If my opinion of tarzan's proof is subjective, then so is your interpretation and application of your definitions. I fail to see why your position is one of objectivity and mine is one of subjectivity. "I am pretty sure I wouldn't be able to identify the difference between a board that is 1.88 feet long and a board that is 2 feet long." Why did you write this? The difference is .12 feet. If you meant to say 1.888 repeating, then the difference is .111 repeating feet. This is such a bad argument that I am hoping you just mistyped something in there, otherwise the fact that you can't see something that is over an inch long is your error, not tarzan's. 1/3 + 1/3 + 1/3 =1, just like 0.333 rep. + 0.333 rep. + 0.333 rep. =1 . This leads to the conclusion that 0.333 rep. must be equal to that number that is *just* a little higher (~0.3334) that would more satisfyingly represent a full third, in the same way that 1.999 rep. represents that number that is *just* a little higher that is 2.

Science

1.999-repeating-2/1/

Your arguments do make some sense to me, as a non-mathematician, but when I look back at the proof I am still not convinced that you can't subtract 1.999 rep. from 19.999 rep. to make 18. Your wiki references did not say "a rational number can never equal an irrational number", unless you can direct me to the spot they do. Also, please give me some evidence that specifically says that you absolutely cannot subtract a rep. decimal, especially when it is simply to cancel out a similar rep. decimal. With all the tricks mathematicians use to find answers, I have a hard time believeing that this one is not in their arsenal.

Rob1Billion

Your arguments do make some sense to me, as a non-mathematician, but when I look back at the proof I am still not convinced that you can't subtract 1.999 rep. from 19.999 rep. to make 18. Your wiki references did not say "a rational number can never equal an irrational number", unless you can direct me to the spot they do. Also, please give me some evidence that specifically says that you absolutely cannot subtract a rep. decimal, especially when it is simply to cancel out a similar rep. decimal. With all the tricks mathematicians use to find answers, I have a hard time believeing that this one is not in their arsenal.

Science

1.999-repeating-2/1/

Well there is tension in a lot of debates. The ones about religion can get really bad... That is actually the reason I took this debate, because since I am not a mathematician I could do this without caring TOO much about it, and joke around a little in the process. As far as your argument goes, I would say that I have run out of good arguments about 4 rounds ago and I am just holding on for the sake of it! I would really like to ask an older, more educated math professor about this, but that is the thing: the most respected math teacher I know at my university did Tarzan's exact proof on the board for us in class! I ended up failing out of calc 2 and ditching math afterwards... Honestly, my opinion is of no consequence and I only argued this case for the sake of arguing, and because people in the comments section seemed to be egging it on some. Otherwise, good debate, you DID make some good points...

Rob1Billion

Well there is tension in a lot of debates. The ones about religion can get really bad... That is actually the reason I took this debate, because since I am not a mathematician I could do this without caring TOO much about it, and joke around a little in the process. As far as your argument goes, I would say that I have run out of good arguments about 4 rounds ago and I am just holding on for the sake of it! I would really like to ask an older, more educated math professor about this, but that is the thing: the most respected math teacher I know at my university did Tarzan's exact proof on the board for us in class! I ended up failing out of calc 2 and ditching math afterwards... Honestly, my opinion is of no consequence and I only argued this case for the sake of arguing, and because people in the comments section seemed to be egging it on some. Otherwise, good debate, you DID make some good points...

Science

1.999-repeating-2/1/

My main point in this argument is that 1.9999 repeating CANNOT equal 2 because 1.999 repeating is an irrational number, while the number 2 is a rational number. Since a number cannot be rational and irrational at the same time, then 1.999 repeating CANNOT equal 2. The definition of a rational number is a number that can be expressed as a fraction (or ratio) p/q where p and q are integers and q is not equal to zero. The definition of an irrational number is a number that cannot be expressed as a fraction p/q for any integers p and q. The number 2 is obviously a rational number, since, it can be written as 8/4 (since 8 divided by 4 equals 2). However, there are no two integers p and q, that divided (or which ratio) give 1.999 repeating. We should realize that there are other repeating decimals such as 0.333 repeating, 0.666 repeating, or 1.333 repeating that CAN be written as ratios of two integers, and therefore are rational numbers. For the numbers given above this would be: 0.333 repeating = 1/3 0.666 repeating = 2/3 1.333 repeating = 4/3 As we can easily see, by dividing 1 by 3, we get 0.333 repeating. I want to point out that the number of times that the divisor (the number 3 for this case) is contained in the dividend (the number 1 for this case) is zero. Therefore, the first number in performing the division is 0. and then as we keep performing the division we get 0.3, 0.33, 0.333, etc. This shows that 1/3 equals 0.333 repeating. Similar reason can be used with 0.666 repeating and 1.333 repeating. However, if we divide 6 by 3 (for example) we can only obtain 2. It is impossible to obtain 1.999 repeating by dividing 6 by 3 since the number of times that the divisor (the number 3 for this case) is contained in the dividend (the number 6 for this case) is 2. This shows that it is impossible to obtain the number 1 as the first term in the number 1.999 repeating. Since there are no two integer numbers whose ratio gives 1.999 repating then we must conclude this is an irrational number, and as stated above, that 1.999 repeating CANNOT equal the number 2. As a final note, I will like to indicate that operations such as addition, multiplication, substraction, and division are undefined for repeating decimals such as 0.333 repeating or 0.999 repeating. This operations are defined for fractions, but not for repeating decimals. Hence this operations cannot be used to prove that 0.999 repeating equals 2. Thanks.

kennard

My main point in this argument is that 1.9999 repeating CANNOT equal 2 because 1.999 repeating is an irrational number, while the number 2 is a rational number. Since a number cannot be rational and irrational at the same time, then 1.999 repeating CANNOT equal 2. The definition of a rational number is a number that can be expressed as a fraction (or ratio) p/q where p and q are integers and q is not equal to zero. The definition of an irrational number is a number that cannot be expressed as a fraction p/q for any integers p and q. The number 2 is obviously a rational number, since, it can be written as 8/4 (since 8 divided by 4 equals 2). However, there are no two integers p and q, that divided (or which ratio) give 1.999 repeating. We should realize that there are other repeating decimals such as 0.333 repeating, 0.666 repeating, or 1.333 repeating that CAN be written as ratios of two integers, and therefore are rational numbers. For the numbers given above this would be: 0.333 repeating = 1/3 0.666 repeating = 2/3 1.333 repeating = 4/3 As we can easily see, by dividing 1 by 3, we get 0.333 repeating. I want to point out that the number of times that the divisor (the number 3 for this case) is contained in the dividend (the number 1 for this case) is zero. Therefore, the first number in performing the division is 0. and then as we keep performing the division we get 0.3, 0.33, 0.333, etc. This shows that 1/3 equals 0.333 repeating. Similar reason can be used with 0.666 repeating and 1.333 repeating. However, if we divide 6 by 3 (for example) we can only obtain 2. It is impossible to obtain 1.999 repeating by dividing 6 by 3 since the number of times that the divisor (the number 3 for this case) is contained in the dividend (the number 6 for this case) is 2. This shows that it is impossible to obtain the number 1 as the first term in the number 1.999 repeating. Since there are no two integer numbers whose ratio gives 1.999 repating then we must conclude this is an irrational number, and as stated above, that 1.999 repeating CANNOT equal the number 2. As a final note, I will like to indicate that operations such as addition, multiplication, substraction, and division are undefined for repeating decimals such as 0.333 repeating or 0.999 repeating. This operations are defined for fractions, but not for repeating decimals. Hence this operations cannot be used to prove that 0.999 repeating equals 2. Thanks.

Science

1.999-repeating-2/1/

First of all, I want to indicate that this is not a philosophical debate. This is a mathematical debate, and anyone that has taken a course involving mathematical proof knows that definitions in mathematics are the basis or building blocks of any proof. You indicated that: "There is no reason why a rational number cannot be equal to an irrational number". By mathematical definition (not philosophical), an irrational number cannot be equal to a rational number. You can check this definition in any mathematics book. You indicated that: "Your definitions are great, but they don't necessarily preclude any possibility that the two could be equal to each other, only that the two cannot be IDENTICAL to each other". Well, first of all, there are not "my" definitions of rational and irrational numbers. This are the definitions that have been established for a long time, you can find them in any math book, and all mathematicians agree with them. And the definition clearly indicates that an irrational number cannot be equal to a rational number. Again, this is a mathematical debate, not a philosophical one were people can debate whether an apple can equal to an orange or whatever. You indicated that: "Tarzan's proof is rock solid and your semantical arguments are attempts at struggling to find any way you can not to believe something that is hard to accept". I don't see how your subjective opinion is PROOF that 1.999 repeating equals 2. You indicated that: "A board that is 1.999 repeating feet long is just as long as a board that is 2 feet long, because you can never identify the difference in length. How much less than 2 is 1.999 repeating? If they are in fact different values, than you should be able to extrapolate the difference between them" The fact that I cannot identify the difference between a 1.999 repeating feet board and a 2 feet board does not mean these two are equal. Using your logic, then 1.88 is equal to 2 as well, since I am pretty sure I wouldn't be able to identify the difference between a board that is 1.88 feet long and a board that is 2 feet long. You indicated that: "Also, a full third is 0.333 repeating. But if you simply look at the number, 0.333 repeating SEEMS like it is *just* a little less than a third, because the numbers don't do it justice, in the same way that 1.999 repeating doesn't quite do justice to represent 2" I indicated above that 0.333 repeating comes from the ratio of two integers, namely 1/3. If you calculate this ratio, and divide 1 by 3, you get 0.333 repeating. Therefore this shows clearly that 1/3 equals 0.333 repeating, and that 0.333 repeating is a rational number. You indicated that: "If you multiply .333 repeating by 3 you get .999 repeating, which is equal to 1 because three thirds are a whole" This is the origin of the problem, repeating numbers cannot be multiplied by integers since this operation is undefined in a similar way that 1/0 (one divided by zero, not the limit, just the number one divided by zero) is undefined. What I mean by "repeating numbers cannot be multiplied by integers" is that there is no mathematical definition or property that indicates that 3*0.333 repeating = 0.999 repeating, and you cannot get from one point to the other by using mathematical properties or definitions. However, you could show that 2*0.333 repeating equals 0.666 repeating by using the following mathematical properties: 2*0.333 repeating = 2*(1/3) This comes from the mathematical definition of dividing 1 by 3 = (2*1)/3 Associative property of multiplication = 2/3 Identity property of multiplication = 0.666 repeating This comes from the mathematical definition of dividing 2 by 3 The problem that arises with 0.999 repeating is that you cannot obtain it by dividing any two integers. Therefore you CANNOT show that 3*0.333 repeating = 0.999 repeating. You indicated that: "How can you not add a repeating decimal??? Does this mean I can't add three thirds to get a whole? Aren't all numbers repeating decimals, with zeros on each end?" As I indicated, you cannot add, multiply, substract, or divided, repeating numbers directly using math properties. There are properties that allow you to do this operations on integers or fractions, but not on repeating (or infinite numbers). And yes, all numbers can be written as repeating numbers, but the difference is that if you can write a repeating number as an integer or a fraction then you can perform addition, multiplication, substraction, or division on these forms of the number (NOTE: all numbers can be written as repeating numbers, however not all of them can be written with zeros at the end). In Tarzan's proof the flaw is in the fact that he multiplies 10 by A, then substracts A, and gets 18. What you should really get if you perform 10*A minus A, you will get 18.0000...(infinite zeros)...0001 As you can see, there will always be a one at the end of this infinite number (I know that for the human brain this is hard to grasp, but that is infinity).

kennard

First of all, I want to indicate that this is not a philosophical debate. This is a mathematical debate, and anyone that has taken a course involving mathematical proof knows that definitions in mathematics are the basis or building blocks of any proof. You indicated that: "There is no reason why a rational number cannot be equal to an irrational number". By mathematical definition (not philosophical), an irrational number cannot be equal to a rational number. You can check this definition in any mathematics book. You indicated that: "Your definitions are great, but they don't necessarily preclude any possibility that the two could be equal to each other, only that the two cannot be IDENTICAL to each other". Well, first of all, there are not "my" definitions of rational and irrational numbers. This are the definitions that have been established for a long time, you can find them in any math book, and all mathematicians agree with them. And the definition clearly indicates that an irrational number cannot be equal to a rational number. Again, this is a mathematical debate, not a philosophical one were people can debate whether an apple can equal to an orange or whatever. You indicated that: "Tarzan's proof is rock solid and your semantical arguments are attempts at struggling to find any way you can not to believe something that is hard to accept". I don't see how your subjective opinion is PROOF that 1.999 repeating equals 2. You indicated that: "A board that is 1.999 repeating feet long is just as long as a board that is 2 feet long, because you can never identify the difference in length. How much less than 2 is 1.999 repeating? If they are in fact different values, than you should be able to extrapolate the difference between them" The fact that I cannot identify the difference between a 1.999 repeating feet board and a 2 feet board does not mean these two are equal. Using your logic, then 1.88 is equal to 2 as well, since I am pretty sure I wouldn't be able to identify the difference between a board that is 1.88 feet long and a board that is 2 feet long. You indicated that: "Also, a full third is 0.333 repeating. But if you simply look at the number, 0.333 repeating SEEMS like it is *just* a little less than a third, because the numbers don't do it justice, in the same way that 1.999 repeating doesn't quite do justice to represent 2" I indicated above that 0.333 repeating comes from the ratio of two integers, namely 1/3. If you calculate this ratio, and divide 1 by 3, you get 0.333 repeating. Therefore this shows clearly that 1/3 equals 0.333 repeating, and that 0.333 repeating is a rational number. You indicated that: "If you multiply .333 repeating by 3 you get .999 repeating, which is equal to 1 because three thirds are a whole" This is the origin of the problem, repeating numbers cannot be multiplied by integers since this operation is undefined in a similar way that 1/0 (one divided by zero, not the limit, just the number one divided by zero) is undefined. What I mean by "repeating numbers cannot be multiplied by integers" is that there is no mathematical definition or property that indicates that 3*0.333 repeating = 0.999 repeating, and you cannot get from one point to the other by using mathematical properties or definitions. However, you could show that 2*0.333 repeating equals 0.666 repeating by using the following mathematical properties: 2*0.333 repeating = 2*(1/3) This comes from the mathematical definition of dividing 1 by 3 = (2*1)/3 Associative property of multiplication = 2/3 Identity property of multiplication = 0.666 repeating This comes from the mathematical definition of dividing 2 by 3 The problem that arises with 0.999 repeating is that you cannot obtain it by dividing any two integers. Therefore you CANNOT show that 3*0.333 repeating = 0.999 repeating. You indicated that: "How can you not add a repeating decimal??? Does this mean I can't add three thirds to get a whole? Aren't all numbers repeating decimals, with zeros on each end?" As I indicated, you cannot add, multiply, substract, or divided, repeating numbers directly using math properties. There are properties that allow you to do this operations on integers or fractions, but not on repeating (or infinite numbers). And yes, all numbers can be written as repeating numbers, but the difference is that if you can write a repeating number as an integer or a fraction then you can perform addition, multiplication, substraction, or division on these forms of the number (NOTE: all numbers can be written as repeating numbers, however not all of them can be written with zeros at the end). In Tarzan's proof the flaw is in the fact that he multiplies 10 by A, then substracts A, and gets 18. What you should really get if you perform 10*A minus A, you will get 18.0000...(infinite zeros)...0001 As you can see, there will always be a one at the end of this infinite number (I know that for the human brain this is hard to grasp, but that is infinity).

Science

1.999-repeating-2/1/

You wrote the following two statements: "why can't a rational number not be equal to an irrational number?" and "your definition did not include that a rational number cannot be equal to an irrational number. You say that it can't but us debaters on here are probably not just going to take your word for it. Saying that I could check it in a math book is not enough to show your case. Give us some exact wording that can be cross checked so that we can indeed see that a rational number can never be equal to an irrational number." The definition of a rational number is a number that CAN be expressed as a ratio of two integers (where the denominator cannot equal zero). The definition of an irrational number is a number that CANNOT be expressed as a ratio of any two integers. Therefore a rational number CANNOT equal an irrational number (I honestly don't know how to make this point any clearer). By the way, here are some references: <URL>... <URL>... First of all I want to clarify that by saying repeating numbers I specifically mean the repeating representation of the number, such as 0.333 repeating. The number 1/3 is a fraction, it is composed by only two integers, while the number 0.333 repeating is composed of infinitely many digits. These two numbers can be proven to be equal by using simply dividing 1 by 3. The math property of dividing 1 by 3 is a well defined property in mathemetics because it involves two finite numbers. Once you convert 0.333 repeating to 1/3 then you can use all the math properties (associativity, commutativity, addition, etc.) that you want on this representation of the number. However, you cannot add, multiply, substract, or divided, on the repeating representation of the number directly using math properties because repeating numbers go on infinitely. The reason for not been able to use addition, substraction, multiplication or division on infinite numbers is because this properties break down when dealing with infinity. For example: infinity + 1 = infinity substracting infinity from both sides gives: 1 = 0 This was a very simple example, but it shows that basic operations break down when dealing with infinity because these operations are undefined for infinity. Therefore, to FORMALLY do an operation on a repeating number, this number will have to be re-written as a fraction and then these basic operations can be performed on the fraction representation of the number. The main problem with 1.999 repating is that it cannot be written as a ratio of any two numbers. I will briefly write the proof of this again (PLEASE CHECK THIS ARGUMENT CAREFULLY TO UNDERSTAND WHY 1.999 repeating CANNOT equal 2): If we divide 6 by 3 (for example) we can only obtain 2. However, it is impossible to obtain 1.999 repeating by dividing 6 by 3 since the number of times that the divisor (the number 3 for this case) is contained in the dividend (the number 6 for this case) is 2. THIS SHOWS THAT IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO OBTAIN THE NUMBER 1 AS THE FIRST TERM OF THE NUMBER 1.999 repeating. Since there are no two integer numbers whose ratio gives 1.999 repeating then we must conclude this is an irrational number, and as stated above, that 1.999 repeating CANNOT equal the number 2. You wrote: "You say that 19.999 repeating minus 1.999 repeating is equal to 18.000 repeating plus one. Maybe I should instruct you on what infinity is, so that you don't botch it in our debate. Infinity goes on forever, so you would never have the chance to put that one in there" I am really glad you wrote this statement down. What makes you think that I would never have the chance to put that one in there, but you would have the chance of substracting all the terms in the repeating representations of 19.999 repeating and 1.999 repeating? You wrote: "your definitions are simply not as convincing as actually doing the math, kennard. The math works, and your definitions seem somewhat indirect and possibly misinterpreted" Have you seen how many post are out there indicating that 1=2? These statements are posted by people who think that "the math works". However, people who really know about math realize that mathematical definitions must be used to PROVE things. That is why anyone who knows math well looks at the statement 1=2 and immediately realize that it involves the old trick of dividing by zero, which is (as you know) UNDEFINED. You wrote: "Why did you write this? The difference is .12 feet. If you meant to say 1.888 repeating, then the difference is .111 repeating feet" I apologize for not been clear on that line. The point that I was trying to prove there was that the fact that I cannot distinguish (visibly) the difference between a <PHONE> feet board and a 2 feet board those not make the two numbers equal. I really hope that now that I rewrote the definition of rational and irrational numbers, and how they clearly can't be equal to each other, that you proceed to prove that 1.999 repeating is a rational number.

kennard

You wrote the following two statements: "why can't a rational number not be equal to an irrational number?" and "your definition did not include that a rational number cannot be equal to an irrational number. You say that it can't but us debaters on here are probably not just going to take your word for it. Saying that I could check it in a math book is not enough to show your case. Give us some exact wording that can be cross checked so that we can indeed see that a rational number can never be equal to an irrational number." The definition of a rational number is a number that CAN be expressed as a ratio of two integers (where the denominator cannot equal zero). The definition of an irrational number is a number that CANNOT be expressed as a ratio of any two integers. Therefore a rational number CANNOT equal an irrational number (I honestly don't know how to make this point any clearer). By the way, here are some references: http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... First of all I want to clarify that by saying repeating numbers I specifically mean the repeating representation of the number, such as 0.333 repeating. The number 1/3 is a fraction, it is composed by only two integers, while the number 0.333 repeating is composed of infinitely many digits. These two numbers can be proven to be equal by using simply dividing 1 by 3. The math property of dividing 1 by 3 is a well defined property in mathemetics because it involves two finite numbers. Once you convert 0.333 repeating to 1/3 then you can use all the math properties (associativity, commutativity, addition, etc.) that you want on this representation of the number. However, you cannot add, multiply, substract, or divided, on the repeating representation of the number directly using math properties because repeating numbers go on infinitely. The reason for not been able to use addition, substraction, multiplication or division on infinite numbers is because this properties break down when dealing with infinity. For example: infinity + 1 = infinity substracting infinity from both sides gives: 1 = 0 This was a very simple example, but it shows that basic operations break down when dealing with infinity because these operations are undefined for infinity. Therefore, to FORMALLY do an operation on a repeating number, this number will have to be re-written as a fraction and then these basic operations can be performed on the fraction representation of the number. The main problem with 1.999 repating is that it cannot be written as a ratio of any two numbers. I will briefly write the proof of this again (PLEASE CHECK THIS ARGUMENT CAREFULLY TO UNDERSTAND WHY 1.999 repeating CANNOT equal 2): If we divide 6 by 3 (for example) we can only obtain 2. However, it is impossible to obtain 1.999 repeating by dividing 6 by 3 since the number of times that the divisor (the number 3 for this case) is contained in the dividend (the number 6 for this case) is 2. THIS SHOWS THAT IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO OBTAIN THE NUMBER 1 AS THE FIRST TERM OF THE NUMBER 1.999 repeating. Since there are no two integer numbers whose ratio gives 1.999 repeating then we must conclude this is an irrational number, and as stated above, that 1.999 repeating CANNOT equal the number 2. You wrote: "You say that 19.999 repeating minus 1.999 repeating is equal to 18.000 repeating plus one. Maybe I should instruct you on what infinity is, so that you don't botch it in our debate. Infinity goes on forever, so you would never have the chance to put that one in there" I am really glad you wrote this statement down. What makes you think that I would never have the chance to put that one in there, but you would have the chance of substracting all the terms in the repeating representations of 19.999 repeating and 1.999 repeating? You wrote: "your definitions are simply not as convincing as actually doing the math, kennard. The math works, and your definitions seem somewhat indirect and possibly misinterpreted" Have you seen how many post are out there indicating that 1=2? These statements are posted by people who think that "the math works". However, people who really know about math realize that mathematical definitions must be used to PROVE things. That is why anyone who knows math well looks at the statement 1=2 and immediately realize that it involves the old trick of dividing by zero, which is (as you know) UNDEFINED. You wrote: "Why did you write this? The difference is .12 feet. If you meant to say 1.888 repeating, then the difference is .111 repeating feet" I apologize for not been clear on that line. The point that I was trying to prove there was that the fact that I cannot distinguish (visibly) the difference between a 1.9998888777 feet board and a 2 feet board those not make the two numbers equal. I really hope that now that I rewrote the definition of rational and irrational numbers, and how they clearly can't be equal to each other, that you proceed to prove that 1.999 repeating is a rational number.

Science

1.999-repeating-2/1/

I think the following example is good evidence that addition, substraction, multiplication, and divison break down when used on the repeating form of a number. For example, people who claim that you can add repeating numbers do the following: 000.333 repeating + 0.666 repeating ----------------------- 000.999 repeating (Sorry for writing the three extra zeros in front of the decimal point, but I wanted to align the three repeating numbers) So as you can see, they add the numbers as if they were finite numbers, and then write repeating at the end. But let's see what happens when we add the following two repeating forms of the following numbers: 000.999 repeating + 0.999 repeating ------------------------- 001.998 repeating (Again, sorry for writing the extra zeros in front of the decimal point, but I wanted to align the three repeating numbers) As we can clearly see, addition breaks down in this case (unless now you want to debate that 1.998 repeating equals 2). This is because, as I stated earlier, this forms of writing a number go on infinitely, and we can never finish completing the full addition of all the terms. Similar logic can prove that substraction, multiplication, and division cannot be performed on repeating forms of a number. By the way, if you click on the second wiki reference that I gave, the very first line says: "In mathematics, an irrational number is any real number that is not a rational number". You say that you are a non-mathematician, and that is fine, but it clearly says that "an irrational number is any real number that is not a rational number", therefore an irrational number can never equal a rational number. If you read the definition of the two numbers, it indicates that rational numbers can be written as the ratio of two integers, but irrational numbers cannot. In other words, rational numbers can be obtained by dividing two integers, but irrational numbers cannot. By the way, I don't want to make this personal, so I apologize if there has been some tension between our comments. Actually I am glad we are having this debate because it has made me think a lot, haha.

kennard

I think the following example is good evidence that addition, substraction, multiplication, and divison break down when used on the repeating form of a number. For example, people who claim that you can add repeating numbers do the following: 000.333 repeating + 0.666 repeating ----------------------- 000.999 repeating (Sorry for writing the three extra zeros in front of the decimal point, but I wanted to align the three repeating numbers) So as you can see, they add the numbers as if they were finite numbers, and then write repeating at the end. But let's see what happens when we add the following two repeating forms of the following numbers: 000.999 repeating + 0.999 repeating ------------------------- 001.998 repeating (Again, sorry for writing the extra zeros in front of the decimal point, but I wanted to align the three repeating numbers) As we can clearly see, addition breaks down in this case (unless now you want to debate that 1.998 repeating equals 2). This is because, as I stated earlier, this forms of writing a number go on infinitely, and we can never finish completing the full addition of all the terms. Similar logic can prove that substraction, multiplication, and division cannot be performed on repeating forms of a number. By the way, if you click on the second wiki reference that I gave, the very first line says: "In mathematics, an irrational number is any real number that is not a rational number". You say that you are a non-mathematician, and that is fine, but it clearly says that "an irrational number is any real number that is not a rational number", therefore an irrational number can never equal a rational number. If you read the definition of the two numbers, it indicates that rational numbers can be written as the ratio of two integers, but irrational numbers cannot. In other words, rational numbers can be obtained by dividing two integers, but irrational numbers cannot. By the way, I don't want to make this personal, so I apologize if there has been some tension between our comments. Actually I am glad we are having this debate because it has made me think a lot, haha.

Science

1.999-repeating-2/1/

Well, for this last Round I'll just respond to some of the comments that have been posted down. Lazarus Long indicated that two integers whose ratio give 1.9999... repeating are 4/2. The proof that he gave is the following. "Since 1.999... = 2, then 4/2 = 1.99999.... Simple, no?" The only simple thing I see in this proof is realizing how flawed it is. I'll just change one number so that people can realize how foolish this "proof" is: Since 500 = 2, then 4/2 = 500 Simple, no? Then he claims the following: "how else would you explain: 1/3 + 1/3 + 1/3 + 1/3 + 1/3 + 1/3 = 2 which is the same as 0.333... + 0.333... + 0.333... + 0.333... + 0.333... + 0.333... = 2, which, if we simply do the addition, IS 0.999... + 0.999... = 2 which, of course, requires that 0.999... = 1 (actually the same as the question at hand here), so Q.E.D. " Well, the way I already explained why the "proof" written above is wrong is because addition, substraction, multiplication, and division cannot be performed directly on repeating representations of numbers. I showed this on the Round 4 of the debate. Therefore, 0.333... + 0.333... + 0.333... DOES NOT EQUAL 0.999... Another comment written down was made by beem0r with respect to the points I made in Round 4 are the following. Beem0r wrote: "I think we should realize that it isn't the 8 that's repeating, it's an 18 that's repeating. The 1 in the tens place will always change the previous 8 to a 9. You can do addition and subtraction with repeating numbers, you just have to know what's repeating. .999... + .999... is 1.999..." The fact that he has to "realize" what is repeating proves my point that addition and all the other operations cannot be performed directly with repeating representations of numbers. I do understand what he is saying, so I'll rephrase it here. What he is saying is that the 8 at the end (end?) will constantly be changing to a 9 because of the 1 that is carried from the sum of the nines on the column that is directly to its right. So the number that we will have is 0.999...(infinite nines)...9998 with the eight constantly and forever changing to a 9. This is why addition and the other operations cannot be performed on infinite representations of numbers, because this operations are only DEFINED on finite representations of numbers. Therefore the only way to make algebraic operations on inifinite representations of numbers is to write them in a finite form. This could be done either by writing them as a fraction or representing them by a variable (or symbol, as is the case for Pi). Since 1.999 cannot be obtaind by dividing any two integers (which means it cannot be written as a fraction) then the only way to do algebra on it is by representing it with a variable. The proof that 1.999 repeating cannot be written as a ratio of any two integers is written in Round 1 and re-written in Round 3 of the CON side. Finally, I want to indicate that many people (including many mathematicians) don't really understand the concept of limits and infinity. For example, the limit of 1/x as x goes to inifinity equals zero. What this means is that as x goes to infinity the function will get closer and closer to zero, but it will NEVER equal zero. Many mathematicians make the wrong claim that, "at infinity the function will equal to zero". This statement is wrong because it assumes that there is a point where the function will actually equal zero. But then I ask, after it reaches zero then what? Does it remain being zero, does it become negative? The point that I am trying to make here is that infinity is not a point that can be reached, infinity just means that it will keep on going forever. Therefore 1/x will get closer and closer to zero forever, but it will never equal zero. The best we can do when dealing with infinity is to use limits to indicate what value some function will get closer to, but that is as good as it gets. This means that 1.999 repeating is by definition the number that is closest to 2 from the numbers that are smaller than 2.

kennard

Well, for this last Round I'll just respond to some of the comments that have been posted down. Lazarus Long indicated that two integers whose ratio give 1.9999... repeating are 4/2. The proof that he gave is the following. "Since 1.999... = 2, then 4/2 = 1.99999.... Simple, no?" The only simple thing I see in this proof is realizing how flawed it is. I'll just change one number so that people can realize how foolish this "proof" is: Since 500 = 2, then 4/2 = 500 Simple, no? Then he claims the following: "how else would you explain: 1/3 + 1/3 + 1/3 + 1/3 + 1/3 + 1/3 = 2 which is the same as 0.333... + 0.333... + 0.333... + 0.333... + 0.333... + 0.333... = 2, which, if we simply do the addition, IS 0.999... + 0.999... = 2 which, of course, requires that 0.999... = 1 (actually the same as the question at hand here), so Q.E.D. " Well, the way I already explained why the "proof" written above is wrong is because addition, substraction, multiplication, and division cannot be performed directly on repeating representations of numbers. I showed this on the Round 4 of the debate. Therefore, 0.333... + 0.333... + 0.333... DOES NOT EQUAL 0.999... Another comment written down was made by beem0r with respect to the points I made in Round 4 are the following. Beem0r wrote: "I think we should realize that it isn't the 8 that's repeating, it's an 18 that's repeating. The 1 in the tens place will always change the previous 8 to a 9. You can do addition and subtraction with repeating numbers, you just have to know what's repeating. .999... + .999... is 1.999..." The fact that he has to "realize" what is repeating proves my point that addition and all the other operations cannot be performed directly with repeating representations of numbers. I do understand what he is saying, so I'll rephrase it here. What he is saying is that the 8 at the end (end?) will constantly be changing to a 9 because of the 1 that is carried from the sum of the nines on the column that is directly to its right. So the number that we will have is 0.999...(infinite nines)...9998 with the eight constantly and forever changing to a 9. This is why addition and the other operations cannot be performed on infinite representations of numbers, because this operations are only DEFINED on finite representations of numbers. Therefore the only way to make algebraic operations on inifinite representations of numbers is to write them in a finite form. This could be done either by writing them as a fraction or representing them by a variable (or symbol, as is the case for Pi). Since 1.999 cannot be obtaind by dividing any two integers (which means it cannot be written as a fraction) then the only way to do algebra on it is by representing it with a variable. The proof that 1.999 repeating cannot be written as a ratio of any two integers is written in Round 1 and re-written in Round 3 of the CON side. Finally, I want to indicate that many people (including many mathematicians) don't really understand the concept of limits and infinity. For example, the limit of 1/x as x goes to inifinity equals zero. What this means is that as x goes to infinity the function will get closer and closer to zero, but it will NEVER equal zero. Many mathematicians make the wrong claim that, "at infinity the function will equal to zero". This statement is wrong because it assumes that there is a point where the function will actually equal zero. But then I ask, after it reaches zero then what? Does it remain being zero, does it become negative? The point that I am trying to make here is that infinity is not a point that can be reached, infinity just means that it will keep on going forever. Therefore 1/x will get closer and closer to zero forever, but it will never equal zero. The best we can do when dealing with infinity is to use limits to indicate what value some function will get closer to, but that is as good as it gets. This means that 1.999 repeating is by definition the number that is closest to 2 from the numbers that are smaller than 2.

Science

1.999-repeating-2/1/

Alright. This seemes to be a fun debate.

baseballkid

Alright. This seemes to be a fun debate.

Society

10.1-million-people-in-prison-is-much-worse-than-genocide./1/

I am sorry. I tried for a couple days to write a case but I am just not knowledgeable on the subject and all i could have done was make myself look stupid.

baseballkid

I am sorry. I tried for a couple days to write a case but I am just not knowledgeable on the subject and all i could have done was make myself look stupid.

Society

10.1-million-people-in-prison-is-much-worse-than-genocide./1/

If you ever do this again try to not emphasise the Holocaust so much. all cases I had written just attacked that.

baseballkid

If you ever do this again try to not emphasise the Holocaust so much. all cases I had written just attacked that.

Society

10.1-million-people-in-prison-is-much-worse-than-genocide./1/

emphasise the other parts of your case. That is what meant.

baseballkid

emphasise the other parts of your case. That is what meant.

Society

10.1-million-people-in-prison-is-much-worse-than-genocide./1/

I was hoping to create a debate without choosing a position myself, thus allowing my opponent to choose whichever side they'd like and leaving me to argue the opposite position. But since I apparently can't do that I'm hoping instead to debate one side, and upon conclusion rehash the debate (presumably with a different opponent) with my position flipped around. For this first debate I've chosen to take the position I agree with least - that age of consent should be 18 rather than 15. I consider both positions to be pretty equally sub-optimal, but I've chosen them to amplify the advantages and disadvantages of each. Round 1 - Acceptance, definitions Rounds 2, 3 - Introduce and counter arguments Round 4 - No new arguments, conclusions PRO will argue that the age of consent should be 15 CON will argue that the age of consent should be 18 For this debate I have chosen CON. No semantics. This debate encompasses whether - as a matter of law, morals, practicality, or any other reasonable and relevant reason - it makes more sense for the age of sexual consent to be 15, or 18 in the USA. If you wish to clarify or add any definitions please do so in round 1. PLEASE - Only accept if you plan to actually follow through with all 4 rounds, I've not actually been able to engage in a real debate yet because of flaky opponents.

maxx233

I was hoping to create a debate without choosing a position myself, thus allowing my opponent to choose whichever side they'd like and leaving me to argue the opposite position. But since I apparently can't do that I'm hoping instead to debate one side, and upon conclusion rehash the debate (presumably with a different opponent) with my position flipped around. For this first debate I've chosen to take the position I agree with least - that age of consent should be 18 rather than 15. I consider both positions to be pretty equally sub-optimal, but I've chosen them to amplify the advantages and disadvantages of each. Round 1 - Acceptance, definitions Rounds 2, 3 - Introduce and counter arguments Round 4 - No new arguments, conclusions PRO will argue that the age of consent should be 15 CON will argue that the age of consent should be 18 For this debate I have chosen CON. No semantics. This debate encompasses whether - as a matter of law, morals, practicality, or any other reasonable and relevant reason - it makes more sense for the age of sexual consent to be 15, or 18 in the USA. If you wish to clarify or add any definitions please do so in round 1. PLEASE - Only accept if you plan to actually follow through with all 4 rounds, I've not actually been able to engage in a real debate yet because of flaky opponents.

Society

15-is-a-better-age-of-sexual-consent-than-18/1/

I would like to thank my opponent for accepting this debate! My opponent appears to start in round one (acceptance and definitions,) by asserting his position as a definition in the form of a proposed policy (Policy) and guidelines for that policy (Guidelines). Therefore, as a matter of definition, I of course must reject his Proposal and the Guidelines therein. I do however accept the definitions he contributes for "Age of sexual consent" and "sexual". It's unclear whether my opponent meant to submit his Proposal and Guidelines as the full position he wishes to defend. In an attempt to not disregard his efforts completely, and because many of the clauses present in the Proposal are relevant to the debate, I will likely touch on many of the issues he has presented. However, since posted in Round 1 - reserved exclusively for acceptance and definitions - and thus rejected as a definition, it is up to my opponent to re-introduce any topics he feels are relevant that I may not formally introduce this round. Point 1: Age of Majority The age of majority is "the chronological moment when minors cease to legally be considered children and assume control over their persons, actions, and decisions, thereby terminating the legal control and legal responsibilities of their parents or guardian over and for them." [1] While this is not the same as age of consent, and perhaps often gets confused with age of consent, it is significant due to the ramifications (such as pregnancy!) that consensual sex can bring upon a minor that the parents of that minor would ultimately be responsible for. This is a primary reason why age of consent should in fact match up with the age of majority - which is almost universally 18, including in the USA. A parent should not be held responsible to provide financially for their daughter's pregnancy or child if they don't agree with it and had no part in it. But if the daughter is legally able to consent to sex as a matter of personal choice at an age younger than 18 then the parent has no right to restrict that particular choice, nor do they have a right over the girl's body to force an abortion, not even a right to force an adoption of the child. With the divergence between age of consent and age of majority the parents become responsible for a whole additional human being without any legal say in the matter. Point 2: Prevent unwanted pregnancies Pregnancy is the #1 reason girls drop out of school.[2] It's imperative that students finish high school, and an unwanted pregnancy contributes toward them quitting early and not receiving a diploma. With a lower age of consent it stands to reason that the frequency of teenage sexual encounters would increase, and as a direct result so would the frequency of teenage pregnancy. Point #3: Maturity Research suggests that the human brain does not fully develop until age 21-22 in females, and age 30 in males. [3] Furthermore, "Studies in both humans and other animals have suggested that the dopamine system peaks in activity during adolescenese. If this is true, the abundance of dopamine might lead to different considerations of short-term and long-term rewards and consequences" in teenagers. [4] Because of this it is possible that teenagers may not properly consider consequences when engaging in sexual activity, lending credence to a higher age of consent in order to protect them from sexual exploitation from adults. In conclusion, I would like to briefly address a few points from my opponents Proposal should he choose to formally introduce these points in the debate during his next two rounds: * It is illogical to create a divergent legal system wherein sex between an adult and a 15 year old is legal, however an adult impregnating a 15 year old is not. Pregnancy is an unpredictable effect of sex and is likely under more control of the younger party (typically being female) due to birth control options available as well as personal knowledge of their menstrual/fertility cycle. * It is unreasonable to state that when the elder male party is over 18 that he would be financially responsible for the child or for the abortion at the family descrition, the that if the elder male was under 18 then abortion would be mandatory. In fact, stating at all that abortion would be mandatory is completely unreasonable, or at very least a topic for another debate all in itself. * If the law is concerning "safe sex" only then a detailed definition would need apply, and it is up to my opponent to prove that such safe sex is reliable and could be verified in a court of law. Also it should be noted that birth control is against some religions and therefore could not be considered a mandatory pre-requisite under the law. [1] - <URL>... [2] - <URL>... [3] - <URL>... [4] - <URL>...

maxx233

I would like to thank my opponent for accepting this debate! My opponent appears to start in round one (acceptance and definitions,) by asserting his position as a definition in the form of a proposed policy (Policy) and guidelines for that policy (Guidelines). Therefore, as a matter of definition, I of course must reject his Proposal and the Guidelines therein. I do however accept the definitions he contributes for “Age of sexual consent” and “sexual”. It’s unclear whether my opponent meant to submit his Proposal and Guidelines as the full position he wishes to defend. In an attempt to not disregard his efforts completely, and because many of the clauses present in the Proposal are relevant to the debate, I will likely touch on many of the issues he has presented. However, since posted in Round 1 – reserved exclusively for acceptance and definitions – and thus rejected as a definition, it is up to my opponent to re-introduce any topics he feels are relevant that I may not formally introduce this round. Point 1: Age of Majority The age of majority is “the chronological moment when minors cease to legally be considered children and assume control over their persons, actions, and decisions, thereby terminating the legal control and legal responsibilities of their parents or guardian over and for them.” [1] While this is not the same as age of consent, and perhaps often gets confused with age of consent, it is significant due to the ramifications (such as pregnancy!) that consensual sex can bring upon a minor that the parents of that minor would ultimately be responsible for. This is a primary reason why age of consent should in fact match up with the age of majority – which is almost universally 18, including in the USA. A parent should not be held responsible to provide financially for their daughter’s pregnancy or child if they don’t agree with it and had no part in it. But if the daughter is legally able to consent to sex as a matter of personal choice at an age younger than 18 then the parent has no right to restrict that particular choice, nor do they have a right over the girl’s body to force an abortion, not even a right to force an adoption of the child. With the divergence between age of consent and age of majority the parents become responsible for a whole additional human being without any legal say in the matter. Point 2: Prevent unwanted pregnancies Pregnancy is the #1 reason girls drop out of school.[2] It’s imperative that students finish high school, and an unwanted pregnancy contributes toward them quitting early and not receiving a diploma. With a lower age of consent it stands to reason that the frequency of teenage sexual encounters would increase, and as a direct result so would the frequency of teenage pregnancy. Point #3: Maturity Research suggests that the human brain does not fully develop until age 21-22 in females, and age 30 in males. [3] Furthermore, “Studies in both humans and other animals have suggested that the dopamine system peaks in activity during adolescenese. If this is true, the abundance of dopamine might lead to different considerations of short-term and long-term rewards and consequences” in teenagers. [4] Because of this it is possible that teenagers may not properly consider consequences when engaging in sexual activity, lending credence to a higher age of consent in order to protect them from sexual exploitation from adults. In conclusion, I would like to briefly address a few points from my opponents Proposal should he choose to formally introduce these points in the debate during his next two rounds: • It is illogical to create a divergent legal system wherein sex between an adult and a 15 year old is legal, however an adult impregnating a 15 year old is not. Pregnancy is an unpredictable effect of sex and is likely under more control of the younger party (typically being female) due to birth control options available as well as personal knowledge of their menstrual/fertility cycle. • It is unreasonable to state that when the elder male party is over 18 that he would be financially responsible for the child or for the abortion at the family descrition, the that if the elder male was under 18 then abortion would be mandatory. In fact, stating at all that abortion would be mandatory is completely unreasonable, or at very least a topic for another debate all in itself. • If the law is concerning “safe sex” only then a detailed definition would need apply, and it is up to my opponent to prove that such safe sex is reliable and could be verified in a court of law. Also it should be noted that birth control is against some religions and therefore could not be considered a mandatory pre-requisite under the law. [1] - http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] - http://www.aclu-wa.org... [3] - http://www.education.com... [4] - http://www.abqtrib.com...

Society

15-is-a-better-age-of-sexual-consent-than-18/1/

Point #1: Age of Majority - Carried from R2 Despite the connection evident in my R2 argument connecting Age of Majority as being a practical consideration regarding the most appropriate Age of Consent, my opponent has labeled the Age of Majority as irrelevant without providing any suggestions or rationale whatsoever as to why he refutes the case I have clearly laid out in R2. Instead he says that age of majority is not a well-established fact, which makes little sense. The Age of Majority in the USA is, factually, 18 at a minimum[1]. While I agree that maturity is somewhat subjective that is not my point, and this debate is not about changing the Age of Majority - I simply am pointing out that the Age of Majority is one legitimate reason why 18 is a more suitable Age of Consent than 15. This is not based on physical maturity, nor social appropriateness of pregnancy in high school as my opponent seems to suggest. It simply is a practical matter that delineation of responsibility is best handed off in full at 18, and the lines should not be blurred before then by a 15 year old being able to make legal choices which may result in pregnancy. Therefore my R2 Point #1 regarding Age of Majority still stands. Point #2: Prevent Unwanted Pregnancies - Carried from R2 My opponent seems to think that pregnancy can be separated from sex and independently made illegal, and this is not so. If he believes it to be so then the burden of proof is on him and I will address his argument in my conclusions in R4. I clearly and pre-emptively stated in the first point of my R2 conclusion that it is illogical to separate sex and pregnancy into two divergent legal matters. Pregnancy is not a choice by either party - it happens largely based on chance. The factors that contribute toward pregnancy having a much higher chance of occurrence - ie, knowledge of fertility cycle, knowledge of and proper administration of birth control - are all within the control of the [typically younger] female partner. It does not make sense that an older male would NOT face any punishment for having sex with a 15 year old female, but he WOULD face financial and criminal punishment if - by sheer chance and a degree of control on the part of the younger female - she DID get pregnant! That's simply nonsense. If two parties willingly consent to sexual relations there is ALWAYS a chance of pregnancy, that chance cannot be separated from the original consent to engage in sex. The fact that a 15 year old has a fully sexually developed physical body does not mean they have control over pregnancy, and at 15 we both recognize that pregnancy is not beneficial. The only way to reduce the occurrence is to reduce the occurrence of the sex that leads to it, and a 3 year higher age of consent would logically restrict the occurrence of sex and thus the occurrence of pregnancy. My R2 Point #2 regarding the reduction of teenage pregnancies still stands. Point #3: Maturity - Accepted I did not see any arguments by my opponent refuting the age of full development for the human brain and the suggestion that due to a non-fully developed brain teenagers may not properly consider consequences of sexual activity. Therefore I will assume for now that this point has been accepted by my opponent. R3 Final Thoughts Finally, my opponent has misunderstood me regarding safe sex, somehow drawing an absurd conclusion that I've suggested unsafe sex should be practiced. I never stated that I think a 15 year old should have unsafe sex. This is in fact against my entire argument that a 15 year old should have NO sex. I simply said that it was up to my opponent to define "safe sex" as pertinent to his proposal, should he wish to officially introduce any element of that proposal as an argument, which he has failed to do. Since he has not introduced this argument there is nothing for me to refute here! I simply made a helpful suggestion that should he choose to introduce the argument he should save his time unless he can provide a legally compelling rationale that accounts for religious rejection of birth control, as it is an obvious problem to his idea of separating safe-sex from unsafe-sex let alone separating sex from pregnancy! [1] - <URL>...

maxx233

Point #1: Age of Majority – Carried from R2 Despite the connection evident in my R2 argument connecting Age of Majority as being a practical consideration regarding the most appropriate Age of Consent, my opponent has labeled the Age of Majority as irrelevant without providing any suggestions or rationale whatsoever as to why he refutes the case I have clearly laid out in R2. Instead he says that age of majority is not a well-established fact, which makes little sense. The Age of Majority in the USA is, factually, 18 at a minimum[1]. While I agree that maturity is somewhat subjective that is not my point, and this debate is not about changing the Age of Majority – I simply am pointing out that the Age of Majority is one legitimate reason why 18 is a more suitable Age of Consent than 15. This is not based on physical maturity, nor social appropriateness of pregnancy in high school as my opponent seems to suggest. It simply is a practical matter that delineation of responsibility is best handed off in full at 18, and the lines should not be blurred before then by a 15 year old being able to make legal choices which may result in pregnancy. Therefore my R2 Point #1 regarding Age of Majority still stands. Point #2: Prevent Unwanted Pregnancies – Carried from R2 My opponent seems to think that pregnancy can be separated from sex and independently made illegal, and this is not so. If he believes it to be so then the burden of proof is on him and I will address his argument in my conclusions in R4. I clearly and pre-emptively stated in the first point of my R2 conclusion that it is illogical to separate sex and pregnancy into two divergent legal matters. Pregnancy is not a choice by either party – it happens largely based on chance. The factors that contribute toward pregnancy having a much higher chance of occurrence – ie, knowledge of fertility cycle, knowledge of and proper administration of birth control - are all within the control of the [typically younger] female partner. It does not make sense that an older male would NOT face any punishment for having sex with a 15 year old female, but he WOULD face financial and criminal punishment if - by sheer chance and a degree of control on the part of the younger female - she DID get pregnant! That’s simply nonsense. If two parties willingly consent to sexual relations there is ALWAYS a chance of pregnancy, that chance cannot be separated from the original consent to engage in sex. The fact that a 15 year old has a fully sexually developed physical body does not mean they have control over pregnancy, and at 15 we both recognize that pregnancy is not beneficial. The only way to reduce the occurrence is to reduce the occurrence of the sex that leads to it, and a 3 year higher age of consent would logically restrict the occurrence of sex and thus the occurrence of pregnancy. My R2 Point #2 regarding the reduction of teenage pregnancies still stands. Point #3: Maturity – Accepted I did not see any arguments by my opponent refuting the age of full development for the human brain and the suggestion that due to a non-fully developed brain teenagers may not properly consider consequences of sexual activity. Therefore I will assume for now that this point has been accepted by my opponent. R3 Final Thoughts Finally, my opponent has misunderstood me regarding safe sex, somehow drawing an absurd conclusion that I’ve suggested unsafe sex should be practiced. I never stated that I think a 15 year old should have unsafe sex. This is in fact against my entire argument that a 15 year old should have NO sex. I simply said that it was up to my opponent to define “safe sex” as pertinent to his proposal, should he wish to officially introduce any element of that proposal as an argument, which he has failed to do. Since he has not introduced this argument there is nothing for me to refute here! I simply made a helpful suggestion that should he choose to introduce the argument he should save his time unless he can provide a legally compelling rationale that accounts for religious rejection of birth control, as it is an obvious problem to his idea of separating safe-sex from unsafe-sex let alone separating sex from pregnancy! [1] - http://contests.about.com...

Society

15-is-a-better-age-of-sexual-consent-than-18/1/

I will address Pro"s final two questions in reverse order, as the first is dependent on the second: Because, at age 15, people would be devastated to be pregnant we should not allow them legal sexual relations for the following reasons: 1) Contraception and sex education are not fool proof. Continuous Abstinence is the only sure way to prevent pregnancy and protect against STDs[1] 2) Although he insists that 15 year olds should only have safe sex, Con has continuously ignored that this could never be legally mandated as such due to failure rates as well as religious complications that cannot simply be shrugged off 3) The use of most contraceptive methods, particularly the more effective ones, carries a plethora of negative side effects[1] that are likely to be distracting to the education a 15 year old should otherwise be receiving. Therefore, although someone is physically mature enough to have and perhaps enjoy sex, we should not immediately allow it because: 1) There is no guarantee, and can never be a guarantee that they will not get pregnant or contract an STD. This is evidenced by statistical failure rates of contraception as well as common sense in observing how many teen pregnancies currently occur. Frequency of sex increases the frequency of pregnancy " even with very good contraception in place and used correctly (a failure rate of 1%), if 100 girls have sex an average of 5 times throughout the year this suggests that 5 girls are likely to get pregnant. In a fairly typical high school of 1400, 700 of which would be girls " that means 35 girls would be likely to get pregnant each year . Therefore frequency of sex should be limited " and disallowing it is most effective for this. 2) Even if we lived in a magical alternative universe where unicorns pranced about and we could enjoy the physical stimulation of sex while either party was able to choose with absolute certainty not to become pregnant or contract an STD, this does not address the emotional effects of a sexual relationship. Due to the developing nature of a 15 year old, these effects are likely to be most intense in this age group and should not be overlooked as being psychologically harmful and distracting. Conclusion: Pro has failed to contest Point #1 (logical demarcation of responsibility coinciding with Age of Majority), and Point #3 (Lack of maturity and brain development at age 15.) Additionally, Pro has provided a weak and erroneously presumptive argument for Point #2 (preventing unwanted pregnancies.) He has failed to formally submit any of his ideas erroneously introduced in R1, and has also failed to provide answers or even argument for important questions that have been raised throughout the debate. His entire stance is based upon an imaginary situation that is very far removed from reality, and he has failed to ground his reasoning in a realistic context. His citation is weak and lacks substance. His arguments have been sloppy and lack structure. Vote Con ! I have provided ample reason why 15 as the Age of Consent rather than 18 - 1) would result in an increase of unwanted teen pregnancies as a function of increased teen sex, 2) blurs the lines of responsibility between what a legal minor can choose to do and what their parents are ultimately legally responsible for, and 3) is not taking the psychological or educational well-being of the younger party into consideration. I have provided key citation where necessary, and I have responded to every point my opponent has raised. I have kept my arguments structured and able to be easily referenced and read. I thank my opponent for this debate, as well as all those who may read and/or vote on it in the future. [1] <URL>...

maxx233

I will address Pro"s final two questions in reverse order, as the first is dependent on the second: Because, at age 15, people would be devastated to be pregnant we should not allow them legal sexual relations for the following reasons: 1) Contraception and sex education are not fool proof. Continuous Abstinence is the only sure way to prevent pregnancy and protect against STDs[1] 2) Although he insists that 15 year olds should only have safe sex, Con has continuously ignored that this could never be legally mandated as such due to failure rates as well as religious complications that cannot simply be shrugged off 3) The use of most contraceptive methods, particularly the more effective ones, carries a plethora of negative side effects[1] that are likely to be distracting to the education a 15 year old should otherwise be receiving. Therefore, although someone is physically mature enough to have and perhaps enjoy sex, we should not immediately allow it because: 1) There is no guarantee, and can never be a guarantee that they will not get pregnant or contract an STD. This is evidenced by statistical failure rates of contraception as well as common sense in observing how many teen pregnancies currently occur. Frequency of sex increases the frequency of pregnancy " even with very good contraception in place and used correctly (a failure rate of 1%), if 100 girls have sex an average of 5 times throughout the year this suggests that 5 girls are likely to get pregnant. In a fairly typical high school of 1400, 700 of which would be girls " that means 35 girls would be likely to get pregnant each year . Therefore frequency of sex should be limited " and disallowing it is most effective for this. 2) Even if we lived in a magical alternative universe where unicorns pranced about and we could enjoy the physical stimulation of sex while either party was able to choose with absolute certainty not to become pregnant or contract an STD, this does not address the emotional effects of a sexual relationship. Due to the developing nature of a 15 year old, these effects are likely to be most intense in this age group and should not be overlooked as being psychologically harmful and distracting. Conclusion: Pro has failed to contest Point #1 (logical demarcation of responsibility coinciding with Age of Majority), and Point #3 (Lack of maturity and brain development at age 15.) Additionally, Pro has provided a weak and erroneously presumptive argument for Point #2 (preventing unwanted pregnancies.) He has failed to formally submit any of his ideas erroneously introduced in R1, and has also failed to provide answers or even argument for important questions that have been raised throughout the debate. His entire stance is based upon an imaginary situation that is very far removed from reality, and he has failed to ground his reasoning in a realistic context. His citation is weak and lacks substance. His arguments have been sloppy and lack structure. Vote Con ! I have provided ample reason why 15 as the Age of Consent rather than 18 - 1) would result in an increase of unwanted teen pregnancies as a function of increased teen sex, 2) blurs the lines of responsibility between what a legal minor can choose to do and what their parents are ultimately legally responsible for, and 3) is not taking the psychological or educational well-being of the younger party into consideration. I have provided key citation where necessary, and I have responded to every point my opponent has raised. I have kept my arguments structured and able to be easily referenced and read. I thank my opponent for this debate, as well as all those who may read and/or vote on it in the future. [1] http://womenshealth.gov...

Society

15-is-a-better-age-of-sexual-consent-than-18/1/

The number two is the same as one. 2 + 1 = 1 + 1 3 = 2 Of course, 3 = 2. That is very nice of a conundrum...

Jackie-Chan

The number two is the same as one. 2 + 1 = 1 + 1 3 = 2 Of course, 3 = 2. That is very nice of a conundrum...

Science

2-is-the-number-one./1/

You have not yet proved that 3 = 2 yet. Because the CON side can state that the PRO side has not proven its case and the CON can prevail, I use this option.

stephenyoo1995

You have not yet proved that 3 = 2 yet. Because the CON side can state that the PRO side has not proven its case and the CON can prevail, I use this option.

Science

2-is-the-number-one./1/

The greatest indicator in today's society for where a person will end up in life is where they started in life. Nowhere is this more true for minorities where racism and bigotry has repeatedly and throughout the generations squandered any chance at the American dream. It is the duty of government to give everybody an equal shake at life. The concept of liberty is not simply a lack of chains but a chance at gains. The opportunity to do better than our fathers. The first and most well known step of affirmative action was to eliminate racial bias in the case of Brown v. Board of Education which resulted in a busing system such that individuals from white neighborhoods and those from minority neighborhoods could end up getting the same opportunities. Prior to the decision everybody simply went to the closest school and if that school happened to be a majority minority school, it just happened to get far less money and far less support. After breaking down the idea of "separate but equal" we were left with what what amounted to the same thing without the mandate. We needed to take an affirmative action to make sure that equal opportunities were had by all. We needed to take action to make the institutions of this fine country free of bias after it had been entrenched for so long it wasn't simply going to go away because we said it was wrong in a loud voice. Affirmative action is an attempt to make sure that everybody gets a fair shake in society. That you can't simply hire people who look like you and deny the opportunities to those who don't. We don't simply take your word that you hired the best and the brightest and they happened to be the whitest. We need to make sure that those of our fathers generation and their father's generations are allowed to rise to their full potential and not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character. Admittedly the idea of quotas within affirmative action was a mistake. However, allowing individuals to suggest that all minorities just happened to be less qualified than their white counterparts is just as far from acceptable. Companies can hire whomever they want, they can freely choose one person over another. They can't, however, choose that person because of the color of their skin or gender and deny chances to those who have historically been denied chances. Is it too much to ask that when policemen patrol an area that some fraction of that police force look like those they are policing? That we should take a stand against quiet racism and allow the hiring and firing of people to the point that the entire workforce happens to be all white men? We can't just say "no" and leave it at that. The government needs to continue to take affirmative action to make sure that we banish the specter of racism, not simply the direct bigotry of hate, but also the scars left on those populations which were quelled by injustice and whose children do not have the opportunities of others because their parents didn't have the opportunity of others. It's a vicious cycle and we need to take action, not just in word but deed, to make sure it dies with our father's generation.

Tatarize

The greatest indicator in today's society for where a person will end up in life is where they started in life. Nowhere is this more true for minorities where racism and bigotry has repeatedly and throughout the generations squandered any chance at the American dream. It is the duty of government to give everybody an equal shake at life. The concept of liberty is not simply a lack of chains but a chance at gains. The opportunity to do better than our fathers. The first and most well known step of affirmative action was to eliminate racial bias in the case of Brown v. Board of Education which resulted in a busing system such that individuals from white neighborhoods and those from minority neighborhoods could end up getting the same opportunities. Prior to the decision everybody simply went to the closest school and if that school happened to be a majority minority school, it just happened to get far less money and far less support. After breaking down the idea of "separate but equal" we were left with what what amounted to the same thing without the mandate. We needed to take an affirmative action to make sure that equal opportunities were had by all. We needed to take action to make the institutions of this fine country free of bias after it had been entrenched for so long it wasn't simply going to go away because we said it was wrong in a loud voice. Affirmative action is an attempt to make sure that everybody gets a fair shake in society. That you can't simply hire people who look like you and deny the opportunities to those who don't. We don't simply take your word that you hired the best and the brightest and they happened to be the whitest. We need to make sure that those of our fathers generation and their father's generations are allowed to rise to their full potential and not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character. Admittedly the idea of quotas within affirmative action was a mistake. However, allowing individuals to suggest that all minorities just happened to be less qualified than their white counterparts is just as far from acceptable. Companies can hire whomever they want, they can freely choose one person over another. They can't, however, choose that person because of the color of their skin or gender and deny chances to those who have historically been denied chances. Is it too much to ask that when policemen patrol an area that some fraction of that police force look like those they are policing? That we should take a stand against quiet racism and allow the hiring and firing of people to the point that the entire workforce happens to be all white men? We can't just say "no" and leave it at that. The government needs to continue to take affirmative action to make sure that we banish the specter of racism, not simply the direct bigotry of hate, but also the scars left on those populations which were quelled by injustice and whose children do not have the opportunities of others because their parents didn't have the opportunity of others. It's a vicious cycle and we need to take action, not just in word but deed, to make sure it dies with our father's generation.

Politics

2b.-Affirmative-Action/1/

0 is nothing, information, and matter is 1 you can never show me 0 bananas, but you can understand what im saying

vi_spex

0 is nothing, information, and matter is 1 you can never show me 0 bananas, but you can understand what im saying

Science

3-divided-by-0-is-3/1/

3 sodas shared by 0 people is 3 sodas, as nothing is being divided. dividing with 0 is the same as dividing with 1, because there is no division going on, I cant share 2 pizzas with myself, and I cant share them with an imaginary man if 3 sodas become imaginary by an imaginary man drinking it, then you are right, but matter can never be destroyed 0 people doesn't exist in reality

vi_spex

3 sodas shared by 0 people is 3 sodas, as nothing is being divided. dividing with 0 is the same as dividing with 1, because there is no division going on, I cant share 2 pizzas with myself, and I cant share them with an imaginary man if 3 sodas become imaginary by an imaginary man drinking it, then you are right, but matter can never be destroyed 0 people doesn't exist in reality

Science

3-divided-by-0-is-3/1/

I have 3 real sodas, I divide them between no one, so no times, shared by none, so I have not done anything, so its true to say 0 division happened but I have 3 sodas 3/1=3 3/0=3 why is 3 divided with 1, 3 when there is no division going on? the outcome of dividing with 0 is the same as dividing with 1 everything is 1, everything is something, and nothing is 0, matter and information, physical and mental

vi_spex

I have 3 real sodas, I divide them between no one, so no times, shared by none, so I have not done anything, so its true to say 0 division happened but I have 3 sodas 3/1=3 3/0=3 why is 3 divided with 1, 3 when there is no division going on? the outcome of dividing with 0 is the same as dividing with 1 everything is 1, everything is something, and nothing is 0, matter and information, physical and mental

Science

3-divided-by-0-is-3/1/

do you agree?

vi_spex

do you agree?

Science

3-divided-by-0-is-3/1/

3*0=0 I agree there

vi_spex

3*0=0 I agree there

Science

3-divided-by-0-is-3/1/

There are 3 sides to a coin. Heads. Tails. The edge. We perform coin tosses to make decisions sometimes. Sheeple pick a side. Never the edge. This debate is about the tendency of the human species to choose a side, which the sheeple do, so they can be declared by the elites to be winners. The elites, those in the .000001% income bracket that attempt to control us, use this tendency to create more power for themselves. Don't listen to the propaganda and choose a side, eventually you will lose. Leaders do not live on the edge of the coin, they flip the coin. Leadership is a matter of greed,self righteousness, and the ability to flip the coin in the direction you want the sheeple to follow these days. The tools of elitist leaders are Science, War, and Justice. Good luck, let's have some fun!

Max.Wallace

There are 3 sides to a coin. Heads. Tails. The edge. We perform coin tosses to make decisions sometimes. Sheeple pick a side. Never the edge. This debate is about the tendency of the human species to choose a side, which the sheeple do, so they can be declared by the elites to be winners. The elites, those in the .000001% income bracket that attempt to control us, use this tendency to create more power for themselves. Don't listen to the propaganda and choose a side, eventually you will lose. Leaders do not live on the edge of the coin, they flip the coin. Leadership is a matter of greed,self righteousness, and the ability to flip the coin in the direction you want the sheeple to follow these days. The tools of elitist leaders are Science, War, and Justice. Good luck, let's have some fun!

Philosophy

3-sides-of-the-coin/1/

Considering the fact, that you joined, most likely as an avatar with prior experience, to Master Debate this issue show's us all, "we the people", your clearly dedicated commitment to the destruction of free will, and the war your saviors propose, on those that live with the "pursuit of happiness" as their only goal. Freedom does not apply, when the Ivory tower rookie speaks? That be you sir. As certainly you are a professional at this game, as no rook, would sign up yesterday and make an argument as polished as yours. Clear win for whoever is not an Ivory tower, debt ridden capitulate.

Max.Wallace

Considering the fact, that you joined, most likely as an avatar with prior experience, to Master Debate this issue show's us all, "we the people", your clearly dedicated commitment to the destruction of free will, and the war your saviors propose, on those that live with the "pursuit of happiness" as their only goal. Freedom does not apply, when the Ivory tower rookie speaks? That be you sir. As certainly you are a professional at this game, as no rook, would sign up yesterday and make an argument as polished as yours. Clear win for whoever is not an Ivory tower, debt ridden capitulate.

Philosophy

3-sides-of-the-coin/1/

Here it goes, take it or leave it, it matters not one bit to me. I will address all of your assertions in order based on my observations of life, of which I have 41 years experience, while according to your profile you have 18, which would mean I have a 23 point lead already, in a measure of experience, if your profile is not a blatant lie. The conundrum of this debate, with you as an opponent, is that it is equally likely, in my mind, that you are who you say, or just full of monkey dung. I quote you"Leaders, contrary too what many think, ultimately represent a percent of their population. " What percent? Certainly it is a minority percent these days, and the American Constitution, I believe was written to represent the safety of the majority. That is not what we are doing here in America today. We live in the land of minorities ruling, a land of division, not unity. We are all "special" because we are different, right? You say "That my dear friend, would only be the case in an utopian society of which, as you can by the lack of global proof, is still very much a figment of your imagination." You lost me on that one with poor grammar, borderline gibberish. And your words "Now, of course; leaders do not live on the edge of a coin- simply because they cannot. Leaders are diplomats, and thus leaders are, by virtue of international expectations and pressures, diplomatic." I disagree, unless you can tell me what diplomats, other then the ones our globalist koolaid drinkers have elected, and by that I mean outside of the US and our allies, which at this point in time I think there are almost no true allies to the US, only well dressed bloodsuckers. You say "It would be unwise for any person with responsibilities to make light of them, especially when these responsibilities could possibly amount to the fate of millions." That is a borderline threat, if you are who you say which would be a parliament or congressional insider that flips the coin. Well is that truly you sir? An 18 year old cohort of congress? That may be what is wrong with our system if our parliamentarians are taking advice from, in essence, children. Children running the world, that's a great idea! Kids love to kill bugs, at least most of them, but not you right? An 18 year old calling an elder unwise, mularkey! You speak of Martin Luther King, as if I do not understand the courage he had, to fight injustice. The fact is that I respect that man a great deal, and it has nothing to do with the color of his skin, or the color of mine. We have moved past that point now, and I believe that MLK would wish nothing more then that the people he freed from tyranny, would join in the fight to protect American values, such as marriage and families, forgiveness, and compassion, for taxpaying American citizens. He fought for equality, HERE! And you say sir, "P.S. I apologize for the inflammatory remarks made earlier (at the beginning), they are what I have just made them to be. For the purpose of this debate, they are merely there to 'spice' up this discourse; I hope you can return the sentiments. It would make for a much livelier debate !" I like it, and I may apologize at the end, as long as you can take words written, so can I. You say "What say I? Well, for one; I'm flattered that you think of me as an 'avatar'. Rest assured however Wallace, that I am indeed a 'rookie' with no prior experience of debating online." I would invite you to Google "avatar defined", and in my mind your are #2 most likely, and flattery was not the purpose of my observation. I am inclined to believe that you have never before deigned to stoop to the level of a truly public debate, not on the telly, unless you are truly an 18 year old advocate of the NWO. Here is something you said that is almost truth to me, "There are no separations up at the top, but there are too many down below, yes? However, those down below firmly fixate those separations before them- not allowing them to overcome them and climb rungs to reach heights." Those on top further the separations here, in the land of the free, home of the brave. Please retort to that specifically. This is a philosophical debate, not one with regurgitated factoids as evidence for truth, truth is in your eye, but stuck in your behind by the leaders. I necessarily dismiss the rest of your argument. I am glad you are not a capitulate, and pray you are not debt ridden, because your spirit will side with the debt, no matter who your owner is. Thank you, well put, it is all for fun in my stupid rat brain mind. Thanks P.S. Please do not convince your parliamentary cohorts to send the black ops to my house. If that is my fate, so be it.

Max.Wallace

Here it goes, take it or leave it, it matters not one bit to me. I will address all of your assertions in order based on my observations of life, of which I have 41 years experience, while according to your profile you have 18, which would mean I have a 23 point lead already, in a measure of experience, if your profile is not a blatant lie. The conundrum of this debate, with you as an opponent, is that it is equally likely, in my mind, that you are who you say, or just full of monkey dung. I quote you"Leaders, contrary too what many think, ultimately represent a percent of their population. " What percent? Certainly it is a minority percent these days, and the American Constitution, I believe was written to represent the safety of the majority. That is not what we are doing here in America today. We live in the land of minorities ruling, a land of division, not unity. We are all "special" because we are different, right? You say "That my dear friend, would only be the case in an utopian society of which, as you can by the lack of global proof, is still very much a figment of your imagination." You lost me on that one with poor grammar, borderline gibberish. And your words "Now, of course; leaders do not live on the edge of a coin- simply because they cannot. Leaders are diplomats, and thus leaders are, by virtue of international expectations and pressures, diplomatic." I disagree, unless you can tell me what diplomats, other then the ones our globalist koolaid drinkers have elected, and by that I mean outside of the US and our allies, which at this point in time I think there are almost no true allies to the US, only well dressed bloodsuckers. You say "It would be unwise for any person with responsibilities to make light of them, especially when these responsibilities could possibly amount to the fate of millions." That is a borderline threat, if you are who you say which would be a parliament or congressional insider that flips the coin. Well is that truly you sir? An 18 year old cohort of congress? That may be what is wrong with our system if our parliamentarians are taking advice from, in essence, children. Children running the world, that's a great idea! Kids love to kill bugs, at least most of them, but not you right? An 18 year old calling an elder unwise, mularkey! You speak of Martin Luther King, as if I do not understand the courage he had, to fight injustice. The fact is that I respect that man a great deal, and it has nothing to do with the color of his skin, or the color of mine. We have moved past that point now, and I believe that MLK would wish nothing more then that the people he freed from tyranny, would join in the fight to protect American values, such as marriage and families, forgiveness, and compassion, for taxpaying American citizens. He fought for equality, HERE! And you say sir, "P.S. I apologize for the inflammatory remarks made earlier (at the beginning), they are what I have just made them to be. For the purpose of this debate, they are merely there to 'spice' up this discourse; I hope you can return the sentiments. It would make for a much livelier debate !" I like it, and I may apologize at the end, as long as you can take words written, so can I. You say "What say I? Well, for one; I'm flattered that you think of me as an 'avatar'. Rest assured however Wallace, that I am indeed a 'rookie' with no prior experience of debating online." I would invite you to Google "avatar defined", and in my mind your are #2 most likely, and flattery was not the purpose of my observation. I am inclined to believe that you have never before deigned to stoop to the level of a truly public debate, not on the telly, unless you are truly an 18 year old advocate of the NWO. Here is something you said that is almost truth to me, "There are no separations up at the top, but there are too many down below, yes? However, those down below firmly fixate those separations before them- not allowing them to overcome them and climb rungs to reach heights." Those on top further the separations here, in the land of the free, home of the brave. Please retort to that specifically. This is a philosophical debate, not one with regurgitated factoids as evidence for truth, truth is in your eye, but stuck in your behind by the leaders. I necessarily dismiss the rest of your argument. I am glad you are not a capitulate, and pray you are not debt ridden, because your spirit will side with the debt, no matter who your owner is. Thank you, well put, it is all for fun in my stupid rat brain mind. Thanks P.S. Please do not convince your parliamentary cohorts to send the black ops to my house. If that is my fate, so be it.

Philosophy

3-sides-of-the-coin/1/

forfeiture is an act of submission., clear win for the courageous.

Max.Wallace

forfeiture is an act of submission., clear win for the courageous.

Philosophy

3-sides-of-the-coin/1/

Due to the black art of psychology, you believe you know who and what I am, but I believe I know you no less as well.

Max.Wallace

Due to the black art of psychology, you believe you know who and what I am, but I believe I know you no less as well.

Philosophy

3-sides-of-the-coin/1/

Max Wallace, do you take pleasure in stating the obvious? Leaders, contrary too what many think, ultimately represent a percent of their population. This is where your first error lies. I take it you assume by your words "[they] want the sheeple to follow" that leaders represent 100% of their national electorate, and thus expect everyone to naturally follow them based on their status? That my dear friend, would only be the case in an utopian society of which, as you can by the lack of global proof, is still very much a figment of your imagination. Now, of course; leaders do not live on the edge of a coin- simply because they cannot. Leaders are diplomats, and thus leaders are, by virtue of international expectations and pressures, diplomatic. It would be unwise for any person with responsibilities to make light of them, especially when these responsibilities could possibly amount to the fate of millions. You forget, or perhaps are not informed, about the many instances where leadership has been a tool used to carve out the basal beginnings of social justice. Take for instance the civil rights movement which took place during the 1960's. If Martin Luther King Jr. had not, and I repeat, had not, usurped the discriminatory state of affairs that plagued American society during this era without sufficient leadership skills to aid him... the situation in America for those of darker skin, foreign nationality, disability and orientation would have been very dire indeed. Perhaps at the time, Mr King had no idea of the precedent he placed down on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial that day, but now, fifty years on many are glad Mr King had a dream that day. That, is leadership my friend. It is not based on the notions of "greed, self-righteousness or the ability to [manipulate]", but rather it is based on the ability to tell the truth, and for basic human decency to acknowledge it. The leadership you have been exposed to, or interpreted in whatever fashion or manner; is indeed a warped perception of what leadership is and should be. P.S. I apologize for the inflammatory remarks made earlier (at the beginning), they are what I have just made them to be. For the purpose of this debate, they are merely there to 'spice' up this discourse; I hope you can return the sentiments. It would make for a much livelier debate !

PauseAndThink

Max Wallace, do you take pleasure in stating the obvious? Leaders, contrary too what many think, ultimately represent a percent of their population. This is where your first error lies. I take it you assume by your words "[they] want the sheeple to follow" that leaders represent 100% of their national electorate, and thus expect everyone to naturally follow them based on their status? That my dear friend, would only be the case in an utopian society of which, as you can by the lack of global proof, is still very much a figment of your imagination. Now, of course; leaders do not live on the edge of a coin- simply because they cannot. Leaders are diplomats, and thus leaders are, by virtue of international expectations and pressures, diplomatic. It would be unwise for any person with responsibilities to make light of them, especially when these responsibilities could possibly amount to the fate of millions. You forget, or perhaps are not informed, about the many instances where leadership has been a tool used to carve out the basal beginnings of social justice. Take for instance the civil rights movement which took place during the 1960's. If Martin Luther King Jr. had not, and I repeat, had not, usurped the discriminatory state of affairs that plagued American society during this era without sufficient leadership skills to aid him... the situation in America for those of darker skin, foreign nationality, disability and orientation would have been very dire indeed. Perhaps at the time, Mr King had no idea of the precedent he placed down on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial that day, but now, fifty years on many are glad Mr King had a dream that day. That, is leadership my friend. It is not based on the notions of "greed, self-righteousness or the ability to [manipulate]", but rather it is based on the ability to tell the truth, and for basic human decency to acknowledge it. The leadership you have been exposed to, or interpreted in whatever fashion or manner; is indeed a warped perception of what leadership is and should be. P.S. I apologize for the inflammatory remarks made earlier (at the beginning), they are what I have just made them to be. For the purpose of this debate, they are merely there to 'spice' up this discourse; I hope you can return the sentiments. It would make for a much livelier debate !

Philosophy

3-sides-of-the-coin/1/

Mr Max Wallace... *sigh* What say I? Well, for one; I'm flattered that you think of me as an 'avatar'. Rest assured however Wallace, that I am indeed a 'rookie' with no prior experience of debating online. I hope to see you give me a chance to discourse this topic- regardless of how polished I sound ( a mere matter of carefully reading what I have read, and thinking before I write), without you attacking my personal attributes to compensate for the lack of evidence you bring to the table to debate and stand by your reasoning. Therefore, I strike everything you have said as null and void. We are entering a debate for goodness sakes man, this is a contest of ideas. A plateau in which we contend notions and either regard or disregard them. Now, to actually move on to the topics you so wondrously thought your years on this earth gave reason to justify. There is no added physiological difference to being in a position of leadership. As one who has spoken to multiple Members of Parliament (MP's), there is nothing different in the way they may dress or carry themselves, that would allow me to distinguish them from the average commuter using public transport. You, however, Wallace, seem to receive most of your information from biased third party reels, such as the media for your source of enlightenment concerning several topics. It is evident. It is clear. You highlight your ignorance and your malleability to be controlled by media outlets when you begin to make conclusions as to who "[are] the people", and in effect separate yourself from who you consider the leaders to be. You see Wallace, that is a secret those at the top will never tell you, but which I will gladly tell all. Any-one can be at the top. Media, marketing, events and parliamentary debates- it's part of the facade that tells people like you, Wallace; that you have to be of a certain caliber and background to belong in a place such as Parliament House. There are no separations up at the top, but there are too many down below, yes? However, those down below firmly fixate those separations before them- not allowing them to overcome them and climb rungs to reach heights. Ivory tower rookie? How absurd! To think you know nothing of my past, nor my struggles, to dare stand and throw both stone and stick to judge me! I do accept the praise. I shall take it as such. But yes, Mr Wallace, some people are inhibited in the world with real trees, and real people, with their real problems- so much so; that topics such as this, "we the people" and all those who have faced such inhibiting forms of discrimination come here to speak their mind! Imagine if all the to be scholars- those with aspirations in terms of philosophy and politics and other debatable topics, came here to speak their mind! The flush demographic would change the entire face of 'Debate.org'- overnight! You cannot judge a person based on the tone, nor standard of English they wish to contend! People who blame others for pursuing dreams of education and enlightenment sicken me, to no end do they sicken me. I ask you sir, to stand up with real evidence to defend your point; so that we can get a true perspective of another persons view on leadership. Stick to your topic, or do you forfeit in a lowly attempt to cover your lack of evidence? Debt-ridden capitulate? It is far from a capitulate my friend.

PauseAndThink

Mr Max Wallace... *sigh* What say I? Well, for one; I'm flattered that you think of me as an 'avatar'. Rest assured however Wallace, that I am indeed a 'rookie' with no prior experience of debating online. I hope to see you give me a chance to discourse this topic- regardless of how polished I sound ( a mere matter of carefully reading what I have read, and thinking before I write), without you attacking my personal attributes to compensate for the lack of evidence you bring to the table to debate and stand by your reasoning. Therefore, I strike everything you have said as null and void. We are entering a debate for goodness sakes man, this is a contest of ideas. A plateau in which we contend notions and either regard or disregard them. Now, to actually move on to the topics you so wondrously thought your years on this earth gave reason to justify. There is no added physiological difference to being in a position of leadership. As one who has spoken to multiple Members of Parliament (MP's), there is nothing different in the way they may dress or carry themselves, that would allow me to distinguish them from the average commuter using public transport. You, however, Wallace, seem to receive most of your information from biased third party reels, such as the media for your source of enlightenment concerning several topics. It is evident. It is clear. You highlight your ignorance and your malleability to be controlled by media outlets when you begin to make conclusions as to who "[are] the people", and in effect separate yourself from who you consider the leaders to be. You see Wallace, that is a secret those at the top will never tell you, but which I will gladly tell all. Any-one can be at the top. Media, marketing, events and parliamentary debates- it's part of the facade that tells people like you, Wallace; that you have to be of a certain caliber and background to belong in a place such as Parliament House. There are no separations up at the top, but there are too many down below, yes? However, those down below firmly fixate those separations before them- not allowing them to overcome them and climb rungs to reach heights. Ivory tower rookie? How absurd! To think you know nothing of my past, nor my struggles, to dare stand and throw both stone and stick to judge me! I do accept the praise. I shall take it as such. But yes, Mr Wallace, some people are inhibited in the world with real trees, and real people, with their real problems- so much so; that topics such as this, "we the people" and all those who have faced such inhibiting forms of discrimination come here to speak their mind! Imagine if all the to be scholars- those with aspirations in terms of philosophy and politics and other debatable topics, came here to speak their mind! The flush demographic would change the entire face of 'Debate.org'- overnight! You cannot judge a person based on the tone, nor standard of English they wish to contend! People who blame others for pursuing dreams of education and enlightenment sicken me, to no end do they sicken me. I ask you sir, to stand up with real evidence to defend your point; so that we can get a true perspective of another persons view on leadership. Stick to your topic, or do you forfeit in a lowly attempt to cover your lack of evidence? Debt-ridden capitulate? It is far from a capitulate my friend.

Philosophy

3-sides-of-the-coin/1/

Yes, the first argument is twisting the resolution. That's called a prison wall. It is neither a fence in the traditional sense or a border. The term border fence is specific enough to warrant the exclusion of such definitions. People illegally enter the country anyway. A massive super-expensive fence isn't going to do squat. As much as we love the Great Wall of China everybody agrees that it's a pretty massive failure, there's just too much border to guard. In the age of explosives and technology it gets worse. People will just blow the fence up. Seriously, you could walk up to it with some dynamite or any of a variety of explosives and blow it up. You wouldn't even need to care about going through before during or after. Blow a few holes in it and you'll have easy passage for a few months before our government gets around to doing squat about it. Ineffective certainly but it's probably pretty cheap, right? How does 49 billion dollars sound? <URL>... Not that nice eh? --- I agree that we need to control immigration but I don't agree that an ineffective waste of massive amounts of cash is the right way to go about this. I could fix the illegal immigration for a few million dollars. Rat out any business that hires illegal immigrant labor and you get $5,000, a temporary work visa, and accelerated approval for you and your family to immigrate to the United States. We'd pay out a few million dollars and nobody would ever hire illegal immigrants again. Problem solved. No economic encouragement to break our laws and they won't break our laws. We don't need to spend 49 billion dollars (that's more than 150 dollars from every man, woman, and child in the United States (including the 11 million here illegally)) There's a right way to go about securing the borders and a wrong way. Where there's a will there's a way. We need to get rid of the reasons people come here rather than dealing with the problem superficially and suggesting that a big fence will stop people when it can't and doesn't work. We don't really want to solve the problem. The solution is downright trivial and the reason for the political support for the Border Fence is not because people think it will work, but because they know it will fail while allowing them to appear strong on the issue. Punish the businesses exploiting workers and denying opportunities of American jobs for American workers. Just because there's a problem doesn't mean we need to instantly defer to a really bad, ineffective, and expensive "non-solution"... however this is government we're talking about and that's how government tends to operate. Market forces and human nature could fix this problem in short order, if anybody had the political will to enforce.

Tatarize

Yes, the first argument is twisting the resolution. That's called a prison wall. It is neither a fence in the traditional sense or a border. The term border fence is specific enough to warrant the exclusion of such definitions. People illegally enter the country anyway. A massive super-expensive fence isn't going to do squat. As much as we love the Great Wall of China everybody agrees that it's a pretty massive failure, there's just too much border to guard. In the age of explosives and technology it gets worse. People will just blow the fence up. Seriously, you could walk up to it with some dynamite or any of a variety of explosives and blow it up. You wouldn't even need to care about going through before during or after. Blow a few holes in it and you'll have easy passage for a few months before our government gets around to doing squat about it. Ineffective certainly but it's probably pretty cheap, right? How does 49 billion dollars sound? http://www.sfgate.com... Not that nice eh? --- I agree that we need to control immigration but I don't agree that an ineffective waste of massive amounts of cash is the right way to go about this. I could fix the illegal immigration for a few million dollars. Rat out any business that hires illegal immigrant labor and you get $5,000, a temporary work visa, and accelerated approval for you and your family to immigrate to the United States. We'd pay out a few million dollars and nobody would ever hire illegal immigrants again. Problem solved. No economic encouragement to break our laws and they won't break our laws. We don't need to spend 49 billion dollars (that's more than 150 dollars from every man, woman, and child in the United States (including the 11 million here illegally)) There's a right way to go about securing the borders and a wrong way. Where there's a will there's a way. We need to get rid of the reasons people come here rather than dealing with the problem superficially and suggesting that a big fence will stop people when it can't and doesn't work. We don't really want to solve the problem. The solution is downright trivial and the reason for the political support for the Border Fence is not because people think it will work, but because they know it will fail while allowing them to appear strong on the issue. Punish the businesses exploiting workers and denying opportunities of American jobs for American workers. Just because there's a problem doesn't mean we need to instantly defer to a really bad, ineffective, and expensive "non-solution"... however this is government we're talking about and that's how government tends to operate. Market forces and human nature could fix this problem in short order, if anybody had the political will to enforce.

Society

3b.-Border-Fence/1/

Some of you may be wondering, what exactly do I mean by a border fence? Some of you may think you already know. I will define border fence: Border Fence: The fence around the border of any prison. I am in favor of continuing to use the idea of a border fence. First, it keeps criminals in. This goal also requires other things, such as guards, else the prisoners would escape, but having a border fence certainly limits escapees. Second, it works to separate the prison from the outside world. It works not only as a real separator; it is also a symbol of the separation between prison life and life outside prison. The fence costs very little, and it makes the job of guards much easier. It may even make their jobs so much easier that fewer guards are needed to keep watch, saving money in the long run. I see the above as pretty solid, so I will now give a brief outline of what many of you may have originally expected this debate to be about - a fence between the border of the US and Mexico. This is only for those who will not accept my 'twisting' of the resolution. It is a fact that without such a fence, people illegally enter the country. This could be limited by the use of guards, but much like the prison scenario, a fence would reduce the number of guards needed. Funds could come from both taxpayer money [since it is law enforcement], as well as from groups who would donate money and time, such as this one: <URL>... A fence keeps citizens in their own country, unless they have clearance to cross the border legally. This is imperative. To not uphold this is to say that we do not care - to say that we are willing to let illegal aliens take advantage of us. Like all laws, immigration laws must be upheld. There is a proper process immigrants must go through to come to America. We can obviously make whatever necessary changes to this process, but we still have to have a process for tax purposes at the very least. To uphold this process and the fair system we have set up, it is advisable to have a border between the US and Mexico.

beem0r

Some of you may be wondering, what exactly do I mean by a border fence? Some of you may think you already know. I will define border fence: Border Fence: The fence around the border of any prison. I am in favor of continuing to use the idea of a border fence. First, it keeps criminals in. This goal also requires other things, such as guards, else the prisoners would escape, but having a border fence certainly limits escapees. Second, it works to separate the prison from the outside world. It works not only as a real separator; it is also a symbol of the separation between prison life and life outside prison. The fence costs very little, and it makes the job of guards much easier. It may even make their jobs so much easier that fewer guards are needed to keep watch, saving money in the long run. I see the above as pretty solid, so I will now give a brief outline of what many of you may have originally expected this debate to be about - a fence between the border of the US and Mexico. This is only for those who will not accept my 'twisting' of the resolution. It is a fact that without such a fence, people illegally enter the country. This could be limited by the use of guards, but much like the prison scenario, a fence would reduce the number of guards needed. Funds could come from both taxpayer money [since it is law enforcement], as well as from groups who would donate money and time, such as this one: http://www.borderfenceproject.com... A fence keeps citizens in their own country, unless they have clearance to cross the border legally. This is imperative. To not uphold this is to say that we do not care - to say that we are willing to let illegal aliens take advantage of us. Like all laws, immigration laws must be upheld. There is a proper process immigrants must go through to come to America. We can obviously make whatever necessary changes to this process, but we still have to have a process for tax purposes at the very least. To uphold this process and the fair system we have set up, it is advisable to have a border between the US and Mexico.

Society

3b.-Border-Fence/1/

hai i wil argue imnem i s bes rap artiist.

ADHDavid

hai i wil argue imnem i s bes rap artiist.

Education

3minem-iz-th-bet-raper/1/

As you can see, con has not provided a stable opening with evidence to back it up, claiming that he is a "god". I see no proof of his omnipotence, omniscience, or omnipresence, so this is easily refuted. Now I will follow up on why I Eminem is the best rapper. 1: Sales and Records Eminem is the best selling rap artist of all time, and has since 2014 surpassed Tupac in amount of albums sold. He has had 83 top 100 chart songs, as well as many platinum records. He is the most successful rapper, and probably the best known of all time (Although that is speculation, not based on evidence, I will point that out right now. ) 2: Lyricism Eminem is best known for his witty rap, and his un-politically correct demeanor in rap. He is able to change between different characters, and basically "Ract" Out the situation, or explain it clearly using his own words and rhythm. His song "Rap God" Has the most words in a hit song ever, with around 1600, and each one of them is heard very clearly. 3: He has a disability! It's true, Slim Shady has a disability that affects his brain, and how it functions. In high school, he was beaten badly by a bully, and his head was damaged in the process, causing him to have at least one seizure. If this brain injury affects him, and he is still out-preforming most other rappers today, that is something to marvel 4: Closing... All in all, Eminem is not the best person in the world, or the most horrible. He's a normal human being, and that's what makes him so great. He doesn't rap about the club, prostitution, hoes, bitches, guns and money. (Maybe guns..) but other things....that are just as controversial. So, as you can see, all these things make Eminem great! Vote Pro! <URL>... <URL>... <URL>... <URL>...

ADHDavid

As you can see, con has not provided a stable opening with evidence to back it up, claiming that he is a "god". I see no proof of his omnipotence, omniscience, or omnipresence, so this is easily refuted. Now I will follow up on why I Eminem is the best rapper. 1: Sales and Records Eminem is the best selling rap artist of all time, and has since 2014 surpassed Tupac in amount of albums sold. He has had 83 top 100 chart songs, as well as many platinum records. He is the most successful rapper, and probably the best known of all time (Although that is speculation, not based on evidence, I will point that out right now. ) 2: Lyricism Eminem is best known for his witty rap, and his un-politically correct demeanor in rap. He is able to change between different characters, and basically "Ract" Out the situation, or explain it clearly using his own words and rhythm. His song "Rap God" Has the most words in a hit song ever, with around 1600, and each one of them is heard very clearly. 3: He has a disability! It's true, Slim Shady has a disability that affects his brain, and how it functions. In high school, he was beaten badly by a bully, and his head was damaged in the process, causing him to have at least one seizure. If this brain injury affects him, and he is still out-preforming most other rappers today, that is something to marvel 4: Closing... All in all, Eminem is not the best person in the world, or the most horrible. He's a normal human being, and that's what makes him so great. He doesn't rap about the club, prostitution, hoes, bitches, guns and money. (Maybe guns..) but other things....that are just as controversial. So, as you can see, all these things make Eminem great! Vote Pro! http://thesmokinggun.com... http://www.nydailynews.com... http://www.houstonpress.com... http://www.yorapper.com...

Education

3minem-iz-th-bet-raper/1/

3 pac is legendary. <URL>...

DATXDUDE

3 pac is legendary. https://www.youtube.com...

Arts

3pac/1/

0 hoots s0n, str8 up. Donn giv no h00ts bout' noWacK a$$ shii]t s0m. Brieh.

DATXDUDE

0 hoots s0n, str8 up. Donn giv no h00ts bout' noWacK a$$ shii]t s0m. Brieh.

Arts

3pac/1/

Legendary s0n. <URL>... H00t a$$ BlTCH

DATXDUDE

Legendary s0n. https://www.youtube.com... H00t a$$ BlTCH

Arts

3pac/1/

gOOGlE? Wh0 neds G000GlE? 3pAc doN't Ned dat shiiet brieh. 0 h00ts #ZHG

DATXDUDE

gOOGlE? Wh0 neds G000GlE? 3pAc doN't Ned dat shiiet brieh. 0 h00ts #ZHG

Arts

3pac/1/

Definition: legend G2;ledA8;(@)nd/ noun 1. a traditional story sometimes popularly regarded as historical but not authenticated. "the legend of King Arthur" synonyms:myth, saga, epic, folk tale, folk story, traditional story, tale, story, fairy tale, narrative, fable, romance; More historical the story of a saint's life. "the mosaics illustrate the Legends of the Saints" 2. an extremely famous or notorious person, especially in a particular field. "the man was a living legend" Neither of these definitons apply to 3pac. Source: <URL>...

Morganic

Definition: legend G2;lɛdA8;(ə)nd/ noun 1. a traditional story sometimes popularly regarded as historical but not authenticated. "the legend of King Arthur" synonyms:myth, saga, epic, folk tale, folk story, traditional story, tale, story, fairy tale, narrative, fable, romance; More historical the story of a saint's life. "the mosaics illustrate the Legends of the Saints" 2. an extremely famous or notorious person, especially in a particular field. "the man was a living legend" Neither of these definitons apply to 3pac. Source: http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...

Arts

3pac/1/

My opponent makes another excellent point, however after running "3pac" through a Google trends search I discover yet more evidence that "3pac" cannot be described as a "legend" <URL>... In fact when looking for searches related to "3pac" Google says "Not enough search volume to show results." I thank my opponent for his insightful comments and await his response with baited breath.

Morganic

My opponent makes another excellent point, however after running "3pac" through a Google trends search I discover yet more evidence that "3pac" cannot be described as a "legend" https://www.google.com... In fact when looking for searches related to "3pac" Google says "Not enough search volume to show results." I thank my opponent for his insightful comments and await his response with baited breath.

Arts

3pac/1/

We have acceptable amounts of campaign finance regulations we simply need to enforce those regulations in order to properly ensure a fair and productive election. While many people worry about lobbyists and companies buying up politicians one need look no further than Barack Obama. He ran an entire campaign primarily off small contributions from everyday people. He raised more money than any campaign in history without taking a dime from lobbyists. We need to keep our politicians accountable rather than have them write more loopholes into clever sounding laws. This campaign season we discovered a rather impressive loophole that McCain wrote into the McCain-Feingold Campaign finance reform bill that exempts travel on your wife's private company jet. Who's wife would even have a private company jet? Oh, McCain's wife does. -- We don't need to change the law we need to enforce the laws we have and make politicians accountable to the people. That's the point of democracy. Ross Perot did do well because he had money. If you want to spend your money to run a political campaign you can still do this. Mitt Romney this election cycle was largely self-funded. But, ultimately it's the people who decide regardless of where the money comes from. Perot failed. Romney failed. And lobbyists, such as those running McCain's campaign, failed. The system works. What we really need are run off elections and the ability of third party candidates to have a voice without sapping votes off from the second choice candidates. We need a fair and productive system for all the voices in politics. As it turns out, the laws we have work and people don't forgive those in the pockets of corporations. The people aren't stupid and they vote for those who will best serve them. The politicians aren't stupid and can wiggle out of whatever laws we have them write for themselves. We must, as a people, hold them accountable.

Tatarize

We have acceptable amounts of campaign finance regulations we simply need to enforce those regulations in order to properly ensure a fair and productive election. While many people worry about lobbyists and companies buying up politicians one need look no further than Barack Obama. He ran an entire campaign primarily off small contributions from everyday people. He raised more money than any campaign in history without taking a dime from lobbyists. We need to keep our politicians accountable rather than have them write more loopholes into clever sounding laws. This campaign season we discovered a rather impressive loophole that McCain wrote into the McCain-Feingold Campaign finance reform bill that exempts travel on your wife's private company jet. Who's wife would even have a private company jet? Oh, McCain's wife does. -- We don't need to change the law we need to enforce the laws we have and make politicians accountable to the people. That's the point of democracy. Ross Perot did do well because he had money. If you want to spend your money to run a political campaign you can still do this. Mitt Romney this election cycle was largely self-funded. But, ultimately it's the people who decide regardless of where the money comes from. Perot failed. Romney failed. And lobbyists, such as those running McCain's campaign, failed. The system works. What we really need are run off elections and the ability of third party candidates to have a voice without sapping votes off from the second choice candidates. We need a fair and productive system for all the voices in politics. As it turns out, the laws we have work and people don't forgive those in the pockets of corporations. The people aren't stupid and they vote for those who will best serve them. The politicians aren't stupid and can wiggle out of whatever laws we have them write for themselves. We must, as a people, hold them accountable.

Politics

4a.-Campaign-Finance-Reform/1/

A campaign lives and dies by money and it's getting worse and worse every election cycle. When money is more important than votes, we find that anybody we need to elect is going to be far more indebted to the money than the people. The current system is a legal nightmare, a joke, and an albatross around the necks of everybody in politics. I don't know what the solutions to the problems are, but I do know that the problems are not going to be solved by doing nothing. We need to reform the system because the current system is categorically broken. 1) Politicians are indebted to the money. 2) The superwealthy rather than the most qualified can most easily seek office. 3) To comply with the current system you need an army of lawyers. 4) The 3rd party candidates cannot afford an army of lawyers and thus are forbade. 5) The rules are seemingly random and makeshift as to what is an isn't acceptable. 6) Campaign rules at present violate freedom of speech dictating what is and isn't acceptable. 7) Regardless if somebody opts into campaign finance they are buried by the 527s and are hamstrung by the rules and unable to fight back. 8) The rules limit the amount of funds one can raise and so if one candidate opts in and another opts out, the candidate as part of the system is doomed to be outspent. We need to find a way to remove money from the equation without limiting free speech or making it a requirement to hire an army of lawyers, shutting out third-party voices and insulating incumbents from the will of the people. The money in politics must be removed, not half-socialized, if you want and agree to jump through certain hoops, only to be buried by a quasi-independent group's 24/7 attack ads with bottomless funds and vile lies. We need something better than the best politician money can buy. There are a good number of proposals to draw from, from clean money to state funded elections as to how we remove money from having a greater input to our democracy than the people. -- We need Campaign Finance Reform.

Tatarize

A campaign lives and dies by money and it's getting worse and worse every election cycle. When money is more important than votes, we find that anybody we need to elect is going to be far more indebted to the money than the people. The current system is a legal nightmare, a joke, and an albatross around the necks of everybody in politics. I don't know what the solutions to the problems are, but I do know that the problems are not going to be solved by doing nothing. We need to reform the system because the current system is categorically broken. 1) Politicians are indebted to the money. 2) The superwealthy rather than the most qualified can most easily seek office. 3) To comply with the current system you need an army of lawyers. 4) The 3rd party candidates cannot afford an army of lawyers and thus are forbade. 5) The rules are seemingly random and makeshift as to what is an isn't acceptable. 6) Campaign rules at present violate freedom of speech dictating what is and isn't acceptable. 7) Regardless if somebody opts into campaign finance they are buried by the 527s and are hamstrung by the rules and unable to fight back. 8) The rules limit the amount of funds one can raise and so if one candidate opts in and another opts out, the candidate as part of the system is doomed to be outspent. We need to find a way to remove money from the equation without limiting free speech or making it a requirement to hire an army of lawyers, shutting out third-party voices and insulating incumbents from the will of the people. The money in politics must be removed, not half-socialized, if you want and agree to jump through certain hoops, only to be buried by a quasi-independent group's 24/7 attack ads with bottomless funds and vile lies. We need something better than the best politician money can buy. There are a good number of proposals to draw from, from clean money to state funded elections as to how we remove money from having a greater input to our democracy than the people. -- We need Campaign Finance Reform.

Politics

4b.-Campaign-Finance-Reform/1/

Thank you for this debate. My opponent has failed to provide an opening argument, so I will be forced to reply to another one of his arguments on this site on the same subject, but first I will say my views on the subject. There is absolutely no evidence that the government had anything to do with the 9/11 disasters, besides perhaps incompetence. I will reply, paragraph by paragraph to this thread. <URL>... You claim that we were 'told' that we were attacked for our 'freedom and prosperity', while I do not believe that is true that is more of a political war mongering point rather than an official explanation. I propose, with UBL's (Ussama Bin Laden) own rhetoric that we were attacked for our foreign policy of intervention and support of Israel. Your step back into history has been used time and time again by 9/11 conspiracy theorists. The argument here is fallacious, what Hitler did has absolutely nothing to do with what is going on right now. Events being fabricated in the past is NOT, in any way shape or form evidence of events being fabricated NOW. The collapse of Building 7 was not sudden, it had been on fire for hours before its collapse, and had suffered serious structural damage- including key support pillers falling, and a main gas line breaking, feeding the fire. Reporters making mistakes is to be expected in a serious incident like this one, if you're suggesting that the US government notified all media of this- including British media, yet somehow none of them have talked yet is foolish. As anybody who has taken a class in logic must know, just because something has never happened before does not mean it is impossible. Before the first plane flew, no planes have flown. Does that mean flight is impossible? While it may show slight similar ties to a controlled demolition, every building crashing would likely show similarities to a controlled demolition. When you look at the bigger picture, those similarities dissapear. Debris fell everywhere, on the road, into other buildings, and into other buildings far outside of the WTC area. A controlled demolition would NEVER allow any such thing to happen. The Bush administration did not need 9/11 to enter into the middle east. regardless of the intentions, staging a terror attack would be too radical, even for bush, when he could have just attacked at will- by, for example, making up.... oh.... a nuclear / biological threat? I am looking forward to your other arguments on the subject.

DucoNihilum

Thank you for this debate. My opponent has failed to provide an opening argument, so I will be forced to reply to another one of his arguments on this site on the same subject, but first I will say my views on the subject. There is absolutely no evidence that the government had anything to do with the 9/11 disasters, besides perhaps incompetence. I will reply, paragraph by paragraph to this thread. http://www.debate.org... You claim that we were 'told' that we were attacked for our 'freedom and prosperity', while I do not believe that is true that is more of a political war mongering point rather than an official explanation. I propose, with UBL's (Ussama Bin Laden) own rhetoric that we were attacked for our foreign policy of intervention and support of Israel. Your step back into history has been used time and time again by 9/11 conspiracy theorists. The argument here is fallacious, what Hitler did has absolutely nothing to do with what is going on right now. Events being fabricated in the past is NOT, in any way shape or form evidence of events being fabricated NOW. The collapse of Building 7 was not sudden, it had been on fire for hours before its collapse, and had suffered serious structural damage- including key support pillers falling, and a main gas line breaking, feeding the fire. Reporters making mistakes is to be expected in a serious incident like this one, if you're suggesting that the US government notified all media of this- including British media, yet somehow none of them have talked yet is foolish. As anybody who has taken a class in logic must know, just because something has never happened before does not mean it is impossible. Before the first plane flew, no planes have flown. Does that mean flight is impossible? While it may show slight similar ties to a controlled demolition, every building crashing would likely show similarities to a controlled demolition. When you look at the bigger picture, those similarities dissapear. Debris fell everywhere, on the road, into other buildings, and into other buildings far outside of the WTC area. A controlled demolition would NEVER allow any such thing to happen. The Bush administration did not need 9/11 to enter into the middle east. regardless of the intentions, staging a terror attack would be too radical, even for bush, when he could have just attacked at will- by, for example, making up.... oh.... a nuclear / biological threat? I am looking forward to your other arguments on the subject.

Politics

9-11-Who-really-attacked-us-and-why/1/

As I tried to make clear for you before, while some politicians (Including GwB) may have used buzz words like 'they hate us for our freedom' the official reason was absolutely not 'they hate us for our freedom'- and to prove that I read though my copy of The 9/11 Commission Report- entitled the "Final report of the national commission on terrorist attacks upon the united states", showing that is very clearly the official government version. In this report, on chapter 5, it speaks of the motives of the mastermind of the 9/11 plot, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. In that, it states his motives as "not from his experiences there as a student, but rather from his violent disagreement with U.S. foreign policy favoring Israel." UBL has some similar rhetoric, but much of it can be confused into what GwB was saying. Here are a few quotes from UBL. He directed his followers to "Kill Americans anywhere" Tenth Public Hearing, Testimony of Louis Freeh. 9/11 Commission (April 13, 2004). Some of his claimed intentions for the 9/11 attack (In his video released taking full responsibility for the attack) were to "restore freedom to our nation," to "punish the aggressor in kind," and to inflict economic damage on America. He declared that a continuing objective of his holy war was to "bleed America to the point of bankruptcy." While I disagree with GwB on his misunderstanding of the 9/11 attacks, this is not evidence of any orchestration. While your showing that false flag operations have occurred in the past, that has absolutely no relevance to this incident at hand. Just because they can does not mean they will- furthermore the situations had little in common. You're bring up totally irrelevant material. Trying to use any of this as proof or even evidence for 9/11 being orchestrated by the US government is simply fallacious, using, among others, the appeal to probability. Investigation teams did investigate the steel- however, not every piece of steel needed to be investigates. What you call small bits of debris weren't 'small bits'- they were actually rather large hunks of the trade center falling onto it. I question your engineering knowledge, saying that ALL columns would have to be cut 'within a split second', mixing a few major columns destruction and a fire fueled by thousands of gallons of fuel could easily cause the structural weakness required to collapse a building. As when the 9/11 commission was written building 7 wasn't investigated as thoroughly. At this time, the most probable theory is the one I've been pushing in this debate. Buildings like WTC 7 tend to fall on their own foundation, use logic. Gravity pushes them downward, not sideways. If a building were to fall elsewhere it would be because of some other force, such as wind, or in the case of the leaning tower of pisa, poor foundation. While biological weapons may not bring the same support for 9/11 you claim a terrorist attack would, they would still generate enough support for him to actually go to war. He, in fact, required no support to go to war- he is the president, and, while unconstitutionally so, he can declare war whenever he wants. If he were to really gather support for Iraq you would think he would have the attackers coming from Iraq, when they actually traced to saudi members of the Al-Quadea group. If so, he also failed massively- as, like Vietnam, the Iraq war is incredibly unpopular- except among the most conservative of audiences. You have yet to show any serious evidence that the government orchestrated this attack, you have yet to show any papers- nor any testimony that it was in fact controlled by the government. Someone benefiting slightly from the 9/11 attacks is NOT evidence that they were orchestrated by the government, they are evidence that some politicians want to exploit a national tragedy for their own uses.

DucoNihilum

As I tried to make clear for you before, while some politicians (Including GwB) may have used buzz words like 'they hate us for our freedom' the official reason was absolutely not 'they hate us for our freedom'- and to prove that I read though my copy of The 9/11 Commission Report- entitled the "Final report of the national commission on terrorist attacks upon the united states", showing that is very clearly the official government version. In this report, on chapter 5, it speaks of the motives of the mastermind of the 9/11 plot, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. In that, it states his motives as "not from his experiences there as a student, but rather from his violent disagreement with U.S. foreign policy favoring Israel." UBL has some similar rhetoric, but much of it can be confused into what GwB was saying. Here are a few quotes from UBL. He directed his followers to "Kill Americans anywhere" Tenth Public Hearing, Testimony of Louis Freeh. 9/11 Commission (April 13, 2004). Some of his claimed intentions for the 9/11 attack (In his video released taking full responsibility for the attack) were to "restore freedom to our nation," to "punish the aggressor in kind," and to inflict economic damage on America. He declared that a continuing objective of his holy war was to "bleed America to the point of bankruptcy." While I disagree with GwB on his misunderstanding of the 9/11 attacks, this is not evidence of any orchestration. While your showing that false flag operations have occurred in the past, that has absolutely no relevance to this incident at hand. Just because they can does not mean they will- furthermore the situations had little in common. You're bring up totally irrelevant material. Trying to use any of this as proof or even evidence for 9/11 being orchestrated by the US government is simply fallacious, using, among others, the appeal to probability. Investigation teams did investigate the steel- however, not every piece of steel needed to be investigates. What you call small bits of debris weren't 'small bits'- they were actually rather large hunks of the trade center falling onto it. I question your engineering knowledge, saying that ALL columns would have to be cut 'within a split second', mixing a few major columns destruction and a fire fueled by thousands of gallons of fuel could easily cause the structural weakness required to collapse a building. As when the 9/11 commission was written building 7 wasn't investigated as thoroughly. At this time, the most probable theory is the one I've been pushing in this debate. Buildings like WTC 7 tend to fall on their own foundation, use logic. Gravity pushes them downward, not sideways. If a building were to fall elsewhere it would be because of some other force, such as wind, or in the case of the leaning tower of pisa, poor foundation. While biological weapons may not bring the same support for 9/11 you claim a terrorist attack would, they would still generate enough support for him to actually go to war. He, in fact, required no support to go to war- he is the president, and, while unconstitutionally so, he can declare war whenever he wants. If he were to really gather support for Iraq you would think he would have the attackers coming from Iraq, when they actually traced to saudi members of the Al-Quadea group. If so, he also failed massively- as, like Vietnam, the Iraq war is incredibly unpopular- except among the most conservative of audiences. You have yet to show any serious evidence that the government orchestrated this attack, you have yet to show any papers- nor any testimony that it was in fact controlled by the government. Someone benefiting slightly from the 9/11 attacks is NOT evidence that they were orchestrated by the government, they are evidence that some politicians want to exploit a national tragedy for their own uses.

Politics

9-11-Who-really-attacked-us-and-why/1/

There was no need to keep every piece of steel in storage forever. The causes were thoroughly investigated, to do that not all pieces of steel were necessary. Your idea that it is standard procedure for NORAD to scramble jets whenever a jetliner goes "Off course" is highly misleading. It is not uncommon for planes to go slightly off course, nor is it uncommon for the transponder to stop responding for short periods of time. Only when this has happened for a long period of time do the alarm bells start to ring. These alarm bells are not typically indications of a hijacking, but more likely a crash. It is normal procedure for the FAA to try to contact the plane, the manufacture, etc. They failed to give proper notification, but that is not a sign of a conspiracy. NORAD does not typically deal with terrorist hijackings within the US. In fact, most of their resources are dedicated to planes coming from outside of the US, into the US, such as drug planes coming in from Mexico. You fallaciously claim that "When flight 11 had turned directly south towards New York, its obvious that the Trade Centers and the White House would be likely targets"- that is known as the historians fallacy. Before 9/11, no attack like this had ever occurred in the US, at least not to this magnitude. While looking back at this today it might seem 'obvious' to us, however from somebody in that time period it would not be 'obvious' at all. It wasn't even 'obvious' that the plane was hijacked until much later on, the intentions of the hijackers (to crash the planes into the building) were absolutely unthinkable. Even assuming (falsely) that they knew their intentions, there are dozens upon dozens of high profile targets in that area. The speed of the jets were ignorable as 9 minutes was the most notice that was ever given of the planes, not enough time to scramble and attack a commercial aircraft. There was plenty of confusion that day, real life scenarios are different than practice runs. This may be a sign of incompetence, but it is absolutely not a sign of a conspiracy theory. Your 'odd fact' about GwB is a non sequitor. Bush could have simply been, I don't know, mistaken? Perhaps he remembered things differently, after all, I'm sure he watched it later that same day on TV. The fact that he stayed in the Florida classroom was simple, regardless of his logic, perhaps he didn't want to scare the schoolchildren, perhaps he wanted to keep the nation in a sense of calm rather than panic. The president sprinting out of a room full of kids might make the public worried. Perhaps he was contemplating what to do- it doesn't matter, there's no plausible reason for him to stay because he was in charge of the attack. "Pull" is NOT industry jargon for taking a building down. When he said pull, he was speaking very literally. They pulled down buildings, demolished them, as they were unrecoverable (That happens, same thing happened with the Oklahoma City Bombing, just with explosives). Here is the full quote from the video. ^^^^Worker #1: Oh, we're getting ready to pull building six. Luis Mendes: We have to be very careful how we demolish building six. We were worried about the building six coming down and demolishing the slurry wall, so we wanted that particular building to fall within a certain area. Worker #1: We've got the cables attached in four different locations... <"going up"? hard to hear>... Now they're pulling [gestures to vehicles] pulling the building to the north. It's not every day you try to pull down a eight story building with cables"^^^^^^ In fact, that very documentary you list says "The use of explosives to demolish World Trade Centers 4, 5 and 6 was rejected for fear workers would risk their lives entering buildings to set the charges." As for his 'profit', he bought the lease for the WTC for about 3.2B, the most he will get out of insurance (realistically) is approx 4.6B. terms of these insurance policies have him invest this in rebuilding the WTC complex- at a lost of 6.3B, or a loss of ~2B. <URL>... Many papers survived- the passport was in a leather sleeve and in very bad shape, but it did survive. It means nothing. The fact that the hijackers passport survived but the passengers didn't is happenstance. <URL>... As you can see, paper is all over the place. I don't just hate it when you bring up past events because of personal issues, I dislike it because bringing up past events like this are irrelevant and logically fallacious. Operation Northwoods was drawn up, not used, by an anti-communist who wanted to go after Cuba AFTER the bay of pigs fiasco. Needless to say, Operation Northwoods was never seriously considered- it has about as much credibility as if you or I were to draw up a plan to do some 'false flag' operations and send them into the pentagon for approval. Ossama Bin Laden never flew in here for treatment, the hospital denies it, and there is no evidence of it. You have so far brought up quite a few random, seemingly non sequitor comments about the 9/11 attack- but you have yet to explain how exactly the government had anything to do with this. What exactly did the government do? Were remote controls used, or regular planes? How EXACTLY did the government pull this off? I hope you explain this in your closing, as I have not seen very much from you that clearly points the government out as the attacker- which you are required to do by your own opening. Where is your evidence of this organization? I have yet to see anything close.

DucoNihilum

There was no need to keep every piece of steel in storage forever. The causes were thoroughly investigated, to do that not all pieces of steel were necessary. Your idea that it is standard procedure for NORAD to scramble jets whenever a jetliner goes "Off course" is highly misleading. It is not uncommon for planes to go slightly off course, nor is it uncommon for the transponder to stop responding for short periods of time. Only when this has happened for a long period of time do the alarm bells start to ring. These alarm bells are not typically indications of a hijacking, but more likely a crash. It is normal procedure for the FAA to try to contact the plane, the manufacture, etc. They failed to give proper notification, but that is not a sign of a conspiracy. NORAD does not typically deal with terrorist hijackings within the US. In fact, most of their resources are dedicated to planes coming from outside of the US, into the US, such as drug planes coming in from Mexico. You fallaciously claim that "When flight 11 had turned directly south towards New York, its obvious that the Trade Centers and the White House would be likely targets"- that is known as the historians fallacy. Before 9/11, no attack like this had ever occurred in the US, at least not to this magnitude. While looking back at this today it might seem 'obvious' to us, however from somebody in that time period it would not be 'obvious' at all. It wasn't even 'obvious' that the plane was hijacked until much later on, the intentions of the hijackers (to crash the planes into the building) were absolutely unthinkable. Even assuming (falsely) that they knew their intentions, there are dozens upon dozens of high profile targets in that area. The speed of the jets were ignorable as 9 minutes was the most notice that was ever given of the planes, not enough time to scramble and attack a commercial aircraft. There was plenty of confusion that day, real life scenarios are different than practice runs. This may be a sign of incompetence, but it is absolutely not a sign of a conspiracy theory. Your 'odd fact' about GwB is a non sequitor. Bush could have simply been, I don't know, mistaken? Perhaps he remembered things differently, after all, I'm sure he watched it later that same day on TV. The fact that he stayed in the Florida classroom was simple, regardless of his logic, perhaps he didn't want to scare the schoolchildren, perhaps he wanted to keep the nation in a sense of calm rather than panic. The president sprinting out of a room full of kids might make the public worried. Perhaps he was contemplating what to do- it doesn't matter, there's no plausible reason for him to stay because he was in charge of the attack. "Pull" is NOT industry jargon for taking a building down. When he said pull, he was speaking very literally. They pulled down buildings, demolished them, as they were unrecoverable (That happens, same thing happened with the Oklahoma City Bombing, just with explosives). Here is the full quote from the video. ^^^^Worker #1: Oh, we're getting ready to pull building six. Luis Mendes: We have to be very careful how we demolish building six. We were worried about the building six coming down and demolishing the slurry wall, so we wanted that particular building to fall within a certain area. Worker #1: We've got the cables attached in four different locations... <"going up"? hard to hear>... Now they're pulling [gestures to vehicles] pulling the building to the north. It's not every day you try to pull down a eight story building with cables"^^^^^^ In fact, that very documentary you list says "The use of explosives to demolish World Trade Centers 4, 5 and 6 was rejected for fear workers would risk their lives entering buildings to set the charges." As for his 'profit', he bought the lease for the WTC for about 3.2B, the most he will get out of insurance (realistically) is approx 4.6B. terms of these insurance policies have him invest this in rebuilding the WTC complex- at a lost of 6.3B, or a loss of ~2B. http://query.nytimes.com... Many papers survived- the passport was in a leather sleeve and in very bad shape, but it did survive. It means nothing. The fact that the hijackers passport survived but the passengers didn't is happenstance. http://911myths.com... As you can see, paper is all over the place. I don't just hate it when you bring up past events because of personal issues, I dislike it because bringing up past events like this are irrelevant and logically fallacious. Operation Northwoods was drawn up, not used, by an anti-communist who wanted to go after Cuba AFTER the bay of pigs fiasco. Needless to say, Operation Northwoods was never seriously considered- it has about as much credibility as if you or I were to draw up a plan to do some 'false flag' operations and send them into the pentagon for approval. Ossama Bin Laden never flew in here for treatment, the hospital denies it, and there is no evidence of it. You have so far brought up quite a few random, seemingly non sequitor comments about the 9/11 attack- but you have yet to explain how exactly the government had anything to do with this. What exactly did the government do? Were remote controls used, or regular planes? How EXACTLY did the government pull this off? I hope you explain this in your closing, as I have not seen very much from you that clearly points the government out as the attacker- which you are required to do by your own opening. Where is your evidence of this organization? I have yet to see anything close.

Politics

9-11-Who-really-attacked-us-and-why/1/

Key words to your opening were "President Kennedy rejected the proposal and removed [him] from his duties as Joint chiefs of Staff [afterward].It's quite clear that proposals like this were not welcome from Kennedy- especially after his failed Bay of Pigs fiasco. Government officials propose things all the time- some of them are radical and immediately rejected (as was operation northwoods), others are put into consideration. Operation NW was one of those radical proposals that are never really taken seriously by anybody who is not cherry picking for "the government is out to get us" documents. Even if Operation Northwoods WERE taken into serious consideration it would NOT be evidence that 9/11 was government controlled. While it may be evidence that proposals of the sort /can/ happen- that does not even come close to the idea that not only will even more radical proposals be implemented, but they would be implemented flawlessly. If a crime has been committed it is standard procedure to gather evidence of that crime to be used in court, or in this case, other investigatory procedures. Cameras capturing the plane would be seized by federal investigators for the same reason video evidence of a murder would be seized. It is also standard procedure not to release such tapes- after all, they are part of a criminal investigation. The government did however provide a 1FPS video (which we were lucky to get) of the plane hitting the pentagon. While it may not be very clear that a plane is hitting, that is expected due to the incredibility low quality and low FPS of the video. What you imply here is even more damming- you imply that there was in fact no plane- which would be the only excuse for bringing up the 'missing' videos of such. If there were no plane, what happened to the hijacked plane? What happened to the passengers? Do you suggest that the phone calls were faked- that their families are being payed off? What about all of the debris, airplane debris covering the inside of the building and the grass? Your mentioning the testimony of Norman Mineta for 'proof' of a government conspiracy is incorrect. What orders does he speak of? It can be interpreted in many different ways, to some who are just out looking for excuses to blame the government on, this may be orders to attack the pentagon..... however, if this conversation even took place, these 'orders' can be any one of multiple things. Orders to evacuate the white house, orders to shoot down planes, orders to stay where they were- orders to do anything, really. The 'orders' are not specified, and can mean anything. Andrews Air Force base did NOT have an fighters available for immediate combat. In fact, they themselves never claimed that "combat ready" meant "Available right away",""The mission of the 112th Fighter Squadron is to provide combat ready aircrew capable of deploying anywhere in the world within 24 hours of notification".. Your mentioning of the war on terror and the war in Iraq are non sequitors at best. There was some minor 'warning' of an attack, however there was no reason to believe this threat to be more serious than the many many other threats the white house receives every day. After the 9/11 attack it was somewhat easy to track down the culprit. Your attack on GwBush and Prescott Bush are non sequitor ad hominem attacks. No key figures were told not to fly that day- some where told around that time not to fly within the same time period (Ashcroft), but he was the only one of the cabinet members who did not fly commercial airliners at the time. Shannon's speech was scheduled for well after 9/11, <URL>... ; You have brought up several points in this debate, none of them have yet to convince me at all that there is a mass government conspiracy to attack its own people. Many of your statements are evidence of incompetence, or inefficiency- or the lack of a hyper competent government. For example, your comments on the jet delays, some of them were completely false, such as your comments on UBL, and Sharon. Some of them contained misleading information, such as the quotes you have taken out of context, and some of them were downright fallacious (Such as your ad hominem attacks on Bush, your appealing to the past to prove the future (It rained yesterday, thus it is obviously raining today), and your use of the historians fallacy. You falsely assume that the government is hypercompetent, that all of the errors you listed were not unintentional problems with the government, but some grand conspiracy. You assume that the government is able to pull off the biggest sham in the world, the government of a moderately free country. This conspiracy theory would beat the reinstag ten fold in the complexity, and that's assuming we have the controlled media Hitler did. We do not, private businesses control the media, and do not necessarily listen to the government verbatim. You not only failed to prove correlation and causation of the government directly planning the attacks (as required by your opening, you've tried to propose some 'doubt', but no direct evidence) but assume that the government is competent enough, covert enough, and secure enough to keep literally thousands of people quiet that you dragged into this conspiracy theory.n Let's take a small look at all of the people, by your own indirect admission, that would have had to take some part in the attacks and not say a word. * The team who flew the missile into the pentagon, or planted a bomb. *The families of the flight that hit the pentagon * The people who 'faked' calling their 'loved ones' * The crew that placed debris all over the pentagon * All of NORAD * Bush's entire secret service brigade * Military personnel all over NEADS * An entire hospital * the 'young man' who talked to cheney * Much of the FAA * The crew that planted the passports at the trade centers * Much of the BBC. *The crew that planted explosives into building 7. * Guilianni ..... The list goes on and on. When the conspiracy is as extensive as this it become more and more impossible for it to be true without there being major leaks. After all, things are leaked from the White house all time time, things of much less importance (such as the downing street memos). Something as serious as this would surely be leaked by at least some person who had some or any involvement in the attacks- yet no one credible has come forward. Real life is not a movie. The government is not capable of anything, in fact they generally suck at what they do. This is not an episode of prison break, this is real life. The government, inefficient as it is, would be totally incapable of hiding a secret as powerful as this. Hitler was only able to do it though pure fascism, not the mild authoritarian / socialistic control we have in the US today- and after his nation was freed the truth quickly came out. Hitlers plan was much much less complex than 9/11, and truthers come up with new and more elaborate 'theories' as their old ones are debunked as soon as they're proposed. This is not science, science is not trying to find, as hard as you can, the conclusion you want- regardless of logic, or even truth. Science is looking at all of the evidence objectively, and deciding what the most /logical/ option is. Which seems more likely? A few terrorists attacked a weak point in our nation, or the entire government, media, and thousands of other people are involved in the attack? Its a simple Ochams Razor- while the government attack may help fuel your hatred of the government or the current administration, it may stir some passions, as if you are living in a movie- it does not stand up to the cold hard facts, the logic, or the reasoning required for real life.

DucoNihilum

Key words to your opening were "President Kennedy rejected the proposal and removed [him] from his duties as Joint chiefs of Staff [afterward].It's quite clear that proposals like this were not welcome from Kennedy- especially after his failed Bay of Pigs fiasco. Government officials propose things all the time- some of them are radical and immediately rejected (as was operation northwoods), others are put into consideration. Operation NW was one of those radical proposals that are never really taken seriously by anybody who is not cherry picking for "the government is out to get us" documents. Even if Operation Northwoods WERE taken into serious consideration it would NOT be evidence that 9/11 was government controlled. While it may be evidence that proposals of the sort /can/ happen- that does not even come close to the idea that not only will even more radical proposals be implemented, but they would be implemented flawlessly. If a crime has been committed it is standard procedure to gather evidence of that crime to be used in court, or in this case, other investigatory procedures. Cameras capturing the plane would be seized by federal investigators for the same reason video evidence of a murder would be seized. It is also standard procedure not to release such tapes- after all, they are part of a criminal investigation. The government did however provide a 1FPS video (which we were lucky to get) of the plane hitting the pentagon. While it may not be very clear that a plane is hitting, that is expected due to the incredibility low quality and low FPS of the video. What you imply here is even more damming- you imply that there was in fact no plane- which would be the only excuse for bringing up the 'missing' videos of such. If there were no plane, what happened to the hijacked plane? What happened to the passengers? Do you suggest that the phone calls were faked- that their families are being payed off? What about all of the debris, airplane debris covering the inside of the building and the grass? Your mentioning the testimony of Norman Mineta for 'proof' of a government conspiracy is incorrect. What orders does he speak of? It can be interpreted in many different ways, to some who are just out looking for excuses to blame the government on, this may be orders to attack the pentagon..... however, if this conversation even took place, these 'orders' can be any one of multiple things. Orders to evacuate the white house, orders to shoot down planes, orders to stay where they were- orders to do anything, really. The 'orders' are not specified, and can mean anything. Andrews Air Force base did NOT have an fighters available for immediate combat. In fact, they themselves never claimed that "combat ready" meant "Available right away",""The mission of the 112th Fighter Squadron is to provide combat ready aircrew capable of deploying anywhere in the world within 24 hours of notification".. Your mentioning of the war on terror and the war in Iraq are non sequitors at best. There was some minor 'warning' of an attack, however there was no reason to believe this threat to be more serious than the many many other threats the white house receives every day. After the 9/11 attack it was somewhat easy to track down the culprit. Your attack on GwBush and Prescott Bush are non sequitor ad hominem attacks. No key figures were told not to fly that day- some where told around that time not to fly within the same time period (Ashcroft), but he was the only one of the cabinet members who did not fly commercial airliners at the time. Shannon's speech was scheduled for well after 9/11, http://www.jewishsf.com... ; You have brought up several points in this debate, none of them have yet to convince me at all that there is a mass government conspiracy to attack its own people. Many of your statements are evidence of incompetence, or inefficiency- or the lack of a hyper competent government. For example, your comments on the jet delays, some of them were completely false, such as your comments on UBL, and Sharon. Some of them contained misleading information, such as the quotes you have taken out of context, and some of them were downright fallacious (Such as your ad hominem attacks on Bush, your appealing to the past to prove the future (It rained yesterday, thus it is obviously raining today), and your use of the historians fallacy. You falsely assume that the government is hypercompetent, that all of the errors you listed were not unintentional problems with the government, but some grand conspiracy. You assume that the government is able to pull off the biggest sham in the world, the government of a moderately free country. This conspiracy theory would beat the reinstag ten fold in the complexity, and that's assuming we have the controlled media Hitler did. We do not, private businesses control the media, and do not necessarily listen to the government verbatim. You not only failed to prove correlation and causation of the government directly planning the attacks (as required by your opening, you've tried to propose some 'doubt', but no direct evidence) but assume that the government is competent enough, covert enough, and secure enough to keep literally thousands of people quiet that you dragged into this conspiracy theory.n Let's take a small look at all of the people, by your own indirect admission, that would have had to take some part in the attacks and not say a word. * The team who flew the missile into the pentagon, or planted a bomb. *The families of the flight that hit the pentagon * The people who 'faked' calling their 'loved ones' * The crew that placed debris all over the pentagon * All of NORAD * Bush's entire secret service brigade * Military personnel all over NEADS * An entire hospital * the 'young man' who talked to cheney * Much of the FAA * The crew that planted the passports at the trade centers * Much of the BBC. *The crew that planted explosives into building 7. * Guilianni ..... The list goes on and on. When the conspiracy is as extensive as this it become more and more impossible for it to be true without there being major leaks. After all, things are leaked from the White house all time time, things of much less importance (such as the downing street memos). Something as serious as this would surely be leaked by at least some person who had some or any involvement in the attacks- yet no one credible has come forward. Real life is not a movie. The government is not capable of anything, in fact they generally suck at what they do. This is not an episode of prison break, this is real life. The government, inefficient as it is, would be totally incapable of hiding a secret as powerful as this. Hitler was only able to do it though pure fascism, not the mild authoritarian / socialistic control we have in the US today- and after his nation was freed the truth quickly came out. Hitlers plan was much much less complex than 9/11, and truthers come up with new and more elaborate 'theories' as their old ones are debunked as soon as they're proposed. This is not science, science is not trying to find, as hard as you can, the conclusion you want- regardless of logic, or even truth. Science is looking at all of the evidence objectively, and deciding what the most /logical/ option is. Which seems more likely? A few terrorists attacked a weak point in our nation, or the entire government, media, and thousands of other people are involved in the attack? Its a simple Ochams Razor- while the government attack may help fuel your hatred of the government or the current administration, it may stir some passions, as if you are living in a movie- it does not stand up to the cold hard facts, the logic, or the reasoning required for real life.

Politics

9-11-Who-really-attacked-us-and-why/1/

You wanted to debate, the debate i was having has ended because KindYosef forfeited his second round. -I'm not going to post an argument in this first round, I'll just state my position, which is 9/11 was organized by the U.S. government. So lets rock and roll brother man, and yes...Ron Paul hope for America

inrainbows

You wanted to debate, the debate i was having has ended because KindYosef forfeited his second round. -I'm not going to post an argument in this first round, I'll just state my position, which is 9/11 was organized by the U.S. government. So lets rock and roll brother man, and yes...Ron Paul hope for America

Politics

9-11-Who-really-attacked-us-and-why/1/

My claim of what we were told on the reason they attacked us was correct. Like the selling of the Iraq war, the leaders of our government used the media to convey their message. By simply stating the same message over and over on all the mainstream news channels, they attacked the American people with their propaganda. "America was targeted for attack because we're the brightest beacon for freedom and opportunity in the world. And no one will keep that light from shining."-George W. Bush on September 11th 2001. "Americans are asking, why do they hate us? They hate what we see right here in this chamber - a democratically elected government. Their leaders are self-appointed. They hate our freedoms - our freedom of religion, our freedom of speech, our freedom to vote and assemble and disagree with each other"-George W. Bush on September 20th 2001. Indeed my step back into history doesn't have a straight connection to the September 11 attacks, but it does point out that governments in the past (including the U.S) use false-flag operations for a pretext to engage in war. It shows that governments and leaders aren't afraid to lie to their people for their own personal desires. What Hitler did over sixty years ago like you said in no way fabricate what can happen these days, but it shows that leaders will and have used this covert mission to accomplish a goal. Now, world trade center 7. By May 2002, all the steel from the building that was left had been recycled, now if this was one of the first three buildings to ever fall from fire (all on 9/11) why would they get rid of the steel so quickly? Instead of allowing the investigating team to look at as much steel from the collapse, they instead melted most of it and shipped it to India and China, giving the team some of the smaller scraps and a few larger pieces. The official body that investigated the mysterious collapse was FEMA's Building Performance Assessment Team (BPAT) who stated the building fell from fires but also admitted to being clueless on how fires caused the collapse. World Trade Center 7 has 58 perimeter columns and 25 core columns. In order for the building to have fallen as it did, all of the core columns and all of the perimeter columns would have to be broken in the same split-second. The building supposedly caught on fire from small bits of debris from the first towers implosion. Small fires then broke out, somehow the fireproofing system fails, and the fire goes on to burn all day from an unknown fuel. There was a 36,000 gallons of diesel fuel in fire-resistant containers just above the ground level. Used to supply the back up generator, but the BPAT and the 9/11 commission never say if it caught on fire, or if it had anything to do with the structural failure. Another thing the BPAT and 9/11 commission failed to tell us is how the building could of fallen in its own footprint rather unlike what is expected from the Leaning Tower of Pisa. These attacks were orchestrated to receive the support of the American people. He could have said they had some sort of biological/nuclear weapons, but that wouldn't bring the same support as the attacks of 9/11 brought. After the September 11th attacks, the people of America were extremely angry at "Al-Quada" and just in general the Middle East. This is another reason for bringing up the history, in the cases I brought up the people fully supported going to war after their country or military ships were "attacked". After an attack like September 11th the American people are grieving for lost loved ones, but as emotions of sadness arise, so do emotions of revenge and hatred.

inrainbows

My claim of what we were told on the reason they attacked us was correct. Like the selling of the Iraq war, the leaders of our government used the media to convey their message. By simply stating the same message over and over on all the mainstream news channels, they attacked the American people with their propaganda. "America was targeted for attack because we're the brightest beacon for freedom and opportunity in the world. And no one will keep that light from shining."-George W. Bush on September 11th 2001. "Americans are asking, why do they hate us? They hate what we see right here in this chamber - a democratically elected government. Their leaders are self-appointed. They hate our freedoms - our freedom of religion, our freedom of speech, our freedom to vote and assemble and disagree with each other"-George W. Bush on September 20th 2001. Indeed my step back into history doesn't have a straight connection to the September 11 attacks, but it does point out that governments in the past (including the U.S) use false-flag operations for a pretext to engage in war. It shows that governments and leaders aren't afraid to lie to their people for their own personal desires. What Hitler did over sixty years ago like you said in no way fabricate what can happen these days, but it shows that leaders will and have used this covert mission to accomplish a goal. Now, world trade center 7. By May 2002, all the steel from the building that was left had been recycled, now if this was one of the first three buildings to ever fall from fire (all on 9/11) why would they get rid of the steel so quickly? Instead of allowing the investigating team to look at as much steel from the collapse, they instead melted most of it and shipped it to India and China, giving the team some of the smaller scraps and a few larger pieces. The official body that investigated the mysterious collapse was FEMA's Building Performance Assessment Team (BPAT) who stated the building fell from fires but also admitted to being clueless on how fires caused the collapse. World Trade Center 7 has 58 perimeter columns and 25 core columns. In order for the building to have fallen as it did, all of the core columns and all of the perimeter columns would have to be broken in the same split-second. The building supposedly caught on fire from small bits of debris from the first towers implosion. Small fires then broke out, somehow the fireproofing system fails, and the fire goes on to burn all day from an unknown fuel. There was a 36,000 gallons of diesel fuel in fire-resistant containers just above the ground level. Used to supply the back up generator, but the BPAT and the 9/11 commission never say if it caught on fire, or if it had anything to do with the structural failure. Another thing the BPAT and 9/11 commission failed to tell us is how the building could of fallen in its own footprint rather unlike what is expected from the Leaning Tower of Pisa. These attacks were orchestrated to receive the support of the American people. He could have said they had some sort of biological/nuclear weapons, but that wouldn't bring the same support as the attacks of 9/11 brought. After the September 11th attacks, the people of America were extremely angry at "Al-Quada" and just in general the Middle East. This is another reason for bringing up the history, in the cases I brought up the people fully supported going to war after their country or military ships were "attacked". After an attack like September 11th the American people are grieving for lost loved ones, but as emotions of sadness arise, so do emotions of revenge and hatred.

Politics

9-11-Who-really-attacked-us-and-why/1/

Not every piece of steel needed to be investigated yes, but why the rush to get rid of it so quickly? You would think that the government would like to know as much about it as possible because it was one of the three buildings to ever fall from a fire. It's standard procedure for NORAD to scramble jet fighters whenever a jetliner goes of course, or if radio communication is lost. In the year 2000, jet fighters were scrambled 129 times. Between September 2000 and June 2001 jet fighters were scrambled 67 times. NORAD has several duties: They monitor air and space traffic continuously and is prepared to react immediately to threats and emergencies. They also have the authority to authorize units from The Air National Guard, The Air Force, or any other armed service to scramble jet fighters to pursuit jet liners in trouble. On the morning of September 11th, NORAD had the procedures to protect America from such an attack, but for some reason they failed. Their explanation to why they couldn't stop them can be broken into categories. The first being failure to report. For some odd reason the FAA(who sends the information from air traffic to NORAD)delayed their message to NORAD. For flight 11 it was an 18 minute delay and for flight 77 a 39 minute delay. Now normally you would think that errors happen, but in both cases the flights were off-course, had lost communication, and had stopped emitting its IFF signal. We were given no plausible explanation on why they failed to scramble jets in time. When flight 11 had turned directly south towards New York, its obvious that the Trade Centers and the White House would be likely targets, yet instead of scrambling jets from bases near them, we scrambled jets from bases that were farther away. By 8:30 am, flight 11 was flying towards New York, but no jets were scrambled from nearby Atlantic City, or La Guardia, or from Langley, or from Virginia. Numerous other bases were not ordered to scramble fighters as well. For Washington, no jets were scrambled from Andrews Air Force Base to protect the capital, at least not until the pentagon was hit. Andrews Air Force Base had two squadrons of fighters on alert and is only ten miles from the pentagon, but of course, they couldn't do anything. The jets that were scrambled from farther bases still should of had enough time to reach the jetliners, but why didn't they? Because they were only flying at a small fraction of their top speed. The percentage that the F-15's going towards the WTC's was roughly 25.8% of their top speed. For the F-16's going towards the Pentagon it was roughly 27.4% of their top speed. Why wouldn't the jet fighters be flying at top speed to take down the jetliners? Not to mention that on the morning of September 11th the man in control of NORAD was no other then Dick Cheney(the only time he was ever in charge). Another odd fact is George W. Bush was in a Florida classroom when the planes hit. After the second plane hit the tower, he was told by his adviser who was with him. Now we are being attacked, so you would think the president would leave immediately, instead he continues to talk to the children. Also three months later he lied to the American people by telling them he was outside the classroom when the plane hit and that he saw the first plane hit the building on television. But thats not possible because the first plane hitting was aired on television until September 12th. A quick note on World Trade Center 7. In September of 2002 on the PBS documentary 'America Rebuilds' Larry Silverstein admits that he and FDNY decided to "pull" WTC 7 on the day of the attack. The word "pull" is industry jargon for taking a building down with explosives. Keep in mind that in the year 2002 Silverstein Properties won $861 million from Industrial Risk Insurers to rebuild on the site of WTC 7. Silverstein Properties' estimated investment in WTC 7 was $386 million. So: This building's collapse resulted in a profit of about $500 million! How is it that a book made of paper which burns from fire somehow at first survives the initial impact of the plane and then falls from the sky avoiding the burning twin towers and falls onto the ground. Where upon an exhausted rescue worker happens to find it looking through the ruins near the collapse, and the passport that did "survive" just happened to be one of the suspected terrorist who hijacked the plane, not a regular passenger. What of the suspected terrorist who are still ALIVE? Who were stated by the FBI as dead, but have appeared in newspapers and televisions around the world, protesting their innocents. I know you hate it when I bring up past events but one more. Have you ever heard of operation Northwoods? Well it was a a plan drawn up in 1962 by the U.S Department of Defense. To stage acts of terrorism on U.S. Soil and against U.S. interests, and then put the blame on Cuba. So they could generate U.S. public support for invading Cuba and taking out Fidel Castro. Their plan was to have several false flag operations, including hijacked airplanes, blowing up their own ships parked in Guantanamo Bay(blaming it on Cuba), and many other acts of terrorism not only on U.S. soil, but also in Cuba and against the innocent people. Also two months before September 11th Osama Bin Laden flew to Dubai for 10 days for treatment at the American hospital, where he was visited by the local CIA agent. This information was released by the French Intelligence who are keen to reveal the ambiguous role of the CIA. Now don't forget that Bin Laden still was wanted for prior acts of terrorism against the U.S.

inrainbows

Not every piece of steel needed to be investigated yes, but why the rush to get rid of it so quickly? You would think that the government would like to know as much about it as possible because it was one of the three buildings to ever fall from a fire. It's standard procedure for NORAD to scramble jet fighters whenever a jetliner goes of course, or if radio communication is lost. In the year 2000, jet fighters were scrambled 129 times. Between September 2000 and June 2001 jet fighters were scrambled 67 times. NORAD has several duties: They monitor air and space traffic continuously and is prepared to react immediately to threats and emergencies. They also have the authority to authorize units from The Air National Guard, The Air Force, or any other armed service to scramble jet fighters to pursuit jet liners in trouble. On the morning of September 11th, NORAD had the procedures to protect America from such an attack, but for some reason they failed. Their explanation to why they couldn't stop them can be broken into categories. The first being failure to report. For some odd reason the FAA(who sends the information from air traffic to NORAD)delayed their message to NORAD. For flight 11 it was an 18 minute delay and for flight 77 a 39 minute delay. Now normally you would think that errors happen, but in both cases the flights were off-course, had lost communication, and had stopped emitting its IFF signal. We were given no plausible explanation on why they failed to scramble jets in time. When flight 11 had turned directly south towards New York, its obvious that the Trade Centers and the White House would be likely targets, yet instead of scrambling jets from bases near them, we scrambled jets from bases that were farther away. By 8:30 am, flight 11 was flying towards New York, but no jets were scrambled from nearby Atlantic City, or La Guardia, or from Langley, or from Virginia. Numerous other bases were not ordered to scramble fighters as well. For Washington, no jets were scrambled from Andrews Air Force Base to protect the capital, at least not until the pentagon was hit. Andrews Air Force Base had two squadrons of fighters on alert and is only ten miles from the pentagon, but of course, they couldn't do anything. The jets that were scrambled from farther bases still should of had enough time to reach the jetliners, but why didn't they? Because they were only flying at a small fraction of their top speed. The percentage that the F-15's going towards the WTC's was roughly 25.8% of their top speed. For the F-16's going towards the Pentagon it was roughly 27.4% of their top speed. Why wouldn't the jet fighters be flying at top speed to take down the jetliners? Not to mention that on the morning of September 11th the man in control of NORAD was no other then Dick Cheney(the only time he was ever in charge). Another odd fact is George W. Bush was in a Florida classroom when the planes hit. After the second plane hit the tower, he was told by his adviser who was with him. Now we are being attacked, so you would think the president would leave immediately, instead he continues to talk to the children. Also three months later he lied to the American people by telling them he was outside the classroom when the plane hit and that he saw the first plane hit the building on television. But thats not possible because the first plane hitting was aired on television until September 12th. A quick note on World Trade Center 7. In September of 2002 on the PBS documentary 'America Rebuilds' Larry Silverstein admits that he and FDNY decided to "pull" WTC 7 on the day of the attack. The word "pull" is industry jargon for taking a building down with explosives. Keep in mind that in the year 2002 Silverstein Properties won $861 million from Industrial Risk Insurers to rebuild on the site of WTC 7. Silverstein Properties' estimated investment in WTC 7 was $386 million. So: This building's collapse resulted in a profit of about $500 million! How is it that a book made of paper which burns from fire somehow at first survives the initial impact of the plane and then falls from the sky avoiding the burning twin towers and falls onto the ground. Where upon an exhausted rescue worker happens to find it looking through the ruins near the collapse, and the passport that did "survive" just happened to be one of the suspected terrorist who hijacked the plane, not a regular passenger. What of the suspected terrorist who are still ALIVE? Who were stated by the FBI as dead, but have appeared in newspapers and televisions around the world, protesting their innocents. I know you hate it when I bring up past events but one more. Have you ever heard of operation Northwoods? Well it was a a plan drawn up in 1962 by the U.S Department of Defense. To stage acts of terrorism on U.S. Soil and against U.S. interests, and then put the blame on Cuba. So they could generate U.S. public support for invading Cuba and taking out Fidel Castro. Their plan was to have several false flag operations, including hijacked airplanes, blowing up their own ships parked in Guantanamo Bay(blaming it on Cuba), and many other acts of terrorism not only on U.S. soil, but also in Cuba and against the innocent people. Also two months before September 11th Osama Bin Laden flew to Dubai for 10 days for treatment at the American hospital, where he was visited by the local CIA agent. This information was released by the French Intelligence who are keen to reveal the ambiguous role of the CIA. Now don't forget that Bin Laden still was wanted for prior acts of terrorism against the U.S.

Politics

9-11-Who-really-attacked-us-and-why/1/

Operation Northwoods was proposed by several high class senior U.S. Department of Defense Leaders, including the chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Lyman Louis Lemnitzer. It was wanted by a number of high officers and CIA agents, but president Kennedy rejected the proposal and removed Lyman Louis Lemnitzer from his duties as Joint Chiefs of Staff, although shortly after he was just repositioned as Supreme Allied Commander of NATO. What of the Pentagon? How come the video tapes of a near by hotel and gas station were confiscated within minutes? How come they won't release them? Instead they released five frames which show no plane. Take a few minutes to watch this, <URL>... Secretary of transportation Norman Mineta testifying to the 9/11 commission. "No, I was not. I was made aware of it during the time that the airplane [was] coming into the Pentagon. There was a young man who had come in and said to the vice president, "The plane is 50 miles out. The plane is 30 miles out." And when it got down to, "The plane is 10 miles out," the young man also said to the vice president, "Do the orders still stand?" And the vice president turned and whipped his neck around and said, "Of course the orders still stand. Have you heard anything to the contrary?" Well, at the time I didn't know what all that meant." MR. HAMILTON: "The flight you're referring to is the" MR. MINETA: "The flight that came into the Pentagon." I should mention that mysteriously his testimony was not used in the final "report". 8:46 a.m.: American Airlines Flight 11 from Boston smashed into the north tower of the WTC. The tower collapses at 10:28 a.m. 9:03 a.m.: United Airlines Flight 175 from Boston smashed into the south tower. It completely collapses at 9:59am. 9:38 a.m.: AA Flight 77 from Dulles hits the Pentagon. 10:10 a.m.: United Flight 93 from Newark crashed in Shanksville, Pennsylvania. Andrews Air Force Base is a huge military installation about 10 miles from the Pentagon. On September 11th there were two entire squadrons of combat-ready fighter jets at Andrews. They failed to do their job of protecting the skies over Washington D.C. Despite over one hour's advance warning of a terrorist attack in progress, not a single Andrews fighter tried to protect the city. The FAA, NORAD and the military have cooperative procedures enabling fighter jets to automatically intercept commercial aircraft under emergency conditions. They do not need instructions from the White House to carry out these procedures, yet they were not followed. American Airline Flight 11 departed from Boston Logan Airport at 7:45 a.m. Between 8:13 and 8:20 a.m. Flight 11 became unresponsive to ground control and radar indicated that the plane had deviated from its assigned path of flight. Two Flight 11 airline attendants had separately called American Airlines reporting a hijacking, the presence of weapons, and the infliction of injuries on passengers and crew. At this point an emergency was undeniably clear. Yet, according to NORAD's official timeline, NORAD was not contacted until 20 minutes later at 8:40 a.m. Tragically the fighter jets were not deployed until 8:52 a.m., a full 32 minutes after the loss of contact with Flight 11. Flights 175, 77 and 93 all had this same pattern of delays in notification and delays in scrambling fighter jets. Delays that are difficult to imagine considering a plane had, by this time, already hit the WTC. The plane striking the pentagon is particularly spectacular. After it was known that the plane had a problem, it was nevertheless able to change course and fly towards Washington, for about 45 minutes, fly past the White House, and crash into the Pentagon, without any attempt at interception. All the while two squadrons of fighter aircraft were stationed just 10 miles from the eventual target. Unless one is prepared to allege collusion, such a scenario is not possible by any stretch of the imagination. So were fighting a war on terror, but then why are we in Iraq? A war on terror has nothing to do with Iraq, yet most of the tax money going towards the war goes to Iraq. Saudi Arabia's government cooperates with US oil and arms industries; Iraq did not. Iraq is forced to now, of course. At least fifteen of the far-flung network of terrorist pilots received their money from the same source. There is specific evidence that Osama bin Laden continues to receive extensive support, not only from members of his own family, but also from members of the Saudi establishment. A New Statesman report stated that "Bin Laden and his gang are just the tentacles; the head lies safely in Saudi Arabia, protected by U.S. forces." The hijackers responsible for 9/11 were not illiterate, bearded fanatics from Afghanistan. They were all educated, highly skilled, middle-class professionals. Of the 19 men involved, 13 were citizens of Saudi Arabia. Another interesting connection to the Bin Laden family is how the FBI was told to stop its investigation on Osama Bin Laden prior to 9/11. The FBI has repeatedly complained that it has been muzzled and restricted in its attempts to investigate matters connected to Bin Laden and Al Qeada. One law enforcement official was quoted as saying, "The investigative staff has to be made to understand that we're not trying to solve a crime now." FBI Agents are said to be in the process of filing a law suit agents the Agency for the right to go public. How could they have had no warning of an operation, which must have been very difficult to keep under wraps, but then be able to name the culprit in less than a day? And if they had some forewarning of the attack, even if it was not specific, then it raises even more questions about government agencies' complicity. Within four hours of the attacks the media was fed information regarding the guilt of Osmama Bin Laden as the master mind of the attacks. Why hasn't anybody captured Bin Laden yet? There has been several opportunities to capture Bin Laden before and after 9/11, yet no attempt has been made. Two US allies, Saudi Arabia, and The United Arab Emirates, have colluded in deliberately allowing Bin Laden to stay free. Bin Laden was meeting with the CIA as late as July 2001. An examination of U.S. attempts to capture Osama bin Laden show they have in fact consistently blocked attempts to investigate and capture him. Eleven bin Laden family members were flown safely out of the same Boston airport where the highjacking took place a few days earlier. Why were they not detained for questioning? Is it that hard to believe that the Bush administration could organize an event along with other high officials? Hitler was able to play the anti-communist card to win over skeptical German industrialists. Certainly the Bush family are not newcomers to melding political and business interests, they got their start as key Hitler supporters. Prescott Bush, father of George Bush Sr., was Hitler's banker and propaganda manager in New York, until FDR confiscated his holdings. George Bush Sr. used Manuel Noriega as a scapegoat, killing thousands of innocent Panamanians in the process of re-establishing U.S. control over Panama. It is also widely known that the current Bush Administration knowingly misled the people about the war in Iraq. Why were certain key figures called and told not to fly that day? A significant number of selected people were warned about flying or reporting for work at the WTC. San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown received a phone call eight hours before the hijacking warning him not to travel by air. Salman Rushdie is under a 24-hour protection of UK Scotland yard; he was also prevented from flying that day. Ariel Sharon canceled his address to Israeli support groups in New York City just the day before his scheduled September 11th address. Those are just a few named officials.

inrainbows

Operation Northwoods was proposed by several high class senior U.S. Department of Defense Leaders, including the chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Lyman Louis Lemnitzer. It was wanted by a number of high officers and CIA agents, but president Kennedy rejected the proposal and removed Lyman Louis Lemnitzer from his duties as Joint Chiefs of Staff, although shortly after he was just repositioned as Supreme Allied Commander of NATO. What of the Pentagon? How come the video tapes of a near by hotel and gas station were confiscated within minutes? How come they won't release them? Instead they released five frames which show no plane. Take a few minutes to watch this, http://www.pentagonstrike.co.uk... Secretary of transportation Norman Mineta testifying to the 9/11 commission. "No, I was not. I was made aware of it during the time that the airplane [was] coming into the Pentagon. There was a young man who had come in and said to the vice president, "The plane is 50 miles out. The plane is 30 miles out." And when it got down to, "The plane is 10 miles out," the young man also said to the vice president, "Do the orders still stand?" And the vice president turned and whipped his neck around and said, "Of course the orders still stand. Have you heard anything to the contrary?" Well, at the time I didn't know what all that meant." MR. HAMILTON: "The flight you're referring to is the" MR. MINETA: "The flight that came into the Pentagon." I should mention that mysteriously his testimony was not used in the final "report". 8:46 a.m.: American Airlines Flight 11 from Boston smashed into the north tower of the WTC. The tower collapses at 10:28 a.m. 9:03 a.m.: United Airlines Flight 175 from Boston smashed into the south tower. It completely collapses at 9:59am. 9:38 a.m.: AA Flight 77 from Dulles hits the Pentagon. 10:10 a.m.: United Flight 93 from Newark crashed in Shanksville, Pennsylvania. Andrews Air Force Base is a huge military installation about 10 miles from the Pentagon. On September 11th there were two entire squadrons of combat-ready fighter jets at Andrews. They failed to do their job of protecting the skies over Washington D.C. Despite over one hour's advance warning of a terrorist attack in progress, not a single Andrews fighter tried to protect the city. The FAA, NORAD and the military have cooperative procedures enabling fighter jets to automatically intercept commercial aircraft under emergency conditions. They do not need instructions from the White House to carry out these procedures, yet they were not followed. American Airline Flight 11 departed from Boston Logan Airport at 7:45 a.m. Between 8:13 and 8:20 a.m. Flight 11 became unresponsive to ground control and radar indicated that the plane had deviated from its assigned path of flight. Two Flight 11 airline attendants had separately called American Airlines reporting a hijacking, the presence of weapons, and the infliction of injuries on passengers and crew. At this point an emergency was undeniably clear. Yet, according to NORAD's official timeline, NORAD was not contacted until 20 minutes later at 8:40 a.m. Tragically the fighter jets were not deployed until 8:52 a.m., a full 32 minutes after the loss of contact with Flight 11. Flights 175, 77 and 93 all had this same pattern of delays in notification and delays in scrambling fighter jets. Delays that are difficult to imagine considering a plane had, by this time, already hit the WTC. The plane striking the pentagon is particularly spectacular. After it was known that the plane had a problem, it was nevertheless able to change course and fly towards Washington, for about 45 minutes, fly past the White House, and crash into the Pentagon, without any attempt at interception. All the while two squadrons of fighter aircraft were stationed just 10 miles from the eventual target. Unless one is prepared to allege collusion, such a scenario is not possible by any stretch of the imagination. So were fighting a war on terror, but then why are we in Iraq? A war on terror has nothing to do with Iraq, yet most of the tax money going towards the war goes to Iraq. Saudi Arabia's government cooperates with US oil and arms industries; Iraq did not. Iraq is forced to now, of course. At least fifteen of the far-flung network of terrorist pilots received their money from the same source. There is specific evidence that Osama bin Laden continues to receive extensive support, not only from members of his own family, but also from members of the Saudi establishment. A New Statesman report stated that "Bin Laden and his gang are just the tentacles; the head lies safely in Saudi Arabia, protected by U.S. forces." The hijackers responsible for 9/11 were not illiterate, bearded fanatics from Afghanistan. They were all educated, highly skilled, middle-class professionals. Of the 19 men involved, 13 were citizens of Saudi Arabia. Another interesting connection to the Bin Laden family is how the FBI was told to stop its investigation on Osama Bin Laden prior to 9/11. The FBI has repeatedly complained that it has been muzzled and restricted in its attempts to investigate matters connected to Bin Laden and Al Qeada. One law enforcement official was quoted as saying, "The investigative staff has to be made to understand that we're not trying to solve a crime now." FBI Agents are said to be in the process of filing a law suit agents the Agency for the right to go public. How could they have had no warning of an operation, which must have been very difficult to keep under wraps, but then be able to name the culprit in less than a day? And if they had some forewarning of the attack, even if it was not specific, then it raises even more questions about government agencies' complicity. Within four hours of the attacks the media was fed information regarding the guilt of Osmama Bin Laden as the master mind of the attacks. Why hasn't anybody captured Bin Laden yet? There has been several opportunities to capture Bin Laden before and after 9/11, yet no attempt has been made. Two US allies, Saudi Arabia, and The United Arab Emirates, have colluded in deliberately allowing Bin Laden to stay free. Bin Laden was meeting with the CIA as late as July 2001. An examination of U.S. attempts to capture Osama bin Laden show they have in fact consistently blocked attempts to investigate and capture him. Eleven bin Laden family members were flown safely out of the same Boston airport where the highjacking took place a few days earlier. Why were they not detained for questioning? Is it that hard to believe that the Bush administration could organize an event along with other high officials? Hitler was able to play the anti-communist card to win over skeptical German industrialists. Certainly the Bush family are not newcomers to melding political and business interests, they got their start as key Hitler supporters. Prescott Bush, father of George Bush Sr., was Hitler's banker and propaganda manager in New York, until FDR confiscated his holdings. George Bush Sr. used Manuel Noriega as a scapegoat, killing thousands of innocent Panamanians in the process of re-establishing U.S. control over Panama. It is also widely known that the current Bush Administration knowingly misled the people about the war in Iraq. Why were certain key figures called and told not to fly that day? A significant number of selected people were warned about flying or reporting for work at the WTC. San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown received a phone call eight hours before the hijacking warning him not to travel by air. Salman Rushdie is under a 24-hour protection of UK Scotland yard; he was also prevented from flying that day. Ariel Sharon canceled his address to Israeli support groups in New York City just the day before his scheduled September 11th address. Those are just a few named officials.

Politics

9-11-Who-really-attacked-us-and-why/1/

I will be arguing that 9/11 must have been assisted by the US government...... (A)Unanswered questions: (1)Who was really in charge on the morning of 9/11 - Bush or Cheney? (2)Why did NORAD mislead investigators on why its planes didn't intercept 9/11 hijackers? (3)What really happened aboard Flight 93? (4)How could the alleged 19 hijackers have been identified in less than 72 hours? (5)Why were none of the 19 hijackers names on the passenger lists released the same day by the airlines? (6)Why did Giuliani send the WTC rubble to China and India so quickly? (7)Why was the Bin Laden Task Force broken up nine months before 9/11? (B)WTC collapse: (1)Heat from burning jet fuel was reportedly the sole cause of the WTC collapses which is impossible (2)There is evidence of a controlled demolition (3)WTC explosions heard (4)The Twin Towers exploded into dust and shattered steel shows evidence of a explosive demolition (C)Pentagon: (1)Pentagon whic is the heart of the military of the world's greatest super power was hit after warning without being protected by any defensive action. (2)Terrorist Hani Hanjour was not capable of flying the plane into the pentagon at 500mph just above the ground (3)Why would an Islamic terrorist perform a difficult maneuver to strike the portion of the building that would cause the fewest fatalities? Conclusion: These are some of the things I will use to show that 9/11 must have been assisted by the US government

KILLUMINATI

I will be arguing that 9/11 must have been assisted by the US government...... (A)Unanswered questions: (1)Who was really in charge on the morning of 9/11 - Bush or Cheney? (2)Why did NORAD mislead investigators on why its planes didn't intercept 9/11 hijackers? (3)What really happened aboard Flight 93? (4)How could the alleged 19 hijackers have been identified in less than 72 hours? (5)Why were none of the 19 hijackers names on the passenger lists released the same day by the airlines? (6)Why did Giuliani send the WTC rubble to China and India so quickly? (7)Why was the Bin Laden Task Force broken up nine months before 9/11? (B)WTC collapse: (1)Heat from burning jet fuel was reportedly the sole cause of the WTC collapses which is impossible (2)There is evidence of a controlled demolition (3)WTC explosions heard (4)The Twin Towers exploded into dust and shattered steel shows evidence of a explosive demolition (C)Pentagon: (1)Pentagon whic is the heart of the military of the world's greatest super power was hit after warning without being protected by any defensive action. (2)Terrorist Hani Hanjour was not capable of flying the plane into the pentagon at 500mph just above the ground (3)Why would an Islamic terrorist perform a difficult maneuver to strike the portion of the building that would cause the fewest fatalities? Conclusion: These are some of the things I will use to show that 9/11 must have been assisted by the US government

Politics

9-11-must-have-been-assisted-by-the-US-government/1/

To my opponent thank you for accepting this debate........ When your not given answers to your questions about 911 by the people who SHOULD be able to do so,it is PERFECTLY normal to ask questions. If our goverment has answers to questions about 911 why have they not yet given the answers to squash the debate ? When you are told 2+2=5 do you not question that ? Einstein said: "The important thing is not to stop questioning." My unanswered questions: (1) Cheney in an interview with Tim Russert on NBC indicated that the President made the decision that day to scramble fighter jets.[1] Tim Russert: "What's the most important decision you think he (President Bush) made during the course of the day?" VP Cheney: "Well, the, I suppose the toughest decision was this question of whether or not we would intercept incoming commercial aircraft ... We decided to do it." So clearly the communications were not down on the morning of 911 as my opponent stated. (2) Staff members and commissioners of the 911 panel concluded that the pentagons initial story of how it reacted to the 2001 terrorist attacks were part of a deliberate effort to mislead the 911 commission .[2] Why would they do that ? (3) An article detailing Flight 93's last minutes was available at dailynews.yahoo.com on 911. It did not fit the official story of the last moments of Flight 93 and rapidly disappeared from news websites but it can still be found on web archives.[3] Odd. (4) and (5) 7 of the hijackers said to be on the planes are still alive[4]. The original flight manifests used in the Moussaoui trial can be seen here[5]. (6) Mayor Giuliani sent WTC rubble to China and India to avoid testing for explosives. (7) The US goverment had tracked Bin Laden since about 1998 after truck bomb explosions at US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. Bin Laden was added to FBI's "10 most wanted fugitives" list. Then 9 months prior to 911 the task force was dissolved[7] How convenient. WTC collapse: (1) My opponent seems to enjoy to attack me rather than just answer my questions very disrespectful I must say. With that being said he is mistaken jet fuel was not burning in the building. Office debris was. Office debris that is fire coded for a 110 story skyscraper which reads non-flammable. Jet fuel burns about 1000-5000lbs per hour depending on airframes, powerplant, weight etc. And thats in a controlled environment with jet fuel being fed into the engine. Jet fuel is refined kerosene. Airliners use Jet A kerosene and the military uses JP 4 kerosene. Regardless neither grade burns hot if it did it would alter the inside of a jet engine and cause failure. Imagine you light it ALL on fire all at once... its gone. So my opponents argument of jet fuel burn temps is moot. In a controlled burn where oxygen and fuel are regulated in an optimal mix jet fuel will reach a maximum temperature of 1800F which is still not anywhere near the temperature required to weaken the steel girders of a building to the point that the entire building would plummet to the ground. Yet molten steel was reported below the towers, suggesting that a very powerful fuel was used set to burn or explode BELOW the building not at its top. Thermite, an HTA (high-temperature accelerant)typically used in military operations would have been able to liquefy the steel. Thermite can reach a temperature of 4500F in 2 seconds and steel begins to melt at 2750F.[8] Professor Steven Jones a physicist at Brigham Young University came forward in Nov 2004 with a published paper on the possibility of thermite having been used at the WTC on 9/11. He has now found not only solidified drops of molten metal in dust samples from the WTC but evidence of sulfuric granulation(a "eutectic reaction")on the structural steel, which suggests that thermate an enhanced form of thermite, was involved in the destruction of the towers. Test it yourself: Get some kerosene (even though it burns slower than jet fuel) put it in a coffee can and throw it on a fire. Stand back though. Cause this is what happened when those planes hit. Then you may want to throw some unburned kerosene on a tree or some steel, try a coke can. And light it. It doesnt even melt the coke can it burns so quickly. Example: On February 13, 1975 the WTC North Tower was beset by a fire which "burned at temperatures in excess of 1300F for over three hours and spread over 65% of the 11th floor, including the core, caused no serious structural damage to the steel structure. In particular, no trusses needed to be replaced." Source: New York Times, Saturday 15th February 1975 (2) and (3) The websites below show evidence of controlled explosion/demolition <URL>... <URL>... (4) Unexploded Energetic Materials Found in WTC Dust in nov of 2007, Steven E. Jones, having earlier shown the presence of aluminothermic residues in WTC dust samples in the form of solidified iron rich droplets, announced his discovery of particles of unreacted thermitic materials, in the form of bi-layered chips with gray and red layers. See site below. <URL>... The Pentagon: (1) My opponent stated:"The planes were not shot down before they reached the Pentagon because no one saw this coming at all" Really? The Pentagon and White House are the best protected public buildings in the US. They are equipped with a battery of surface to air missiles and the airspace above it is the subject of a permanent overfly ban. Flight 77 made its way to Washington unchallenged for over half an hour the plane was picked up by Washington ATC for the first time at 9:33. By this time it was flying well in excess of 400 mph and on a trajectory that put it directly on course for the White House. Before getting there however the plane suddenly executed a left hand descending turn, turning almost a complete circle and dropping 7000 ft in two and a half minutes. This complex manoeuvre levelled out perfectly in line for a direct hit on the Pentagon and it flew the last few hundred yards just a few feet above the ground, clipping trees and lamp poles before ploughing into the Pentagon at an estimated speed of 480 mph. (2) My opponent stated: "The plane did not fly directly into the Pentagon. The plane hit the ground and then bounced into the side of the building." If that were true why is there not a scratch on the Pentagon lawn after the crash of a large airliner came in on a flat trajectory? See images below: <URL>... (3) My opponent stated:"The reason that there were so few fatalities was because The area was under construction. This is a well known fact now that can be found anywhere online." Flight 77 struck the portion of the building that had already been renovated. The fact that they happened to hit an area that had been built so sturdily was a wonderful gift. The rest of the Pentagon would not have fared as well. Wow another coincidence. My opponent has not proven a single thing except for the fact that the official 911 explanations are false. That leads to the question why would our government not just show evidence to back its story? It is because they do not wish to incriminate themselves. 19 terrorist could not have pulled off this attack alone in no way shape or form. ***Side not to my opponent can you please source your information..... [1] <URL>... [2] <URL>... [3] <URL>... [4] <URL>... [5] <URL>... [7] <URL>... [8] <URL>...

KILLUMINATI

To my opponent thank you for accepting this debate........ When your not given answers to your questions about 911 by the people who SHOULD be able to do so,it is PERFECTLY normal to ask questions. If our goverment has answers to questions about 911 why have they not yet given the answers to squash the debate ? When you are told 2+2=5 do you not question that ? Einstein said: "The important thing is not to stop questioning." My unanswered questions: (1) Cheney in an interview with Tim Russert on NBC indicated that the President made the decision that day to scramble fighter jets.[1] Tim Russert: "What's the most important decision you think he (President Bush) made during the course of the day?" VP Cheney: "Well, the, I suppose the toughest decision was this question of whether or not we would intercept incoming commercial aircraft ... We decided to do it." So clearly the communications were not down on the morning of 911 as my opponent stated. (2) Staff members and commissioners of the 911 panel concluded that the pentagons initial story of how it reacted to the 2001 terrorist attacks were part of a deliberate effort to mislead the 911 commission .[2] Why would they do that ? (3) An article detailing Flight 93's last minutes was available at dailynews.yahoo.com on 911. It did not fit the official story of the last moments of Flight 93 and rapidly disappeared from news websites but it can still be found on web archives.[3] Odd. (4) and (5) 7 of the hijackers said to be on the planes are still alive[4]. The original flight manifests used in the Moussaoui trial can be seen here[5]. (6) Mayor Giuliani sent WTC rubble to China and India to avoid testing for explosives. (7) The US goverment had tracked Bin Laden since about 1998 after truck bomb explosions at US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. Bin Laden was added to FBI's "10 most wanted fugitives" list. Then 9 months prior to 911 the task force was dissolved[7] How convenient. WTC collapse: (1) My opponent seems to enjoy to attack me rather than just answer my questions very disrespectful I must say. With that being said he is mistaken jet fuel was not burning in the building. Office debris was. Office debris that is fire coded for a 110 story skyscraper which reads non-flammable. Jet fuel burns about 1000-5000lbs per hour depending on airframes, powerplant, weight etc. And thats in a controlled environment with jet fuel being fed into the engine. Jet fuel is refined kerosene. Airliners use Jet A kerosene and the military uses JP 4 kerosene. Regardless neither grade burns hot if it did it would alter the inside of a jet engine and cause failure. Imagine you light it ALL on fire all at once... its gone. So my opponents argument of jet fuel burn temps is moot. In a controlled burn where oxygen and fuel are regulated in an optimal mix jet fuel will reach a maximum temperature of 1800F which is still not anywhere near the temperature required to weaken the steel girders of a building to the point that the entire building would plummet to the ground. Yet molten steel was reported below the towers, suggesting that a very powerful fuel was used set to burn or explode BELOW the building not at its top. Thermite, an HTA (high-temperature accelerant)typically used in military operations would have been able to liquefy the steel. Thermite can reach a temperature of 4500F in 2 seconds and steel begins to melt at 2750F.[8] Professor Steven Jones a physicist at Brigham Young University came forward in Nov 2004 with a published paper on the possibility of thermite having been used at the WTC on 9/11. He has now found not only solidified drops of molten metal in dust samples from the WTC but evidence of sulfuric granulation(a "eutectic reaction")on the structural steel, which suggests that thermate an enhanced form of thermite, was involved in the destruction of the towers. Test it yourself: Get some kerosene (even though it burns slower than jet fuel) put it in a coffee can and throw it on a fire. Stand back though. Cause this is what happened when those planes hit. Then you may want to throw some unburned kerosene on a tree or some steel, try a coke can. And light it. It doesnt even melt the coke can it burns so quickly. Example: On February 13, 1975 the WTC North Tower was beset by a fire which "burned at temperatures in excess of 1300F for over three hours and spread over 65% of the 11th floor, including the core, caused no serious structural damage to the steel structure. In particular, no trusses needed to be replaced." Source: New York Times, Saturday 15th February 1975 (2) and (3) The websites below show evidence of controlled explosion/demolition http://firefightersfor911truth.org... http://firefightersfor911truth.org... (4) Unexploded Energetic Materials Found in WTC Dust in nov of 2007, Steven E. Jones, having earlier shown the presence of aluminothermic residues in WTC dust samples in the form of solidified iron rich droplets, announced his discovery of particles of unreacted thermitic materials, in the form of bi-layered chips with gray and red layers. See site below. http://firefightersfor911truth.org... The Pentagon: (1) My opponent stated:"The planes were not shot down before they reached the Pentagon because no one saw this coming at all" Really? The Pentagon and White House are the best protected public buildings in the US. They are equipped with a battery of surface to air missiles and the airspace above it is the subject of a permanent overfly ban. Flight 77 made its way to Washington unchallenged for over half an hour the plane was picked up by Washington ATC for the first time at 9:33. By this time it was flying well in excess of 400 mph and on a trajectory that put it directly on course for the White House. Before getting there however the plane suddenly executed a left hand descending turn, turning almost a complete circle and dropping 7000 ft in two and a half minutes. This complex manoeuvre levelled out perfectly in line for a direct hit on the Pentagon and it flew the last few hundred yards just a few feet above the ground, clipping trees and lamp poles before ploughing into the Pentagon at an estimated speed of 480 mph. (2) My opponent stated: "The plane did not fly directly into the Pentagon. The plane hit the ground and then bounced into the side of the building." If that were true why is there not a scratch on the Pentagon lawn after the crash of a large airliner came in on a flat trajectory? See images below: http://911review.com... (3) My opponent stated:"The reason that there were so few fatalities was because The area was under construction. This is a well known fact now that can be found anywhere online." Flight 77 struck the portion of the building that had already been renovated. The fact that they happened to hit an area that had been built so sturdily was a wonderful gift. The rest of the Pentagon would not have fared as well. Wow another coincidence. My opponent has not proven a single thing except for the fact that the official 911 explanations are false. That leads to the question why would our government not just show evidence to back its story? It is because they do not wish to incriminate themselves. 19 terrorist could not have pulled off this attack alone in no way shape or form. ***Side not to my opponent can you please source your information..... [1] http://911research.wtc7.net... [2] http://www.washingtonpost.com... [3] http://whatreallyhappened.com... [4] http://911truth.tripod.com... [5] http://911research.wtc7.net... [7] http://www.guardian.co.uk... [8] http://www.911weknow.com...

Politics

9-11-must-have-been-assisted-by-the-US-government/1/

All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident. ---Arthur Schopenhauer My opponent stated:"Seeing as my opponent mostly didn't support his non-mainstream argument about 9/11 with reputable sources, despite my previous post asking him to do so, this post will be shorter than my last."(or is it that he cant refute any of my evidence shown) Now he admits that his claim was "inaccurate" he stated:"I now acknowledge that President Bush was in contact with Vice-President Cheney and that my previous claim was inaccurate." If his claim was "inaccurate" by his own admission. Why does he expect you to believe that any of his sources are credible and mine are not? (1) My opponent stated:"The 9/11 Commission did not conclude that that the Pentagon deliberately tried to mislead them." The Commission reported a year later that audiotapes from NORAD's Northeast headquarters and other evidence showed clearly that the military never had any of the hijacked airliners in its sights and at one point chased a phantom aircraft--American Airlines Flight 11--long after it had crashed into the World Trade Center[1] The Commission was forced to use subpoenas to obtain the cooperation of the FAA and NORAD to release evidence such as audiotapes. The agencies' reluctance to release the tapes--along with e-mails, erroneous public statements and other evidence--led some of the panel's staff members and commissioners to believe that authorities sought to mislead the commission and the public about what happened on September 11. "I was shocked at how different the truth was from the way it was described," said John Farmer, a former New Jersey attorney general who led the staff inquiry into events on September 11, in an August 2006 interview.[1] (2) My opponent left this part out(a mistake im sure): The use of assumed identities is consistent with the official account, but is perhaps more consistent with the view that the Arab men on the flight were patsies, particularly when seen in conjunction with the men's poor piloting skills, Koran-proscribed behavior, and apparent efforts to leave a paper trail.[2] (3) My opponent stated:"As for my opponents argument about the jet fuel and the WTC, his facts come from a website that also tries to argue that President Obama was born in Kenya. The type of people that create these websites do not have the best track record with facts." "news source attempts to debunk Dr. Jones's claim as well as those of other controlled demolition proponents." Clear example of red herring. (4) My opponent stated:"quick look at a page from the Pentagon's main website will show the audience that it was still under construction and that my opponent was again incorrect" Really? Main website. False the website he has shown as a source is nothing more than a website to schedule a tour. American Airlines Flight 77 struck a portion of the building that had already been renovated.[4][4a] This was in an article written 9/16/01 My opponent stated "I call out my opponent's lack of knowledge on certain topics...if those points are shown to be inaccurate or misleading." He has not shown any of my arguments to be inaccurate or misleading. That being said I have refuted and shown evidence that each and every argument he has made is false or inaccurate. He keeps asking to put reputable sources in his citations. Why would he do this if he is trying win this debate? Could it be that he cant refute any of my arguments? Why do it?Why would the US government assist the 911 attacks? -- Enabling the passage of the Patriot Act I and II -- Unconstitutionally spying on Americans in the name of terrorism -- Established the Department of Homeland Security -- The Invasion of the Middle East -- A new foreign and domestic policy -- Used to pass the Military Commissions Act which officially ended Habeus Corpus Every argument my opponent has put forth I have shown to be false or inaccurate. Not a single claim he has made is true or factual. Ten years ago I never would have thought that our government would have assisted in the attacks in any way at all but when you look at all the evidence it is very hard not to see that 19 hijackers and a man in a cave pulled it off. I will let evidence speak for itself. [1] <URL>... [2] <URL>... [3] <URL>... [4] <URL>... [4a] <URL>...

KILLUMINATI

All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident. ---Arthur Schopenhauer My opponent stated:"Seeing as my opponent mostly didn't support his non-mainstream argument about 9/11 with reputable sources, despite my previous post asking him to do so, this post will be shorter than my last."(or is it that he cant refute any of my evidence shown) Now he admits that his claim was "inaccurate" he stated:"I now acknowledge that President Bush was in contact with Vice-President Cheney and that my previous claim was inaccurate." If his claim was "inaccurate" by his own admission. Why does he expect you to believe that any of his sources are credible and mine are not? (1) My opponent stated:"The 9/11 Commission did not conclude that that the Pentagon deliberately tried to mislead them." The Commission reported a year later that audiotapes from NORAD's Northeast headquarters and other evidence showed clearly that the military never had any of the hijacked airliners in its sights and at one point chased a phantom aircraft—American Airlines Flight 11—long after it had crashed into the World Trade Center[1] The Commission was forced to use subpoenas to obtain the cooperation of the FAA and NORAD to release evidence such as audiotapes. The agencies' reluctance to release the tapes—along with e-mails, erroneous public statements and other evidence—led some of the panel's staff members and commissioners to believe that authorities sought to mislead the commission and the public about what happened on September 11. "I was shocked at how different the truth was from the way it was described," said John Farmer, a former New Jersey attorney general who led the staff inquiry into events on September 11, in an August 2006 interview.[1] (2) My opponent left this part out(a mistake im sure): The use of assumed identities is consistent with the official account, but is perhaps more consistent with the view that the Arab men on the flight were patsies, particularly when seen in conjunction with the men's poor piloting skills, Koran-proscribed behavior, and apparent efforts to leave a paper trail.[2] (3) My opponent stated:"As for my opponents argument about the jet fuel and the WTC, his facts come from a website that also tries to argue that President Obama was born in Kenya. The type of people that create these websites do not have the best track record with facts." "news source attempts to debunk Dr. Jones's claim as well as those of other controlled demolition proponents." Clear example of red herring. (4) My opponent stated:"quick look at a page from the Pentagon's main website will show the audience that it was still under construction and that my opponent was again incorrect" Really? Main website. False the website he has shown as a source is nothing more than a website to schedule a tour. American Airlines Flight 77 struck a portion of the building that had already been renovated.[4][4a] This was in an article written 9/16/01 My opponent stated "I call out my opponent's lack of knowledge on certain topics...if those points are shown to be inaccurate or misleading." He has not shown any of my arguments to be inaccurate or misleading. That being said I have refuted and shown evidence that each and every argument he has made is false or inaccurate. He keeps asking to put reputable sources in his citations. Why would he do this if he is trying win this debate? Could it be that he cant refute any of my arguments? Why do it?Why would the US government assist the 911 attacks? -- Enabling the passage of the Patriot Act I and II -- Unconstitutionally spying on Americans in the name of terrorism -- Established the Department of Homeland Security -- The Invasion of the Middle East -- A new foreign and domestic policy -- Used to pass the Military Commissions Act which officially ended Habeus Corpus Every argument my opponent has put forth I have shown to be false or inaccurate. Not a single claim he has made is true or factual. Ten years ago I never would have thought that our government would have assisted in the attacks in any way at all but when you look at all the evidence it is very hard not to see that 19 hijackers and a man in a cave pulled it off. I will let evidence speak for itself. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] http://911research.wtc7.net... [3] http://www.csun.edu... [4] http://articles.latimes.com... [4a] http://en.wikipedia.org...

Politics

9-11-must-have-been-assisted-by-the-US-government/1/

I have acknowledged my opponents arguments and refuted all of them. If I do not agree with them makes me a "troll" so be it. My opponent has repeatedly committed the "red herring" fallacy of focusing on trivial issues that are irrelevant to this debate. As well as the "argument from personal incredulity" fallacy. (1) Here is the link to the article from the Washintonpost read it for yourself you will see that my opponents claim that my source says that the Pentagon did not try mislead the 911 commision is false. <URL>... (2) My opponent stated: "A link on the same website that my opponent cited as evidence for the hijackers being alive, leads to a page on the same website that talks about how there are many different explanations for why the information of the hijackers match those of people still alive, explaining that one person had his passport stolen for example." <URL>... ... Now he has shown by his own admission that the 911 commisions report was not accurate once again he stated "other explanations besides the one that my opponent gave..." "there are many different explanations for why the information of the hijackers match those of people still alive, explaining that one person had his passport stolen for example" Now his whole argument/case is based on what the official 911 commisions report says. If the 911 commisions report is not accurate in this case what else is not true? How much of the report is not accurate? What can we believe in the report it does seem to have much credibility. (3) Once again my opponent stated: "As for my opponents argument about the jet fuel and the WTC, his facts come from a website that also tries to argue that President Obama was born in Kenya. The type of people that create these websites do not have the best track record with facts. This is neither a credible nor reputable source. A paper from "The Chronicles of Higher Education" which is a prominent academic news source attempts to debunk Dr. Jones's claim as well as those of other controlled demolition proponents." Does my opponent want you think that in his opinion sources are not credible so they must be false? There is no attempt to refute my argument as you can see. (4) This is the Pentagon main website <URL>... which leads to the website where it clearly shows Pentagon tours <URL>... My opponent stated: "Any "reasonable" person person can see that my opponent has not made a solid case" Really? He stated:"I am asking my opponent to put reputable sources because any conspiracy nut can post something on Wikipedia and site their own website. A big name news or academic source actually has a reputation on the line so naturally there is more incentive to provide facts." It does not make a argument true or false no matter where it comes from. He clearly cant refute any of arguments so he has repeatedly committed "argumentum ad nauseum" fallacy as well by claiming my sources are not credible. I also need to point out that a "conspiracy theory" is no longer a theory once evidence is shown that shows it is true it then becomes a conspiracy period. Once again if my opponent can refute my arguments which he claims he can, do so it is just that simple.

KILLUMINATI

I have acknowledged my opponents arguments and refuted all of them. If I do not agree with them makes me a "troll" so be it. My opponent has repeatedly committed the "red herring" fallacy of focusing on trivial issues that are irrelevant to this debate. As well as the "argument from personal incredulity" fallacy. (1) Here is the link to the article from the Washintonpost read it for yourself you will see that my opponents claim that my source says that the Pentagon did not try mislead the 911 commision is false. http://www.washingtonpost.com... (2) My opponent stated: "A link on the same website that my opponent cited as evidence for the hijackers being alive, leads to a page on the same website that talks about how there are many different explanations for why the information of the hijackers match those of people still alive, explaining that one person had his passport stolen for example." http://911research.wtc7.net... ... Now he has shown by his own admission that the 911 commisions report was not accurate once again he stated "other explanations besides the one that my opponent gave..." "there are many different explanations for why the information of the hijackers match those of people still alive, explaining that one person had his passport stolen for example" Now his whole argument/case is based on what the official 911 commisions report says. If the 911 commisions report is not accurate in this case what else is not true? How much of the report is not accurate? What can we believe in the report it does seem to have much credibility. (3) Once again my opponent stated: "As for my opponents argument about the jet fuel and the WTC, his facts come from a website that also tries to argue that President Obama was born in Kenya. The type of people that create these websites do not have the best track record with facts. This is neither a credible nor reputable source. A paper from "The Chronicles of Higher Education" which is a prominent academic news source attempts to debunk Dr. Jones's claim as well as those of other controlled demolition proponents." Does my opponent want you think that in his opinion sources are not credible so they must be false? There is no attempt to refute my argument as you can see. (4) This is the Pentagon main website http://www.defense.gov... which leads to the website where it clearly shows Pentagon tours http://pentagon.osd.mil... My opponent stated: "Any "reasonable" person person can see that my opponent has not made a solid case" Really? He stated:"I am asking my opponent to put reputable sources because any conspiracy nut can post something on Wikipedia and site their own website. A big name news or academic source actually has a reputation on the line so naturally there is more incentive to provide facts." It does not make a argument true or false no matter where it comes from. He clearly cant refute any of arguments so he has repeatedly committed "argumentum ad nauseum" fallacy as well by claiming my sources are not credible. I also need to point out that a "conspiracy theory" is no longer a theory once evidence is shown that shows it is true it then becomes a conspiracy period. Once again if my opponent can refute my arguments which he claims he can, do so it is just that simple.

Politics

9-11-must-have-been-assisted-by-the-US-government/1/

There will be no winner in this debate simply because no matter what 2,973 innocent Americans lost their lives....... On the day of the attack, details about the alleged perpetrators emerged with a rapidity that is remarkable given the assertions by high ranking administration officials that no one had ever considered that an attacker could fly planes into buildings. Within hours the identities of several of the alleged hijackers were known, and Osama bin Laden was being presented as the prime suspect. Within three days the FBI published the identities of all the alleged hijackers. It was being presented as an open-and-shut case. Academics helped to explain the collapses of the Twin Towers in articles in respected publications. Just two days after the attack, a scientific paper purported to fully explain the unprecedented engineering failures using "elastic dynamic analysis." "Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? Simple Analysis was published in the Journal of Engineering Mechanics ASCE on 9/13/01. Peer review of this paper and of other theories volunteering to explain the collapses was conspicuously absent. The mass media were consistent in avoiding asking the most obvious questions. Why did the air defense network fail to respond? Why did Flight 77 target the recently fortified mostly empty portion of the Pentagon? Why was the Ground Zero steel removed and destroyed as fast as possible? The media shirked their public service obligation of acting as watchdogs of the government, and instead became cheerleaders for the administration's war plans for central Asia. The vast body of print reportage about September 11 attack is notable for an abundance of contradictions. The timelines in the Complete 9/11 Timeline series reveal numerous inconsistencies, such as between reported times of events. These discrepancies, combined with the lack of evidence, discourage investigation of facts of the attack. Meanwhile, the impending attack on Afghanistan, the alleged Islam-terror link, and homeland security got the attention. FACTS ABOUT 9/11: (1) Fire has never prior to or after 9/11 caused any steel frame building to collapse. The sudden, vertical, explosive, and total collapse of the Twin Towers at near freefall speed can only be explained by controlled demolition. (2) The WTC steel which if fully examined could have relvealed the effects of explosives was quickly shipped overseas and melted down. This was an unprecedented violation of federal crime scene laws. (3) Whenever contact is lost with any airplane fighter jets routinely take to the air to investigate. This commonly occurs about 100 times per year in well under 20 minutes. But on 9/11 nearly two hours passed without any interception. (4) The Secret Service broke established protocols by allowing President Bush to remain in a well publicized classroom photo op long after it was known that the U.S. was under attack and he might well have been a target. (5) Unidentified insiders made millions on the stocks of American and United Airlines and those of other corporations that were likewise impacted by the attacks. These "put option" bets were made just prior to 9/11. (6) There were warnings of the impending attacks from at least eleven other countries. Also prior to 9/11, insiders such as John Ashcroft top military officers and San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown were warned not to fly. (7) In September of 2000 a group of neocon hawks many of whom would become key officials in the Bush administration, wrote that their proposed massive military buildup would proceed slowly "absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event like a new Pearl Harbor." (8) Some of the alleged 9/11 "suicide hijackers" are still alive and well according to the BBC and the Guardian. At least five of the alleged hijackers may have trained at U.S. military bases as reported in Newsweek and other sources. (9) The Bush administration resisted the formation of the 9/11 Commission for 441 days. Similar investigations, such as those for Pearl Harbor, the JFK assassination, and the space shuttle disasters, all started in about one week. (10) "The Jersey Girls" four 9/11 widows finally forced the 9/11 Commission into existence and presented many questions, most of which were ignored. Under the leadership of Bush administration insider Philip Zelikow the final report failed to address any of the evidence pointing to official complicity. There are hundreds of additional facts that contradict the official story of 9/11. It is time for a truly independent investigation that addresses all the questions asked by the citizens. Conclusion: I would like to say that I am convinced some elements within our Government, and others were complicit in the attacks of 9/11. As you can see the evidence shown in this debate clearly points in that direction. We have pieces to the puzzle, and we KNOW who refuses to give up the other pieces. However this is America, and in America, you are innocent until proven guilty. We need a real investigation domestic or international one and do what can only be described as the right thing. Holding those responsible for the 9/11 attacks whoever they may be, accountable. It is long overdue. Justice has never been more needed. The perverse usage of that day can no longer continue. It is time to let those poor 2,973 souls finally rest in peace. The facts speak for themselves...............

KILLUMINATI

There will be no winner in this debate simply because no matter what 2,973 innocent Americans lost their lives....... On the day of the attack, details about the alleged perpetrators emerged with a rapidity that is remarkable given the assertions by high ranking administration officials that no one had ever considered that an attacker could fly planes into buildings. Within hours the identities of several of the alleged hijackers were known, and Osama bin Laden was being presented as the prime suspect. Within three days the FBI published the identities of all the alleged hijackers. It was being presented as an open-and-shut case. Academics helped to explain the collapses of the Twin Towers in articles in respected publications. Just two days after the attack, a scientific paper purported to fully explain the unprecedented engineering failures using "elastic dynamic analysis." "Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? Simple Analysis was published in the Journal of Engineering Mechanics ASCE on 9/13/01. Peer review of this paper and of other theories volunteering to explain the collapses was conspicuously absent. The mass media were consistent in avoiding asking the most obvious questions. Why did the air defense network fail to respond? Why did Flight 77 target the recently fortified mostly empty portion of the Pentagon? Why was the Ground Zero steel removed and destroyed as fast as possible? The media shirked their public service obligation of acting as watchdogs of the government, and instead became cheerleaders for the administration's war plans for central Asia. The vast body of print reportage about September 11 attack is notable for an abundance of contradictions. The timelines in the Complete 9/11 Timeline series reveal numerous inconsistencies, such as between reported times of events. These discrepancies, combined with the lack of evidence, discourage investigation of facts of the attack. Meanwhile, the impending attack on Afghanistan, the alleged Islam-terror link, and homeland security got the attention. FACTS ABOUT 9/11: (1) Fire has never prior to or after 9/11 caused any steel frame building to collapse. The sudden, vertical, explosive, and total collapse of the Twin Towers at near freefall speed can only be explained by controlled demolition. (2) The WTC steel which if fully examined could have relvealed the effects of explosives was quickly shipped overseas and melted down. This was an unprecedented violation of federal crime scene laws. (3) Whenever contact is lost with any airplane fighter jets routinely take to the air to investigate. This commonly occurs about 100 times per year in well under 20 minutes. But on 9/11 nearly two hours passed without any interception. (4) The Secret Service broke established protocols by allowing President Bush to remain in a well publicized classroom photo op long after it was known that the U.S. was under attack and he might well have been a target. (5) Unidentified insiders made millions on the stocks of American and United Airlines and those of other corporations that were likewise impacted by the attacks. These "put option" bets were made just prior to 9/11. (6) There were warnings of the impending attacks from at least eleven other countries. Also prior to 9/11, insiders such as John Ashcroft top military officers and San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown were warned not to fly. (7) In September of 2000 a group of neocon hawks many of whom would become key officials in the Bush administration, wrote that their proposed massive military buildup would proceed slowly "absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event like a new Pearl Harbor." (8) Some of the alleged 9/11 "suicide hijackers" are still alive and well according to the BBC and the Guardian. At least five of the alleged hijackers may have trained at U.S. military bases as reported in Newsweek and other sources. (9) The Bush administration resisted the formation of the 9/11 Commission for 441 days. Similar investigations, such as those for Pearl Harbor, the JFK assassination, and the space shuttle disasters, all started in about one week. (10) "The Jersey Girls" four 9/11 widows finally forced the 9/11 Commission into existence and presented many questions, most of which were ignored. Under the leadership of Bush administration insider Philip Zelikow the final report failed to address any of the evidence pointing to official complicity. There are hundreds of additional facts that contradict the official story of 9/11. It is time for a truly independent investigation that addresses all the questions asked by the citizens. Conclusion: I would like to say that I am convinced some elements within our Government, and others were complicit in the attacks of 9/11. As you can see the evidence shown in this debate clearly points in that direction. We have pieces to the puzzle, and we KNOW who refuses to give up the other pieces. However this is America, and in America, you are innocent until proven guilty. We need a real investigation domestic or international one and do what can only be described as the right thing. Holding those responsible for the 9/11 attacks whoever they may be, accountable. It is long overdue. Justice has never been more needed. The perverse usage of that day can no longer continue. It is time to let those poor 2,973 souls finally rest in peace. The facts speak for themselves...............

Politics

9-11-must-have-been-assisted-by-the-US-government/1/

I would like to thank 'wjmelements' for challenging me to this debate. To prove why a Canadian-style Health System would be more beneficial to The United States, I must begin by pointing out the overly costly health care bills most Americans have to Pay compared to those in other countries. In Canada, for example, an average of $917 is spent annually by individuals or private insurance companies for health care, in the United States, an average of $3,372. As a result of the increasingly high health care prices, 50% personal bankruptcy in America is due to medical bills. It is believed that less than 1/2 of all the medical care in the U.S. is supported by concrete evidence that it works accordingly to its price according to the Congressional Budget office, in other words, it is not proven for a fact that its efficiency meets its price. Due to the high prices, health insurance coverage is extremely high, so about 40% of Americans do not have health insurance. 1/4 of those who are uninsured, claim that such high hospital bills changed their lives in a negative way, violently increasing their debt. Also...talking about bankruptcy, a study in Harvard shows that the average debt for those who filed for bankruptcy was $12,000, and 68% of those who filed for bankruptcy had health insurance...yeah. But YET, life expectancy in Canada (who as I mentioned earlier spends a significantly less that the U.S.) is still higher! And infant mortality rate is still lower!

Plato

I would like to thank 'wjmelements' for challenging me to this debate. To prove why a Canadian-style Health System would be more beneficial to The United States, I must begin by pointing out the overly costly health care bills most Americans have to Pay compared to those in other countries. In Canada, for example, an average of $917 is spent annually by individuals or private insurance companies for health care, in the United States, an average of $3,372. As a result of the increasingly high health care prices, 50% personal bankruptcy in America is due to medical bills. It is believed that less than 1/2 of all the medical care in the U.S. is supported by concrete evidence that it works accordingly to its price according to the Congressional Budget office, in other words, it is not proven for a fact that its efficiency meets its price. Due to the high prices, health insurance coverage is extremely high, so about 40% of Americans do not have health insurance. 1/4 of those who are uninsured, claim that such high hospital bills changed their lives in a negative way, violently increasing their debt. Also...talking about bankruptcy, a study in Harvard shows that the average debt for those who filed for bankruptcy was $12,000, and 68% of those who filed for bankruptcy had health insurance...yeah. But YET, life expectancy in Canada (who as I mentioned earlier spends a significantly less that the U.S.) is still higher! And infant mortality rate is still lower!

Politics

A-Canadian-style-National-Healthcare-system-would-be-a-good-thing-for-the-United-States-to-have./1/

"Round 2...yay!" In round one I talked about the increasingly high medical bills in the US. My opponent says that a universal health care system would force every American to pay a health insurance, but my question is, is: Does my opponent think it is reasonable for the US to be so heavily invested in international affairs such as Iraq (and every American pays for it), but neglects the important issues back in the home front? Shouldn't every American have the right to live a healthy life and be attended by a reliable doctor regardless of their income, medical history or standard of living? Yes, it is true that Canadians pay higher taxes that Americans but in my opinion their money is more wisely spent. Also, low income Canadian families and those in assistance can be exempted. Canadian's pay about 55% of of what Americans play for health insurance, and still have higher life expectancy, and lower infant mortality rate, and of course, everyone is covered. Many Americans have access to quality health care while ALL Canadians have access to similar practices at a considerably lower cost. Also, Canadian's pay 9% of National GDP to insure 100% of citizens, while Americans pay 14% GDP to insure 85% of citizens. I would also like to say that I'm sure we could find stories (good and bad) about each system but to accurately compare the two systems it is more reasonable to compare service levels than to trade anecdotes. My opponent also believes that competition inspires innovation,which is true, but in such a delicate subject which deals with people's lives, I would say that it would be more human to give each person the same opportunity. By saying that a market-oriented medical system, my opponent is saying that getting medical treatment is the same as buying a luxury car.

Plato

"Round 2...yay!" In round one I talked about the increasingly high medical bills in the US. My opponent says that a universal health care system would force every American to pay a health insurance, but my question is, is: Does my opponent think it is reasonable for the US to be so heavily invested in international affairs such as Iraq (and every American pays for it), but neglects the important issues back in the home front? Shouldn't every American have the right to live a healthy life and be attended by a reliable doctor regardless of their income, medical history or standard of living? Yes, it is true that Canadians pay higher taxes that Americans but in my opinion their money is more wisely spent. Also, low income Canadian families and those in assistance can be exempted. Canadian's pay about 55% of of what Americans play for health insurance, and still have higher life expectancy, and lower infant mortality rate, and of course, everyone is covered. Many Americans have access to quality health care while ALL Canadians have access to similar practices at a considerably lower cost. Also, Canadian's pay 9% of National GDP to insure 100% of citizens, while Americans pay 14% GDP to insure 85% of citizens. I would also like to say that I'm sure we could find stories (good and bad) about each system but to accurately compare the two systems it is more reasonable to compare service levels than to trade anecdotes. My opponent also believes that competition inspires innovation,which is true, but in such a delicate subject which deals with people's lives, I would say that it would be more human to give each person the same opportunity. By saying that a market-oriented medical system, my opponent is saying that getting medical treatment is the same as buying a luxury car.

Politics

A-Canadian-style-National-Healthcare-system-would-be-a-good-thing-for-the-United-States-to-have./1/

Hello friend. I look forward to the debate, I'll start in round 2 after you give your opening points. This is a little bit of a devils advocate position for me. Here is what I believe 1. In as much as it depends on the finished work of Jesus on the cross, I am safe. [1] 2. In as much as it depends on the choice and calling of God, I am safe [2] 3. If it in any way depends on my choice or my works, I have reason to pray for grace. 4. Grace is good [4] [1] Heb 9:24-28 24 For Christ did not enter a holy place made with hands, a mere copy of the true one, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us; 25 nor was it that He would offer Himself often, as the high priest enters the holy place year by year with blood that is not his own. 26 Otherwise, He would have needed to suffer often since the foundation of the world; but now once at the consummation of the ages He has been manifested to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself. 27 And inasmuch as it is appointed for men to die once and after this comes judgment, 28 so Christ also, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time for salvation without reference to sin, to those who eagerly await Him. [2] 2 Tim 1:8-10 NASB 8 Therefore do not be ashamed of the testimony of our Lord or of me His prisoner, but join with me in suffering for the gospel according to the power of God, 9 who has saved us and called us with a holy calling, not according to our works, but according to His own purpose and grace which was granted us in Christ Jesus from all eternity, 10 but now has been revealed by the appearing of our Savior Christ Jesus, who abolished death and brought life and immortality to light through the gospel, [3] - saved for the debate [4] Eph 2:8-10 For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; 9 not as a result of works, so that no one may boast. 10 For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand so that we would walk in them.

gordonjames

Hello friend. I look forward to the debate, I'll start in round 2 after you give your opening points. This is a little bit of a devils advocate position for me. Here is what I believe 1. In as much as it depends on the finished work of Jesus on the cross, I am safe. [1] 2. In as much as it depends on the choice and calling of God, I am safe [2] 3. If it in any way depends on my choice or my works, I have reason to pray for grace. 4. Grace is good [4] [1] Heb 9:24-28 24 For Christ did not enter a holy place made with hands, a mere copy of the true one, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us; 25 nor was it that He would offer Himself often, as the high priest enters the holy place year by year with blood that is not his own. 26 Otherwise, He would have needed to suffer often since the foundation of the world; but now once at the consummation of the ages He has been manifested to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself. 27 And inasmuch as it is appointed for men to die once and after this comes judgment, 28 so Christ also, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time for salvation without reference to sin, to those who eagerly await Him. [2] 2 Tim 1:8-10 NASB 8 Therefore do not be ashamed of the testimony of our Lord or of me His prisoner, but join with me in suffering for the gospel according to the power of God, 9 who has saved us and called us with a holy calling, not according to our works, but according to His own purpose and grace which was granted us in Christ Jesus from all eternity, 10 but now has been revealed by the appearing of our Savior Christ Jesus, who abolished death and brought life and immortality to light through the gospel, [3] - saved for the debate [4] Eph 2:8-10 For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; 9 not as a result of works, so that no one may boast. 10 For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand so that we would walk in them.

Religion

A-Christian-Cannot-Lose-His-Salvation/1/

Thanks again to PRO for the great topic. I look forward to a great debate. I want to present a framework for my arguments and then move on to a point by point response to PRO's points from round 2. 1. Lets define some terms. Christian - one who professes belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ [1] Lose - 1a : to bring to destruction [2] 4 b : to fail to keep control of or allegiance of Salvation - 1a : deliverance from the power and effects of sin [3] 2. Here are some situations that challenge PRO's position. A) - A person professes belief and faith in Jesus but later claims to have changed. An example is Charles Templeton who was an evangelist and friend of Billy Graham [4][5] B) - A person who makes a profession of faith but commits terrible actions. I can not verify the accuracy, but the volume of incidents indicates that this happens [6] 3. Some scriptures for PRO to consider. Blotting names out of God's book A) - Moses speaks of God removing names from His book - Exodus 32:32 - But now, if You will, forgive their sin--and if not, please blot me out from Your book which You have written!" B) - God speaks of blotting names out of His book. - Exodus 32:33 - The Lord said to Moses, "Whoever has sinned against Me, I will blot him out of My book. C) - David speaks of this "blotting out from God's book of life" for his advisories in psalm 69:27-28 - And may they not come into Your righteousness. 28 May they be blotted out of the book of life And may they not be recorded with the righteous. God's character as seen through Ezekiel D) - God tells Ezekiel that he is a watchman for the house of Israel. Ezekiel learns that if a righteous man turns from righteousness, he will die in his sin and his righteous deeds will not be remembered. Ezekiel 3:20-21 20 Again, when a righteous man turns away from his righteousness and commits iniquity, and I place an obstacle before him, he will die; since you have not warned him, he shall die in his sin, and his righteous deeds which he has done shall not be remembered; but his blood I will require at your hand. 21 However, if you have warned the righteous man that the righteous should not sin and he does not sin, he shall surely live because he took warning; and you have delivered yourself." E) - Check out Ezekiel 18:24-26 Jesus' words of warning F) - Matthew 7:21-23 21 "Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter. 22 Many will say to Me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?' 23 And then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness.' G) - Letters to churches in Revelation Rev 2:3-5 - Rev 2:10 Rev 2:25-26 Rev 3:2-3 Rev 3:11-12 Rev 3:15-16 Warnings about actions in the parables H) Matthew 18:32-35 Pro will have to explain all these scriptures for his position to be considered. 4. My position A) We do not need to be afraid of making a mistake and losing salvation by some accident. B) God does remove our freedom to choose because we once decided to follow Jesus. C) Like the prodigal son, God is always willing to take us back. Let me respond to PRO's round 2 1. John 10:27-28 - This is a classic case of quoting verses out of context . The bigger picture of John 10:22-39 is that religious people are asking "If You are the Christ, tell us plainly" - to this Jesus says " you do not believe because you are not of My sheep." Then Jesus clarifies that salvation includes following Jesus. "My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me; and I give eternal life to them, and they will never perish; and no one will snatch them out of My hand." There are two important points here. True sheep keep on following Jesus Safety is from outside attack, not from turning away or falling away or abandoning Christ. 2. PRO's point 2 was a little hard to follow. In quoting "they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us" reminds me of those hard situations where people are told "they were probably never really saved" I agree with PRO in saying "Our eternal security is a result of God keeping us, not us maintaining our own salvation." - This is not the same as saying "A Christian Cannot Lose His Salvation." 3. PRO states " if one believes that it is possible to lose his salvation, then . . . " I'm not sure how to respond to this characterization of either God or an opponent. Pro quotes "I will never leave thee, nor forsake thee." This does not directly apply to this debate. The challenge to the ideal "A Christian Cannot Lose His Salvation" is not that God will drop them by accident, but that they will reject Jesus or abandon being His disciple. 4. PRO rightly states that faith is a gift of God. My contention is that some people reject salvation. The Christian way is too hard for them. They did not count the cost and then give up on Jesus. Look at Hebrews 12:14-17 - 17 For you know that even afterwards, when he desired to inherit the blessing, he was rejected, for he found no place for repentance, though he sought for it with tears. Hebrews warns of falling away. Look at Hebrews 2:1-3 - 1 For this reason we must pay much closer attention to what we have heard, so that we do not drift away from it . . . . how will we escape if we neglect so great a salvation? PRO closes with 1 Peter 1. I would like to respond with God's words through Peter in 2 Peter 2:17-21 for by what a man is overcome, by this he is enslaved. 20 For if, after they have escaped the defilements of the world by the knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in them and are overcome, the last state has become worse for them than the first. 21 For it would be better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than having known it, to turn away from the holy commandment handed on to them. Here Peter says "it would be better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than having known it, to turn away " I don't want people to live in fear of losing their salvation as though it happens easily or accidentally. I want people to know God's character, that he is always ready to forgive and welcome us back. God allows us choice, and the sad fact is that some turn away from following Jesus. If they persist in this rebellion then the warning of Hebrews 10:26-31 is for them - "26 For if we go on sinning willfully after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, 27 but a terrifying expectation of judgment and the fury of a fire which will consume the adversaries. God allows us great freedom, here are bad things we can do 1. Fall from grace - Gal. 5:1-4,13 2. Be led away with error - 2 Pet. 3:17 3. Err from the truth - James 5:19-20 4. Weak brother may perish - 1 Cor. 8:11 5. Fall into condemnation - James 5:12 6. Be moved away from the hope - Col. 1:21-23 7. Deny the Lord who bought them - 2 Pet. 2:1 8. Depart from the living God - Heb. 3:12 9. Can be a castaway - 1 Cor. 9:27 10. Can become accursed children - 2 Pet. 2:14 [1] <URL>... [2] <URL>... [3] <URL>... [4] <URL>... [5] <URL>... [6] <URL>...

gordonjames

Thanks again to PRO for the great topic. I look forward to a great debate. I want to present a framework for my arguments and then move on to a point by point response to PRO’s points from round 2. 1. Lets define some terms. Christian - one who professes belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ [1] Lose - 1a : to bring to destruction [2] 4 b : to fail to keep control of or allegiance of Salvation - 1a : deliverance from the power and effects of sin [3] 2. Here are some situations that challenge PRO’s position. A) - A person professes belief and faith in Jesus but later claims to have changed. An example is Charles Templeton who was an evangelist and friend of Billy Graham [4][5] B) - A person who makes a profession of faith but commits terrible actions. I can not verify the accuracy, but the volume of incidents indicates that this happens [6] 3. Some scriptures for PRO to consider. Blotting names out of God’s book A) - Moses speaks of God removing names from His book - Exodus 32:32 - But now, if You will, forgive their sin—and if not, please blot me out from Your book which You have written!” B) - God speaks of blotting names out of His book. - Exodus 32:33 - The Lord said to Moses, “Whoever has sinned against Me, I will blot him out of My book. C) - David speaks of this “blotting out from God’s book of life” for his advisories in psalm 69:27-28 - And may they not come into Your righteousness. 28 May they be blotted out of the book of life And may they not be recorded with the righteous. God’s character as seen through Ezekiel D) - God tells Ezekiel that he is a watchman for the house of Israel. Ezekiel learns that if a righteous man turns from righteousness, he will die in his sin and his righteous deeds will not be remembered. Ezekiel 3:20-21 20 Again, when a righteous man turns away from his righteousness and commits iniquity, and I place an obstacle before him, he will die; since you have not warned him, he shall die in his sin, and his righteous deeds which he has done shall not be remembered; but his blood I will require at your hand. 21 However, if you have warned the righteous man that the righteous should not sin and he does not sin, he shall surely live because he took warning; and you have delivered yourself.” E) - Check out Ezekiel 18:24-26 Jesus’ words of warning F) - Matthew 7:21-23 21 “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter. 22 Many will say to Me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?’ 23 And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness.’ G) - Letters to churches in Revelation Rev 2:3-5 - Rev 2:10 Rev 2:25-26 Rev 3:2-3 Rev 3:11-12 Rev 3:15-16 Warnings about actions in the parables H) Matthew 18:32-35 Pro will have to explain all these scriptures for his position to be considered. 4. My position A) We do not need to be afraid of making a mistake and losing salvation by some accident. B) God does remove our freedom to choose because we once decided to follow Jesus. C) Like the prodigal son, God is always willing to take us back. Let me respond to PRO’s round 2 1. John 10:27-28 - This is a classic case of quoting verses out of context . The bigger picture of John 10:22-39 is that religious people are asking “If You are the Christ, tell us plainly” - to this Jesus says “ you do not believe because you are not of My sheep.” Then Jesus clarifies that salvation includes following Jesus. “My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me; and I give eternal life to them, and they will never perish; and no one will snatch them out of My hand.” There are two important points here. True sheep keep on following Jesus Safety is from outside attack, not from turning away or falling away or abandoning Christ. 2. PRO’s point 2 was a little hard to follow. In quoting “they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us” reminds me of those hard situations where people are told “they were probably never really saved” I agree with PRO in saying “Our eternal security is a result of God keeping us, not us maintaining our own salvation.” - This is not the same as saying “A Christian Cannot Lose His Salvation.” 3. PRO states “ if one believes that it is possible to lose his salvation, then . . . ” I’m not sure how to respond to this characterization of either God or an opponent. Pro quotes “I will never leave thee, nor forsake thee.” This does not directly apply to this debate. The challenge to the ideal “A Christian Cannot Lose His Salvation” is not that God will drop them by accident, but that they will reject Jesus or abandon being His disciple. 4. PRO rightly states that faith is a gift of God. My contention is that some people reject salvation. The Christian way is too hard for them. They did not count the cost and then give up on Jesus. Look at Hebrews 12:14-17 - 17 For you know that even afterwards, when he desired to inherit the blessing, he was rejected, for he found no place for repentance, though he sought for it with tears. Hebrews warns of falling away. Look at Hebrews 2:1-3 - 1 For this reason we must pay much closer attention to what we have heard, so that we do not drift away from it . . . . how will we escape if we neglect so great a salvation? PRO closes with 1 Peter 1. I would like to respond with God’s words through Peter in 2 Peter 2:17-21 for by what a man is overcome, by this he is enslaved. 20 For if, after they have escaped the defilements of the world by the knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in them and are overcome, the last state has become worse for them than the first. 21 For it would be better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than having known it, to turn away from the holy commandment handed on to them. Here Peter says “it would be better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than having known it, to turn away ” I don’t want people to live in fear of losing their salvation as though it happens easily or accidentally. I want people to know God’s character, that he is always ready to forgive and welcome us back. God allows us choice, and the sad fact is that some turn away from following Jesus. If they persist in this rebellion then the warning of Hebrews 10:26-31 is for them - “26 For if we go on sinning willfully after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, 27 but a terrifying expectation of judgment and the fury of a fire which will consume the adversaries. God allows us great freedom, here are bad things we can do 1. Fall from grace - Gal. 5:1-4,13 2. Be led away with error - 2 Pet. 3:17 3. Err from the truth - James 5:19-20 4. Weak brother may perish - 1 Cor. 8:11 5. Fall into condemnation - James 5:12 6. Be moved away from the hope - Col. 1:21-23 7. Deny the Lord who bought them - 2 Pet. 2:1 8. Depart from the living God - Heb. 3:12 9. Can be a castaway - 1 Cor. 9:27 10. Can become accursed children - 2 Pet. 2:14 [1] http://www.merriam-webster.com... [2] http://www.merriam-webster.com... [3] http://www.merriam-webster.com... [4] http://en.wikipedia.org... [5] http://www.reclaimingthemind.org... [6] http://notachristian.org...

Religion

A-Christian-Cannot-Lose-His-Salvation/1/

1. Although PRO did not formally challenge my definition of Christian from Round 2, his question in round 3 shows that he does not accept the definition in Webster's Online Dictionary- Christian - one who professes belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ. [1] PRO's first question essentially asks "was Charles Templeton a Christian?" 1) He professed to be a Christian. (Meeting the dictionary definition) 2) His life and words gave every evidence of solid faith. (Meeting a more strict definition) 3) He was active and effective in evangelism. [2] As much as we can know, Templeton was saved. If you push your view of eternal security too far - believers will have a different worry. They will have to worry if they were really saved in the first place. 2. Pro says "'blotting out' were references to physical life ". This is often a position of people who have first decided to affirm the "once saved - always saved" position and then (without good evidence) claim it is refers to physical life. Not only is this a minority position among Christians worldwide, but it is also a minority position among scholars. [3] 3. Pro claims "-As for Rev. 2:3-5, this is connected to the case of the aforementioned man who had relations with his mother. He did not repent, and as a result, the Lord took his life away." - This is a hard position to defend, and not really part of the debate. Since the first incident happened in Corinth (1 Cor. 5:1-5) and Rev 2:3-5 is a letter from Jesus to the church at Ephesus. - Most bible scholars believe that this incident is linked to 2 Cor 2:5-11. [4] 4. PRO states "Rev 3:15-16 must be talking about those who never were saved to begin with" This is a bias that comes from your position. It becomes a circular argument. If you define saved or Christian as "those who make it to the end" you have done two things. 1) You have redefined a word differently from the dictionary definition. This makes your thesis statement meaningless as we are not using the same language. This also makes the debate one of semantics rather than substance. 2) You have made the debate pointless by definition. You cannot redefine words to make your point. Jesus' letters to the churches warn the churches that deeds must follow faith. Jesus tells them " I know your deeds". There are warnings and encouragements. Like in Rev 3:11-12 "hold fast what you have, so that no one will take your crown. 12 He who overcomes . . . " where Jesus warns them to "hold fast", and gives a conditional promise "He who overcomes". Neither statement make sense if all who claim belief are eternally secure with no option of falling or turning away. 5. Let me elaborate on Mt 18 - This teaching begins with an exchange between Peter and Jesus. "Lord, how often shall my brother sin against me and I forgive him? Up to seven times?" 22 Jesus *said to him, "I do not say to you, up to seven times, but up to seventy times seven. 23 "For this reason the kingdom of heaven may be compared to a king who wished to settle accounts with his slaves. " Jesus tells Peter that he must forgive others. The parable is of a wicked slave. forgiven much, who will not forgive others. The conclusion is that the master tells the wicked servant "33 Should you not also have had mercy on your fellow slave, in the same way that I had mercy on you?' 34 And his lord, moved with anger, handed him over to the torturers until he should repay all that was owed him." " Handed over to the torturers" is a picture of hell. The wicked servant had been forgiven a huge debt, but would not forgive others. Jesus warns that "35 My heavenly Father will also do the same to you, if each of you does not forgive his brother from your heart." 6. PRO states "One is either saved, or not saved." I disagree. There is a process (past, present and future aspects) of salvation. That is why scripture talks about "being saved" as a past event, as a present process and as a future culmination of God's work.[5] See Romans 13:11 (KJ21) "that now it is high time to awaken out of sleep; for now is our salvation nearer than when we first believed. Pro states "Here, "no one" means not even we could snatch ourselves out of His hand" - this is a bold assertion. It does not make sense. It is unsubstantiated. Pro states "the doctrine that you're arguing for makes the implication that one maintains his own salvation" - Not so. I am saying that God does not take away our freedom of choice . Look at 2 Peter 2 "even denying the Master who bought them" in v1 gives the impression that they once belonged to Jesus. The focus of the chapter is about those "forsaking the right way, they have gone astray" v15 Look at v 20-21 " For if, after they have escaped the defilements of the world by the knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in them and are overcome, the last state has become worse for them than the first. For it would be better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than having known it, to turn away from the holy commandment handed on to them." - This is clearly about people who escaped defilement by knowledge of Jesus but then turn away. PRO claims I am arguing doctrine I am simply exploring scripture. See Hebrews 10:26-27 "For if we go on sinning willfully after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a terrifying expectation of judgment and the fury of a fire which will consume the adversaries." Scripture tells that willful sin after receiving the knowledge of the truth has terrible consequences of "judgment and the fury of a fire which will consume the adversaries." PRO opposes that "drifting away" was a reference to drifting away from faith." - Hebrews 2 tells us to pay attention "so that we do not drift away." and then warns " how will we escape if we neglect so great a salvation? " It is clearly talking about salvation and the message of Jesus. In 1 Timothy 4 "the Spirit explicitly says that in later times some will fall away from the faith , paying attention to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons" in verse 1. See the conditional promise " Pay close attention to yourself and to your teaching; persevere in these things, for as you do this you will ensure salvation both for yourself and for those who hear you." Jesus teaches about falling away in Luke 8. Not how he says some believe and then fall away (v 13), and that others bring no fruit to maturity (v 14) "13 Those on the rocky soil are those who, when they hear, receive the word with joy; and these have no firm root; they believe for a while, and in time of temptation fall away ." Although I am Baptist, I find the following a good source. [6], [7] [1] <URL>... [2] <URL>... [3] <URL>... [4] <URL>... - click on "show resources" and RSB 1 Cor 5:3-5 [5] <URL>... [6] <URL>... [7] <URL>...

gordonjames

1. Although PRO did not formally challenge my definition of Christian from Round 2, his question in round 3 shows that he does not accept the definition in Webster’s Online Dictionary- Christian - one who professes belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ. [1] PRO’s first question essentially asks “was Charles Templeton a Christian?” 1) He professed to be a Christian. (Meeting the dictionary definition) 2) His life and words gave every evidence of solid faith. (Meeting a more strict definition) 3) He was active and effective in evangelism. [2] As much as we can know, Templeton was saved. If you push your view of eternal security too far - believers will have a different worry. They will have to worry if they were really saved in the first place. 2. Pro says “‘blotting out’ were references to physical life ”. This is often a position of people who have first decided to affirm the “once saved - always saved” position and then (without good evidence) claim it is refers to physical life. Not only is this a minority position among Christians worldwide, but it is also a minority position among scholars. [3] 3. Pro claims “-As for Rev. 2:3-5, this is connected to the case of the aforementioned man who had relations with his mother. He did not repent, and as a result, the Lord took his life away.” - This is a hard position to defend, and not really part of the debate. Since the first incident happened in Corinth (1 Cor. 5:1-5) and Rev 2:3-5 is a letter from Jesus to the church at Ephesus. - Most bible scholars believe that this incident is linked to 2 Cor 2:5-11. [4] 4. PRO states “Rev 3:15-16 must be talking about those who never were saved to begin with” This is a bias that comes from your position. It becomes a circular argument. If you define saved or Christian as “those who make it to the end” you have done two things. 1) You have redefined a word differently from the dictionary definition. This makes your thesis statement meaningless as we are not using the same language. This also makes the debate one of semantics rather than substance. 2) You have made the debate pointless by definition. You cannot redefine words to make your point. Jesus’ letters to the churches warn the churches that deeds must follow faith. Jesus tells them “ I know your deeds”. There are warnings and encouragements. Like in Rev 3:11-12 “hold fast what you have, so that no one will take your crown. 12 He who overcomes . . . “ where Jesus warns them to “hold fast”, and gives a conditional promise “He who overcomes”. Neither statement make sense if all who claim belief are eternally secure with no option of falling or turning away. 5. Let me elaborate on Mt 18 - This teaching begins with an exchange between Peter and Jesus. “Lord, how often shall my brother sin against me and I forgive him? Up to seven times?” 22 Jesus *said to him, “I do not say to you, up to seven times, but up to seventy times seven. 23 “For this reason the kingdom of heaven may be compared to a king who wished to settle accounts with his slaves. ” Jesus tells Peter that he must forgive others. The parable is of a wicked slave. forgiven much, who will not forgive others. The conclusion is that the master tells the wicked servant “33 Should you not also have had mercy on your fellow slave, in the same way that I had mercy on you?’ 34 And his lord, moved with anger, handed him over to the torturers until he should repay all that was owed him.” “ Handed over to the torturers” is a picture of hell. The wicked servant had been forgiven a huge debt, but would not forgive others. Jesus warns that “35 My heavenly Father will also do the same to you, if each of you does not forgive his brother from your heart.” 6. PRO states “One is either saved, or not saved.” I disagree. There is a process (past, present and future aspects) of salvation. That is why scripture talks about “being saved” as a past event, as a present process and as a future culmination of God’s work.[5] See Romans 13:11 (KJ21) “that now it is high time to awaken out of sleep; for now is our salvation nearer than when we first believed. Pro states “Here, "no one" means not even we could snatch ourselves out of His hand” - this is a bold assertion. It does not make sense. It is unsubstantiated. Pro states “the doctrine that you're arguing for makes the implication that one maintains his own salvation” - Not so. I am saying that God does not take away our freedom of choice . Look at 2 Peter 2 “even denying the Master who bought them” in v1 gives the impression that they once belonged to Jesus. The focus of the chapter is about those “forsaking the right way, they have gone astray” v15 Look at v 20-21 “ For if, after they have escaped the defilements of the world by the knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in them and are overcome, the last state has become worse for them than the first. For it would be better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than having known it, to turn away from the holy commandment handed on to them.” - This is clearly about people who escaped defilement by knowledge of Jesus but then turn away. PRO claims I am arguing doctrine I am simply exploring scripture. See Hebrews 10:26-27 “For if we go on sinning willfully after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a terrifying expectation of judgment and the fury of a fire which will consume the adversaries.” Scripture tells that willful sin after receiving the knowledge of the truth has terrible consequences of “judgment and the fury of a fire which will consume the adversaries.” PRO opposes that "drifting away" was a reference to drifting away from faith.” - Hebrews 2 tells us to pay attention “so that we do not drift away.” and then warns “ how will we escape if we neglect so great a salvation? ” It is clearly talking about salvation and the message of Jesus. In 1 Timothy 4 “the Spirit explicitly says that in later times some will fall away from the faith , paying attention to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons” in verse 1. See the conditional promise “ Pay close attention to yourself and to your teaching; persevere in these things, for as you do this you will ensure salvation both for yourself and for those who hear you.” Jesus teaches about falling away in Luke 8. Not how he says some believe and then fall away (v 13), and that others bring no fruit to maturity (v 14) “13 Those on the rocky soil are those who, when they hear, receive the word with joy; and these have no firm root; they believe for a while, and in time of temptation fall away .” Although I am Baptist, I find the following a good source. [6], [7] [1] http://www.merriam-webster.com... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org... [3] http://www.bbc.edu... [4] http://www.biblegateway.com... - click on “show resources” and RSB 1 Cor 5:3–5 [5] http://www.ewtn.com... [6] http://enrichmentjournal.ag.org... [7] http://enrichmentjournal.ag.org...

Religion

A-Christian-Cannot-Lose-His-Salvation/1/

As it is the last round I would like to state my position clearly. 1. We are saved by grace (God's kindness that we don't deserve) Through faith (Complete trust or confidence) This faith is a gift from God. [Eph 2:8] NOTE - Belief in a set of precepts is not enough. James 2:19 (NASB) You believe that God is one. You do well; the demons also believe, and shudder. 2. Discussions of eternal security often hit these common pitfalls including: a) Defining salvation narrowly as those (known only to God) who make it to the end. In this position, anyone who falls away is dismissed with the phrase "they were never really saved to begin with." by the narrow definition of this position. One (of many) problems with this position is that the definition is not biblical. It also leaves people wondering if they are really "saved to begin with." This fear seems to be in exact contradiction of the supposed goal of this position (that believers know they are secure) b) Defining salvation too broadly as everyone who claims to be a Christian. In this position, many who show little evidence of Christian character, faith and works are considered to be Christian. This is also a position against the clear teaching of scripture. In time, some of these so called believers go from claiming a Christian position to some other position. The main problem with this is that Christianity is not about affirming some doctrinal position or intellectual assent to a set of beliefs. c) Forgetting that salvation is primarily a work of God leads to many errors. It is about being "in Christ" - Rom 8:1 "Therefore there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus." Being "in Christ" includes the presence of the Holy Spirit - Rom 8:9 "However, you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. But if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Him." This includes God's choosing, sometimes called election, and it includes us abiding in Him. 1 John 4:1313 By this we know that we abide in Him and He in us, because He has given us of His Spirit. 3. God offers freedom of choice. From the garden of Eden [Gen 2:15-17] to final judgment [Rev 20:7-9] this is God's way. Why would God, on this one issue, remove the freedom to choose? I do not believe that salvation is a fragile thing. I simply see no evidence that God removes the freedom to choose or even rebel. 4. You can trust God. "He is able to guard what I have entrusted to Him until that day. " [2 Tim 1:12] The people who step out of that secure position are those who no longer entrust themselves to Him. They are the ones who persist in running from God's grace. My experience is that many who run from God are brought back. 2 Tim 1:8-12 (NASB) 8 Therefore do not be ashamed of the testimony of our Lord or of me His prisoner, but join with me in suffering for the gospel according to the power of God, 9 who has saved us and called us with a holy calling, not according to our works, but according to His own purpose and grace which was granted us in Christ Jesus from all eternity, 10 but now has been revealed by the appearing of our Savior Christ Jesus, who abolished death and brought life and immortality to light through the gospel, 11 for which I was appointed a preacher and an apostle and a teacher. 12 For this reason I also suffer these things, but I am not ashamed; for I know whom I have believed and I am convinced that He is able to guard what I have entrusted to Him until that day. Thanks to Pro for the great topic. Great to debate with friends. I hope you stop reading now, . . . . (VOTE CON) but for those who want to see my response to PRO's round 4 thoughts I will persevere. Pro R4P1 - "Con would be right in saying that I do not accept the said definition" The time for PRO to present a definition or respond to my definition is before the final round. I must presume on the voters to accept the common dictionary definition rather than allowing PRO to define the word differently. Christian - one who professes belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ. The time for PRO to offer a definition would be in round 1, 2 or 3. Pro R4P1 - "Con did not answer the question, "Did Charles Templeton believe in any of the essential doctrines?"" In case I was not clear enough, Charles Templeton believed and taught all "the essential doctrines" as referenced by PRO. Pro R4P2 - " were David's enemies believers?" David was not a believer in Jesus. His enemies were not believers in Jesus. I was simply pointing out that both the New Testament and the Old Testament speak of God's book of life. Both NT and OT talk about the results of not having your name in the book of life. The Bible talks about removing names from the book. [1] PRO tries to say that these refer to physical life (as though God killed the body right then) but these people lived on. I leave it to the readers to look at these scriptures and decide if it is referring to physical life or to something eternal and spiritual. [2] In Genesis 6/7 it is clearly physical. After Exodus it is clearly not physical. Pro R4P3 - Pro references 1 Cor. 5:1-5 (round 3) - I did not use this as an argument for my position so I am not sure why Pro has brought this up. Let me give 2 comments on this scripture. a) Most scholars think 2 Cor 2:1-11 refers to this same situation. He repented and the people were told to affirm their love for him as well. b) Trying to link 1 Cor 5:1-5 about a particular sin of a particular man with Rev 2:5 is sloppy scholarship. Rev 2:5 is Jesus' words to the church in Ephesus (Not Corinth). Pro R4P4 - "Is there a middle ground/a lukewarm position in an eternal sense? Is it possible for one to be not saved and to be not unsaved at the same time?" I need clarification. I'm not sure what you are trying to say, and there are no more rounds to help me understand your position. Pro references <URL>... in saying that " the Greek word for crown is a reference to rewards, not salvation". This is a mistake. The Greek word for crown actually refers to (surprise) a crown. It is the job of the reader to interpret what the writer meant. The quote cited by PRO says "The Greek word for crown, stephanos, according to Thayer, has the meaning "metaphorically the eternal blessedness which will be given as a prize to the genuine servants of God and Christ: the crown (wreath) which is the reward of the righteousness." Anyone can redefine a word to "metaphorically" mean something that supports their preconceived position. Pro R4P5 - " it is safe to say that the "handed over to the torturers" part must be the disciplining of believers for their sins (5). If this refers to salvation being lost, then how could such people be referred to as servants anymore?" You are making a circular argument here. You can only say "we know that they would only get judged for their rewards instead of salvation" if you have presumed your version of eternal security. The words of Jesus make clear that this is NOT discipline. He (the wicked servant) now had responsibility for the entire debt. "And his lord, moved with anger, handed him over to the torturers until he should repay all that was owed him." [Mt 18:34 NASB] Pro R4P6 - Again the circular argument and redefinition of Christian from the natural and common meaning of the word. If you wanted to use such an unusual definition, you should have at least presented it in round 1, 2, or 3. [1] <URL>... [2] <URL>...

gordonjames

As it is the last round I would like to state my position clearly. 1. We are saved by grace (God’s kindness that we don’t deserve) Through faith (Complete trust or confidence) This faith is a gift from God. [Eph 2:8] NOTE - Belief in a set of precepts is not enough. James 2:19 (NASB) You believe that God is one. You do well; the demons also believe, and shudder. 2. Discussions of eternal security often hit these common pitfalls including: a) Defining salvation narrowly as those (known only to God) who make it to the end. In this position, anyone who falls away is dismissed with the phrase “they were never really saved to begin with.” by the narrow definition of this position. One (of many) problems with this position is that the definition is not biblical. It also leaves people wondering if they are really “saved to begin with.” This fear seems to be in exact contradiction of the supposed goal of this position (that believers know they are secure) b) Defining salvation too broadly as everyone who claims to be a Christian. In this position, many who show little evidence of Christian character, faith and works are considered to be Christian. This is also a position against the clear teaching of scripture. In time, some of these so called believers go from claiming a Christian position to some other position. The main problem with this is that Christianity is not about affirming some doctrinal position or intellectual assent to a set of beliefs. c) Forgetting that salvation is primarily a work of God leads to many errors. It is about being “in Christ” - Rom 8:1 “Therefore there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.” Being “in Christ” includes the presence of the Holy Spirit - Rom 8:9 “However, you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. But if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Him.” This includes God’s choosing, sometimes called election, and it includes us abiding in Him. 1 John 4:1313 By this we know that we abide in Him and He in us, because He has given us of His Spirit. 3. God offers freedom of choice. From the garden of Eden [Gen 2:15-17] to final judgment [Rev 20:7-9] this is God’s way. Why would God, on this one issue, remove the freedom to choose? I do not believe that salvation is a fragile thing. I simply see no evidence that God removes the freedom to choose or even rebel. 4. You can trust God. “He is able to guard what I have entrusted to Him until that day. ” [2 Tim 1:12] The people who step out of that secure position are those who no longer entrust themselves to Him. They are the ones who persist in running from God’s grace. My experience is that many who run from God are brought back. 2 Tim 1:8-12 (NASB) 8 Therefore do not be ashamed of the testimony of our Lord or of me His prisoner, but join with me in suffering for the gospel according to the power of God, 9 who has saved us and called us with a holy calling, not according to our works, but according to His own purpose and grace which was granted us in Christ Jesus from all eternity, 10 but now has been revealed by the appearing of our Savior Christ Jesus, who abolished death and brought life and immortality to light through the gospel, 11 for which I was appointed a preacher and an apostle and a teacher. 12 For this reason I also suffer these things, but I am not ashamed; for I know whom I have believed and I am convinced that He is able to guard what I have entrusted to Him until that day. Thanks to Pro for the great topic. Great to debate with friends. I hope you stop reading now, . . . . (VOTE CON) but for those who want to see my response to PRO’s round 4 thoughts I will persevere. Pro R4P1 - “Con would be right in saying that I do not accept the said definition” The time for PRO to present a definition or respond to my definition is before the final round. I must presume on the voters to accept the common dictionary definition rather than allowing PRO to define the word differently. Christian - one who professes belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ. The time for PRO to offer a definition would be in round 1, 2 or 3. Pro R4P1 - “Con did not answer the question, "Did Charles Templeton believe in any of the essential doctrines?"” In case I was not clear enough, Charles Templeton believed and taught all “the essential doctrines” as referenced by PRO. Pro R4P2 - “ were David's enemies believers?” David was not a believer in Jesus. His enemies were not believers in Jesus. I was simply pointing out that both the New Testament and the Old Testament speak of God’s book of life. Both NT and OT talk about the results of not having your name in the book of life. The Bible talks about removing names from the book. [1] PRO tries to say that these refer to physical life (as though God killed the body right then) but these people lived on. I leave it to the readers to look at these scriptures and decide if it is referring to physical life or to something eternal and spiritual. [2] In Genesis 6/7 it is clearly physical. After Exodus it is clearly not physical. Pro R4P3 - Pro references 1 Cor. 5:1-5 (round 3) - I did not use this as an argument for my position so I am not sure why Pro has brought this up. Let me give 2 comments on this scripture. a) Most scholars think 2 Cor 2:1-11 refers to this same situation. He repented and the people were told to affirm their love for him as well. b) Trying to link 1 Cor 5:1-5 about a particular sin of a particular man with Rev 2:5 is sloppy scholarship. Rev 2:5 is Jesus’ words to the church in Ephesus (Not Corinth). Pro R4P4 - “Is there a middle ground/a lukewarm position in an eternal sense? Is it possible for one to be not saved and to be not unsaved at the same time?” I need clarification. I’m not sure what you are trying to say, and there are no more rounds to help me understand your position. Pro references http://www.godandscience.org... in saying that “ the Greek word for crown is a reference to rewards, not salvation”. This is a mistake. The Greek word for crown actually refers to (surprise) a crown. It is the job of the reader to interpret what the writer meant. The quote cited by PRO says “The Greek word for crown, stephanos, according to Thayer, has the meaning "metaphorically the eternal blessedness which will be given as a prize to the genuine servants of God and Christ: the crown (wreath) which is the reward of the righteousness.” Anyone can redefine a word to “metaphorically” mean something that supports their preconceived position. Pro R4P5 - “ it is safe to say that the "handed over to the torturers" part must be the disciplining of believers for their sins (5). If this refers to salvation being lost, then how could such people be referred to as servants anymore?” You are making a circular argument here. You can only say “we know that they would only get judged for their rewards instead of salvation” if you have presumed your version of eternal security. The words of Jesus make clear that this is NOT discipline. He (the wicked servant) now had responsibility for the entire debt. “And his lord, moved with anger, handed him over to the torturers until he should repay all that was owed him.” [Mt 18:34 NASB] Pro R4P6 - Again the circular argument and redefinition of Christian from the natural and common meaning of the word. If you wanted to use such an unusual definition, you should have at least presented it in round 1, 2, or 3. [1] http://www.biblegateway.com... [2] http://www.biblegateway.com...

Religion

A-Christian-Cannot-Lose-His-Salvation/1/

Tbh i do believe that there are many Monsters in the Dr. Who series that would definitely fall to the Daleks they are the greatest. But would say the Weeping angels but i have an understanding that there "magic/power" has no effect on the Robot force so the Cybermen would be my choice...

BenjyBrown

Tbh i do believe that there are many Monsters in the Dr. Who series that would definitely fall to the Daleks they are the greatest. But would say the Weeping angels but i have an understanding that there "magic/power" has no effect on the Robot force so the Cybermen would be my choice...

Entertainment

A-Dalek-would-win-in-a-fight/1/

I will be arguing that if in a fight, a dalek would beat any other monster from Dr. Who. First round is for acceptance and to pick your monster that you believe would beat a Dalek in a fight. Circumstances: In order to debate this, we need to set up the background. The dalek and the monster my opponent chooses will be placed at opposite sides facing each other in an arena. The arena is 100 feet long, 50 feet wide, and 50 feet tall. The walls, ground and ceiling are indestructible. Also, everything is assumed to be fully functioning, and has only their standard weapons. Rules: - You need to be familiar with the TV show. - The monster you choose must be from Dr. Who. - Your monster cannot be human or time lord. - No cheap loop-holes please. Definitions: Monster- enemy of the Doctor Beat- defeat, exterminate By accepting the debate you agree to all the above definitions, rules and circumstances. I wish my opponent luck. Allons-y!

Merrit

I will be arguing that if in a fight, a dalek would beat any other monster from Dr. Who. First round is for acceptance and to pick your monster that you believe would beat a Dalek in a fight. Circumstances: In order to debate this, we need to set up the background. The dalek and the monster my opponent chooses will be placed at opposite sides facing each other in an arena. The arena is 100 feet long, 50 feet wide, and 50 feet tall. The walls, ground and ceiling are indestructible. Also, everything is assumed to be fully functioning, and has only their standard weapons. Rules: - You need to be familiar with the TV show. - The monster you choose must be from Dr. Who. - Your monster cannot be human or time lord. - No cheap loop-holes please. Definitions: Monster- enemy of the Doctor Beat- defeat, exterminate By accepting the debate you agree to all the above definitions, rules and circumstances. I wish my opponent luck. Allons-y!

Entertainment

A-Dalek-would-win-in-a-fight/1/

I would like to thank Con for accepting my challenge, and wish him luck. Con stated that a Cyberman will defeat a Dalek. I will proceed to present my case. Argument: In the Dr. Who season 2 finale "Doomsday," the Cybermen actually declare war on the Daleks.[1] The four Daleks then proceed to destroy several cybermen. The Cybermen's weapons, laser guns, were virtually useless against the Daleks. Check out this clip from the very episode: <URL>... There are many more Cybermen than Daleks. Therefore, if it was one on one, a Dalek would surely win. Sources: [1]: <URL>... (TV_story)

Merrit

I would like to thank Con for accepting my challenge, and wish him luck. Con stated that a Cyberman will defeat a Dalek. I will proceed to present my case. Argument: In the Dr. Who season 2 finale "Doomsday," the Cybermen actually declare war on the Daleks.[1] The four Daleks then proceed to destroy several cybermen. The Cybermen's weapons, laser guns, were virtually useless against the Daleks. Check out this clip from the very episode: https://www.youtube.com... There are many more Cybermen than Daleks. Therefore, if it was one on one, a Dalek would surely win. Sources: [1]: http://tardis.wikia.com... (TV_story)

Entertainment

A-Dalek-would-win-in-a-fight/1/

This is a debate on the Electoral College. I am con and will allow my opponent to start. The resolution is that the Electoral College should remain unchanged

ournamestoolong

This is a debate on the Electoral College. I am con and will allow my opponent to start. The resolution is that the Electoral College should remain unchanged

Politics

A-Debate-On-The-Electoral-College/1/

I am new to debate.org so I may make some mistakes. First of all I refute that the founding fathers in creating the Electoral College, knew exactly what they were doing. They had no idea how the times would change so they added a means for ammends in the constitution. Second I refute that because of the Electoral College no state may rule over another. This is not true because of overepresentation within the states. Wyoming is extremely overepresented with 1 Electoral Vote per abut 100000 while Texas has an Electoral vote per about 600000 people. So a citizen in Wyoming has Wyoming has 600% more power than a citizen in Texas. Is this fair? Third I refute that small states would'nt be neglected in the popular system. This is because some votes in some states don't matter at all. If you are a democrat in a largely Republican state, then the state will ultimately go "red" and your vote will not affect the total. Also, if you support a third party candidate, your state will not help elet them and your vote will not count. So if we truly do believe in the statement " We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal" Then we must eliminate the Electoral College to make our votes equal. And last I say That 4 times in American history, a candidate has won without the popular vote. The peoples voices went unheard and we cannot make that mistake again. Every vote must count and everyvoice must be heard

ournamestoolong

I am new to debate.org so I may make some mistakes. First of all I refute that the founding fathers in creating the Electoral College, knew exactly what they were doing. They had no idea how the times would change so they added a means for ammends in the constitution. Second I refute that because of the Electoral College no state may rule over another. This is not true because of overepresentation within the states. Wyoming is extremely overepresented with 1 Electoral Vote per abut 100000 while Texas has an Electoral vote per about 600000 people. So a citizen in Wyoming has Wyoming has 600% more power than a citizen in Texas. Is this fair? Third I refute that small states would'nt be neglected in the popular system. This is because some votes in some states don't matter at all. If you are a democrat in a largely Republican state, then the state will ultimately go "red" and your vote will not affect the total. Also, if you support a third party candidate, your state will not help elet them and your vote will not count. So if we truly do believe in the statement " We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal" Then we must eliminate the Electoral College to make our votes equal. And last I say That 4 times in American history, a candidate has won without the popular vote. The peoples voices went unheard and we cannot make that mistake again. Every vote must count and everyvoice must be heard

Politics

A-Debate-On-The-Electoral-College/1/

I must say I was incorrect in stating that Wyoming was more overrepresented in the Electoral College by a margain of 6 to one, I meant 3 to 1. (Wyoming has .2% of the population with .6% of the Electoral Vote). There is still overrepresentation however. And to refute I will explain how 500,000 people can measure up to 23,000,000. Because the minimum amount of Electoral Votes is three (two senators + representatives) Wyoming, regardless of population will have three. Meanwhile, because the arbitrary number of 538 Electoral votes was created, fast growing states gain Electoral Votes, and that means populous states lose Electoral Votes. Also, the official census of the United States is taken every ten years. This is a problem because it does not compensate for a large rise or fall in population. You also said that four states California, Florida, Texas, and New York would control the election process. However as it is they control about one fifth (this is a estimate) of the Electorate. If we switched to popular vote they would control about one fourth of the electorate, so other states would still matter. In your closing you stated that "You also stated 'We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal' well if you really believed in this logic you would support the electoral college so that no ONE state would not be heard" Well I refute that we should not be designated by our state. We should not be given power based on our political affiliations or the town or city or state we live in. We should be given power as a person. An individual. And that is why we must replace the Electoral College. Thank you for the debate. I have enjoyed it.

ournamestoolong

I must say I was incorrect in stating that Wyoming was more overrepresented in the Electoral College by a margain of 6 to one, I meant 3 to 1. (Wyoming has .2% of the population with .6% of the Electoral Vote). There is still overrepresentation however. And to refute I will explain how 500,000 people can measure up to 23,000,000. Because the minimum amount of Electoral Votes is three (two senators + representatives) Wyoming, regardless of population will have three. Meanwhile, because the arbitrary number of 538 Electoral votes was created, fast growing states gain Electoral Votes, and that means populous states lose Electoral Votes. Also, the official census of the United States is taken every ten years. This is a problem because it does not compensate for a large rise or fall in population. You also said that four states California, Florida, Texas, and New York would control the election process. However as it is they control about one fifth (this is a estimate) of the Electorate. If we switched to popular vote they would control about one fourth of the electorate, so other states would still matter. In your closing you stated that "You also stated 'We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal' well if you really believed in this logic you would support the electoral college so that no ONE state would not be heard" Well I refute that we should not be designated by our state. We should not be given power based on our political affiliations or the town or city or state we live in. We should be given power as a person. An individual. And that is why we must replace the Electoral College. Thank you for the debate. I have enjoyed it.

Politics

A-Debate-On-The-Electoral-College/1/

I would like to thank my opponent for this chance to debate and hope that it is informative. Now by the existence of God I am assuming we are meaning. the supernatural being conceived as the perfect and omnipotent and omniscient originator and ruler of the universe; the object of worship in monotheistic religions[1] Now the only objection my opponent has seemed to make is that of questioning where God cam from. God is eternal and stretches from all eternity to all eternity he has existed throughout all time and precedes time and will also exceed time in existence. He is without beginning and without end. Now it is understandable that this may be a source of confusion to Pro as no human being can fully grasp the concept of eternity in this life, we can explain and define it but we cannot understand it at this stage of our existence. The best conception I have of eternity is two mirrors of the exact same size positioned right in front of each other at the exact same instance so that they reflect into each other forever. I will be happy to address any other objections my opponent has to the logical existence of God [1]wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

Strikeeagle84015

I would like to thank my opponent for this chance to debate and hope that it is informative. Now by the existence of God I am assuming we are meaning. the supernatural being conceived as the perfect and omnipotent and omniscient originator and ruler of the universe; the object of worship in monotheistic religions[1] Now the only objection my opponent has seemed to make is that of questioning where God cam from. God is eternal and stretches from all eternity to all eternity he has existed throughout all time and precedes time and will also exceed time in existence. He is without beginning and without end. Now it is understandable that this may be a source of confusion to Pro as no human being can fully grasp the concept of eternity in this life, we can explain and define it but we cannot understand it at this stage of our existence. The best conception I have of eternity is two mirrors of the exact same size positioned right in front of each other at the exact same instance so that they reflect into each other forever. I will be happy to address any other objections my opponent has to the logical existence of God [1]wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

Religion

A-God-is-illogical./1/

There is nothing that has a full explanation in the bible or Torah. Nothing saying how . Where did god come from? It doesn't make any sense. I'm open to explanations.

Taylor6696

There is nothing that has a full explanation in the bible or Torah. Nothing saying how . Where did god come from? It doesn't make any sense. I'm open to explanations.

Religion

A-God-is-illogical./1/

No definitions mean that I can argue anything. I interpret the resolution to mean that there is a 100% chance that a Joe Biden/Elizabeth Warren ticket would defeat a Hillary Clinton / ___ ticket in the primaries. Nothing is ever 100%. It's our laws of nature that reflect every aspect of life and existence. You can't have something without nothing. Here is an extreme example: Let's say some random stranger walked up to you and gave you his car at some place you met, called point A. Think of everything it took to lead you to point A. Maybe you were on your way to school while he stopped you, School costs money/time so without previous actions your event with the person would have never happened, like if you decided you never wanted to go to school. Your encounter with the person may have never happened had you invested the time/money to go to school. Nothing is ever true. How do you know that I am not a spaghetti monster typing on my computer now hypnotizing you as you read these very words. Nothing is ever certain ... this may even be the matrix.

TheQuestionMark

No definitions mean that I can argue anything. I interpret the resolution to mean that there is a 100% chance that a Joe Biden/Elizabeth Warren ticket would defeat a Hillary Clinton / ___ ticket in the primaries. Nothing is ever 100%. It's our laws of nature that reflect every aspect of life and existence. You can't have something without nothing. Here is an extreme example: Let's say some random stranger walked up to you and gave you his car at some place you met, called point A. Think of everything it took to lead you to point A. Maybe you were on your way to school while he stopped you, School costs money/time so without previous actions your event with the person would have never happened, like if you decided you never wanted to go to school. Your encounter with the person may have never happened had you invested the time/money to go to school. Nothing is ever true. How do you know that I am not a spaghetti monster typing on my computer now hypnotizing you as you read these very words. Nothing is ever certain ... this may even be the matrix.

Politics

A-Joe-Biden-Elizabeth-Warren-ticket-would-defeat-a-Hillary-Clinton-ticket-in-the-primaries/1/

Your position in this debate is to argue that there is a 100% chance. Mine isn't to say that there is a 0% chance. I am just arguing against the resolution which means that all I have to do is argue that there isn't a 100% chance. Not why there is a 0% chance and I interpret this debate so that the BoP is on Pro since their role in this debate is to prove that there is a 100% chance. He claims that there is a 100% chance that Tim Tebow wont convert to Islam, hijack an airplane and fly it into the Peyton Manning's house in Denver for taking his job there, come back to life, and swallow the entire Earth whole. However this is not true the chances may be extremely slim however as I have stated nothing is impossible. For all we know we may all be in the Matrix. Everyone around you may be robots and you may be the only human being alive. Maybe Tim Tebow is secretly an alien who has infinite powers and he reads your argument and sees it as a challenge he may then decide to do the challenge that you have set him. You cannot prove my argument 100% false. You can say that it is more probable that it is false but you cannot say that it is completely false. Maybe I hypnotised you to say those exact sentences because if you were really that smart you would realise that a hypnotic spaghetti monster my brain would be spaghetti so I would be pretty dumb ... of course there isn't a 100% chance that my brain would be spaghetti so it is possible that I would have a brain .... By the way, Pro - you cannot create new rules in R2 since I have accepted the debate that is unfair on me since I did not know that you would do that. It is like me doing a God debate and suddenly changing the defininitions and stating that my opponnet cannot argue against the definitions in any way halfway through the debate - that's just unfair. The instigator of the debate should not have more power over the challenger other than the fact taht they can set up R1 once the challenger accepts they are both equal for the rest of the debate unless somebody breaks a rule. New rules aren't allowed half way through a debate and as a result the rules that you made stating that I cannot interpret the resolution, BoP or definitions without your permission is invalid. And by the way, just because you have been on this site longer - it does not mean that you are a better troll than me because I am certain that I am better.

TheQuestionMark

Your position in this debate is to argue that there is a 100% chance. Mine isn't to say that there is a 0% chance. I am just arguing against the resolution which means that all I have to do is argue that there isn't a 100% chance. Not why there is a 0% chance and I interpret this debate so that the BoP is on Pro since their role in this debate is to prove that there is a 100% chance. He claims that there is a 100% chance that Tim Tebow wont convert to Islam, hijack an airplane and fly it into the Peyton Manning's house in Denver for taking his job there, come back to life, and swallow the entire Earth whole. However this is not true the chances may be extremely slim however as I have stated nothing is impossible. For all we know we may all be in the Matrix. Everyone around you may be robots and you may be the only human being alive. Maybe Tim Tebow is secretly an alien who has infinite powers and he reads your argument and sees it as a challenge he may then decide to do the challenge that you have set him. You cannot prove my argument 100% false. You can say that it is more probable that it is false but you cannot say that it is completely false. Maybe I hypnotised you to say those exact sentences because if you were really that smart you would realise that a hypnotic spaghetti monster my brain would be spaghetti so I would be pretty dumb ... of course there isn't a 100% chance that my brain would be spaghetti so it is possible that I would have a brain .... By the way, Pro - you cannot create new rules in R2 since I have accepted the debate that is unfair on me since I did not know that you would do that. It is like me doing a God debate and suddenly changing the defininitions and stating that my opponnet cannot argue against the definitions in any way halfway through the debate - that's just unfair. The instigator of the debate should not have more power over the challenger other than the fact taht they can set up R1 once the challenger accepts they are both equal for the rest of the debate unless somebody breaks a rule. New rules aren't allowed half way through a debate and as a result the rules that you made stating that I cannot interpret the resolution, BoP or definitions without your permission is invalid. And by the way, just because you have been on this site longer - it does not mean that you are a better troll than me because I am certain that I am better.

Politics

A-Joe-Biden-Elizabeth-Warren-ticket-would-defeat-a-Hillary-Clinton-ticket-in-the-primaries/1/

It isn't about how well you have argued your case. You may have provided reasons as why it is likely to happen but those reasons certainly aren't 100% because if they were then this wouldn't be a debatable topic. I don't need to provide an argument all I need to do is prove that your arguments aren't 100% and that means that your burden is unfufilled. I said that the alien thing is extremely unlikely to happen - and he probably sucks at football because he new to our planets customs and is learning. When he reads your comment he might be bored of football and decide to consume our planet. Unlikely but not 100% unlikely. I would be dead without a brain. Your brain is like the command-central for your body. Everything you do, think and say depends on your brain. The brain is divided into regions that control various functions, such as movement, speech and balance. Damage to a region may affect the functions it controls, causing symptoms such as loss of movement, difficulty speaking, or loss of coordination. I wouldn't be able to type this without a brain - so again, your argument has been proven false. " There was no rule in the first round stating that I couldnt add new rules halfway through the debate, and your interpretation of the debate never said that I couldn't add new rules halfway through the debate XD " You may think that I am a bad troll but your logic is clearly flawed because according to your logic that means that in R1 it also never said that I cannot make rules. You have made the biggest mistake of your life! My new rule is that everything Pro says is false and that Con automatically wins the debate and because there are no more rounds I have won this debate! Better luck next time Pro! Exactly, being in the HoF is only because you have been on this site longer and have been able to troll more than me. You haven't turned the tables on me, you have just ruined any chance of you winning the debate - if you can make up the rules then so can I because it was never stated in round 1!

TheQuestionMark

It isn't about how well you have argued your case. You may have provided reasons as why it is likely to happen but those reasons certainly aren't 100% because if they were then this wouldn't be a debatable topic. I don't need to provide an argument all I need to do is prove that your arguments aren't 100% and that means that your burden is unfufilled. I said that the alien thing is extremely unlikely to happen - and he probably sucks at football because he new to our planets customs and is learning. When he reads your comment he might be bored of football and decide to consume our planet. Unlikely but not 100% unlikely. I would be dead without a brain. Your brain is like the command-central for your body. Everything you do, think and say depends on your brain. The brain is divided into regions that control various functions, such as movement, speech and balance. Damage to a region may affect the functions it controls, causing symptoms such as loss of movement, difficulty speaking, or loss of coordination. I wouldn't be able to type this without a brain - so again, your argument has been proven false. " There was no rule in the first round stating that I couldnt add new rules halfway through the debate, and your interpretation of the debate never said that I couldn't add new rules halfway through the debate XD " You may think that I am a bad troll but your logic is clearly flawed because according to your logic that means that in R1 it also never said that I cannot make rules. You have made the biggest mistake of your life! My new rule is that everything Pro says is false and that Con automatically wins the debate and because there are no more rounds I have won this debate! Better luck next time Pro! Exactly, being in the HoF is only because you have been on this site longer and have been able to troll more than me. You haven't turned the tables on me, you have just ruined any chance of you winning the debate - if you can make up the rules then so can I because it was never stated in round 1!

Politics

A-Joe-Biden-Elizabeth-Warren-ticket-would-defeat-a-Hillary-Clinton-ticket-in-the-primaries/1/

3 rounds, 24 hours between rounds I will argue that a nomination ticket of Joe Biden and Elizabeth Warren (As Pres and Vice Pres respectively) would defeat a Hillary Clinton ticket regardless of whoever she picked as her VP for the nomination of the Democratic Party. (Whoever Hillary picks as her VP has to be eligible to be VP in the first place, you cant pick 'God' or a dead person to be her VP, no trolling allowed) The reasons why are listed below 1) Likability Hillary Clinton is very unliked among republicans, but she also has likability issues with democratic voters themselves <URL>... In April of 2015, 80% of Dems viewed Hillary positively. That number slid to 70% in July, while 25% of Democrats viewed Hillary as unfavorable (Everyone else had a mixed opinion). If the numbers continue to slide at the current rate, Hillary could easily be looking at 50-50 ratings of favorability from her own party Biden on the other hand had an approval of 80% by Democrats in May, like Hillary did at the same time, but Biden's numbers have stayed there, while Hillary's have routinely dropped from month to month. <URL>... Should Biden decide to run, his likability advantage over Clinton among Democratic voters would give him quite the advantage over Hillarys campaign 2) Issues Biden's stance on a variety of issues are only somewhat similar to the stances Hillary has right now. On issues of Individual Rights, Domestic Issues, Economic Issues, and International Issues, Clinton scored a -9, -8, -8, and a 0 respectively (-10 being most liberal, 10 being most conservative) <URL>... Biden on the same issues scored a -7, -5, -7, -6 on the issues listed above. Not only do the numbers suggest he is more consistent with his liberal ideology on different issues (Whereas Hillary is all over the place), but Biden's numbers are also more tame in that they do not go as hard to the left as Hillary's stances do. This gives Biden a stronger appeal to more moderate Democratic voters, who at the moment are almost all part of the Clinton camp since the only other major Dem candidate, Sanders, gets the very far left vote. This brings me to my next point 3) Voter Base Biden has a more moderate stance on issues, giving him appeal to more moderate voters. The current major Dem candidate in the field who gets the moderate Dem voters is Hillary, since Sanders appeals mostly to the hard liberal vote. If Biden declares, he would be getting his support almost entirely from Hillary Clinton's base. With Elizabeth Warren as his VP, Warren being further to the left on issues than Biden, then that gives Biden an opportunity to get voters from Sanders's voting bloc, since a lot of the really hard leftists in the Democratic party wanted Elizabeth Warren to run. <URL>... <URL>... <URL>... Elizabeth Warren as VP would bring a good chunk of voters to Biden and away from the only other hard leftist in the race, Sanders, while Biden himself would be able to lure voters away from Clinton due to his more moderate stance on issues and better likability ratings. 4) Baggage Clinton, as we all have probably heard more than enough of by now, has a couple scandals that GOP candidates and parts of the media keep flogging her with, namely Bengazi and the email scandal that took place while she was Secretary of State. Those scandals have been regularly brought up against her no matter how much she tries to shake them, and Biden does not have a comparable scandal against him. We can all probably think of a gaffe Biden has made or said, but actual scandals against Biden like we see with Hillary are not out there. Clinton's scandals continue to haunt her campaign, but Biden has a clean slate. This is evidenced by the huge gap that exists between Biden and Clinton when rated on honesty and trustfulness, with voters overwhelmingly giving Biden better marks than Clinton <URL>... 5) Their record Hillary, should she try to run on her record as Secretary of State or as a Senator, would run right into some roadblocks that have haunted her for the past decade, whether it be Bengazi, the email scandal, or voting in favor of the invasion of Iraq. Hillary has found herself on the wrong side of history in the past, so if she tried to run on her record, she would run into some problems Biden on the other hand doesn't have such roadblocks if he runs on his record as Obama's VP. A whopping 86% of Democrats view Obama's presidency favorably with only 10% of Dems viewing Obama's presidency unfavorably. Biden, as Obama's right hand man, can run on his record as VP and right off the bat be appealing to Democratic voters who have a favorable view of Obama's performance in the White House, which according to the numbers is MASSIVE. Hillary cannot exploit this since she was only the Secretary of State for 4 years, and in that time still managed to get herself into some sticky scandals, whereas Biden was with Obama for all 8 years and is squeaky clean outside of a few awkward gaffes. To summarize: Biden is al

imabench

3 rounds, 24 hours between rounds I will argue that a nomination ticket of Joe Biden and Elizabeth Warren (As Pres and Vice Pres respectively) would defeat a Hillary Clinton ticket regardless of whoever she picked as her VP for the nomination of the Democratic Party. (Whoever Hillary picks as her VP has to be eligible to be VP in the first place, you cant pick 'God' or a dead person to be her VP, no trolling allowed) The reasons why are listed below 1) Likability Hillary Clinton is very unliked among republicans, but she also has likability issues with democratic voters themselves https://www.washingtonpost.com... In April of 2015, 80% of Dems viewed Hillary positively. That number slid to 70% in July, while 25% of Democrats viewed Hillary as unfavorable (Everyone else had a mixed opinion). If the numbers continue to slide at the current rate, Hillary could easily be looking at 50-50 ratings of favorability from her own party Biden on the other hand had an approval of 80% by Democrats in May, like Hillary did at the same time, but Biden's numbers have stayed there, while Hillary's have routinely dropped from month to month. http://www.thefiscaltimes.com... Should Biden decide to run, his likability advantage over Clinton among Democratic voters would give him quite the advantage over Hillarys campaign 2) Issues Biden's stance on a variety of issues are only somewhat similar to the stances Hillary has right now. On issues of Individual Rights, Domestic Issues, Economic Issues, and International Issues, Clinton scored a -9, -8, -8, and a 0 respectively (-10 being most liberal, 10 being most conservative) http://presidential-candidates.insidegov.com... Biden on the same issues scored a -7, -5, -7, -6 on the issues listed above. Not only do the numbers suggest he is more consistent with his liberal ideology on different issues (Whereas Hillary is all over the place), but Biden's numbers are also more tame in that they do not go as hard to the left as Hillary's stances do. This gives Biden a stronger appeal to more moderate Democratic voters, who at the moment are almost all part of the Clinton camp since the only other major Dem candidate, Sanders, gets the very far left vote. This brings me to my next point 3) Voter Base Biden has a more moderate stance on issues, giving him appeal to more moderate voters. The current major Dem candidate in the field who gets the moderate Dem voters is Hillary, since Sanders appeals mostly to the hard liberal vote. If Biden declares, he would be getting his support almost entirely from Hillary Clinton's base. With Elizabeth Warren as his VP, Warren being further to the left on issues than Biden, then that gives Biden an opportunity to get voters from Sanders's voting bloc, since a lot of the really hard leftists in the Democratic party wanted Elizabeth Warren to run. http://www.businessinsider.com... http://www.cnn.com... http://www.politico.com... Elizabeth Warren as VP would bring a good chunk of voters to Biden and away from the only other hard leftist in the race, Sanders, while Biden himself would be able to lure voters away from Clinton due to his more moderate stance on issues and better likability ratings. 4) Baggage Clinton, as we all have probably heard more than enough of by now, has a couple scandals that GOP candidates and parts of the media keep flogging her with, namely Bengazi and the email scandal that took place while she was Secretary of State. Those scandals have been regularly brought up against her no matter how much she tries to shake them, and Biden does not have a comparable scandal against him. We can all probably think of a gaffe Biden has made or said, but actual scandals against Biden like we see with Hillary are not out there. Clinton's scandals continue to haunt her campaign, but Biden has a clean slate. This is evidenced by the huge gap that exists between Biden and Clinton when rated on honesty and trustfulness, with voters overwhelmingly giving Biden better marks than Clinton http://time.com... 5) Their record Hillary, should she try to run on her record as Secretary of State or as a Senator, would run right into some roadblocks that have haunted her for the past decade, whether it be Bengazi, the email scandal, or voting in favor of the invasion of Iraq. Hillary has found herself on the wrong side of history in the past, so if she tried to run on her record, she would run into some problems Biden on the other hand doesn't have such roadblocks if he runs on his record as Obama's VP. A whopping 86% of Democrats view Obama's presidency favorably with only 10% of Dems viewing Obama's presidency unfavorably. Biden, as Obama's right hand man, can run on his record as VP and right off the bat be appealing to Democratic voters who have a favorable view of Obama's performance in the White House, which according to the numbers is MASSIVE. Hillary cannot exploit this since she was only the Secretary of State for 4 years, and in that time still managed to get herself into some sticky scandals, whereas Biden was with Obama for all 8 years and is squeaky clean outside of a few awkward gaffes. To summarize: Biden is al

Politics

A-Joe-Biden-Elizabeth-Warren-ticket-would-defeat-a-Hillary-Clinton-ticket-in-the-primaries/1/

"I interpret the resolution to mean that there is a 100% chance that a Joe Biden/Elizabeth Warren ticket would defeat a Hillary Clinton / ___ ticket in the primaries." So you want to play that kind of a game? lol, youre out of youre league, kid ;D If my position is to argue that there is a 100% chance of Biden/Warren beating Hillary, then I'll interpret the burden of proof to mean that YOU have to prove that there is a ZERO percent chance that Biden/Warren would beat Hillary/______ , since both you and I neglected to define the burden of proof in the debate so far.... That means Con must now argue that there is a 0% chance that Biden/Warren would beat Hillary/______ Here's a tip con, dont try to troll a debate against someone who knows how to troll way better than you ;) =================================================================================== Now then, cons arguments for why there is a 0% chance that Biden/Warren would beat Hillary/________ 1) "Nothing is ever 100%" Things can always be 100%. For Example: There is a 100% chance that Tim Tebow WONT convert to Islam, hijack an airplane, and fly it into Peyton Manning's house in Denver for taking his job there, come back to life, and swallow the entire Earth whole..... There are facts and qualities about reality that make it impossible for impossible things from happening, and for probable things to have a probable chance of occurring. Because things can be 100%, the opposite of those things can only then be 0%. The arguments I presented previously are my reasoning for why there is a 100% chance that Joe Biden, if he decided to run, and Elizabeth Warren, if she were selected by Biden to be his VP, would defeat Hillary Clinton in a primary match-up, regardless of who she picked as her own VP.... If we accept Con's argument though, then nothing can ever be 0% either, which means he forfeits the burden of proof he holds in the debate. "How do you know that I am not a spaghetti monster typing on my computer now hypnotizing you as you read these very words?" Because if you were a hypnotic spaghetti monster, you would have been smarter, and able to come up with a better argument then the asinine one you ended up using ;) ================================================================================ I extend all other arguments and eagerly await for con to present arguments for why there is a 0% chance of Biden/Warren beating Hillary/______ in an election matchup. Just as a giant screw-you to con as well, I will exercise my authority as the creator of this debate to ban any and all further interpretations of the resolution, the burden of proof, definitions of words, etc. that are done without my permission. Back to you con

imabench

"I interpret the resolution to mean that there is a 100% chance that a Joe Biden/Elizabeth Warren ticket would defeat a Hillary Clinton / ___ ticket in the primaries." So you want to play that kind of a game? lol, youre out of youre league, kid ;D If my position is to argue that there is a 100% chance of Biden/Warren beating Hillary, then I'll interpret the burden of proof to mean that YOU have to prove that there is a ZERO percent chance that Biden/Warren would beat Hillary/______ , since both you and I neglected to define the burden of proof in the debate so far.... That means Con must now argue that there is a 0% chance that Biden/Warren would beat Hillary/______ Here's a tip con, dont try to troll a debate against someone who knows how to troll way better than you ;) =================================================================================== Now then, cons arguments for why there is a 0% chance that Biden/Warren would beat Hillary/________ 1) "Nothing is ever 100%" Things can always be 100%. For Example: There is a 100% chance that Tim Tebow WONT convert to Islam, hijack an airplane, and fly it into Peyton Manning's house in Denver for taking his job there, come back to life, and swallow the entire Earth whole..... There are facts and qualities about reality that make it impossible for impossible things from happening, and for probable things to have a probable chance of occurring. Because things can be 100%, the opposite of those things can only then be 0%. The arguments I presented previously are my reasoning for why there is a 100% chance that Joe Biden, if he decided to run, and Elizabeth Warren, if she were selected by Biden to be his VP, would defeat Hillary Clinton in a primary match-up, regardless of who she picked as her own VP.... If we accept Con's argument though, then nothing can ever be 0% either, which means he forfeits the burden of proof he holds in the debate. "How do you know that I am not a spaghetti monster typing on my computer now hypnotizing you as you read these very words?" Because if you were a hypnotic spaghetti monster, you would have been smarter, and able to come up with a better argument then the asinine one you ended up using ;) ================================================================================ I extend all other arguments and eagerly await for con to present arguments for why there is a 0% chance of Biden/Warren beating Hillary/______ in an election matchup. Just as a giant screw-you to con as well, I will exercise my authority as the creator of this debate to ban any and all further interpretations of the resolution, the burden of proof, definitions of words, etc. that are done without my permission. Back to you con

Politics

A-Joe-Biden-Elizabeth-Warren-ticket-would-defeat-a-Hillary-Clinton-ticket-in-the-primaries/1/