notaphoenix/argument-transfer-liberal_l0.2_median
Text Generation
•
Updated
•
9
text
stringlengths 1
25.8k
| label
int64 0
1
| author
stringlengths 2
25
| original_text
stringlengths 6
26.1k
| category
stringclasses 23
values | round
int64 0
8
| debate_id
stringlengths 7
103
| idx
int64 18
55.3k
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Con Now I know full good and well that most of you reading this debate actually believe that .999... is equal to 1. I've seen a lot of Debates on the issue and frankly Con has generally done a horrible job supporting the position,not to say Pro is correct. There is no question in my mind that 1 and .999... recurring forever is not equal but entirely two different numbers and I will help you understand why. .999... = 1 is a false statement. Definitions .999... refers to .9 with recurring nines 1 refers to the real number, 1 = means is exactly equal to .999... is actually equal to .999... not one. Most people that contend 1 is = to .999... usually provide the below mathematical proof. Step 1) Let x = .999... Step 2) 10x = 9.999... (multiplying RHS and LHS by 10) Step 3) 10x - x = 9.999... - x (subtracting x from both sides) Step 4) 9x = 9 Step 5) x = 1 Conclusion .999... = 1 HOWEVER if you will notice step 4 is incorrect. It refers to 9x=9. This is wrong it actually equals 9x=8.999...1 or 8.99forever with a one at the end. Lets deal with finite to illustrate. Now many will contend that since the nines never end that you can not put a one at the end, however the one actually occurs FIRST then the 9's follow and work backwards to the decimal point. Step 1) Let x = .999 (just 3 of them, not infinite) Step 2) 10x = 9.99 (multiplying RHS and LHS by 10) Step 3) 10x - x = 9.99 - x (subtracting x from both sides) Step 4) 9x = 8.991 (there is always one 9 less than x and a 1 at the end) Step 5) x = .999 Conclusion .999 doesn't equal 1 The first logic most people refer to, and correctly so, is the concept that .999... is a theoretical number in which it is the number closest to one but still not 1. This is a wise individuals first thoughts when someone attempts to suggest that 1 is equal to .999... Attempts to prove this silly notion with mathematics, are being made and this is the point where most people sacrifice their intellect and simply accept that the Theoretical number .999... is equal to one. This is going to get complex, but if you think about it you will understand. Now here is the flaw in the algebraic examples. They are numbering systems that are based on 10. Most of you only have conceptualized numbering systems based on 10 but it doesn't have to be based on 10. It could just as easily based on lets say 8, this is where you must really use your intellect to understand. If the numbering system was 8 lots of things remain the same, however a few important things change, namely decimals. Now lets say we have the number system of 8. 1/8 now would equal .1 and 1/4 would equal .2. 1/3 would now equal .2666.. as opposed to .333... This may sound silly but you have to understand that decimals simply represent the numbering system chosen and my opponent is using 10. Now regardless of which numbering system you use whether it is 8 or 10 one third (1/3) will be equal to (1/3) however the way the number is represented in decimal form changes. So .375 of the 8 numbering system equals .333... in the 10 numbering system. To help you better understand numbering systems our calendar months per year is based on 12. If you wanted to represent half a year it would be 6 months. Represented using a numbering/numeral system based on 10 the decimal representation of half would be .5. A 12 numbering system would represent the decimal of .6. A 8 numbering system would have 6 months represent .4 in decimal format. All systems would still represent the 6 months as 6/12 in fraction representation. So if you can see it is simply the decimal representation of the fraction that varies according to the numbering/numerical system. <URL>... The error with the algebraic expressions is the decimal system based on 10. The 10 system is the most widely used system in the world today, and many find it difficult to understand other systems because it is like learning math all over. | 0 | jmlandf |
Con
Now I know full good and well that most of you reading this debate actually believe that .999... is equal to 1. I've seen a lot of Debates on the issue and frankly Con has generally done a horrible job supporting the position,not to say Pro is correct. There is no question in my mind that 1 and .999... recurring forever is not equal but entirely two different numbers and I will help you understand why.
.999... = 1 is a false statement.
Definitions
.999... refers to .9 with recurring nines
1 refers to the real number, 1
= means is exactly equal to
.999... is actually equal to .999... not one.
Most people that contend 1 is = to .999... usually provide the below mathematical proof.
Step 1) Let x = .999...
Step 2) 10x = 9.999... (multiplying RHS and LHS by 10)
Step 3) 10x - x = 9.999... - x (subtracting x from both sides)
Step 4) 9x = 9
Step 5) x = 1
Conclusion .999... = 1
HOWEVER if you will notice step 4 is incorrect. It refers to 9x=9. This is wrong it actually equals 9x=8.999...1 or 8.99forever with a one at the end. Lets deal with finite to illustrate. Now many will contend that since the nines never end that you can not put a one at the end, however the one actually occurs FIRST then the 9's follow and work backwards to the decimal point.
Step 1) Let x = .999 (just 3 of them, not infinite)
Step 2) 10x = 9.99 (multiplying RHS and LHS by 10)
Step 3) 10x - x = 9.99 - x (subtracting x from both sides)
Step 4) 9x = 8.991 (there is always one 9 less than x and a 1 at the end)
Step 5) x = .999
Conclusion .999 doesn't equal 1
The first logic most people refer to, and correctly so, is the concept that .999... is a theoretical number in which it is the number closest to one but still not 1. This is a wise individuals first thoughts when someone attempts to suggest that 1 is equal to .999... Attempts to prove this silly notion with mathematics, are being made and this is the point where most people sacrifice their intellect and simply accept that the Theoretical number .999... is equal to one.
This is going to get complex, but if you think about it you will understand. Now here is the flaw in the algebraic examples. They are numbering systems that are based on 10. Most of you only have conceptualized numbering systems based on 10 but it doesn't have to be based on 10. It could just as easily based on lets say 8, this is where you must really use your intellect to understand. If the numbering system was 8 lots of things remain the same, however a few important things change, namely decimals. Now lets say we have the number system of 8. 1/8 now would equal .1 and 1/4 would equal .2. 1/3 would now equal .2666.. as opposed to .333... This may sound silly but you have to understand that decimals simply represent the numbering system chosen and my opponent is using 10. Now regardless of which numbering system you use whether it is 8 or 10 one third (1/3) will be equal to (1/3) however the way the number is represented in decimal form changes. So .375 of the 8 numbering system equals .333... in the 10 numbering system.
To help you better understand numbering systems our calendar months per year is based on 12. If you wanted to represent half a year it would be 6 months. Represented using a numbering/numeral system based on 10 the decimal representation of half would be .5. A 12 numbering system would represent the decimal of .6. A 8 numbering system would have 6 months represent .4 in decimal format. All systems would still represent the 6 months as 6/12 in fraction representation. So if you can see it is simply the decimal representation of the fraction that varies according to the numbering/numerical system.
http://en.wikipedia.org...
The error with the algebraic expressions is the decimal system based on 10. The 10 system is the most widely used system in the world today, and many find it difficult to understand other systems because it is like learning math all over. | Science | 0 | .999...-is-equal-to-1/2/ | 18 |
Thank you for taking the Debate. 1. I plan on enlightening the entire debate community not the mathematical community. The resolution says .999... is equal to one, which is wrong either way. The MATHEMATIC community accepts .999... equals one IF and only IF you use a 10 numeral/number system. The resolution does not say that does it now? No, It simply says .999... equals one, no IF, AND, or BUTS'. Any logical and knowledgeable man (must possess both qualities) understands that .999... simply can not equal one on ANY other numerical/number system. My opponent says "in Base 8, .888... equal 1" He doesn't just say .888... equals 1 but rather starts with "in base 8". Then for the resolution to be correct he must also include in "base 10" but this is not mentioned in the resolution. This is the first reason to vote CON. 2.Decimals are contingent on the numeral system. I hope we all understand this at this point. For example 1/3 = .333... on a 10 system but 1/3 = .30 on a 9 system. Now the 9 systems 1/3 = 1/3 of the 10 system but the .333...=.30 is invalid. 1=1 on any whole number system. 1/3=1/3 expressed in fraction but decimals fail to meet the bill. A decimal is an ATTEMPT to express a fraction but as we can see with the .333... it is incapable. Here is some confusion if you can't fathom 10 system invalid9 system 1/3=.333...1/3=.30 3*1/3=3*.333...3*1/3=3*.30 1=.999...1=.90 10 System versus 9 system in fraction works like a charm 1/3=1/3 3*1/3=3*1/3 1=1 So in summary the mathematics isn't saying that .999... is equal to one but rather the number systems decimal report of the fraction is invalid as some fractions can not be reported quantifiable via decimal equivalent. 3. My opponent attempts to disprove my claims with Archimedean property, however there is such a thing as non-Archimedian property such as p-adic numbers which support my rational of ending or begining at decimal point. 4.Am I wrong or is it true that no calculator with base 10 will express a .999... . This sort of disproves the final step of the 1/3 proof via calculator, because when you times .333... by 3 it simply equals 1 not .999..., on a calc. ? Why won't the calculator express this step? | 0 | jmlandf |
Thank you for taking the Debate.
1. I plan on enlightening the entire debate community not the mathematical community. The resolution says .999... is equal to one, which is wrong either way. The MATHEMATIC community accepts .999... equals one IF and only IF you use a 10 numeral/number system. The resolution does not say that does it now? No, It simply says .999... equals one, no IF, AND, or BUTS'. Any logical and knowledgeable man (must possess both qualities) understands that .999... simply can not equal one on ANY other numerical/number system.
My opponent says "in Base 8, .888... equal 1"
He doesn't just say .888... equals 1 but rather starts with "in base 8". Then for the resolution to be correct he must also include in "base 10" but this is not mentioned in the resolution. This is the first reason to vote CON.
2.Decimals are contingent on the numeral system. I hope we all understand this at this point. For example 1/3 = .333... on a 10 system but 1/3 = .30 on a 9 system. Now the 9 systems 1/3 = 1/3 of the 10 system but the .333...=.30 is invalid. 1=1 on any whole number system. 1/3=1/3 expressed in fraction but decimals fail to meet the bill. A decimal is an ATTEMPT to express a fraction but as we can see with the .333... it is incapable.
Here is some confusion if you can't fathom
10 system invalid9 system
1/3=.333...1/3=.30
3*1/3=3*.333...3*1/3=3*.30
1=.999...1=.90
10 System versus 9 system in fraction works like a charm
1/3=1/3
3*1/3=3*1/3
1=1
So in summary the mathematics isn't saying that .999... is equal to one but rather the number systems decimal report of the fraction is invalid as some fractions can not be reported quantifiable via decimal equivalent.
3. My opponent attempts to disprove my claims with Archimedean property, however there is such a thing as non-Archimedian property such as p-adic numbers which support my rational of ending or begining at decimal point.
4.Am I wrong or is it true that no calculator with base 10 will express a .999... . This sort of disproves the final step of the 1/3 proof via calculator, because when you times .333... by 3 it simply equals 1 not .999..., on a calc. ? Why won't the calculator express this step? | Science | 1 | .999...-is-equal-to-1/2/ | 19 |
I have full BoP, .9r will represent .9 repeating to keep this debate easy to write. First round for acceptance only. | 0 | SeventhProfessor |
I have full BoP, .9r will represent .9 repeating to keep this debate easy to write. First round for acceptance only. | Miscellaneous | 0 | .999...-is-equal-to-one./1/ | 20 |
For my first proof, I will take ,9r, and put it on both sides of an equation. .9r=.9r *10 10(.9r)=9.9r -.9r 9(.9r)=9 /9 .9r=1 For my second proof, I will take an irrational number, e, and subtract its next highest integer. 3.00000... -2.71828... Looking at the digits, there is only one answer that makes sense. .28171... Now add it to e. 2.71828... +.28171...= 2.99999... As there is no end to either number, there is no term that can "bump up" any final 9 to a 10. Following this logic, the below equation ust be true. e+(3-e)=2.9r Associative property e+3-e=2.9r e-e=0 3=2.9r -2 1=.9r My final argument is that both .9r and 1 are rational numbers, and the difference between the two must be able to be written as a rational number. While the obvious answer may be .0r1, there are two flaws with this. The first is that this is saying the one comes after infinity, which means it doesn't exist. Second, even if we did accept this logic, .0r1+.9r would be .9r1. In no way can a number be written to express 1-.9r. | 0 | SeventhProfessor |
For my first proof, I will take ,9r, and put it on both sides of an equation. .9r=.9r *10 10(.9r)=9.9r -.9r 9(.9r)=9 /9 .9r=1 For my second proof, I will take an irrational number, e, and subtract its next highest integer. 3.00000... -2.71828... Looking at the digits, there is only one answer that makes sense. .28171... Now add it to e. 2.71828... +.28171...= 2.99999... As there is no end to either number, there is no term that can "bump up" any final 9 to a 10. Following this logic, the below equation ust be true. e+(3-e)=2.9r Associative property e+3-e=2.9r e-e=0 3=2.9r -2 1=.9r My final argument is that both .9r and 1 are rational numbers, and the difference between the two must be able to be written as a rational number. While the obvious answer may be .0r1, there are two flaws with this. The first is that this is saying the one comes after infinity, which means it doesn't exist. Second, even if we did accept this logic, .0r1+.9r would be .9r1. In no way can a number be written to express 1-.9r. | Miscellaneous | 1 | .999...-is-equal-to-one./1/ | 21 |
I'm pretty bored so I was wondering to post a debate to see if anyone disagrees with this. Just to confirm the resolution is as follows: .999... = 1 Definitions .999... refers to .9 with recurring nines 1 refers to the real number, 1 = means is exactly equal to .999... is exactly equal to one I'll let my opponent start. | 0 | Biowza |
I'm pretty bored so I was wondering to post a debate to see if anyone disagrees with this. Just to confirm the resolution is as follows:
.999... = 1
Definitions
.999... refers to .9 with recurring nines
1 refers to the real number, 1
= means is exactly equal to
.999... is exactly equal to one
I'll let my opponent start. | Science | 0 | .999...-is-exactly-equal-to-1/1/ | 22 |
I'd like to thank my opponent for taking this debate, although admittedly this is not really a topic that is open to debate. There are many mathatical proofs for this, and I will go through one for you so hopefully my opponent and the voting audience can see why they should vote PRO. Let x = .999... 10x = 9.999... (multiplying RHS and LHS by 10) 10x - x = 9.999... - x (subtracting x from both sides) 9x = 9 x = 1 .999... = 1 This is a very simple mathematical proof for my position, which I am sure my opponent will find hard to poke holes through. Nevertheless, I wish him the best of luck. | 0 | Biowza |
I'd like to thank my opponent for taking this debate, although admittedly this is not really a topic that is open to debate. There are many mathatical proofs for this, and I will go through one for you so hopefully my opponent and the voting audience can see why they should vote PRO.
Let x = .999...
10x = 9.999... (multiplying RHS and LHS by 10)
10x - x = 9.999... - x (subtracting x from both sides)
9x = 9
x = 1
.999... = 1
This is a very simple mathematical proof for my position, which I am sure my opponent will find hard to poke holes through. Nevertheless, I wish him the best of luck. | Science | 1 | .999...-is-exactly-equal-to-1/1/ | 23 |
My opponent has offered little to counter my resolution that '0.999... is exactly equal to 1'. As it stands now, the burdens stand as follows: The task of PRO (myself) is to demonstrate that 0.999... is exactly equal to one. The task of CON (my opponent) is to demonstrate that 0.999... is not exactly equal to one. All my opponent has presented is variations of the phrase 'It doesn't make sense', regardless of the fact that I have shown mathematically that it does make sense. As a guess, I would suggest that my opponent fails to recognise the notion of 0.999... it is not a finite number, it is infinite, it has no end at all. The statement 'it will infinitely be less than one' doesn't make sense because there is no end to this recurring decimal, it does not stop at one particular 9. If it did, then indeed I would be mistaken in my proposal that (as an example) 0.999 is equal to one. Allow me to demonstrate with my previous example, although this time showing why this can only work with recurring nines. x = 0.999 10x = 9.99 10x - x = 9.99 - x 9x = 8.991 x = 0.999 And I am sure from here you can see that indeed 0.999 =/= 1, the same is true for any finite number (except 1 lol), however for infinite recurring decimals it is indeed true that 0.999... is exactly equal to 1. To further expand on my point, allow me to show another example of what I just did. x = <PHONE> 10x = 9.999999 10x - x = 9.999999 - x 9x = 8.<PHONE> x = <PHONE> You'll have to forgive me if I forgot a few nines (it was meant to be 7 nines), but the point should be clear by now. The case of 0.999... = 1 is only true for 0.999... Not only that, but the proof also doesn't work for other recurring decimals such as 0.888... x = 0.888... 10x = 8.888... 10x - x = 8.888... - x 9x = 8 x = 8/9 Only for 0.999... does it equal exactly 1. Now, allow me to present a simpler proof of the resolution. I'll do my best to explain each step. 1/3 = 0.333... [Any calculator can confirm this] 3*(1/3) = 3*(0.333...) [brackets added for ease of viewing, both sides are multiplied by three] 3/3 = 0.999... [I bet you can see where this is going] 1 = 0.999... [TADAAAAAA] This proof is much easier for our less mathematically minded voting audience, essentially what it is saying is that one third equals 0.3 recurring, when both sides are multiplied by three, the proof yields 1 = 0.999... some people may be wondering how I can simply multiply an infinitely recurring decimal by a finite number three. The answer is simple, as the 3's in 0.333... never actually end, the multiplication simply consists of making them all nines, of course if it was a finite number I could not do this proof either. It would fail at the very first step. 1/3 = 0.333 [WRONG!] The same proof works for 1/9, for instance 1/9 = 0.111... 9*(1/9) = 9*(0.111...) 9/9 = 0.999... 1 = 0.999... Now my opponent talks bout how 'math isn't perfect' and indeed there are still many paradoxes to be solved, however unless my opponent wishes to disprove rudimentary reasoning and the very basic algebraic processes which are the framework of most mathematical disciplines, then I suggest he attempt to highlight my arithmatic ineptitude. Ladies and Gentlemen, I have thoroughly acheived by burden. The only reasonable vote is PRO. I'll be happy to answer any questions by the voting audience in the comments section. Thank you | 0 | Biowza |
My opponent has offered little to counter my resolution that '0.999... is exactly equal to 1'. As it stands now, the burdens stand as follows:
The task of PRO (myself) is to demonstrate that 0.999... is exactly equal to one.
The task of CON (my opponent) is to demonstrate that 0.999... is not exactly equal to one.
All my opponent has presented is variations of the phrase 'It doesn't make sense', regardless of the fact that I have shown mathematically that it does make sense. As a guess, I would suggest that my opponent fails to recognise the notion of 0.999... it is not a finite number, it is infinite, it has no end at all. The statement 'it will infinitely be less than one' doesn't make sense because there is no end to this recurring decimal, it does not stop at one particular 9. If it did, then indeed I would be mistaken in my proposal that (as an example) 0.999 is equal to one. Allow me to demonstrate with my previous example, although this time showing why this can only work with recurring nines.
x = 0.999
10x = 9.99
10x - x = 9.99 - x
9x = 8.991
x = 0.999
And I am sure from here you can see that indeed 0.999 =/= 1, the same is true for any finite number (except 1 lol), however for infinite recurring decimals it is indeed true that 0.999... is exactly equal to 1. To further expand on my point, allow me to show another example of what I just did.
x = 0.9999999
10x = 9.999999
10x - x = 9.999999 - x
9x = 8.9999991
x = 0.9999999
You'll have to forgive me if I forgot a few nines (it was meant to be 7 nines), but the point should be clear by now. The case of 0.999... = 1 is only true for 0.999...
Not only that, but the proof also doesn't work for other recurring decimals such as 0.888...
x = 0.888...
10x = 8.888...
10x - x = 8.888... - x
9x = 8
x = 8/9
Only for 0.999... does it equal exactly 1.
Now, allow me to present a simpler proof of the resolution. I'll do my best to explain each step.
1/3 = 0.333... [Any calculator can confirm this]
3*(1/3) = 3*(0.333...) [brackets added for ease of viewing, both sides are multiplied by three]
3/3 = 0.999... [I bet you can see where this is going]
1 = 0.999... [TADAAAAAA]
This proof is much easier for our less mathematically minded voting audience, essentially what it is saying is that one third equals 0.3 recurring, when both sides are multiplied by three, the proof yields 1 = 0.999... some people may be wondering how I can simply multiply an infinitely recurring decimal by a finite number three. The answer is simple, as the 3's in 0.333... never actually end, the multiplication simply consists of making them all nines, of course if it was a finite number I could not do this proof either. It would fail at the very first step.
1/3 = 0.333 [WRONG!]
The same proof works for 1/9, for instance
1/9 = 0.111...
9*(1/9) = 9*(0.111...)
9/9 = 0.999...
1 = 0.999...
Now my opponent talks bout how 'math isn't perfect' and indeed there are still many paradoxes to be solved, however unless my opponent wishes to disprove rudimentary reasoning and the very basic algebraic processes which are the framework of most mathematical disciplines, then I suggest he attempt to highlight my arithmatic ineptitude.
Ladies and Gentlemen, I have thoroughly acheived by burden. The only reasonable vote is PRO. I'll be happy to answer any questions by the voting audience in the comments section.
Thank you | Science | 2 | .999...-is-exactly-equal-to-1/1/ | 24 |
hello, to everybody brave enough to read this argument, and thankyou to my opponent for this very entertaining topic. I about started laughing because of how interesting, and simply different of a topic this is, compared to most. I stand in negation to the topic, that .999, reccurring is exactly equal to 1 In it's own, the topic itself contradicts itself, and proves my side correct. this is a topic, that just requires common sense, and I'm positive that all of the voters have it. no matter how long you type it in, .9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999.......... no matter how many nines you add to it, it will infinitely be less than 1. you may round the number up to one..... But this topic says it is exactly one. I just proved this wrong, .999...... will NEVER be EXACTLY 1. Vote with me in Negation. Thankyou | 1 | CoronerPerry |
hello, to everybody brave enough to read this argument, and thankyou to my opponent for this very entertaining topic. I about started laughing because of how interesting, and simply different of a topic this is, compared to most.
I stand in negation to the topic, that .999, reccurring is exactly equal to 1
In it's own, the topic itself contradicts itself, and proves my side correct.
this is a topic, that just requires common sense, and I'm positive that all of the voters have it.
no matter how long you type it in, .9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999..........
no matter how many nines you add to it, it will infinitely be less than 1.
you may round the number up to one.....
But this topic says it is exactly one.
I just proved this wrong, .999...... will NEVER be EXACTLY 1.
Vote with me in Negation.
Thankyou | Science | 0 | .999...-is-exactly-equal-to-1/1/ | 25 |
There are always and will always be errors in math. We live in an imperfect world. The resolution states that .999 is exactly equal to 1. Using mathmatics, multiplication and suptraction, make it so that it is no longer .999... Using mathematics goes against his resolution, so regardless what mathematics can do to it, .999 is not exactly equal to 1. It will come close to 1, but it never will be 1 | 1 | CoronerPerry |
There are always and will always be errors in math. We live in an imperfect world. The resolution states that .999 is exactly equal to 1. Using mathmatics, multiplication and suptraction, make it so that it is no longer .999... Using mathematics goes against his resolution, so regardless what mathematics can do to it, .999 is not exactly equal to 1. It will come close to 1, but it never will be 1 | Science | 1 | .999...-is-exactly-equal-to-1/1/ | 26 |
as I stated before, mathematics are full of error. it always has to do with tricking the system. by using the equation, 10x-x, my opponent has tricked the system. it is an illusion saying that it is exactly equal to 1, but all you need is common sense to figure out that it isn't. my opponent tried to confuse you by changing the eqation on you when he mentioned .888 is not equal to 1, but if you use the equation exactly as my opponent did.... x = .999 10x = 9.999 (10x)-(x) = 9 9 is now a whole number, and is an equivalent of one. x = .888 10x = 8.888 (10x)-(x) = 8 8 is now a whole number, and is an equivalent of one. x = .777 10x = 7.777 (10x)-(x) = 7 7 is now a whole number, and is an equivalent of one. voters, my opponent is trying to trick you. he found the mathematic error, and he's trying to turn it on you guys. use your common sense is all I have to say. logically, the correct side to this is that .999... is NOT exactly equal to 1. if you were to try to use any other equation to make .999 reach 1, it is impossible. please vote in negation, this has been a fun topic. THANKS! | 1 | CoronerPerry |
as I stated before, mathematics are full of error. it always has to do with tricking the system. by using the equation, 10x-x, my opponent has tricked the system. it is an illusion saying that it is exactly equal to 1, but all you need is common sense to figure out that it isn't.
my opponent tried to confuse you by changing the eqation on you when he mentioned .888 is not equal to 1, but if you use the equation exactly as my opponent did....
x = .999
10x = 9.999
(10x)-(x) = 9
9 is now a whole number, and is an equivalent of one.
x = .888
10x = 8.888
(10x)-(x) = 8
8 is now a whole number, and is an equivalent of one.
x = .777
10x = 7.777
(10x)-(x) = 7
7 is now a whole number, and is an equivalent of one.
voters, my opponent is trying to trick you. he found the mathematic error, and he's trying to turn it on you guys. use your common sense is all I have to say. logically, the correct side to this is that .999... is NOT exactly equal to 1.
if you were to try to use any other equation to make .999 reach 1, it is impossible. please vote in negation, this has been a fun topic. THANKS! | Science | 2 | .999...-is-exactly-equal-to-1/1/ | 27 |
My opponent claimed the above in an earlier debate. PoeJoe called it an auto-win for him. I disagree. I will allow my opponent to show how 0.9999(r) could possible be equal to 1. Thank you for accepting this debate, should you accept. | 0 | mongeese |
My opponent claimed the above in an earlier debate. PoeJoe called it an auto-win for him. I disagree.
I will allow my opponent to show how 0.9999(r) could possible be equal to 1.
Thank you for accepting this debate, should you accept. | Miscellaneous | 0 | .99999...-repeating-is-equal-to-1/2/ | 50 |
My opponent's first proof involves dividing both 0.9(r) and 1 by 3. Now, when you divide 0.9(r) by 3, you truly do get 0.3(r). However, when you divide 1 by 3, you get 1/3. 1/3 and 0.3(r) are not equal. It is impossible to truly convert a fraction that is not divisible by a factor or multiple of ten into a decimal. Decimals lose precision. The closest decimal we have to 1/3 is 0.3(r). However, they are not the exact same. This point is most easily clarified through empirical observations. [0.9/3=3/10] [0.99/3=33/100] [0.999/3=333/1000] [0.9999/3=3333/10000] By this pattern: [0.9999(r)/3=3333(r)/10000(r)] However, any number that is just a series of threes divided by a power of ten does not simplify into 1/3. It gets closer every time, but it never reaches the end. It just can't. It would be oh so very close, but it won't be equal. It's an asymptote. The simplest proof has simply been refuted. I await the next proof. Thank you for accepting, by the way. | 0 | mongeese |
My opponent's first proof involves dividing both 0.9(r) and 1 by 3.
Now, when you divide 0.9(r) by 3, you truly do get 0.3(r).
However, when you divide 1 by 3, you get 1/3.
1/3 and 0.3(r) are not equal. It is impossible to truly convert a fraction that is not divisible by a factor or multiple of ten into a decimal. Decimals lose precision. The closest decimal we have to 1/3 is 0.3(r). However, they are not the exact same. This point is most easily clarified through empirical observations.
[0.9/3=3/10]
[0.99/3=33/100]
[0.999/3=333/1000]
[0.9999/3=3333/10000]
By this pattern:
[0.9999(r)/3=3333(r)/10000(r)]
However, any number that is just a series of threes divided by a power of ten does not simplify into 1/3. It gets closer every time, but it never reaches the end. It just can't. It would be oh so very close, but it won't be equal. It's an asymptote.
The simplest proof has simply been refuted. I await the next proof.
Thank you for accepting, by the way. | Miscellaneous | 1 | .99999...-repeating-is-equal-to-1/2/ | 51 |
<URL>... Rational - involving only multiplication, division, addition, and subtraction and only a finite number of times A rational number must be able to be a fraction. A rational number is not required to be able to be written as a decimal. Your second proof was not used in the debate that I considered possible to win, which is what we are debating. Finally, your third proof again assumes that all fractions must have decimal counterparts, which you have not shown to be true. | 0 | mongeese |
http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Rational - involving only multiplication, division, addition, and subtraction and only a finite number of times
A rational number must be able to be a fraction. A rational number is not required to be able to be written as a decimal.
Your second proof was not used in the debate that I considered possible to win, which is what we are debating.
Finally, your third proof again assumes that all fractions must have decimal counterparts, which you have not shown to be true. | Miscellaneous | 2 | .99999...-repeating-is-equal-to-1/2/ | 52 |
pick up 0 sodas from the floor i can cut an apple in 4 pieces, and then resemble the apple and have it look like i got a full apple, but i have an apple in 4 pieces 1+0=1 is a false equation, 1 can not be added to 0, so its just 1, 1 banana + 0 bananas dosnt mean 1 banana dissapears and neither is 0 bananas added, it simple cant happen, and i still have 1 banana.. so 1+0(1) 0*6(6) 0/3(3) 3/0(3) | 0 | vi_spex |
pick up 0 sodas from the floor
i can cut an apple in 4 pieces, and then resemble the apple and have it look like i got a full apple, but i have an apple in 4 pieces
1+0=1 is a false equation, 1 can not be added to 0, so its just 1, 1 banana + 0 bananas dosnt mean 1 banana dissapears and neither is 0 bananas added, it simple cant happen, and i still have 1 banana..
so 1+0(1)
0*6(6)
0/3(3)
3/0(3) | Science | 0 | 0-nothing-information-1-something-matter/1/ | 59 |
there is no your and my logic, logic is determined by existence as it is 0 can not be added to 1. pick up 0 sodas from the floor. imagine a sticker of your choosing, supernatural flamethrowing dragon sticker, and put it on a soda in your hand, or on your table... 1=something 0=nothing | 0 | vi_spex |
there is no your and my logic, logic is determined by existence as it is
0 can not be added to 1. pick up 0 sodas from the floor. imagine a sticker of your choosing, supernatural flamethrowing dragon sticker, and put it on a soda in your hand, or on your table...
1=something
0=nothing | Science | 1 | 0-nothing-information-1-something-matter/1/ | 60 |
anything is 1 i dont believe in a universe positive and negative creates a balancing point.. its not 0, like with a magnet, dosnt mean there is no energy in it... i have never heard anything as silly as that argument really if i burn you with a lighter, is it nothing? | 0 | vi_spex |
anything is 1
i dont believe in a universe
positive and negative creates a balancing point.. its not 0, like with a magnet, dosnt mean there is no energy in it... i have never heard anything as silly as that argument really
if i burn you with a lighter, is it nothing? | Science | 2 | 0-nothing-information-1-something-matter/1/ | 61 |
energy is not nothing.. | 0 | vi_spex |
energy is not nothing.. | Science | 3 | 0-nothing-information-1-something-matter/1/ | 62 |
thats what im saying.. energy is not 0 | 0 | vi_spex |
thats what im saying.. energy is not 0 | Science | 4 | 0-nothing-information-1-something-matter/1/ | 63 |
ok this debate is basically a poll, it is never ment to be a debate. vote for me if you vote for ron paul, or hillary clinton my contender may pick whom they want to have on their side | 0 | clegdor |
ok this debate is basically a poll, it is never ment to be a debate.
vote for me if you vote for ron paul, or hillary clinton
my contender may pick whom they want to have on their side | Politics | 0 | 08-elections-who-will-you-vote-for/1/ | 90 |
Ok then i pick 3rd party candidates and its no fair that you get two people so i declare that you only get ron paul | 0 | larif |
Ok then i pick 3rd party candidates
and its no fair that you get two people so i declare that you only get ron paul | Politics | 0 | 08-elections-who-will-you-vote-for/1/ | 91 |
1+1 is 2, people say. But it is not, no. I fell it is not, but you tell why. | 0 | LexTempus |
1+1 is 2, people say. But it is not, no. I fell it is not, but you tell why. | Funny | 0 | 1-1-is-not-2/1/ | 104 |
This is easy you start first and go get 100 dollars to back yourself up ok good great accept please.. | 0 | firemonkey6775 |
This is easy you start first and go get 100 dollars to back yourself up ok good great accept please.. | Science | 0 | 1-1-simple-as-that/1/ | 107 |
so sorry about last round on vacation and i just barely missed it. any ways back to the point 1/3 and 33.3333... have several problems and that is because you cant represent 1/3 correctly in a decimal form so we use the closest decimal approximation we can and until you can show me a piece of anything to make up the diffrence between 100% and 99.9999...% that seems to be a null argument and in the next argument when you use fancy algbra to make 1=2 or 5 or 10 using this math and the transitive propety you make 1=1,000,000 and until your willing to trade me a million dollars for 1 i find that you are unwilling to support your theory. Again so sorry about last round | 0 | firemonkey6775 |
so sorry about last round on vacation and i just barely missed it. any ways back to the point
1/3 and 33.3333... have several problems and that is because you cant represent 1/3 correctly in a decimal form so we use the closest decimal approximation we can and until you can show me a piece of anything to make up the diffrence between 100% and 99.9999...% that seems to be a null argument
and in the next argument when you use fancy algbra to make 1=2 or 5 or 10
using this math and the transitive propety you make 1=1,000,000 and until your willing to trade me a million dollars for 1 i find that you are unwilling to support your theory.
Again so sorry about last round | Science | 2 | 1-1-simple-as-that/1/ | 108 |
your 1/3 example is the reason you dont use repeating decimal approximations it throws your math off. In the end of your proposition you say .99=1 and as you can see its not man may say what it wants but common since says its not. And yes math was ceated by humans but you can still make sense of it and if a 1st grader can understan 1=1 then so can you i would say thats down on the simple end of things. You would be unwilling to trade anything of two thing for one of the same thing (assuming they are the exact same thing). And your equals argument of math and science changing everday is a lie math and science are always the same what humans understand of it is diffrent. but today yesterday and guess what even tommorow 2 of the exact same item are the exact same if they have equal forces acting on them. but no matter what when you weigh 2 one pound items they are equal no matter what you say. so in the end of this i have nulled every one of my opponents arguments | 0 | firemonkey6775 |
your 1/3 example is the reason you dont use repeating decimal approximations it throws your math off. In the end of your proposition you say .99=1 and as you can see its not man may say what it wants but common since says its not.
And yes math was ceated by humans but you can still make sense of it and if a 1st grader can understan 1=1 then so can you i would say thats down on the simple end of things.
You would be unwilling to trade anything of two thing for one of the same thing (assuming they are the exact same thing).
And your equals argument of math and science changing everday is a lie math and science are always the same what humans understand of it is diffrent. but today yesterday and guess what even tommorow 2 of the exact same item are the exact same if they have equal forces acting on them. but no matter what when you weigh 2 one pound items they are equal no matter what you say. so in the end of this i have nulled every one of my opponents arguments | Science | 4 | 1-1-simple-as-that/1/ | 109 |
Zombies are slow and dumb, the dead are meant to stay dead, and the Spartans were the best of their time, zombies only win by having sheer numbers, and the Spartans' shield would push the zombies back. Just for clarification, I am speaking of regular zombies from left4dead. Also, this is staged before the Spartans were all killed off, when Sparta was in its prime. | 0 | Dovahkinn117 |
Zombies are slow and dumb, the dead are meant to stay dead, and the Spartans were the best of their time, zombies only win by having sheer numbers, and the Spartans' shield would push the zombies back. Just for clarification, I am speaking of regular zombies from left4dead. Also, this is staged before the Spartans were all killed off, when Sparta was in its prime. | Miscellaneous | 0 | 100-zombies-would-lose-against-100-Spartans/1/ | 182 |
Well worded, I can concede your point on the infection topic, but when I formed this debate, I was assuming that the Spartans in question were all from the 22% that are immune to the virus. To some comments about how uneducated the Spartans were, they were taught to administer all blows to be killers, ex.. To the head or the chest of the target, both of which would kill any normal zombie. The Spartans in question are all seasoned veterans that were not affected by the green flu, thus they should know how to kill the zombies as they have survived up to this point. | 0 | Dovahkinn117 |
Well worded, I can concede your point on the infection topic, but when I formed this debate, I was assuming that the Spartans in question were all from the 22% that are immune to the virus. To some comments about how uneducated the Spartans were, they were taught to administer all blows to be killers, ex.. To the head or the chest of the target, both of which would kill any normal zombie. The Spartans in question are all seasoned veterans that were not affected by the green flu, thus they should know how to kill the zombies as they have survived up to this point. | Miscellaneous | 1 | 100-zombies-would-lose-against-100-Spartans/1/ | 183 |
Congratulations, TheLwerd, on making it this far in the tournament undefeated. Thank you, judges, for your analysis, and spectators, if there are any, for your interest. Now, without further ado, let's boogie: *** "I am for those means which will give the greatest good to the greatest number." Because I agree with these words of 16th American President Abraham Lincoln, I espouse it and the PRO side of the resoltuion, which states: IT IS MORALLY PERMISSABLE TO KILL ONE INNOCENT PERSON TO SAVE THE LIVES OF MANY INNOCENT PEOPLE. Before I begin, I offer the following DEFINITIONS to clarify the round: MORALLY: from a moral point of view MORAL: of, pertaining to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong; ethical PERMISSABLE: that can be permitted; allowable INNOCENT: free from legal or specific wrong; guiltless MANY: constituting or forming a large number All defined by <URL>... . Move with me now to the RESOLUTION ANALYSIS, an explanation and evaluation of the topic: 1. The modifier "innocent" applies to both the "one...person" and the "many...people." Because no quantifying term like "more" or "less" accompanies the term "innocent," we must assume that both the person and the people are equally innocent, not one more than the other. 2. "Innocent" is a relatively vague term. If we believe it to mean "sinless," the resolution has no practical meaning, because, aside from a small number of biblical (or other religious) characters, no one qualifies for the topical analysis. As the PRO, I offer you what I feel is a fair interpretation of the word "innocent" in this resolution: "innocent" means "not having committed any crime or action which warrants punishment by death." 3. The resolution involves the killing of one person to save the lives of more than one person. It must be assumed (to achieve fairness in the round) that the lives saved could not be saved in any other manner than killing the one person (otherwise the PRO would be forced to uphold an indefensible position. 4. The resolution asks us to weigh the results of an action (on the PRO) versus an inaction (on the CON). At the very least, the PRO must justify the death of the one innocent person, and at the very least, the CON must justify the death of the many innocent people. Phew, that was a doozy! With these standards for debate set, we can now move on to CONTENTIONS, the meat and potatoes of the case. My position will be split up into two points: CONTENTION 1: ACTION VERSUS INACTION A. ACTION Let's say that Raymond is upturning Thomas's ocean kayak, thus causing him to drown. The drowning is an example of ACTION, because the result would not be happening without Raymond influencing the situation in the way he is. It is very easy to blame Raymond for Thomas's death, because we SEE Raymond drowning him. B. INACTION Now suppose that instead Thomas is drowning without Raymond's help. His daughter, Jocelyne, is on the shore. Jocelyn is able to save Thomas from drowning. If she were to stay on the shore and not save Thomas, she would be committing INACTION, because the result (Thomas drowning) occurs due to the LACK of influence of Jocelyne. It is more difficult to fault Jocelyne for Thomas's death than it was for Raymond, because she wasn't visibly contributing to the drowning. However, Jocelyne's INACTION is equally blameworthy with Raymond's ACTION, because they are equally responsible for Thomas's drowning. This equality will be very important in the next contention... CONTENTION 2: THE PROOF IS IN THE PUDDIN' I will bring up two examples that will demonstrate the validity of the PRO argument. These two scenarios are not my original creations; they come from the book PHILOSOPHY IN PRACTICE by R. Eric Barnes: A. The Town Sheriff "Imagine that there is a town which has been the victim of a series of grizzly murders apparently by the same person. The townspeople are hysterical with fear, and someone has been accused by a number of influential townsfolk. The sheriff knows that the killer has left town and has died, but she cannot convince anyone that this is the case. Everyone is convinced that the accused person is guilty, and there will certainly be riots if the accused is not hanged. The riots in this town invariably result in several deaths of people who are totally innocent of rioting or anything else. The only way to avoid the riots is for the sheriff to hang the innocent accused person. What should the sheriff do?" B. The Country Doctor "Imagine a doctor in a very remote town who has six patients in his care one day. Five of these people are about to die (within a few hours), and one of them is perfectly healthy. The only way that the doctor can save any of these sick patients is to take organs from the healthy patient and perform a transplant. In fact, the doctor can save all five sick patients by using organs from the one healthy patient, who would unfortunately die because of the missing organs. Furthermore, if the doctor does perform the transplants, he is positive that no one will ever find out that it has been done. What should the doctor do?" C. Analysis of These Two Scenarios It may be tempting to sympathize more with the falsely accused or the healthy patient, but rationally we must afford the same courtesy to the non-rioters and the sick patients. INACTION by the Sheriff or the Doctor consigns to death the many people killed in the riots and the five critical patients, respectively, saving one person in each case. ACTION, however, saves "several" and "five" people in the two cases, at the expense of one. The total amount of harm done (lives lost) in each case is smaller when the ACTION (killing the accused/patient) is taken instead of INACTION (not killing the accused/patient). Regardless of the "probability" of these scenarios, the point of the argument is that such situations are not completely impossible - and thus it is beneficial to have a moral decision at the ready. CONCLUSION Abraham Lincoln knew what he was talking about. When we consider that ACTION and INACTION are both conscious choices and are equally praiseworthy/blameworthy if their outcomes are the same, it is easy to see the decision as two ACTIONS: one which leads to the death of one, and one which leads to the death of many. It is a folly not to choose the former ACTION; thus, I support the PRO side of the resolution. | 0 | Brik |
Congratulations, TheLwerd, on making it this far in the tournament undefeated. Thank you, judges, for your analysis, and spectators, if there are any, for your interest. Now, without further ado, let's boogie:
***
"I am for those means which will give the greatest good to the greatest number."
Because I agree with these words of 16th American President Abraham Lincoln, I espouse it and the PRO side of the resoltuion, which states:
IT IS MORALLY PERMISSABLE TO KILL ONE INNOCENT PERSON TO SAVE THE LIVES OF MANY INNOCENT PEOPLE.
Before I begin, I offer the following DEFINITIONS to clarify the round:
MORALLY: from a moral point of view
MORAL: of, pertaining to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong; ethical
PERMISSABLE: that can be permitted; allowable
INNOCENT: free from legal or specific wrong; guiltless
MANY: constituting or forming a large number
All defined by http://www.dictionary.reference.com... .
Move with me now to the RESOLUTION ANALYSIS, an explanation and evaluation of the topic:
1. The modifier "innocent" applies to both the "one...person" and the "many...people." Because no quantifying term like "more" or "less" accompanies the term "innocent," we must assume that both the person and the people are equally innocent, not one more than the other.
2. "Innocent" is a relatively vague term. If we believe it to mean "sinless," the resolution has no practical meaning, because, aside from a small number of biblical (or other religious) characters, no one qualifies for the topical analysis. As the PRO, I offer you what I feel is a fair interpretation of the word "innocent" in this resolution: "innocent" means "not having committed any crime or action which warrants punishment by death."
3. The resolution involves the killing of one person to save the lives of more than one person. It must be assumed (to achieve fairness in the round) that the lives saved could not be saved in any other manner than killing the one person (otherwise the PRO would be forced to uphold an indefensible position.
4. The resolution asks us to weigh the results of an action (on the PRO) versus an inaction (on the CON). At the very least, the PRO must justify the death of the one innocent person, and at the very least, the CON must justify the death of the many innocent people.
Phew, that was a doozy! With these standards for debate set, we can now move on to CONTENTIONS, the meat and potatoes of the case. My position will be split up into two points:
CONTENTION 1: ACTION VERSUS INACTION
A. ACTION
Let's say that Raymond is upturning Thomas's ocean kayak, thus causing him to drown. The drowning is an example of ACTION, because the result would not be happening without Raymond influencing the situation in the way he is. It is very easy to blame Raymond for Thomas's death, because we SEE Raymond drowning him.
B. INACTION
Now suppose that instead Thomas is drowning without Raymond's help. His daughter, Jocelyne, is on the shore. Jocelyn is able to save Thomas from drowning. If she were to stay on the shore and not save Thomas, she would be committing INACTION, because the result (Thomas drowning) occurs due to the LACK of influence of Jocelyne. It is more difficult to fault Jocelyne for Thomas's death than it was for Raymond, because she wasn't visibly contributing to the drowning. However, Jocelyne's INACTION is equally blameworthy with Raymond's ACTION, because they are equally responsible for Thomas's drowning.
This equality will be very important in the next contention…
CONTENTION 2: THE PROOF IS IN THE PUDDIN'
I will bring up two examples that will demonstrate the validity of the PRO argument. These two scenarios are not my original creations; they come from the book PHILOSOPHY IN PRACTICE by R. Eric Barnes:
A. The Town Sheriff
"Imagine that there is a town which has been the victim of a series of grizzly murders apparently by the same person. The townspeople are hysterical with fear, and someone has been accused by a number of influential townsfolk. The sheriff knows that the killer has left town and has died, but she cannot convince anyone that this is the case. Everyone is convinced that the accused person is guilty, and there will certainly be riots if the accused is not hanged. The riots in this town invariably result in several deaths of people who are totally innocent of rioting or anything else. The only way to avoid the riots is for the sheriff to hang the innocent accused person. What should the sheriff do?"
B. The Country Doctor
"Imagine a doctor in a very remote town who has six patients in his care one day. Five of these people are about to die (within a few hours), and one of them is perfectly healthy. The only way that the doctor can save any of these sick patients is to take organs from the healthy patient and perform a transplant. In fact, the doctor can save all five sick patients by using organs from the one healthy patient, who would unfortunately die because of the missing organs. Furthermore, if the doctor does perform the transplants, he is positive that no one will ever find out that it has been done. What should the doctor do?"
C. Analysis of These Two Scenarios
It may be tempting to sympathize more with the falsely accused or the healthy patient, but rationally we must afford the same courtesy to the non-rioters and the sick patients. INACTION by the Sheriff or the Doctor consigns to death the many people killed in the riots and the five critical patients, respectively, saving one person in each case.
ACTION, however, saves "several" and "five" people in the two cases, at the expense of one. The total amount of harm done (lives lost) in each case is smaller when the ACTION (killing the accused/patient) is taken instead of INACTION (not killing the accused/patient).
Regardless of the "probability" of these scenarios, the point of the argument is that such situations are not completely impossible - and thus it is beneficial to have a moral decision at the ready.
CONCLUSION
Abraham Lincoln knew what he was talking about. When we consider that ACTION and INACTION are both conscious choices and are equally praiseworthy/blameworthy if their outcomes are the same, it is easy to see the decision as two ACTIONS: one which leads to the death of one, and one which leads to the death of many. It is a folly not to choose the former ACTION; thus, I support the PRO side of the resolution. | Society | 0 | 19.-It-is-morally-permissable-to-kill-one-innocent-person-to-save-the-lives-of-many-innocent-people./1/ | 212 |
I will tackle my opponent's argument in chunks for clarity. I will give the beginning and ending statements of each chunk in quotations and capital letters before my responses. Please reference my opponent's Round 1 speech in order to understand all argumentation. "R.A: REBUTTAL...CANNOT BE TRUE." 1. When I wrote that the one and the many are "equally innocent," I only meant that the CON position could not be justified simply by making an argument like "maybe the many innocent people aren't AS innocent." Since such an argument didn't come up in the first CON speech, I don't think it will matter greatly in the judges' decisions. 2. What the CON mentions here is an attempt at advocating Moral Relativism - the idea that what's right for me may not be right, or even be wrong, for you - and vice versa. However, this implies that a certain action (i.e. adultery) would be wrong and OK at the same time, or two different degrees of wrongness simultaneously. The point that I am trying to make here is that, regardless of the varying interpretations that different people/cultures have on morality, morality DOES exist. Everything is either right, wrong, or neutral - and just because not all of the specific maxims regarding behavior have been (or ever will be) identified does not mean that they do not exist. 3. Moral Absolutism is necessary, and there are some moral constants. In the words of philosopher Zachary Walters, "Relativism assumes that cultures can coincide and exist without any commonalities. The relativist...would say that no morals exist outside specific culture or regions. Unfortunately many morals are static and essential to culture existence, specifically child development. A society wanting not to rear children will soon die out to a loss of numbers." "THINK OF...BEING ASKED." 4. This is an issue of personal preference and familiarity, and does nothing to advance the CON's position. Regardless of whether I would prefer to kill my opponent rather than my mother, the moral statement I propose on the PRO still stands unless the CON can dispute it on moral grounds. "PRO HAS...FAMILIAL DISDAIN" 5. Another example that doesn't really advance the CON. Yes, people might disagree about whether we should kill George, but that doesn't change the moral principle, if it is proven. If my opponent believes that euthanasia should be legal and I believe it should be illegal, that has NO BEARING on whether it should actually be legal or illegal. The only justification that the CON gives for killing Bush in this scenario is that "his death would have world-wide repercussions in addition to familial disdain." I am not sure what she means by "familial disdain," but the world-wide repercussions might not be so bad. In past assassinations, we have sometimes found ourselves with Johnsons (who have bad reps), but we have also found ourselves with Arthur (who massively reformed civil service) or Teddy Roosevelt (who did a bunch of awesome things). At best this point is ambiguous. "MY POINT...IS FLAWED." 6. Look to the Resolution Analysis point 2 for conclusive proof here: "innocent" means not warranting death as punishment - and, as a general maxim (which is what a resolution is all about), the PRO side ought to be upheld here. The people in question are equally innocent in terms of life or death. "CONTENTIONS: REBUTTAL...FOR HER INACTION." 7. Here we have exactly what I was talking about. It is easier to blame Raymond than Jocelyne because of the visibility of his ACTION. But, truly, they have committed the same crime. BOTH choices contributed to Thomas's death, and if BOTH had made the opposite choice Thomas would be alive in BOTH cases. Thomas's death is a DIRECT result of the choice that Raymond/Jocelyne makes. The CON attempts to refute this with a drunk driving example. Yes, the law would blame Jeff more than Nancy, and yes, Jeff deserves some of the blame. But the reason that Nancy would not be held accountable by the law is that the law is UNABLE to determine this conclusively. But the resolution (and, up until now, this entire debate) has been about MORAL maxims, not LEGAL ones, and on that pertinent level the PRO still stands. "ADDITIONALLY, WE...NOT STAND." 8. Let's not split hairs. The point is not about Jocelyne's own confidence. The point is that if Jocelyne has the ability, knows it, and fails to act on it, she is as guilty as Raymond would have been. "2A. FORGIVE MY...FUTURE ENDEAVORS." 9. I thought the example was clear enough, but I will call to attention one quote: "there will certainly be riots IF THE ACCUSED IS NOT HANGED." Other options fail (as, in many other instances, they would). And again, if the PRO is obligated to justify the killing of an individual when OTHER OPTIONS are in place, the round would be entirely biased toward the CON. "2B. AGAIN, THIS...SAME LUXURIES." 10. "Furthermore, if the doctor does perform the transplants, he is positive that no one will ever find out that it has been done." This takes care of the trust in authority argument: the decision, again, is a moral one rather than a legal one. 11. The CON states that it would be absolutely wrong to steal from one person to benefit five. THIS POINT IS VERY IMPORTANT. Not only does this completely destroy her arguments about moral relativism (she is now advocating moral absolutes) but she makes a big mistake here: is it more wrong to steal from the one person to benefit the five, or to allow the five people to die to benefit the one? Remember that INACTION and ACTION are equally blameworthy. "LET'S REMEMBER...DISPROVES PRO'S LOGIC." 12. These two points can be grouped together: my opponent is weighing the issue based on who would feel bad about it - both the individual being killed, and the "big family" he/she must come from. The good feelings they would have when he/she survived, however, would be countermanded by the crushing GUILT they would have, knowing that many people sacrificed their lives unwillingly for that person's live. This would nullify any happiness they would have, and may even drive the person in question to depression or suicide. But also, the "big family" point does not work in favor of the CON, because it is not guaranteed to rest on the CON side - it might rest on the PRO side. And, as I have stated above, just because the bereaved family or the person FEELS it is morally wrong, that does not MAKE the action morally wrong. "2. I'LL KEEP...NATURAL SELECTION" 13. And now we enter the world of Malthusian philosophy. Thomas R. Malthus believed (like the CON does) that it would be a folly to do anything to help a person or group of people survive (like food aid to Africa or medical procedures) because it would increase the population at the time when Earth runs out of food - so that perhaps ten million people would suffer instead of five million suffering had we not saved lives. This point, however, justifies every population control from euthanasia and abortion to nuclear war, because they would all reduce the total amount of sufferers in Malthus's view. If the CON wants to uphold nuclear war as a moral maxim, by all means, go for it. In summary: the CON's arguments in favor of moral relativism are refuted not only directly, but indirectly when she herself speaks of moral maxims in terms of absolutes. Many of the "negative" aspects of killing 1 for 5 are based entirely on feelings, which do not necessarily correspond to morals and ought to be disregarded. Inaction and action are equally praiseworthy/blameworthy, because they both involve a choice that will save or slay the person involved. And the CON's point of family devastation is outweighed by the crushing guilt they would feel. | 0 | Brik |
I will tackle my opponent's argument in chunks for clarity. I will give the beginning and ending statements of each chunk in quotations and capital letters before my responses. Please reference my opponent's Round 1 speech in order to understand all argumentation.
"R.A: REBUTTAL…CANNOT BE TRUE."
1. When I wrote that the one and the many are "equally innocent," I only meant that the CON position could not be justified simply by making an argument like "maybe the many innocent people aren't AS innocent." Since such an argument didn't come up in the first CON speech, I don't think it will matter greatly in the judges' decisions.
2. What the CON mentions here is an attempt at advocating Moral Relativism – the idea that what's right for me may not be right, or even be wrong, for you – and vice versa. However, this implies that a certain action (i.e. adultery) would be wrong and OK at the same time, or two different degrees of wrongness simultaneously.
The point that I am trying to make here is that, regardless of the varying interpretations that different people/cultures have on morality, morality DOES exist. Everything is either right, wrong, or neutral – and just because not all of the specific maxims regarding behavior have been (or ever will be) identified does not mean that they do not exist.
3. Moral Absolutism is necessary, and there are some moral constants. In the words of philosopher Zachary Walters, "Relativism assumes that cultures can coincide and exist without any commonalities. The relativist…would say that no morals exist outside specific culture or regions. Unfortunately many morals are static and essential to culture existence, specifically child development. A society wanting not to rear children will soon die out to a loss of numbers."
"THINK OF…BEING ASKED."
4. This is an issue of personal preference and familiarity, and does nothing to advance the CON's position. Regardless of whether I would prefer to kill my opponent rather than my mother, the moral statement I propose on the PRO still stands unless the CON can dispute it on moral grounds.
"PRO HAS…FAMILIAL DISDAIN"
5. Another example that doesn't really advance the CON. Yes, people might disagree about whether we should kill George, but that doesn't change the moral principle, if it is proven. If my opponent believes that euthanasia should be legal and I believe it should be illegal, that has NO BEARING on whether it should actually be legal or illegal.
The only justification that the CON gives for killing Bush in this scenario is that "his death would have world-wide repercussions in addition to familial disdain." I am not sure what she means by "familial disdain," but the world-wide repercussions might not be so bad. In past assassinations, we have sometimes found ourselves with Johnsons (who have bad reps), but we have also found ourselves with Arthur (who massively reformed civil service) or Teddy Roosevelt (who did a bunch of awesome things). At best this point is ambiguous.
"MY POINT...IS FLAWED."
6. Look to the Resolution Analysis point 2 for conclusive proof here: "innocent" means not warranting death as punishment – and, as a general maxim (which is what a resolution is all about), the PRO side ought to be upheld here. The people in question are equally innocent in terms of life or death.
"CONTENTIONS: REBUTTAL…FOR HER INACTION."
7. Here we have exactly what I was talking about. It is easier to blame Raymond than Jocelyne because of the visibility of his ACTION. But, truly, they have committed the same crime. BOTH choices contributed to Thomas's death, and if BOTH had made the opposite choice Thomas would be alive in BOTH cases. Thomas's death is a DIRECT result of the choice that Raymond/Jocelyne makes.
The CON attempts to refute this with a drunk driving example. Yes, the law would blame Jeff more than Nancy, and yes, Jeff deserves some of the blame. But the reason that Nancy would not be held accountable by the law is that the law is UNABLE to determine this conclusively. But the resolution (and, up until now, this entire debate) has been about MORAL maxims, not LEGAL ones, and on that pertinent level the PRO still stands.
"ADDITIONALLY, WE…NOT STAND."
8. Let's not split hairs. The point is not about Jocelyne's own confidence. The point is that if Jocelyne has the ability, knows it, and fails to act on it, she is as guilty as Raymond would have been.
"2A. FORGIVE MY…FUTURE ENDEAVORS."
9. I thought the example was clear enough, but I will call to attention one quote: "there will certainly be riots IF THE ACCUSED IS NOT HANGED." Other options fail (as, in many other instances, they would). And again, if the PRO is obligated to justify the killing of an individual when OTHER OPTIONS are in place, the round would be entirely biased toward the CON.
"2B. AGAIN, THIS…SAME LUXURIES."
10. "Furthermore, if the doctor does perform the transplants, he is positive that no one will ever find out that it has been done." This takes care of the trust in authority argument: the decision, again, is a moral one rather than a legal one.
11. The CON states that it would be absolutely wrong to steal from one person to benefit five. THIS POINT IS VERY IMPORTANT. Not only does this completely destroy her arguments about moral relativism (she is now advocating moral absolutes) but she makes a big mistake here: is it more wrong to steal from the one person to benefit the five, or to allow the five people to die to benefit the one? Remember that INACTION and ACTION are equally blameworthy.
"LET'S REMEMBER…DISPROVES PRO'S LOGIC."
12. These two points can be grouped together: my opponent is weighing the issue based on who would feel bad about it – both the individual being killed, and the "big family" he/she must come from. The good feelings they would have when he/she survived, however, would be countermanded by the crushing GUILT they would have, knowing that many people sacrificed their lives unwillingly for that person's live. This would nullify any happiness they would have, and may even drive the person in question to depression or suicide.
But also, the "big family" point does not work in favor of the CON, because it is not guaranteed to rest on the CON side – it might rest on the PRO side. And, as I have stated above, just because the bereaved family or the person FEELS it is morally wrong, that does not MAKE the action morally wrong.
"2. I'LL KEEP…NATURAL SELECTION"
13. And now we enter the world of Malthusian philosophy. Thomas R. Malthus believed (like the CON does) that it would be a folly to do anything to help a person or group of people survive (like food aid to Africa or medical procedures) because it would increase the population at the time when Earth runs out of food – so that perhaps ten million people would suffer instead of five million suffering had we not saved lives. This point, however, justifies every population control from euthanasia and abortion to nuclear war, because they would all reduce the total amount of sufferers in Malthus's view. If the CON wants to uphold nuclear war as a moral maxim, by all means, go for it.
In summary: the CON's arguments in favor of moral relativism are refuted not only directly, but indirectly when she herself speaks of moral maxims in terms of absolutes. Many of the "negative" aspects of killing 1 for 5 are based entirely on feelings, which do not necessarily correspond to morals and ought to be disregarded. Inaction and action are equally praiseworthy/blameworthy, because they both involve a choice that will save or slay the person involved. And the CON's point of family devastation is outweighed by the crushing guilt they would feel. | Society | 1 | 19.-It-is-morally-permissable-to-kill-one-innocent-person-to-save-the-lives-of-many-innocent-people./1/ | 213 |
Thank you, Brik, for the well wishes, and I too would like to welcome my opponent, the judges and other readers to this debate. For now I will agree with the proposed definitions as provided by Pro; however, I will dispute any interpretations as they arise. R.A: REBUTTAL It is impossible for two or more people to be equally innocent. I understand Pro's point that the topic does not specify any person(s) to be more or less innocent than another; however, the definition of innocent as being "not having committed any crime or action which warrants punishment by death" is faulty, at best. For instance, here in the States we may not deem adultery a crime to warrant punishment by death. In Saudi Arabia, citizens raised in a culture very different from ours would acknowledge the act of adultery as being worthy of a death sentence (to say the least). In this debate it is important to establish what is and isn't moral, and this morality must cross global borders in order to effectively represent the resolution. The problem is that people have opposing views regarding morality, and thus it is important as Con to not only illustrate but hi-lite those differences, in order to further evaluate how the resolution cannot be true. Think of it this way: let's assume that your mother is a good person and a great citizen. I can tell you that I am also a good person and a great citizen. But whose life would you rather sacrifice to save 5 others - my life or your mothers? Chances are that you would rather see me go. This proves that even if several people are all seemingly "equally" good, it is not always clear whose life should be the one sacrificed and whose should be saved; it would all depend on the person being asked. Pro has already established that no person is free of sin. Even if we were to compare the faults and flaws of several individuals, the likelihood of people agreeing upon another's exact value is impossible. This is indeed relative to the debate at hand. Consider the idea of George Bush's life being sacrificed to save the lives of 5 average, good American citizens. Some people might be happy that GWB was gone. Some would agree with the choice based on practicality (1 death verses 5), while others would disagree with the decision based on the fact that GWB is the President of the United States, and his death would have world-wide repercussions in addition to familial disdain. My point? Pro's assertion of the topic at hand means that this logic applies to EVERY "innocent" person, whether it's George Bush, Mother Theresa or your mom. By affirming the resolution, Pro is saying that hands down 1 death is better than 5, and he attempts to justify that logic by saying that all people involved would be "equally" innocent. However I have already established how all people involved cannot possibly be deemed equally innocent, and therefore his logic is flawed. CONTENTIONS: REBUTTAL 1. I disagree regarding Pro's example that Ray and Jocelyn are equally to blame for Tom's death. In example A, it was because of Ray's direct action that Tom died. In example B, Jocelyn's inaction may have RESULTED in Tom's death, but her inaction did not CAUSE the circumstance that led to his demise. Thus, it was Ray's direct action that was 'worse' in comparison to J's inaction. Values in our own judicial system support this notion. Consider the example of one being hit by a drunk driver, Jeff. Nancy was at the party with Jeff when she noticed him grab his keys and leave the house. Knowing he was drunk, Nancy could have and should have prevented Jeff from driving under the influence. Instead, Nancy decided to mind her own business and thus failed to save the life of the innocent person who Jeff struck and killed. Although Nancy's conscience may not be entirely clear, the law would hold Jeff more accountable for his action than Nancy for her inaction. Additionally, we must consider the outside factors and circumstance that inevitably affect people's decisions. In Jocelyn's example, although she was ABLE to save Tom, she may not have known that she was able to do so, due to age/maturity, fear, psychological debilitation, etc. Thus it is not fair to place equal blame on both characters, and again Pro's logic does not stand. 2A. Forgive my jumping around a bit, but I do not deem this example as being pertinent to this debate given the parameters set forth by Pro in the RA. With his 3rd point, Pro suggests that, "It must be assumed that the lives saved could not be saved in any other manner than killing the one person." In this example, there are certainly other options the sheriff could execute in order to spare the life of the innocent citizen (i.e. have said person guarded, removed from town, lie about his death, etc.). For this reason I ask the judges and Pro to please disregard this flawed example. If Pro disagrees and wishes to debate it further, I will touch upon points that reflect government and the justice system, including ideas about democracy and utilitarianism. In other words, I will discuss how the sheriff's corruption could cause a distrust in government, and overall negatively impact the town if it promotes dishonesty in future endeavors. 2B. Again, this example does not reflect moral ideas regarding trust in authority (an ideal that has been upheld in varying cultures for centuries). Sure, utilizing the healthy person's organs to save the lives of five others sounds like a great idea... IF the healthy person gave the doctor permission, and chose to sacrifice their own life. If not, it's MURDER - unjustified murder. Also, if this were always an option, consider the amount of people who would be maimed and killed to 'replace' or fix those who are sick/wounded. So although I sympathize with the misfortune of the few, it would be absolutely wrong to blatantly steal from one person in order to benefit the five. That's like saying everyone should be stripped against their will of all of their non-necessary possessions, and have them distributed to others who do not have those same luxuries. Let's remember, though, that this is different than a Republican/Conservative disagreement about the dispersement or amount of tax dollars. This is about someone's/people's lives. So ask yourself this: Would it be moral for you to walk into a hospital one day expecting minor surgery (i.e. removing your tonsils), and wind up dead because some doctor decided that taking all of your organs and donating them to people in need was the right thing to do? I think not. CON'S CONTENTIONS 1. The resolution asks us to agree that one death is better than five. These deaths affect the people who are still living; those left behind experience pain at the loss of a loved one. Now let us assume that Persons 1 - 4 have a combined total of 30 people who would be absolutely devastated if they were to pass away. Person 5 happens to come from a big family, and as a result, he alone would have a total of 40 people who would be crushed if he were to die. So in this instance, by letting the 4 innocent people die, only 30 people would be seriously affected. By letting 1 innocent person die to spare Persons 1 - 4, 40 people would be inconsolable instead of just 30. If this were the case - and Pro has already established the validity of hypotheticals in this debate - (we, so to speak) would be 'better off' letting 4 people die in the place of 1, to spare the feelings and overall mood/negative actions or energy/output of 40 people. Again, this disproves Pro's logic. 2. I'll keep this brief. Consider the fact that people, unfortunately, are a burden to the environment. For every person that lives, the earth/society is depleted of space and resources. Thereby it is possible for me to argue that by reducing the population, we are in fact doing the world a service. I can expand on this point further if need be; think NATURAL SELECTION... | 0 | Danielle |
Thank you, Brik, for the well wishes, and I too would like to welcome my opponent, the judges and other readers to this debate. For now I will agree with the proposed definitions as provided by Pro; however, I will dispute any interpretations as they arise.
R.A: REBUTTAL
It is impossible for two or more people to be equally innocent. I understand Pro's point that the topic does not specify any person(s) to be more or less innocent than another; however, the definition of innocent as being "not having committed any crime or action which warrants punishment by death" is faulty, at best. For instance, here in the States we may not deem adultery a crime to warrant punishment by death. In Saudi Arabia, citizens raised in a culture very different from ours would acknowledge the act of adultery as being worthy of a death sentence (to say the least).
In this debate it is important to establish what is and isn't moral, and this morality must cross global borders in order to effectively represent the resolution. The problem is that people have opposing views regarding morality, and thus it is important as Con to not only illustrate but hi-lite those differences, in order to further evaluate how the resolution cannot be true.
Think of it this way: let's assume that your mother is a good person and a great citizen. I can tell you that I am also a good person and a great citizen. But whose life would you rather sacrifice to save 5 others - my life or your mothers? Chances are that you would rather see me go. This proves that even if several people are all seemingly "equally" good, it is not always clear whose life should be the one sacrificed and whose should be saved; it would all depend on the person being asked.
Pro has already established that no person is free of sin. Even if we were to compare the faults and flaws of several individuals, the likelihood of people agreeing upon another's exact value is impossible. This is indeed relative to the debate at hand. Consider the idea of George Bush's life being sacrificed to save the lives of 5 average, good American citizens. Some people might be happy that GWB was gone. Some would agree with the choice based on practicality (1 death verses 5), while others would disagree with the decision based on the fact that GWB is the President of the United States, and his death would have world-wide repercussions in addition to familial disdain.
My point? Pro's assertion of the topic at hand means that this logic applies to EVERY "innocent" person, whether it's George Bush, Mother Theresa or your mom. By affirming the resolution, Pro is saying that hands down 1 death is better than 5, and he attempts to justify that logic by saying that all people involved would be "equally" innocent. However I have already established how all people involved cannot possibly be deemed equally innocent, and therefore his logic is flawed.
CONTENTIONS: REBUTTAL
1. I disagree regarding Pro's example that Ray and Jocelyn are equally to blame for Tom's death. In example A, it was because of Ray's direct action that Tom died. In example B, Jocelyn's inaction may have RESULTED in Tom's death, but her inaction did not CAUSE the circumstance that led to his demise. Thus, it was Ray's direct action that was ‘worse' in comparison to J's inaction. Values in our own judicial system support this notion.
Consider the example of one being hit by a drunk driver, Jeff. Nancy was at the party with Jeff when she noticed him grab his keys and leave the house. Knowing he was drunk, Nancy could have and should have prevented Jeff from driving under the influence. Instead, Nancy decided to mind her own business and thus failed to save the life of the innocent person who Jeff struck and killed. Although Nancy's conscience may not be entirely clear, the law would hold Jeff more accountable for his action than Nancy for her inaction.
Additionally, we must consider the outside factors and circumstance that inevitably affect people's decisions. In Jocelyn's example, although she was ABLE to save Tom, she may not have known that she was able to do so, due to age/maturity, fear, psychological debilitation, etc. Thus it is not fair to place equal blame on both characters, and again Pro's logic does not stand.
2A. Forgive my jumping around a bit, but I do not deem this example as being pertinent to this debate given the parameters set forth by Pro in the RA. With his 3rd point, Pro suggests that, "It must be assumed that the lives saved could not be saved in any other manner than killing the one person." In this example, there are certainly other options the sheriff could execute in order to spare the life of the innocent citizen (i.e. have said person guarded, removed from town, lie about his death, etc.). For this reason I ask the judges and Pro to please disregard this flawed example. If Pro disagrees and wishes to debate it further, I will touch upon points that reflect government and the justice system, including ideas about democracy and utilitarianism. In other words, I will discuss how the sheriff's corruption could cause a distrust in government, and overall negatively impact the town if it promotes dishonesty in future endeavors.
2B. Again, this example does not reflect moral ideas regarding trust in authority (an ideal that has been upheld in varying cultures for centuries). Sure, utilizing the healthy person's organs to save the lives of five others sounds like a great idea... IF the healthy person gave the doctor permission, and chose to sacrifice their own life. If not, it's MURDER - unjustified murder. Also, if this were always an option, consider the amount of people who would be maimed and killed to ‘replace' or fix those who are sick/wounded. So although I sympathize with the misfortune of the few, it would be absolutely wrong to blatantly steal from one person in order to benefit the five. That's like saying everyone should be stripped against their will of all of their non-necessary possessions, and have them distributed to others who do not have those same luxuries.
Let's remember, though, that this is different than a Republican/Conservative disagreement about the dispersement or amount of tax dollars. This is about someone's/people's lives. So ask yourself this: Would it be moral for you to walk into a hospital one day expecting minor surgery (i.e. removing your tonsils), and wind up dead because some doctor decided that taking all of your organs and donating them to people in need was the right thing to do? I think not.
CON'S CONTENTIONS
1. The resolution asks us to agree that one death is better than five. These deaths affect the people who are still living; those left behind experience pain at the loss of a loved one. Now let us assume that Persons 1 - 4 have a combined total of 30 people who would be absolutely devastated if they were to pass away. Person 5 happens to come from a big family, and as a result, he alone would have a total of 40 people who would be crushed if he were to die. So in this instance, by letting the 4 innocent people die, only 30 people would be seriously affected. By letting 1 innocent person die to spare Persons 1 - 4, 40 people would be inconsolable instead of just 30.
If this were the case - and Pro has already established the validity of hypotheticals in this debate - (we, so to speak) would be ‘better off' letting 4 people die in the place of 1, to spare the feelings and overall mood/negative actions or energy/output of 40 people. Again, this disproves Pro's logic.
2. I'll keep this brief. Consider the fact that people, unfortunately, are a burden to the environment. For every person that lives, the earth/society is depleted of space and resources. Thereby it is possible for me to argue that by reducing the population, we are in fact doing the world a service. I can expand on this point further if need be; think NATURAL SELECTION... | Society | 0 | 19.-It-is-morally-permissable-to-kill-one-innocent-person-to-save-the-lives-of-many-innocent-people./1/ | 214 |
1 - 4. Whether moral relativism (the notion that moral or ethical propositions do not reflect objective and/or universal moral truths, but instead make claims relative to social, cultural, historical or personal circumstances -- Wiki) exists is not debatable, though moral subjectivism vs. moral absolutism is. Rather what is pertinent to this debate is the fact that due to an individual's own beliefs, their perception of what is more important or more valuable is unique to the individual. Say Person 1's life could be sacrificed in order to save the lives of Persons 2 - 5. One hundred people are given details about these five individual's lives, and are asked to judge whether or not it should be done. This can have one of two results: A - The majority of the people believe that Person 1's life should NOT be sacrificed to save the other 4. B - The majority of the people believe that Person 1's life SHOULD be sacrificed. In instance A, Pro's logic thus far would not stand. Why? Because the majority of people surveyed did not believe in sacrificing an innocent person's life. Shouldn't OUR (society's) values and morals be the basis for this debate? On the contrary, instance B proposes that most people DO believe in sacrificing one life for the life of the other 4. In that case, even if it were only the minority fighting for the life of the 1 innocent person, we must remember that morality is not exclusive to the majority -- just because only a minority of the people believe in something does not make it immoral. This example proves that moral relativism not only exists, but is important to keep in mind during this debate. Why? It demonstrates our incapacity as human beings to truly decipher 'the meaning of life' so to speak, and judge who does and does not deserve to live. Such a stance is advocated by people who are against the death penalty. The way they see it, no human being has the right to end the life of another. Those FOR the death penalty disagree, but keep in mind that they are opting to end the life of criminals convicted of heinous crimes. In this debate, we are discussing innocent people. My point? Because nobody will agree on whose lives should be taken and whose should be spared, the only moral thing we CAN do is choose to not take the life of an innocent person. Religious people would leave the fate of the other 4 in God's hands (let God's will be done); non-religious people would note the tragedy (of innocent people dying), however, believe in Social Darwinism (survival of the fittest)... or at the very least, just accept that human tragedy is an inevitable part of life. Purposefully taking the life of an innocent person is NOT an inevitable part of life. 5 & 6. Pro writes, "If my opponent believes that euthanasia should be legal and I believe it should be illegal, that has NO BEARING on whether it should actually be legal or illegal." But wait... I'm confused. Aren't our moral values the reason why we have laws in the first place? And aren't those same values and beliefs the basis for the laws that we enact? Of course there are discrepancies, but for the most part, this is what constitutes a democracy. Unless Pro believes in heteronomy under fellow man...? Anyway. Proposing the concept of sacrificing GWB for a group of innocent American citizens was another example in which my point was to prove that choosing who should live and who should die could get a little tricky. Because hypothetical scenarios have been deemed a-ok for this debate, let us move past GWB and onto another example to prove this same point. Imagine that there is one man, Joe, a father of two with a wife and another baby on the way. Joe is a man of great morals and accomplishment. He donates half of his income to charity, he volunteers 20 hours a week while still being a great parent, and by age 30 has already opened up his sucessful business. He is beloved and adored within his community, and everyone believes in him and his future. Now let us assume that innocent Joe's life could be sacrificed to save the lives of 4 other innocent people. These 4 other people are all in their 90s, have no children, mentally ill, HIV positive, handicapped and homeless. What do you think? Should Joe's life be sacrificed in order to save theirs? If you agree with Pro and his position regarding the resolution/morality, your answer would have to be yes. Like I said - the resolution is universal, and must be applied to EVERY innocent individual and in every scenario in order to warrant a Pro vote. In the past 2 rounds, Pro has acknowledged that the definition of innocent (as provided by his point 6) is, "not warranting death as punishment... the people in question are equally innocent in terms of life or death." My example stands, because I agree that all 5 people are equally innocent in terms of life and death, even though they do lead very different lives. 7 & 8. Again Pro attempts to place equal blame for Tom's death on both Ray and Jocelyn. His logic is, "if BOTH had made the opposite choice, Thomas would be alive in BOTH cases." This logic is again flawed. Simply because two different actions have the same result does NOT mean that both actions are morally equivocal. For instance, say that I have $100 sitting on my table. Ray decides to steal my $100 without my permission. The result is that I no longer have $100 on my table. In another instance, I have $100 on my table, and offer to give the money to Jocelyn. Jocelyn accepts my offer, and again the result is that I no longer have $100 on my table. In both situations, two different actions led to the same result, but both actions are not morally equal. In the first case, the choice was stealing/theft. In the second, the choice was accepting what was dealt. Similarly, by voting Pro the choice would be murder. The Con vote would be accepting what was dealt (so to speak) in choosing to not purposefully end someone's life. In Jeff and Nancy's situation, again these two individuals are not equally to blame. If Nancy had not attended that party, Jeff would have still driven home drunk and killed someone on the way. The result would have been the same without any of Nancy's involvement, making Jeff's direct action more blameworthy than Nancy's inaction. 9. Pro believes he should not be obligated to justify the killing of an individual if other options are in place; however, the resolution makes no distinction about this discrepancy. Further, it can be argued that there is ALWAYS an other option (even if the other option is even less moral or more destructive). 10. Pro believes the resulting lack of trust in authority argument cannot be made in objection to the doctor because "no one will ever find out that it has been done." Wrong. The doctor himself knows what he has done, which I will discuss further in a moment... 11. Pro mistakenly suggests that I have opposed moral relativism by stating that one should not steal from 1 in order to provide for 5. He brings up the dichotomy of, "is it more wrong to steal from the one person to benefit the five, or to allow the five people to die to benefit the one? Remember that INACTION and ACTION are equally blameworthy." This is FALSE because I have already explained how action is more blameworthy than inaction, therefore the action of stealing would be worse than voluntary inaction. 12. Pro's logic here is flawed, and I feel is a concession of this point and possibly the entire debate. He notes that the family's joy of the surviving innocent person (whose life was not sacrificed to save 4 others) would be superceded by the guilt of knowing that 4 other people had died. But wouldn't that same guilt be applied to the doctor who took an innocent person's life? And if that person HAD been sacrificed, the family members of the surviving 4 would in turn feel guilty for the 40 people who are suffering... so guilt cannot be a factor. | 0 | Danielle |
1 - 4. Whether moral relativism (the notion that moral or ethical propositions do not reflect objective and/or universal moral truths, but instead make claims relative to social, cultural, historical or personal circumstances -- Wiki) exists is not debatable, though moral subjectivism vs. moral absolutism is. Rather what is pertinent to this debate is the fact that due to an individual's own beliefs, their perception of what is more important or more valuable is unique to the individual.
Say Person 1's life could be sacrificed in order to save the lives of Persons 2 - 5. One hundred people are given details about these five individual's lives, and are asked to judge whether or not it should be done. This can have one of two results:
A - The majority of the people believe that Person 1's life should NOT be sacrificed to save the other 4.
B - The majority of the people believe that Person 1's life SHOULD be sacrificed.
In instance A, Pro's logic thus far would not stand. Why? Because the majority of people surveyed did not believe in sacrificing an innocent person's life. Shouldn't OUR (society's) values and morals be the basis for this debate? On the contrary, instance B proposes that most people DO believe in sacrificing one life for the life of the other 4. In that case, even if it were only the minority fighting for the life of the 1 innocent person, we must remember that morality is not exclusive to the majority -- just because only a minority of the people believe in something does not make it immoral.
This example proves that moral relativism not only exists, but is important to keep in mind during this debate. Why? It demonstrates our incapacity as human beings to truly decipher 'the meaning of life' so to speak, and judge who does and does not deserve to live. Such a stance is advocated by people who are against the death penalty. The way they see it, no human being has the right to end the life of another. Those FOR the death penalty disagree, but keep in mind that they are opting to end the life of criminals convicted of heinous crimes. In this debate, we are discussing innocent people.
My point? Because nobody will agree on whose lives should be taken and whose should be spared, the only moral thing we CAN do is choose to not take the life of an innocent person. Religious people would leave the fate of the other 4 in God's hands (let God's will be done); non-religious people would note the tragedy (of innocent people dying), however, believe in Social Darwinism (survival of the fittest)... or at the very least, just accept that human tragedy is an inevitable part of life. Purposefully taking the life of an innocent person is NOT an inevitable part of life.
5 & 6. Pro writes, "If my opponent believes that euthanasia should be legal and I believe it should be illegal, that has NO BEARING on whether it should actually be legal or illegal." But wait... I'm confused. Aren't our moral values the reason why we have laws in the first place? And aren't those same values and beliefs the basis for the laws that we enact? Of course there are discrepancies, but for the most part, this is what constitutes a democracy. Unless Pro believes in heteronomy under fellow man...?
Anyway. Proposing the concept of sacrificing GWB for a group of innocent American citizens was another example in which my point was to prove that choosing who should live and who should die could get a little tricky. Because hypothetical scenarios have been deemed a-ok for this debate, let us move past GWB and onto another example to prove this same point. Imagine that there is one man, Joe, a father of two with a wife and another baby on the way. Joe is a man of great morals and accomplishment. He donates half of his income to charity, he volunteers 20 hours a week while still being a great parent, and by age 30 has already opened up his sucessful business. He is beloved and adored within his community, and everyone believes in him and his future.
Now let us assume that innocent Joe's life could be sacrificed to save the lives of 4 other innocent people. These 4 other people are all in their 90s, have no children, mentally ill, HIV positive, handicapped and homeless. What do you think? Should Joe's life be sacrificed in order to save theirs? If you agree with Pro and his position regarding the resolution/morality, your answer would have to be yes. Like I said - the resolution is universal, and must be applied to EVERY innocent individual and in every scenario in order to warrant a Pro vote. In the past 2 rounds, Pro has acknowledged that the definition of innocent (as provided by his point 6) is, "not warranting death as punishment... the people in question are equally innocent in terms of life or death." My example stands, because I agree that all 5 people are equally innocent in terms of life and death, even though they do lead very different lives.
7 & 8. Again Pro attempts to place equal blame for Tom's death on both Ray and Jocelyn. His logic is, "if BOTH had made the opposite choice, Thomas would be alive in BOTH cases." This logic is again flawed. Simply because two different actions have the same result does NOT mean that both actions are morally equivocal. For instance, say that I have $100 sitting on my table. Ray decides to steal my $100 without my permission. The result is that I no longer have $100 on my table. In another instance, I have $100 on my table, and offer to give the money to Jocelyn. Jocelyn accepts my offer, and again the result is that I no longer have $100 on my table.
In both situations, two different actions led to the same result, but both actions are not morally equal. In the first case, the choice was stealing/theft. In the second, the choice was accepting what was dealt. Similarly, by voting Pro the choice would be murder. The Con vote would be accepting what was dealt (so to speak) in choosing to not purposefully end someone's life.
In Jeff and Nancy's situation, again these two individuals are not equally to blame. If Nancy had not attended that party, Jeff would have still driven home drunk and killed someone on the way. The result would have been the same without any of Nancy's involvement, making Jeff's direct action more blameworthy than Nancy's inaction.
9. Pro believes he should not be obligated to justify the killing of an individual if other options are in place; however, the resolution makes no distinction about this discrepancy. Further, it can be argued that there is ALWAYS an other option (even if the other option is even less moral or more destructive).
10. Pro believes the resulting lack of trust in authority argument cannot be made in objection to the doctor because "no one will ever find out that it has been done." Wrong. The doctor himself knows what he has done, which I will discuss further in a moment...
11. Pro mistakenly suggests that I have opposed moral relativism by stating that one should not steal from 1 in order to provide for 5. He brings up the dichotomy of, "is it more wrong to steal from the one person to benefit the five, or to allow the five people to die to benefit the one? Remember that INACTION and ACTION are equally blameworthy." This is FALSE because I have already explained how action is more blameworthy than inaction, therefore the action of stealing would be worse than voluntary inaction.
12. Pro's logic here is flawed, and I feel is a concession of this point and possibly the entire debate. He notes that the family's joy of the surviving innocent person (whose life was not sacrificed to save 4 others) would be superceded by the guilt of knowing that 4 other people had died. But wouldn't that same guilt be applied to the doctor who took an innocent person's life? And if that person HAD been sacrificed, the family members of the surviving 4 would in turn feel guilty for the 40 people who are suffering... so guilt cannot be a factor. | Society | 1 | 19.-It-is-morally-permissable-to-kill-one-innocent-person-to-save-the-lives-of-many-innocent-people./1/ | 215 |
Pro was unable to post his R3 argument in time; my arguments must therefore be extended, and the points that remain disproven from the Pro belong to me. In this final round, I will summarize/elaborate on some of my main arguments, and reaffirm why you should vote Con. -- TAKING INNOCENT LIVES Moral Relativism: Even if I agree that fundamental, universal morals exist, I also believe that particular circumstances in one's individual life/upbringing/culture/experiences would generate a particular feeling that not everyone would agree upon. Pro maintains that regardless of how people FEEL, there is one absolute moral right way/answer. Whether or not I agree with that is irrelevant; the point is that we are all human, and therefore none of us has the authority or the capacity of any kind to say 'this is right and this is wrong' with absolute certainty. If so, what would be the purpose of debate...? This brings me to my example of Joe and the innocent homeless folk. I have established that Joe and the homeless people in this particular example are as 'equally innocent' as possible in terms of their behavior and life choices. However different circumstances in each of their lives might cause us to value them in different ways. For instance, monetary value is one thing -- Joe is wealthy, healthy and has a seemingly bright future ahead of him, including upbringing his three children and continuing to be a good husband/son/brother/etc. Joe also has important ties to the community, whereas the homeless people live isolated lives in desolate solitude with no money, jobs, family, etc. So if a situation were to arise in which a doctor could choose to save beloved Joe or five homeless people in their 90s with no kids and AIDS and mental illnesses, well...? There might be some discrepancy as to who the doctor should save. We must remember that by affirming the resolution, we are saying that EVERYONE is of complete and utter equal value regardless of any circumstances in their lives, including the company they keep, family, friends, community service, etc. Acknowledging that certain (even one or two) circumstances have an impact on one's perceived value would encourage a vote for the Con here. And even if you don't agree with Con, keep in mind that this point should still go to me, as Pro completely dodged this argument by choosing instead to discuss moral relativism and taking my George W. Bush example out of context. My GWB scenario attempted to illustrate that one's wealth, health, power, etc. have an impact on how we as people value them (inherently). Pro argued this point by simply stating that the U.S. has survived other presidential assassinations in the past, though how America would fare the death of its President really has no relevance to this debate. What does have relevance is the fact that in SOME situations - however few and far between - it would be more beneficial to society (and morally the right thing to do) to not sacrifice one life for the sake of some others (afterall, Pro himself said that all Con had to do was justify the death of more than one innocent person in order to win this debate). Anyway, either way you look at it, debate-wise this point goes to the Con, as it was not refuted. ACTION vs. INACTION Pro did not refute any of my R2 arguments which successfully argued his R2 rebuttal. Through my examples, I have proven how direct action is more blameworthy than inaction. Additionally, I have pointed out how in a situation like Ray & Jocelyn's, even if Jocelyn wasn't present, Ray's actions would have resulted in Tom's death. However without Ray's action, Jocelyn would have never been at fault. Therefore this point of action having a greater value than inaction stands, and this point must also go to the Con. TWO SCENARIOS The Sheriff ~ What Pro suggests is giving one person ultimate power. He has repeatedly maintained that this is a moral issue and not a legal one -- this decision is up to the sheriff and him alone without anyone ever finding out. Pro has also asserted very sternly that moral absolutes absolutely exist (pun intended). In other words, there are definite right and wrongs. Fine. In that case, we must ask ourselves: Is it moral to LIE? No. Is it moral to KILL? No. Is it moral to kill UNJUSTLY? Certainly not. So what about this example makes killing someone the moral thing to do? Nobody can foresee that there would DEFINITELY be riots if the accused wasn't "sacrificed," nor should his life not matter or be ended simply because a bunch of rowdy and vengeful citizens are making threats. If that were the case - and if this were allowed/accepted - think of all of the people who would be "sacrificed" in our own society. The Doctor ~ What Pro is advocating in his example of a doctor sacrificing one life to save many isn't organ donation. It's MURDER. The topic doesn't say that it is morally permissible for one life to be sacrificed for the sake of others, but rather that it is morally permissible to KILL someone to save the lives of others. So again, to agree with the Pro here means that this logic has to apply to everyone in every situation. Imagine if you were in the position of the healthy person who it was decided would be sacrificed to save several others, but without your consent. Would that be okay? I highly doubt you'd think so. NATURAL SELECTION In response to what I wrote about natural selection (or even God's will, depending on how you look at it), Pro writes, "This point, however, justifies every population control from euthanasia and abortion to nuclear war, because they would all reduce the total amount of sufferers in Malthus's view. If the CON wants to uphold nuclear war as a moral maxim, by all means, go for it." This is completely untrue. I'm not saying that the U.S. should nuke a small country. What I'm saying is that I do not think it would be moral for some law official to decide on his own that my innocent life should be sacrificed in order to keep the peace. Nor do I think a doctor has the moral obligation to kill me because some unfortunate patients need my organs. How does this view justify nuclear war? And what does Malthus have to do with anything? This debate isn't about fancy psychology or statistics. We're discussing morality. I do believe in taking many steps to aid the sick and dying, but taking an innocent life in the process is not an option. To expand on an earlier point, what Pro suggests is essentially messing with fate. Last time I checked, people of faith should not be for taking innocent lives, suicide (even if the killing of one's self was voluntary, which the resolution does not suggest), etc. Should not God's will be done? We can only do so much; I don't think God would suggest killing an innocent human being of our own accord to satisfy our own wants and needs. To the non-religious, I'm sure the Social Darwinism theory at least somewhat applies. Again, this is not about sacrificing a few tax dollars to benefit the impoverished. Pro's stance okays taking an innocent person's LIFE, even if those who are dying have absolutely no connection to the person being sacrificed. If you buy this logic, it would mean that as humans we all have 100% moral obligation to each other to the point that we should risk our lives for strangers on the street. If you agree - fine. Good! But shouldn't that be your prerogative? Who has the right to take your life? GUILT Anyway you look at it, someone's going to feel guilty about something. Therefore the only thing we can take into account is right and wrong. If someone with lung cancer could survive with my lung, that's fine. But I don't believe that I should be killed because of it, and I don't think my family feels guilty about not wanting me killed because of that either... That said, I'm outta characters. I would like to sincerely thank my opponent for debating and judges for judging. Take care! -- L. | 0 | Danielle |
Pro was unable to post his R3 argument in time; my arguments must therefore be extended, and the points that remain disproven from the Pro belong to me. In this final round, I will summarize/elaborate on some of my main arguments, and reaffirm why you should vote Con.
--
TAKING INNOCENT LIVES
Moral Relativism: Even if I agree that fundamental, universal morals exist, I also believe that particular circumstances in one's individual life/upbringing/culture/experiences would generate a particular feeling that not everyone would agree upon. Pro maintains that regardless of how people FEEL, there is one absolute moral right way/answer. Whether or not I agree with that is irrelevant; the point is that we are all human, and therefore none of us has the authority or the capacity of any kind to say 'this is right and this is wrong' with absolute certainty. If so, what would be the purpose of debate...?
This brings me to my example of Joe and the innocent homeless folk. I have established that Joe and the homeless people in this particular example are as 'equally innocent' as possible in terms of their behavior and life choices. However different circumstances in each of their lives might cause us to value them in different ways. For instance, monetary value is one thing -- Joe is wealthy, healthy and has a seemingly bright future ahead of him, including upbringing his three children and continuing to be a good husband/son/brother/etc. Joe also has important ties to the community, whereas the homeless people live isolated lives in desolate solitude with no money, jobs, family, etc. So if a situation were to arise in which a doctor could choose to save beloved Joe or five homeless people in their 90s with no kids and AIDS and mental illnesses, well...? There might be some discrepancy as to who the doctor should save.
We must remember that by affirming the resolution, we are saying that EVERYONE is of complete and utter equal value regardless of any circumstances in their lives, including the company they keep, family, friends, community service, etc. Acknowledging that certain (even one or two) circumstances have an impact on one's perceived value would encourage a vote for the Con here. And even if you don't agree with Con, keep in mind that this point should still go to me, as Pro completely dodged this argument by choosing instead to discuss moral relativism and taking my George W. Bush example out of context.
My GWB scenario attempted to illustrate that one's wealth, health, power, etc. have an impact on how we as people value them (inherently). Pro argued this point by simply stating that the U.S. has survived other presidential assassinations in the past, though how America would fare the death of its President really has no relevance to this debate. What does have relevance is the fact that in SOME situations - however few and far between - it would be more beneficial to society (and morally the right thing to do) to not sacrifice one life for the sake of some others (afterall, Pro himself said that all Con had to do was justify the death of more than one innocent person in order to win this debate). Anyway, either way you look at it, debate-wise this point goes to the Con, as it was not refuted.
ACTION vs. INACTION
Pro did not refute any of my R2 arguments which successfully argued his R2 rebuttal. Through my examples, I have proven how direct action is more blameworthy than inaction. Additionally, I have pointed out how in a situation like Ray & Jocelyn's, even if Jocelyn wasn't present, Ray's actions would have resulted in Tom's death. However without Ray's action, Jocelyn would have never been at fault. Therefore this point of action having a greater value than inaction stands, and this point must also go to the Con.
TWO SCENARIOS
The Sheriff ~ What Pro suggests is giving one person ultimate power. He has repeatedly maintained that this is a moral issue and not a legal one -- this decision is up to the sheriff and him alone without anyone ever finding out. Pro has also asserted very sternly that moral absolutes absolutely exist (pun intended). In other words, there are definite right and wrongs. Fine. In that case, we must ask ourselves: Is it moral to LIE? No. Is it moral to KILL? No. Is it moral to kill UNJUSTLY? Certainly not. So what about this example makes killing someone the moral thing to do? Nobody can foresee that there would DEFINITELY be riots if the accused wasn't "sacrificed," nor should his life not matter or be ended simply because a bunch of rowdy and vengeful citizens are making threats. If that were the case - and if this were allowed/accepted - think of all of the people who would be "sacrificed" in our own society.
The Doctor ~ What Pro is advocating in his example of a doctor sacrificing one life to save many isn't organ donation. It's MURDER. The topic doesn't say that it is morally permissible for one life to be sacrificed for the sake of others, but rather that it is morally permissible to KILL someone to save the lives of others. So again, to agree with the Pro here means that this logic has to apply to everyone in every situation. Imagine if you were in the position of the healthy person who it was decided would be sacrificed to save several others, but without your consent. Would that be okay? I highly doubt you'd think so.
NATURAL SELECTION
In response to what I wrote about natural selection (or even God's will, depending on how you look at it), Pro writes, "This point, however, justifies every population control from euthanasia and abortion to nuclear war, because they would all reduce the total amount of sufferers in Malthus's view. If the CON wants to uphold nuclear war as a moral maxim, by all means, go for it." This is completely untrue. I'm not saying that the U.S. should nuke a small country. What I'm saying is that I do not think it would be moral for some law official to decide on his own that my innocent life should be sacrificed in order to keep the peace. Nor do I think a doctor has the moral obligation to kill me because some unfortunate patients need my organs. How does this view justify nuclear war? And what does Malthus have to do with anything? This debate isn't about fancy psychology or statistics. We're discussing morality.
I do believe in taking many steps to aid the sick and dying, but taking an innocent life in the process is not an option. To expand on an earlier point, what Pro suggests is essentially messing with fate. Last time I checked, people of faith should not be for taking innocent lives, suicide (even if the killing of one's self was voluntary, which the resolution does not suggest), etc. Should not God's will be done? We can only do so much; I don't think God would suggest killing an innocent human being of our own accord to satisfy our own wants and needs.
To the non-religious, I'm sure the Social Darwinism theory at least somewhat applies. Again, this is not about sacrificing a few tax dollars to benefit the impoverished. Pro's stance okays taking an innocent person's LIFE, even if those who are dying have absolutely no connection to the person being sacrificed. If you buy this logic, it would mean that as humans we all have 100% moral obligation to each other to the point that we should risk our lives for strangers on the street. If you agree - fine. Good! But shouldn't that be your prerogative? Who has the right to take your life?
GUILT
Anyway you look at it, someone's going to feel guilty about something. Therefore the only thing we can take into account is right and wrong. If someone with lung cancer could survive with my lung, that's fine. But I don't believe that I should be killed because of it, and I don't think my family feels guilty about not wanting me killed because of that either...
That said, I'm outta characters. I would like to sincerely thank my opponent for debating and judges for judging. Take care! -- L. | Society | 2 | 19.-It-is-morally-permissable-to-kill-one-innocent-person-to-save-the-lives-of-many-innocent-people./1/ | 216 |
do (a-b) then you get the answer! It's not 2=1 HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH MUHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH MUHAHAHA MUHA MUHA MUHAAAAAAAA | 0 | ww54ww |
do (a-b) then you get the answer! It's not 2=1 HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH MUHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH MUHAHAHA MUHA MUHA MUHAAAAAAAA | Science | 0 | 2-has-the-same-value-as-the-value-of-1./1/ | 226 |
This is a music debate. Each round, other than the first, we will post a video of a song that is from either the 2000s or 2010-2012. This is a fun debate and wish this not be played seriously. Have fun! First round acceptance. | 0 | kyro90 |
This is a music debate. Each round, other than the first, we will post a video of a song that is from either the 2000s or 2010-2012. This is a fun debate and wish this not be played seriously. Have fun! First round acceptance. | Entertainment | 0 | 2000s-and-2010s-music-debate/1/ | 238 |
I hope this will be fun. On to my song.. Playing God- Paramore- 2009. <URL>... ; | 0 | kyro90 |
I hope this will be fun. On to my song.. Playing God- Paramore- 2009. https://www.youtube.com... ; | Entertainment | 1 | 2000s-and-2010s-music-debate/1/ | 239 |
Still Alive- Portal- 2007. ; | 0 | kyro90 |
Still Alive- Portal- 2007. ; | Entertainment | 2 | 2000s-and-2010s-music-debate/1/ | 240 |
Looks like you got Ober's vote. Heres an anime tribute to one of the greatest ninja ever. Anko Tribute (Ever Dream)- Nightwish- 2002. ; | 0 | kyro90 |
Looks like you got Ober's vote. Heres an anime tribute to one of the greatest ninja ever. Anko Tribute (Ever Dream)- Nightwish- 2002. ; | Entertainment | 3 | 2000s-and-2010s-music-debate/1/ | 241 |
I accepted by joining the debate 1+0=1 is also false 1 is true | 0 | vi_spex |
I accepted by joining the debate
1+0=1 is also false
1 is true | Miscellaneous | 0 | 6-0-0-is-true/1/ | 280 |
its just 6 there is no equation, or the explanation is this 6*0(6) 0 is 0, I do not argue against that what happens if you add 0 to 1 ? is it true your are holding 0 rocks in your hand all day long so the answer that you have 0 rocks is true whenever you say it? | 0 | vi_spex |
its just 6 there is no equation, or the explanation is this 6*0(6)
0 is 0, I do not argue against that
what happens if you add 0 to 1 ?
is it true your are holding 0 rocks in your hand all day long so the answer that you have 0 rocks is true whenever you say it? | Miscellaneous | 1 | 6-0-0-is-true/1/ | 281 |
how do you multiply 2 bananas by 0 ? and what happens, when you "do" that action that can't happen in reality.. you can never add 0 to 1, as they are opposites what happens if you imagine a dragon and get it into a soda bottle you have in your hands? then 0 was added to 1, now prove you can :) | 0 | vi_spex |
how do you multiply 2 bananas by 0 ? and what happens, when you "do" that action that can't happen in reality..
you can never add 0 to 1, as they are opposites
what happens if you imagine a dragon and get it into a soda bottle you have in your hands? then 0 was added to 1, now prove you can :) | Miscellaneous | 2 | 6-0-0-is-true/1/ | 282 |
I have no million dollars, so I am a millionaire! no monkeys, can never have 0 bananas, false is implied nothing is the opposite of something, information and matter, 0 and 1 the future and past is information, and my imagination only happens now 0=false and truth 1=true everything is something and something is 1, and nothing Is 0 so basically, there is no thing in your imagination 1 -1 is false. make a soda minus -1, you cant, it can only be 1, you can drink it and burn the bottle where as only transformation is going on, at some point you pee it out and see a smoking cloud, not nothing | 0 | vi_spex |
I have no million dollars, so I am a millionaire!
no monkeys, can never have 0 bananas, false is implied
nothing is the opposite of something, information and matter, 0 and 1
the future and past is information, and my imagination only happens now
0=false and truth
1=true
everything is something and something is 1, and nothing Is 0
so basically, there is no thing in your imagination
1 -1 is false. make a soda minus -1, you cant, it can only be 1, you can drink it and burn the bottle where as only transformation is going on, at some point you pee it out and see a smoking cloud, not nothing | Miscellaneous | 3 | 6-0-0-is-true/1/ | 283 |
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. | 0 | 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 | 0 | 9-11-Who-really-attacked-us-and-why/1/ | 308 |
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. | 0 | 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 | 1 | 9-11-Who-really-attacked-us-and-why/1/ | 309 |
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. | 0 | 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 | 2 | 9-11-Who-really-attacked-us-and-why/1/ | 310 |
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. | 0 | 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 | 3 | 9-11-Who-really-attacked-us-and-why/1/ | 311 |
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 | 0 | 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 | 0 | 9-11-Who-really-attacked-us-and-why/1/ | 312 |
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. | 0 | 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 | 1 | 9-11-Who-really-attacked-us-and-why/1/ | 313 |
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. | 0 | 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 | 2 | 9-11-Who-really-attacked-us-and-why/1/ | 314 |
End of preview. Expand
in Dataset Viewer.
- Downloads last month
- 30
Size of downloaded dataset files:
90.3 MB
Size of the auto-converted Parquet files:
90.3 MB
Number of rows:
38,725
Models trained or fine-tuned on notaphoenix/debateorg_w_effect_for_liberal