Datasets:

notaphoenix

/

debateorg_w_effect_for_liberal

like 0

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.

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

.999...-is-equal-to-1/2/

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?

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

.999...-is-equal-to-1/2/

I have full BoP, .9r will represent .9 repeating to keep this debate easy to write. First round for acceptance only.

SeventhProfessor

I have full BoP, .9r will represent .9 repeating to keep this debate easy to write. First round for acceptance only.

Miscellaneous

.999...-is-equal-to-one./1/

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.

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

.999...-is-equal-to-one./1/

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.

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

.999...-is-exactly-equal-to-1/1/

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.

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

.999...-is-exactly-equal-to-1/1/

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

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

.999...-is-exactly-equal-to-1/1/

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

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

.999...-is-exactly-equal-to-1/1/

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

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

.999...-is-exactly-equal-to-1/1/

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!

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

.999...-is-exactly-equal-to-1/1/

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.

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

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

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.

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

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

<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.

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

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

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)

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-nothing-information-1-something-matter/1/

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

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

0-nothing-information-1-something-matter/1/

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?

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

0-nothing-information-1-something-matter/1/

energy is not nothing..

vi_spex

energy is not nothing..

Science

0-nothing-information-1-something-matter/1/

thats what im saying.. energy is not 0

vi_spex

thats what im saying.. energy is not 0

Science

0-nothing-information-1-something-matter/1/

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

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

08-elections-who-will-you-vote-for/1/

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

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

08-elections-who-will-you-vote-for/1/

1+1 is 2, people say. But it is not, no. I fell it is not, but you tell why.

LexTempus

1+1 is 2, people say. But it is not, no. I fell it is not, but you tell why.

Funny

1-1-is-not-2/1/

This is easy you start first and go get 100 dollars to back yourself up ok good great accept please..

firemonkey6775

This is easy you start first and go get 100 dollars to back yourself up ok good great accept please..

Science

1-1-simple-as-that/1/

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

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

1-1-simple-as-that/1/

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

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

1-1-simple-as-that/1/

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.

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

100-zombies-would-lose-against-100-Spartans/1/

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.

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

100-zombies-would-lose-against-100-Spartans/1/

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.

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

19.-It-is-morally-permissable-to-kill-one-innocent-person-to-save-the-lives-of-many-innocent-people./1/

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.

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

19.-It-is-morally-permissable-to-kill-one-innocent-person-to-save-the-lives-of-many-innocent-people./1/

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...

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

19.-It-is-morally-permissable-to-kill-one-innocent-person-to-save-the-lives-of-many-innocent-people./1/

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.

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

19.-It-is-morally-permissable-to-kill-one-innocent-person-to-save-the-lives-of-many-innocent-people./1/

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.

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

19.-It-is-morally-permissable-to-kill-one-innocent-person-to-save-the-lives-of-many-innocent-people./1/

do (a-b) then you get the answer! It's not 2=1 HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH MUHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH MUHAHAHA MUHA MUHA MUHAAAAAAAA

ww54ww

do (a-b) then you get the answer! It's not 2=1 HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH MUHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH MUHAHAHA MUHA MUHA MUHAAAAAAAA

Science

2-has-the-same-value-as-the-value-of-1./1/

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.

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

2000s-and-2010s-music-debate/1/

I hope this will be fun. On to my song.. Playing God- Paramore- 2009. <URL>... ;

kyro90

I hope this will be fun. On to my song.. Playing God- Paramore- 2009. https://www.youtube.com... ;

Entertainment

2000s-and-2010s-music-debate/1/

Still Alive- Portal- 2007. ;

kyro90

Still Alive- Portal- 2007. ;

Entertainment

2000s-and-2010s-music-debate/1/

Looks like you got Ober's vote. Heres an anime tribute to one of the greatest ninja ever. Anko Tribute (Ever Dream)- Nightwish- 2002. ;

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

2000s-and-2010s-music-debate/1/

I accepted by joining the debate 1+0=1 is also false 1 is true

vi_spex

I accepted by joining the debate 1+0=1 is also false 1 is true

Miscellaneous

6-0-0-is-true/1/

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?

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

6-0-0-is-true/1/

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 :)

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

6-0-0-is-true/1/

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

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

6-0-0-is-true/1/

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

DucoNihilum

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

Politics

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

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

DucoNihilum

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

Politics

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

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

DucoNihilum

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

Politics

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

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

DucoNihilum

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

Politics

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

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

inrainbows

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

Politics

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

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

inrainbows

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

Politics

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

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

inrainbows

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

Politics

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

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

inrainbows

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

Politics

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

There were dozens of replies in the other thread about this that I am arguing in. However, my opponent there is hardly worthy, and has forfeited his last round. If it pleases, I'd like to open this debate to everyone, but especially those who commented in the other debate ( <URL>... ). I have set the debate for 5 rounds so that we may have 4 rounds of actual debate after my opponent posts reasons why he/she believes it was a hoax/conspiracy. Since I am in effect using one of my rounds to start the debate, I would ask the Con side to please post a minimum-character response in the 5th round, thus making it so the Con side effectively leads, since I will not have a chance to respond to any new arguments made, even though they may have a perfectly reasonable explanation. So - our premise: 9/11 was NOT a hoax or conspiracy. Four flights were hijacked, two of which were crashed into WTC 1 and 2, one of which was crashed into the Pentagon, and another which crash-landed in Pennsylvania. There was no government involvement in the perpetration of 9/11. **** If you wanted this debate, but it's already taken, just challenge me with your objections in a different debate. Thanks! ****

JustCallMeTarzan

There were dozens of replies in the other thread about this that I am arguing in. However, my opponent there is hardly worthy, and has forfeited his last round. If it pleases, I'd like to open this debate to everyone, but especially those who commented in the other debate ( http://www.debate.org... ). I have set the debate for 5 rounds so that we may have 4 rounds of actual debate after my opponent posts reasons why he/she believes it was a hoax/conspiracy. Since I am in effect using one of my rounds to start the debate, I would ask the Con side to please post a minimum-character response in the 5th round, thus making it so the Con side effectively leads, since I will not have a chance to respond to any new arguments made, even though they may have a perfectly reasonable explanation. So - our premise: 9/11 was NOT a hoax or conspiracy. Four flights were hijacked, two of which were crashed into WTC 1 and 2, one of which was crashed into the Pentagon, and another which crash-landed in Pennsylvania. There was no government involvement in the perpetration of 9/11. **** If you wanted this debate, but it's already taken, just challenge me with your objections in a different debate. Thanks! ****

Politics

9-11-was-NOT-a-hoax-or-conspiracy./1/

First - introducing a two-hour long movie is completely unacceptable. If you can't take the time to withdraw objections from it, why should I? The burden of proof is on you here - Provide me something to argue about, not links to movies. Go here ( <URL>... ) and read the arguments and comments - that should refute 99% of whatever your movie contains. I believe I've seen that movie, and if it's the same one I've seen, then it has several instances of doctored photos, as well as some simple factual errors. Second - the "explosions" are easy to explain. As you can see in the picture, the building happens to be falling down. The interior of the building contains many elevator shafts, which are enclosed areas. When the building begins to collapse, the elevator shafts will compress and then blow out, creating the horizontal bursts out the side of the building, even tens of stories below the wavefront of collapse. It's relatively simple physics. Also, the interior of the building would act as a mostly-enclosed area and create the many more horizontal puffs we see much closer to the wavefront. Lets see some actual propositions from Con in the next round, please.

JustCallMeTarzan

First - introducing a two-hour long movie is completely unacceptable. If you can't take the time to withdraw objections from it, why should I? The burden of proof is on you here - Provide me something to argue about, not links to movies. Go here ( http://www.debate.org... ) and read the arguments and comments - that should refute 99% of whatever your movie contains. I believe I've seen that movie, and if it's the same one I've seen, then it has several instances of doctored photos, as well as some simple factual errors. Second - the "explosions" are easy to explain. As you can see in the picture, the building happens to be falling down. The interior of the building contains many elevator shafts, which are enclosed areas. When the building begins to collapse, the elevator shafts will compress and then blow out, creating the horizontal bursts out the side of the building, even tens of stories below the wavefront of collapse. It's relatively simple physics. Also, the interior of the building would act as a mostly-enclosed area and create the many more horizontal puffs we see much closer to the wavefront. Lets see some actual propositions from Con in the next round, please.

Politics

9-11-was-NOT-a-hoax-or-conspiracy./1/

Lets examine your points one by one... First, the engineers of the WTC. The WTC was designed by mainly two people - architect Minoru Yamasaki and engineer Leslie Robertson. Since Yamasaki is dead (as of 1986), he's kind of hard to reach for comment. Robertson is quoted as saying: "I designed it for a 707 to smash into it." This is a DIRECT response to his being asked specifically about terrorism. Odd that the main engineer would say nothing about jet fuel. Only John Skilling, a structural engineer said anything about the fuel - mentioning that there would be a "horrendous fire." However, the problem that caused the collapse was not that the main structural elements failed. The WTC was built with a central core and an outer mesh. The floors are supported by both the core and the mesh. However, when the steel lost its strength from the kinetic collision and burning fuel, the connections between the floors and the mesh/core failed. As this happens, the floor begins to drop, causing the floors ABOVE it to fail as well and putting additional pressure on the floors above it. As one can seen in videos of the collapse - the collapse did in fact begin at the upper stories. Second - Thermate/Thermite - Thermite (which they found) is a product of Aluminum and an Oxide (like rust). The most common oxide is Iron Oxide, but any oxide will do. Other common sources available in the WTC would have included Copper. So Aluminum airplane + Oxide (rust, melted copper pipes, etc...) = Thermite. I'm no chemist, but I'm willing to bet that what can be interpreted as thermite on a scan can come from stuff that's present in a huge building and a plane. Third - there were indeed 19 hijackers, but they are all dead. UA Flight 175: Marwan al-Shehhi, Fayez Banihammad, Mohand al-Shehri, Hamza al-Ghamdi, Ahmed al-Ghamdi. AA Flight 11: Mohamed Atta al Sayed, Waleed al-Shehri, Wail al-Shehri, Abdulaziz al-Omari, Satam al-Suqami. UA Flight 93: Ziad Jarrah, Ahmed al-Haznawi, Ahmed al-Nami, Saeed al-Ghamdi. AA Flight 77: Hani Hanjour, Khalid al-Mihdhar, Majed Moqed, Nawaf al-Hazmi, Salem al-Hazmi. All the above men are dead. There is some speculation as to whether or not there was intended to be more hijackers or not. Flight 93 only had 4, whereas the other flights had five. Zacarias Moussaoui, Ramzi Binalshibh, Mohamed al-Kahtani, Fawaz al-Nashimi, Saeed al-Ghamdi, Tawfiq bin Attash, Ali Abdul Aziz Ali, Mushabib al-Hamlan, Zakariyah Essabar, Saeed Ahmad al-Zahrani, Ali Abd al-Rahman al-Faqasi al-Ghamdi, Saeed al-Baluchi, Qutaybah al-Najdi, Zuhair al-Thubaiti, and Saud al-Rashi are all candidates for the remainder of the members of al-Qaeda that were to have contributed to the attacks. Most of THESE men are in fact still alive. Fourth - the "Unscathed" passport. Well... it's not unscathed - look here: ( <URL>... ) As you can plainly see - it's not unscathed by any means, unless the Saudi government incorporates decorative burn marks and such in their passports. Why did it survive? The best explanation I have is that the cockpit of an aircraft is surrounded by thick bulkheads. The ignition of the fuel would have separated the cockpit module from the rest of the plane. It's certainly possible that the cockpit module could have been part of the debris that was propelled out of the building by the explosion instead of being completely incinerated by it. Fifth - the link to Bin Laden - Aside from the fact that Bin Laden has publicly stated on numerous accounts that he was involved, had specific foreknowledge, and personally communicated with the hijackers... There is also the testimony of Khalid Sheik Mohammed that he (Mohammed) not only planned the attacks, but presented them to Bin Laden and Mohammed Atef. Bin Laden then both approved the plan, and supplied the financial means for it to take place. Sixth - the claim that Hani Hanjour was a poor pilot. Here's a quote from his flight instructor that granted him a commercial pilot's license in 1999: "Despite Hanjour's poor reviews, he did have some ability as a pilot... There's no doubt in my mind that once that [hijacked jet] got going, he could have pointed that plane at a building and hit it." I'm not sure what "experts" you consulted to determine this 270 degree spiral claim. Pilots do it frequently when they need to land on a different runway that was originally intended, or are flying a flight time that forces them onto an inconvenient (geographically) runway. It would be child's play to program the autopilot on a relatively modern 757-200 to execute the maneuver and then resume control when the plane was close to its destination. Seventh - the plane that hit the Pentagon did NOT disintegrate. There is wreckage ALL OVER in photos that were taken before the cleanup started. If you take the time to actually look closely at the photos, you can see all sorts of debris - engine parts, wheels, aluminum pieces, burnt corpses... The pentagon is made of masonry, concrete, steel, brick, and wood. Where'd all the aluminum come from in the wreckage if not a plane? Where'd the aircraft components come from? Read this: ( <URL>... ). Also, from the nature of the Pentagon's construction, much of the debris would be inside the E ring and between the D and E rings, not on the exterior of the building, where most of the pictures are taken from. Eighth - Flight 93 - Why would you expect there to be large pieces of debris from a plane that nose-dived into the ground at 500+ miles per hour? Upon impact, the airframe would have basically shattered, and then the remaining fuel would have exploded, scattering the shattered airframe all over. The actual debris field, including human remains, is much larger than the two football fields-sized area that was smoldering at the crash site. And last, but not least, the people interviewed in the WTC... There are numerous videos and pictures of the lobby. Any explosion powerful enough to push people upwards would have damaged the floor of the lobby. None of this damage is visible in any photos. The powerful explosions in the basement are probably the result of electric feedback into the machinery that controls much of the tower's internal functionality. These explosions would have been instantaneous with the crash of the jet into the upper floors. Primary tremors from the kinetic energy of the crash would probably have come after the tremors from the basement, given that the basement is some 70-ish floors closer to the lobby. Also, there is no report from the firefighters inside the building before, during, and after the collapse (Stairway B) of a "basement bomb." Certainly plausible, if not complete refutations of all points. Any more?

JustCallMeTarzan

Lets examine your points one by one... First, the engineers of the WTC. The WTC was designed by mainly two people - architect Minoru Yamasaki and engineer Leslie Robertson. Since Yamasaki is dead (as of 1986), he's kind of hard to reach for comment. Robertson is quoted as saying: "I designed it for a 707 to smash into it." This is a DIRECT response to his being asked specifically about terrorism. Odd that the main engineer would say nothing about jet fuel. Only John Skilling, a structural engineer said anything about the fuel - mentioning that there would be a "horrendous fire." However, the problem that caused the collapse was not that the main structural elements failed. The WTC was built with a central core and an outer mesh. The floors are supported by both the core and the mesh. However, when the steel lost its strength from the kinetic collision and burning fuel, the connections between the floors and the mesh/core failed. As this happens, the floor begins to drop, causing the floors ABOVE it to fail as well and putting additional pressure on the floors above it. As one can seen in videos of the collapse - the collapse did in fact begin at the upper stories. Second - Thermate/Thermite - Thermite (which they found) is a product of Aluminum and an Oxide (like rust). The most common oxide is Iron Oxide, but any oxide will do. Other common sources available in the WTC would have included Copper. So Aluminum airplane + Oxide (rust, melted copper pipes, etc...) = Thermite. I'm no chemist, but I'm willing to bet that what can be interpreted as thermite on a scan can come from stuff that's present in a huge building and a plane. Third - there were indeed 19 hijackers, but they are all dead. UA Flight 175: Marwan al-Shehhi, Fayez Banihammad, Mohand al-Shehri, Hamza al-Ghamdi, Ahmed al-Ghamdi. AA Flight 11: Mohamed Atta al Sayed, Waleed al-Shehri, Wail al-Shehri, Abdulaziz al-Omari, Satam al-Suqami. UA Flight 93: Ziad Jarrah, Ahmed al-Haznawi, Ahmed al-Nami, Saeed al-Ghamdi. AA Flight 77: Hani Hanjour, Khalid al-Mihdhar, Majed Moqed, Nawaf al-Hazmi, Salem al-Hazmi. All the above men are dead. There is some speculation as to whether or not there was intended to be more hijackers or not. Flight 93 only had 4, whereas the other flights had five. Zacarias Moussaoui, Ramzi Binalshibh, Mohamed al-Kahtani, Fawaz al-Nashimi, Saeed al-Ghamdi, Tawfiq bin Attash, Ali Abdul Aziz Ali, Mushabib al-Hamlan, Zakariyah Essabar, Saeed Ahmad al-Zahrani, Ali Abd al-Rahman al-Faqasi al-Ghamdi, Saeed al-Baluchi, Qutaybah al-Najdi, Zuhair al-Thubaiti, and Saud al-Rashi are all candidates for the remainder of the members of al-Qaeda that were to have contributed to the attacks. Most of THESE men are in fact still alive. Fourth - the "Unscathed" passport. Well... it's not unscathed - look here: ( http://www.cooperativeresearch.org... ) As you can plainly see - it's not unscathed by any means, unless the Saudi government incorporates decorative burn marks and such in their passports. Why did it survive? The best explanation I have is that the cockpit of an aircraft is surrounded by thick bulkheads. The ignition of the fuel would have separated the cockpit module from the rest of the plane. It's certainly possible that the cockpit module could have been part of the debris that was propelled out of the building by the explosion instead of being completely incinerated by it. Fifth - the link to Bin Laden - Aside from the fact that Bin Laden has publicly stated on numerous accounts that he was involved, had specific foreknowledge, and personally communicated with the hijackers... There is also the testimony of Khalid Sheik Mohammed that he (Mohammed) not only planned the attacks, but presented them to Bin Laden and Mohammed Atef. Bin Laden then both approved the plan, and supplied the financial means for it to take place. Sixth - the claim that Hani Hanjour was a poor pilot. Here's a quote from his flight instructor that granted him a commercial pilot's license in 1999: "Despite Hanjour's poor reviews, he did have some ability as a pilot... There's no doubt in my mind that once that [hijacked jet] got going, he could have pointed that plane at a building and hit it." I'm not sure what "experts" you consulted to determine this 270 degree spiral claim. Pilots do it frequently when they need to land on a different runway that was originally intended, or are flying a flight time that forces them onto an inconvenient (geographically) runway. It would be child's play to program the autopilot on a relatively modern 757-200 to execute the maneuver and then resume control when the plane was close to its destination. Seventh - the plane that hit the Pentagon did NOT disintegrate. There is wreckage ALL OVER in photos that were taken before the cleanup started. If you take the time to actually look closely at the photos, you can see all sorts of debris - engine parts, wheels, aluminum pieces, burnt corpses... The pentagon is made of masonry, concrete, steel, brick, and wood. Where'd all the aluminum come from in the wreckage if not a plane? Where'd the aircraft components come from? Read this: ( http://www.whatreallyhappened.com... ). Also, from the nature of the Pentagon's construction, much of the debris would be inside the E ring and between the D and E rings, not on the exterior of the building, where most of the pictures are taken from. Eighth - Flight 93 - Why would you expect there to be large pieces of debris from a plane that nose-dived into the ground at 500+ miles per hour? Upon impact, the airframe would have basically shattered, and then the remaining fuel would have exploded, scattering the shattered airframe all over. The actual debris field, including human remains, is much larger than the two football fields-sized area that was smoldering at the crash site. And last, but not least, the people interviewed in the WTC... There are numerous videos and pictures of the lobby. Any explosion powerful enough to push people upwards would have damaged the floor of the lobby. None of this damage is visible in any photos. The powerful explosions in the basement are probably the result of electric feedback into the machinery that controls much of the tower's internal functionality. These explosions would have been instantaneous with the crash of the jet into the upper floors. Primary tremors from the kinetic energy of the crash would probably have come after the tremors from the basement, given that the basement is some 70-ish floors closer to the lobby. Also, there is no report from the firefighters inside the building before, during, and after the collapse (Stairway B) of a "basement bomb." Certainly plausible, if not complete refutations of all points. Any more?

Politics

9-11-was-NOT-a-hoax-or-conspiracy./1/

Finally... some actual good debate on this subject. I would like to see where you get your information as well, since you only provide one link to a picture. Your quoted material is from where? Mine is summary, but in the future I will provide links to my sources. As you have said, Demartini was a construction manager - not an engineer. He is not authorized to pass judgment on the structural capabilities of the towers. On top of that, his statement did not mention any actual hard data concerning multiple jetliners: "The building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it. That was the largest plane at the time. I BELIEVE that the building PROBABLY COULD sustain multiple impacts of jetliners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door -- this intense grid -- and the jet plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. [Emphasis added]" Demartini's belief has no bearing on the actual capabilities of the structure. In fact, Demartini wasn't even involved with the WTC untill the truck bomb in 1993. ( <URL>... ) As for the free-fall - I will appeal to common sense. The towers could not begin to collapse until the internal connections between the floor and the mesh/core were severed. A collapse of one floor probably isn't enough to damage the building. However, the jet took out 3 or 4 floors at once. The combined collapse would not only begun a pancake scenario inside the building, but destabilized the mesh, causing the snapping we see as the mesh buckles outward in the collapses. This snapping, nearly a thousand feet off the ground would have only needed to impart a VERY SMALL lateral velocity to move debris 500 feet away from the tower. That's only a 6 inch per foot lateral movement as it falls 1000 feet. As for your picture, you didn't present that before, so claims I didn't refute it are immaterial. Examine the following pictures: 1) <URL>... 2) <URL>... 3) <URL>... 4) <URL>... 5) <URL>... The first one is the inset beam in the picture. Second is what we'd expect to see from an explosive shear of the same beam (I simply modeled a beam in 3ds Max 9). Third is what we actually see in the photo - the brown segment representing the differences. The fourth picture shows the surfaces with molten metal on them. And the last picture is a comparison between explosive shear (left) and a torch cut (right). Now compare the first and last pictures. Looks like a torch cut to me. There is no evidence to suggest that Steven E. Young - the "experienced doctor" who put forth the argument towards thermite - was even present at ground zero to examine the materials. All Young says is that it's possible that thermite could have been used to demolish the Towers. It's also possible that a nuclear bomb could have done it. Young does not present fact - only conjecture. Furthermore, there is a list of reasons why thermite could not have been the cause of the collapse, including the fact that pre-planted thermite on the upper floors would have ignited when the plane crashed into the building. Also, thermite isn't stable enough to be used in large-scale detonations like would be required to level the WTC Towers. ( <URL>... ) The hijackers that were on the airplanes are dead. A simple Google search will reveal a number of images of the hijackers going through airport security ( <URL>... ). This notion that the people who flew the planes into the towers are still alive is laughable. The people claiming to be the hijackers are clearly seeking media attention, or being paid by al-Qaeda. If you watch this video ( <URL>... ) you will see a scientific reconstruction of the collision with the building. Debris can clearly be seen exiting the far side of the building in both the reconstruction and in actual footage. It's not hard to believe at all that portions of the cockpit module could have remained intact and exited the buildings. You provide no counterattack besides third hand accounts of Bin Laden financing the attacks. Al-Qeada members have specifically stated that Bin Laden financed and was partially responsible for 9-11. The person who PLANNED the attack even said Bin Laden was responsible. ( <URL>... ) and ( <URL>... ) This notion of there being only safe pilots and non-safe pilots is laughable as well. You call the person who graduated last in his class at med school "doctor" - you call the person who graduated last in his class at flight school "Captain." Look here: ( <URL>... ) a picture of Hani Hanjour's Commercial Pilot's License. Obviously he must have been able to pass the tests to get a license. The FAA doesn't just hand them out as party favors. I still await your source on this "impossible maneuver" that is performed on a daily basis by pilots, live and computers. My source? I've been INSIDE a plane performing that maneuver on three separate occasions. The FBI only confiscated 3 videos of the Pentagon attack. The gas station, the hotel roof, and the camera overseeing I-395. You present a series of quotes, all of which are refuted by the link I already posted that you apparently did not read. So I'll post it again: ( <URL>... ) Actually, this article ( <URL>... ) about the Nigerian plane crash sounds very much like what happened to Flight 93. It cites things like no whole bodies, papers surviving, and a 20 meter wide hole. Which is pretty much what we see in pictures of the Flight 93 crash. I'm not sure that your point is here. The Zeitgeist movie is simply using one aspect of a crash to support claims about the entire thing. Why did the NORAD failure occur? Well let's look at NORAD's timeline: ( <URL>... ) Oops - it looks like the maximum time from FAA notification to NORAD planes being in the air was only 12 minutes. When top government officials are meeting, they usually don't invite civilians. The 9/11 Commission was not a government legal body - they didn't NEED to be under oath. And if the media and civilians weren't present for the commission's questioning, how do they know there was no recording or transcript? It's not the least bit suspicious that the administration would review the 9/11 Commission's Report - it would have included possibly sensitive data regarding NORAD, CIA, FBI, and other government procedures and capabilities. The FBI was not behind the WTC attack in 1993 - it was Ramzi Yousef ( <URL>... ). Provide a source for ridiculous claims like the CIA being behind terrorism. Do your research - the quote about the scenario being run was about the London Bombings, not 9-11. ( <URL>... ) This last quote doesn't really surprise me - another example of bureaucratic failure. So what? All that means is that it could have possibly been prevented - not that it didn't happen. My response to your final question: I question anything that purports the United States as the responsible party for the attacks on 9/11. And you should too, when they are as founded on conjecture and hypothesis as the Zeitgeist source and not science and logic.

JustCallMeTarzan

Finally... some actual good debate on this subject. I would like to see where you get your information as well, since you only provide one link to a picture. Your quoted material is from where? Mine is summary, but in the future I will provide links to my sources. As you have said, Demartini was a construction manager - not an engineer. He is not authorized to pass judgment on the structural capabilities of the towers. On top of that, his statement did not mention any actual hard data concerning multiple jetliners: "The building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it. That was the largest plane at the time. I BELIEVE that the building PROBABLY COULD sustain multiple impacts of jetliners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door -- this intense grid -- and the jet plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. [Emphasis added]" Demartini's belief has no bearing on the actual capabilities of the structure. In fact, Demartini wasn't even involved with the WTC untill the truck bomb in 1993. ( http://911research.wtc7.net... ) As for the free-fall - I will appeal to common sense. The towers could not begin to collapse until the internal connections between the floor and the mesh/core were severed. A collapse of one floor probably isn't enough to damage the building. However, the jet took out 3 or 4 floors at once. The combined collapse would not only begun a pancake scenario inside the building, but destabilized the mesh, causing the snapping we see as the mesh buckles outward in the collapses. This snapping, nearly a thousand feet off the ground would have only needed to impart a VERY SMALL lateral velocity to move debris 500 feet away from the tower. That's only a 6 inch per foot lateral movement as it falls 1000 feet. As for your picture, you didn't present that before, so claims I didn't refute it are immaterial. Examine the following pictures: 1) http://milmac.com... 2) http://milmac.com... 3) http://milmac.com... 4) http://milmac.com... 5) http://algoxy.com... The first one is the inset beam in the picture. Second is what we'd expect to see from an explosive shear of the same beam (I simply modeled a beam in 3ds Max 9). Third is what we actually see in the photo - the brown segment representing the differences. The fourth picture shows the surfaces with molten metal on them. And the last picture is a comparison between explosive shear (left) and a torch cut (right). Now compare the first and last pictures. Looks like a torch cut to me. There is no evidence to suggest that Steven E. Young - the "experienced doctor" who put forth the argument towards thermite - was even present at ground zero to examine the materials. All Young says is that it's possible that thermite could have been used to demolish the Towers. It's also possible that a nuclear bomb could have done it. Young does not present fact - only conjecture. Furthermore, there is a list of reasons why thermite could not have been the cause of the collapse, including the fact that pre-planted thermite on the upper floors would have ignited when the plane crashed into the building. Also, thermite isn't stable enough to be used in large-scale detonations like would be required to level the WTC Towers. ( http://www.cloakanddagger.de... ) The hijackers that were on the airplanes are dead. A simple Google search will reveal a number of images of the hijackers going through airport security ( http://images.google.com... ). This notion that the people who flew the planes into the towers are still alive is laughable. The people claiming to be the hijackers are clearly seeking media attention, or being paid by al-Qaeda. If you watch this video ( http://youtube.com... ) you will see a scientific reconstruction of the collision with the building. Debris can clearly be seen exiting the far side of the building in both the reconstruction and in actual footage. It's not hard to believe at all that portions of the cockpit module could have remained intact and exited the buildings. You provide no counterattack besides third hand accounts of Bin Laden financing the attacks. Al-Qeada members have specifically stated that Bin Laden financed and was partially responsible for 9-11. The person who PLANNED the attack even said Bin Laden was responsible. ( http://www.9-11commission.gov... ) and ( http://news.bbc.co.uk... ) This notion of there being only safe pilots and non-safe pilots is laughable as well. You call the person who graduated last in his class at med school "doctor" - you call the person who graduated last in his class at flight school "Captain." Look here: ( http://www.cooperativeresearch.org... ) a picture of Hani Hanjour's Commercial Pilot's License. Obviously he must have been able to pass the tests to get a license. The FAA doesn't just hand them out as party favors. I still await your source on this "impossible maneuver" that is performed on a daily basis by pilots, live and computers. My source? I've been INSIDE a plane performing that maneuver on three separate occasions. The FBI only confiscated 3 videos of the Pentagon attack. The gas station, the hotel roof, and the camera overseeing I-395. You present a series of quotes, all of which are refuted by the link I already posted that you apparently did not read. So I'll post it again: ( http://www.whatreallyhappened.com... ) Actually, this article ( http://www.smh.com.au... ) about the Nigerian plane crash sounds very much like what happened to Flight 93. It cites things like no whole bodies, papers surviving, and a 20 meter wide hole. Which is pretty much what we see in pictures of the Flight 93 crash. I'm not sure that your point is here. The Zeitgeist movie is simply using one aspect of a crash to support claims about the entire thing. Why did the NORAD failure occur? Well let's look at NORAD's timeline: ( http://911research.wtc7.net... ) Oops - it looks like the maximum time from FAA notification to NORAD planes being in the air was only 12 minutes. When top government officials are meeting, they usually don't invite civilians. The 9/11 Commission was not a government legal body - they didn't NEED to be under oath. And if the media and civilians weren't present for the commission's questioning, how do they know there was no recording or transcript? It's not the least bit suspicious that the administration would review the 9/11 Commission's Report - it would have included possibly sensitive data regarding NORAD, CIA, FBI, and other government procedures and capabilities. The FBI was not behind the WTC attack in 1993 - it was Ramzi Yousef ( http://en.wikipedia.org... ). Provide a source for ridiculous claims like the CIA being behind terrorism. Do your research - the quote about the scenario being run was about the London Bombings, not 9-11. ( http://www.wsws.org... ) This last quote doesn't really surprise me - another example of bureaucratic failure. So what? All that means is that it could have possibly been prevented - not that it didn't happen. My response to your final question: I question anything that purports the United States as the responsible party for the attacks on 9/11. And you should too, when they are as founded on conjecture and hypothesis as the Zeitgeist source and not science and logic.

Politics

9-11-was-NOT-a-hoax-or-conspiracy./1/

I didn't mean to suggest that someone DID plant thermite on the upper floors. It has been suggested by conspiracy theorists that the apparent molten metal pouring from an upper floor during the collapses is because of thermite planted up there. I don't see any way someone could have done that without anybody realizing. I realize the Zeitgeist film has sources listed, but without any way to examine the sources for myself, I don't know how they're being used, as we saw with the misquote regarding the London bombings. And if you could just post something to get rid of your 5th round response, we could get this to the voting page 3 days sooner and without the mar of a forfeit. Thanks for a great debate!

JustCallMeTarzan

I didn't mean to suggest that someone DID plant thermite on the upper floors. It has been suggested by conspiracy theorists that the apparent molten metal pouring from an upper floor during the collapses is because of thermite planted up there. I don't see any way someone could have done that without anybody realizing. I realize the Zeitgeist film has sources listed, but without any way to examine the sources for myself, I don't know how they're being used, as we saw with the misquote regarding the London bombings. And if you could just post something to get rid of your 5th round response, we could get this to the voting page 3 days sooner and without the mar of a forfeit. Thanks for a great debate!

Politics

9-11-was-NOT-a-hoax-or-conspiracy./1/

i really dont have much to say in this debate, except to watch this movie: <URL>... i would also like you to look at this picture and explain to me what the circled explosions are if all that happened was that the planes hit: <URL>...

kylevd

i really dont have much to say in this debate, except to watch this movie: http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com... i would also like you to look at this picture and explain to me what the circled explosions are if all that happened was that the planes hit: http://a660.ac-images.myspacecdn.com...

Politics

9-11-was-NOT-a-hoax-or-conspiracy./1/

i apologize for not elaborating in my first argument. part 1 really has nothing to do with what we're talking about. what we are talking about starts at roughly 37 minutes into the film and continues to the end. here, i will outline the main arguments supporting the 9/11 conspiracy for both the readers and my opponent. however, you will get a lot more out of this debate if you simply watch the movie from minute 37 on.[just as a note, if i capitalize anything, i am only showing stress on those words. im not yelling at anybody.] the engineers that designed the wtc[interviewed in the movie] stated that the building would not have collapsed like in demolitions when a plane crashed into it. in fact, the engineers stated that both towers could have sustained MULTIPLE hits from jetliners and NOT COLLAPSE. also, the columns supporting the buildings were cut just as a demolitions expert would destroy a building without affecting the other buildings around it. there were in fact explosions and NOT from gas lines, etc. but from explosives. "Through electron microscope analysis of the melted wtc steel and the iron-rich microspheres in the dust, Dr. Jones found exact traces of not only the 'Thermite' explosive compound, but, due to the high sulfur content, "thermate" - a patented brand of thermite used in the demolition industry." there are actually 19 hijackers and several of them are still alive. the passport from one of the hijackers that hit the towers magically came out of the explosion "UNSCATHED" to prove that it in fact was him that hijacked the plane. "no evidence has ever linked any of the alive or dead 'hijackers' to Osama Bin Laden.'" the pilot that flew the plane into the Pentagon, Hani Hanjour "...was known as a terrible pilot and could not even safely fly a small plane." it also allegedly completed a "270 degree downward spiral" which is considered impossible among experts. as for the plane that crashlanded in pennsylvania and the plane that crashed into the pentagon, they both "vaporized", leaving little if any evidence besides a huge crater behind, which is never the case in any crashlanding scenario. various people IN THE WORLD TRADE CENTER were interviewed and one of them stated that an explosion came from the basement and "...pushed us upwards..." BEFORE THE PLANE HIT. everything i have just said is summarized/quoted from zeitgeist and most of my information if not all will be coming from there. i look forward to my opponent's rebuttal.

kylevd

i apologize for not elaborating in my first argument. part 1 really has nothing to do with what we're talking about. what we are talking about starts at roughly 37 minutes into the film and continues to the end. here, i will outline the main arguments supporting the 9/11 conspiracy for both the readers and my opponent. however, you will get a lot more out of this debate if you simply watch the movie from minute 37 on.[just as a note, if i capitalize anything, i am only showing stress on those words. im not yelling at anybody.] the engineers that designed the wtc[interviewed in the movie] stated that the building would not have collapsed like in demolitions when a plane crashed into it. in fact, the engineers stated that both towers could have sustained MULTIPLE hits from jetliners and NOT COLLAPSE. also, the columns supporting the buildings were cut just as a demolitions expert would destroy a building without affecting the other buildings around it. there were in fact explosions and NOT from gas lines, etc. but from explosives. "Through electron microscope analysis of the melted wtc steel and the iron-rich microspheres in the dust, Dr. Jones found exact traces of not only the 'Thermite' explosive compound, but, due to the high sulfur content, "thermate" - a patented brand of thermite used in the demolition industry." there are actually 19 hijackers and several of them are still alive. the passport from one of the hijackers that hit the towers magically came out of the explosion "UNSCATHED" to prove that it in fact was him that hijacked the plane. "no evidence has ever linked any of the alive or dead 'hijackers' to Osama Bin Laden.'" the pilot that flew the plane into the Pentagon, Hani Hanjour "...was known as a terrible pilot and could not even safely fly a small plane." it also allegedly completed a "270 degree downward spiral" which is considered impossible among experts. as for the plane that crashlanded in pennsylvania and the plane that crashed into the pentagon, they both "vaporized", leaving little if any evidence besides a huge crater behind, which is never the case in any crashlanding scenario. various people IN THE WORLD TRADE CENTER were interviewed and one of them stated that an explosion came from the basement and "...pushed us upwards..." BEFORE THE PLANE HIT. everything i have just said is summarized/quoted from zeitgeist and most of my information if not all will be coming from there. i look forward to my opponent's rebuttal.

Politics

9-11-was-NOT-a-hoax-or-conspiracy./1/

first of all, i would like to know where you're getting any of your information from, since you list only two links, one of which is a photo and the other only about the pentagon attack. your first rebuttal: the manager of wtc construction, frank a. demartini, stated that "the building probably could sustain MULTIPLE impacts of jetliners." i posted this previous quote[summarized] before and you did not prove it to be wrong. "the twin towers came down at nearly free fall speed. 200 thousand tons of steel shatters and explodes outwards over 500 feet." "this means that floors shattered at an average rate of about ten floors per second." "there is no scenario of a pancake effect of buildings falling that allows them to fall at the rate of free fall.you said "...the problem that caused the collapse was not that the main structural elements failed." look at this picture: <URL>... as i said before, this is how experts would have cut columns in a demolition. you did not refute this claim. your second rebuttal: now you're going against what an experienced doctor has said and concluded. not be offensive, but i would trust a trained doctor over a civilian when talking about the materials that make up bombs and interpreting them. your third rebuttal: "although we are told that four or five of the alleged hijackers were on each of the flights, [the soul?] of their names should have been on the flight manifest." (abdulaziz al-omari)"i couldn't believe it when the FBI put my name on their list. they gave my name and my date of birth, but i am not a suicide bomber. i am here. i am alive. i have no idea how to fly a plane"[the telegraph, 9/23/2001] "at least 6 of the "hijackers" are still alive." "the FBI has to this day not revised their list." your fourth rebuttal: i agree that this is possible, but highly improbable. by the time the fuel tanks had exploded, the plane would have been buried into the building, because that is what caused the explosion, the collision. and the cockpit module would have been propelled into the building, not out. your fifth rebuttal: bin laden did not finance the attacks. "no inquiry was ever made as to why general ahmad[ISI()]ordered $100k to be sent to mohamed atta." "the 911 commission deemed the financing of the attacks "of LITTLE significance" in their official report." (Greg Palest and David Paltister-Guardian, Wed. november 7, 2001)"FBI and military intelligence officials in washington say they were prevented for POLITICAL REASONS from carrying out full investigations into members of the Bin Laden family in the US before the terrorist attacks of september 11." "January 2001-The bush administration orders the FBI and intelligence agencies to "back off" investigations involving the bin Laden family, including two of Osama bin Laden's relatives(abdullah and omar) who were living in falls church, VA - right next to CIA headquarters." your sixth rebuttal: first of all, because he had "poor reviews" then why did he get his license? you can either fly safely or you can't fly at all. there is or should not be a minimally acceptable pilot. second, he was considered a poor pilot. a well trained pilot could commit that kind of a maneuver, but not one that was considered poor. "He didn't care about the fact that he couldn't get through the course"[AZ flight school employee][New York Times 5/4/02] "I'm am still amazed that he could have flown into the pentagon...he could not fly at all." so how did he get his license again? your seventh rebuttal: "no seats, no luggage, no bodies. nothing but bricks and limestone."[zeitgeist] "the official explanation is that the intense heat from the jet fuel vaporized the entire plane. Flight 77 had two rolls royce engines made of steel and titanium alloy and weigh six tons each. it is scientifically impossible for twelve tons of steel and titanium was vaporized by jet fuel." "we were also told that the bodies were able to be identified either by their fingerprints or their DNA. so what kind of fire can vaporized aluminum and tempered steel and yet leave human bodies intact?" "shortly after the strike, government agents picked up debris and carried it off." "the entire lawn was covered with dirt and gravel, so that any remaining forensic evidence was literally covered up." "over 80 video recordings of the pentagon strike are currently being withheld by the FBI." your eighth rebuttal: "it looks like there's nothing there but a hole in the ground." "it looked like somebody just dropped a bunch of metal out of the sky." "it looked like someone took a scrap truck, dug a 10-foot ditch and dumped trash into it."[Wally Miller, somerset county coroner. "there was nothing that you could distinguish that a plane had crashed there." in the film, they compared a commercial flight crash in nigeria to the flight 93 crash. while the nigerian flight crash had a seat visible, scrap metal lying all around, flight 93 had barely any debris. to see the picture comparison, go to 48 minutes, 36 seconds. I would like for you to explain to me, that if all of this was caused solely by hijackers, what happened with NORAD[north american aerospace defense command]. "according to standard operating procedure, if an FAA flight controller notices anything that suggests a possible hijacking, the controller is to contact a superior. if the problem cannot be fixed within about a minute, the superior [should ask?] NORAD...to setup or scramble jet fighters to find out what is going on...although interceptions occur in ten or so minutes, in this case, 80 or so minutes had elapsed before the fighters were even airborne." also, "when bush and cheney met with the 911 commission, they did so only on their own terms: -they appeared together -they were NOT under oath -no press or family members were allowed to attend -no recording of any kind was allowed -no transcript was allowed" also, "there is literally nothing in the 9/11 report that the bush administration did not approve of." wouldn't you consider this at least suspicious? also, "nearly all terror suspects are released without charges...but thats after they make it to the front page for you to see." also, "look at the terrorist acts that have occurred...the CIA behind most if not all of them." "the FBI actually carried out the attack on the world trade center in 1993." in london-(interviewer)"you were running an exercise to see how you would cope with this and it happened while you were running the exercise?" (interviewee)"precisely." also, "at least 12 countries warned the US regarding intelligence about an eminent attack on america." so, my final question is that: are you directly challenging the correctness/authenticity of the quotations or information in the film zeitgeist? because if you are, i need you to give me some reason to think that the sources' claims, that you disagree with, listed at the very end of the film, are somehow incorrect.

kylevd

first of all, i would like to know where you're getting any of your information from, since you list only two links, one of which is a photo and the other only about the pentagon attack. your first rebuttal: the manager of wtc construction, frank a. demartini, stated that "the building probably could sustain MULTIPLE impacts of jetliners." i posted this previous quote[summarized] before and you did not prove it to be wrong. "the twin towers came down at nearly free fall speed. 200 thousand tons of steel shatters and explodes outwards over 500 feet." "this means that floors shattered at an average rate of about ten floors per second." "there is no scenario of a pancake effect of buildings falling that allows them to fall at the rate of free fall.you said "...the problem that caused the collapse was not that the main structural elements failed." look at this picture: http://www.rense.com... as i said before, this is how experts would have cut columns in a demolition. you did not refute this claim. your second rebuttal: now you're going against what an experienced doctor has said and concluded. not be offensive, but i would trust a trained doctor over a civilian when talking about the materials that make up bombs and interpreting them. your third rebuttal: "although we are told that four or five of the alleged hijackers were on each of the flights, [the soul?] of their names should have been on the flight manifest." (abdulaziz al-omari)"i couldn't believe it when the FBI put my name on their list. they gave my name and my date of birth, but i am not a suicide bomber. i am here. i am alive. i have no idea how to fly a plane"[the telegraph, 9/23/2001] "at least 6 of the "hijackers" are still alive." "the FBI has to this day not revised their list." your fourth rebuttal: i agree that this is possible, but highly improbable. by the time the fuel tanks had exploded, the plane would have been buried into the building, because that is what caused the explosion, the collision. and the cockpit module would have been propelled into the building, not out. your fifth rebuttal: bin laden did not finance the attacks. "no inquiry was ever made as to why general ahmad[ISI()]ordered $100k to be sent to mohamed atta." "the 911 commission deemed the financing of the attacks "of LITTLE significance" in their official report." (Greg Palest and David Paltister-Guardian, Wed. november 7, 2001)"FBI and military intelligence officials in washington say they were prevented for POLITICAL REASONS from carrying out full investigations into members of the Bin Laden family in the US before the terrorist attacks of september 11." "January 2001-The bush administration orders the FBI and intelligence agencies to "back off" investigations involving the bin Laden family, including two of Osama bin Laden's relatives(abdullah and omar) who were living in falls church, VA - right next to CIA headquarters." your sixth rebuttal: first of all, because he had "poor reviews" then why did he get his license? you can either fly safely or you can't fly at all. there is or should not be a minimally acceptable pilot. second, he was considered a poor pilot. a well trained pilot could commit that kind of a maneuver, but not one that was considered poor. "He didn't care about the fact that he couldn't get through the course"[AZ flight school employee][New York Times 5/4/02] "I'm am still amazed that he could have flown into the pentagon...he could not fly at all." so how did he get his license again? your seventh rebuttal: "no seats, no luggage, no bodies. nothing but bricks and limestone."[zeitgeist] "the official explanation is that the intense heat from the jet fuel vaporized the entire plane. Flight 77 had two rolls royce engines made of steel and titanium alloy and weigh six tons each. it is scientifically impossible for twelve tons of steel and titanium was vaporized by jet fuel." "we were also told that the bodies were able to be identified either by their fingerprints or their DNA. so what kind of fire can vaporized aluminum and tempered steel and yet leave human bodies intact?" "shortly after the strike, government agents picked up debris and carried it off." "the entire lawn was covered with dirt and gravel, so that any remaining forensic evidence was literally covered up." "over 80 video recordings of the pentagon strike are currently being withheld by the FBI." your eighth rebuttal: "it looks like there's nothing there but a hole in the ground." "it looked like somebody just dropped a bunch of metal out of the sky." "it looked like someone took a scrap truck, dug a 10-foot ditch and dumped trash into it."[Wally Miller, somerset county coroner. "there was nothing that you could distinguish that a plane had crashed there." in the film, they compared a commercial flight crash in nigeria to the flight 93 crash. while the nigerian flight crash had a seat visible, scrap metal lying all around, flight 93 had barely any debris. to see the picture comparison, go to 48 minutes, 36 seconds. I would like for you to explain to me, that if all of this was caused solely by hijackers, what happened with NORAD[north american aerospace defense command]. "according to standard operating procedure, if an FAA flight controller notices anything that suggests a possible hijacking, the controller is to contact a superior. if the problem cannot be fixed within about a minute, the superior [should ask?] NORAD...to setup or scramble jet fighters to find out what is going on...although interceptions occur in ten or so minutes, in this case, 80 or so minutes had elapsed before the fighters were even airborne." also, "when bush and cheney met with the 911 commission, they did so only on their own terms: -they appeared together -they were NOT under oath -no press or family members were allowed to attend -no recording of any kind was allowed -no transcript was allowed" also, "there is literally nothing in the 9/11 report that the bush administration did not approve of." wouldn't you consider this at least suspicious? also, "nearly all terror suspects are released without charges...but thats after they make it to the front page for you to see." also, "look at the terrorist acts that have occurred...the CIA behind most if not all of them." "the FBI actually carried out the attack on the world trade center in 1993." in london-(interviewer)"you were running an exercise to see how you would cope with this and it happened while you were running the exercise?" (interviewee)"precisely." also, "at least 12 countries warned the US regarding intelligence about an eminent attack on america." so, my final question is that: are you directly challenging the correctness/authenticity of the quotations or information in the film zeitgeist? because if you are, i need you to give me some reason to think that the sources' claims, that you disagree with, listed at the very end of the film, are somehow incorrect.

Politics

9-11-was-NOT-a-hoax-or-conspiracy./1/

i only have two objections to your claims. you first claimed that i only had one link to a picture, when i actually had two. one of them was to the movie, and i later clearly stated that all the sources were listed at the very end of the film. everyone i quoted came directly from that video, word for word or as close as i could make out pronunciation. my second objection is to your claim that "...including the fact that pre-planted thermite on the upper floors would have ignited when the plane crashed into the building." i know you were only speculating, but are you suggesting that someone might have planted thermite in the towers before the planes hit? if so, how? but, besides that im glad to have debated with you on this subject. you have completely refuted the zeitgeist film, and have eliminated my suspicions. thanks, kyle

kylevd

i only have two objections to your claims. you first claimed that i only had one link to a picture, when i actually had two. one of them was to the movie, and i later clearly stated that all the sources were listed at the very end of the film. everyone i quoted came directly from that video, word for word or as close as i could make out pronunciation. my second objection is to your claim that "...including the fact that pre-planted thermite on the upper floors would have ignited when the plane crashed into the building." i know you were only speculating, but are you suggesting that someone might have planted thermite in the towers before the planes hit? if so, how? but, besides that im glad to have debated with you on this subject. you have completely refuted the zeitgeist film, and have eliminated my suspicions. thanks, kyle

Politics

9-11-was-NOT-a-hoax-or-conspiracy./1/

in response to some of the comments, yes, i am now convinced that the 9/11 attacks were not an inside job. the reason i took this debate was to test the credibility of my source, the film zeitgeist, not to simply win. i hope this is the reason many, if not all, debate as well. thanks again for the debate.

kylevd

in response to some of the comments, yes, i am now convinced that the 9/11 attacks were not an inside job. the reason i took this debate was to test the credibility of my source, the film zeitgeist, not to simply win. i hope this is the reason many, if not all, debate as well. thanks again for the debate.

Politics

9-11-was-NOT-a-hoax-or-conspiracy./1/

You gonna lose this debate bruh

JetfuelcantmeltsteeIbeams

You gonna lose this debate bruh

Society

9-11-was-an-inside-job/9/

It was not an inside job because there is no motivation for anyone in the government to commit such an act. Also, the time and work effort needed to do something like that don't seem likely at all, especially for someone on the inside. Plus, the terrorist organization that really did 9/11 took responsibility for it, and would have no reason to make an enemy out of America. They admitted to being responsible for 9/11 because they did it and wanted to cause terror, but they wouldn't have if they weren't truly responsible for it. Therefore, it could not have been an inside job.

anime-arguments

It was not an inside job because there is no motivation for anyone in the government to commit such an act. Also, the time and work effort needed to do something like that don't seem likely at all, especially for someone on the inside. Plus, the terrorist organization that really did 9/11 took responsibility for it, and would have no reason to make an enemy out of America. They admitted to being responsible for 9/11 because they did it and wanted to cause terror, but they wouldn't have if they weren't truly responsible for it. Therefore, it could not have been an inside job.

Society

9-11-was-an-inside-job/9/

Though my opponent did not respond to the previous round, I would still like to point out some things showing that 9/11 could not have been an inside job. Mainly, if the government wanted a war, or to invade somewhere, then they could have started that in ways that would not involve such massive amounts of lost American lives. The government stands to gain nothing from murdering hundreds of its own people. Also, information is leaked from the government fairly often, and the government is aware of that fact. The American government would never be able to completely cover up the fact that they were responsible for 9/11, as evidenced by the fact that we are even having this debate. If 9/11 was an inside job, and that information got to the public (which is a large possibility), then the government would have a full-scale revolt on their hands. They would never risk that information getting out, and if they needed an act of "terrorism" they could have done it in much more subtle ways than 9/11. Still, that is besides the point. 9/11 was not orchestrated by the government. Whatever small gains they could make by that act of terrorism, there are many other less violent ways to get those same small gains. They would have no motive for killing all those people, or organizing the 9/11 attack. The statement that 9/11 was an inside job is just too improbable and ridiculous to be believable.

anime-arguments

Though my opponent did not respond to the previous round, I would still like to point out some things showing that 9/11 could not have been an inside job. Mainly, if the government wanted a war, or to invade somewhere, then they could have started that in ways that would not involve such massive amounts of lost American lives. The government stands to gain nothing from murdering hundreds of its own people. Also, information is leaked from the government fairly often, and the government is aware of that fact. The American government would never be able to completely cover up the fact that they were responsible for 9/11, as evidenced by the fact that we are even having this debate. If 9/11 was an inside job, and that information got to the public (which is a large possibility), then the government would have a full-scale revolt on their hands. They would never risk that information getting out, and if they needed an act of "terrorism" they could have done it in much more subtle ways than 9/11. Still, that is besides the point. 9/11 was not orchestrated by the government. Whatever small gains they could make by that act of terrorism, there are many other less violent ways to get those same small gains. They would have no motive for killing all those people, or organizing the 9/11 attack. The statement that 9/11 was an inside job is just too improbable and ridiculous to be believable.

Society

9-11-was-an-inside-job/9/

It seems as if my opponent has decided to end the debate without any arguments. Still, I would like to reaffirm that 9/11 cannot have been an inside job because the government would never kill so many of its own people. No matter the gain, the price far outweighs it. Therefore, it is ridiculous to assume that 9/11 was an inside job.

anime-arguments

It seems as if my opponent has decided to end the debate without any arguments. Still, I would like to reaffirm that 9/11 cannot have been an inside job because the government would never kill so many of its own people. No matter the gain, the price far outweighs it. Therefore, it is ridiculous to assume that 9/11 was an inside job.

Society

9-11-was-an-inside-job/9/

he only explanation for the towers exploding was the use of explosives and incendiarys. 1.Extremely high temperatures were evident before and after the destruction of the World Trade Center Twin Towers. These extremely high temperatures contradict the official story because office and hydrocarbon fires burning in open air (~500deg to 1,500deg F) cannot reach temperatures in the range that iron or structural steel melts (2,700deg F). <URL>... ... and <URL>... ... 2. Implausibility of the Official Theory Both theories about the buildings collapsing are the least plausible explanation <URL>... ... <URL>... ... 3.Free fall acceleration of building 7 The fact that Building 7 underwent free-fall means that none of the building's potential energy was used to crush the structure below it. All of its potential energy was converted directly into energy of motion (kinetic energy), leaving no energy to do anything else. Therefore, the lower section of the building could not have been crushed by the falling section. The destruction of at least 8 stories of the lower section of the building had to have been accomplished by other means to allow the upper section of the building to fall through it in free-fall. <URL>... ... 3. Hundreds of Eyewitnesses report explosions <URL>... ... 4. Forknowledge of collapse <URL>... ... 5.No deacceleration of the top of the north tower during collapse proves the columns below were removed <URL>... ... 6.The building exploded. Where did the building go ? It turned to dust . How ? How can Dust crush concrete into dust . Contents ejected from building could not have been ejected laterally 500 ft if it were due to gravity if the building collapsed naturally. <URL>... ... Now we know the buildings were demolished who did it and why ? Great investigative work has been done By Kevin Ryan and summarized in this video by another truther. Good work to him and all for providing all the research into who else had motives and access to the towers. <URL>... ...

truther1111

he only explanation for the towers exploding was the use of explosives and incendiarys. 1.Extremely high temperatures were evident before and after the destruction of the World Trade Center Twin Towers. These extremely high temperatures contradict the official story because office and hydrocarbon fires burning in open air (~500° to 1,500° F) cannot reach temperatures in the range that iron or structural steel melts (2,700° F). http://rethink911.org... ... and http://rethink911.org... ... 2. Implausibility of the Official Theory Both theories about the buildings collapsing are the least plausible explanation http://rethink911.org... ... http://rethink911.org... ... 3.Free fall acceleration of building 7 The fact that Building 7 underwent free-fall means that none of the building’s potential energy was used to crush the structure below it. All of its potential energy was converted directly into energy of motion (kinetic energy), leaving no energy to do anything else. Therefore, the lower section of the building could not have been crushed by the falling section. The destruction of at least 8 stories of the lower section of the building had to have been accomplished by other means to allow the upper section of the building to fall through it in free-fall. http://rethink911.org... ... 3. Hundreds of Eyewitnesses report explosions http://rethink911.org... ... 4. Forknowledge of collapse http://rethink911.org... ... 5.No deacceleration of the top of the north tower during collapse proves the columns below were removed http://rethink911.org... ... 6.The building exploded. Where did the building go ? It turned to dust . How ? How can Dust crush concrete into dust . Contents ejected from building could not have been ejected laterally 500 ft if it were due to gravity if the building collapsed naturally. http://rethink911.org... ... Now we know the buildings were demolished who did it and why ? Great investigative work has been done By Kevin Ryan and summarized in this video by another truther. Good work to him and all for providing all the research into who else had motives and access to the towers. http://antioligarch.wordpress.com... ...

Science

911-inside-job/7/

To back up my arguments i put the links below each of my arguments so that the information would be readily accesible to readers. Each link has a different video, not the same..and below is some written information which also differs page to page. Why did I use Rethink911.org ? Because I think it has the best, easy to understand and well presented videos right now on the internet. I used these videos with the reader in mind so they can easily access the information. Rethink 911 has the most professionaly accurate information as it has 2000 + architects and engineers who provide evidence and questions to the official story. Another great website is AE911truth.org Here you can find more in depth scientific information from the same scientists and engineers etc. Also many peer reviewed papers regarding the subject can be found at Scholarsfor911truth.org Regarding the Heroin , one possible motive of invading afghanistan was the taliban were burning the opium fields and opium production was at an all time low, after the USA invaded it was at an all time high. Here is an article on how the CIA and MI6 fund these drug lords. <URL>... Its not the first time the CIA have been caught drug dealing <URL>... Part 2. You have misunderstood this point, Its not claiming that kinetic energy cannot damage buildings.. Because the building collapses at free fall acceleration all of the potential gravitional energy was converted to kinetic energy.However none of the potential kinetic energy was 'lost' transferred to the building, as that would be a force 'resistance' equal and opposite the force of the building collapsing. If i dropped a gold bar from the top of the tower it would fall at the same speed as me and the building. This requires no resistance from the structure below, how is that possible withouth the removal of all of the columns simsimultaneously beneath the intact structure ? Yes it is common knowledge that the steel didnt need to melt to weaken.. If you watched the video the point they are making is that there is evidence of molten steel which is impossible with a jet fuel/office furntiture fueled fire. In response to the theory that muslim terrorists did fly the planes. I would ask where is the hard evidence ? Even if they terrorists really did hijack the planes , It doesnt explain who put the explosives in the towers. Its possible as the terrorists were funded and trained by Al Qaeda which in turn was trained and funded by the CIA .

truther1111

To back up my arguments i put the links below each of my arguments so that the information would be readily accesible to readers. Each link has a different video, not the same..and below is some written information which also differs page to page. Why did I use Rethink911.org ? Because I think it has the best, easy to understand and well presented videos right now on the internet. I used these videos with the reader in mind so they can easily access the information. Rethink 911 has the most professionaly accurate information as it has 2000 + architects and engineers who provide evidence and questions to the official story. Another great website is AE911truth.org Here you can find more in depth scientific information from the same scientists and engineers etc. Also many peer reviewed papers regarding the subject can be found at Scholarsfor911truth.org Regarding the Heroin , one possible motive of invading afghanistan was the taliban were burning the opium fields and opium production was at an all time low, after the USA invaded it was at an all time high. Here is an article on how the CIA and MI6 fund these drug lords. http://rt.com... Its not the first time the CIA have been caught drug dealing http://www.aljazeera.com... Part 2. You have misunderstood this point, Its not claiming that kinetic energy cannot damage buildings.. Because the building collapses at free fall acceleration all of the potential gravitional energy was converted to kinetic energy.However none of the potential kinetic energy was 'lost' transferred to the building, as that would be a force 'resistance' equal and opposite the force of the building collapsing. If i dropped a gold bar from the top of the tower it would fall at the same speed as me and the building. This requires no resistance from the structure below, how is that possible withouth the removal of all of the columns simsimultaneously beneath the intact structure ? Yes it is common knowledge that the steel didnt need to melt to weaken.. If you watched the video the point they are making is that there is evidence of molten steel which is impossible with a jet fuel/office furntiture fueled fire. In response to the theory that muslim terrorists did fly the planes. I would ask where is the hard evidence ? Even if they terrorists really did hijack the planes , It doesnt explain who put the explosives in the towers. Its possible as the terrorists were funded and trained by Al Qaeda which in turn was trained and funded by the CIA .

Science

911-inside-job/7/

Did you watch any of the videos ? Can you come up with any reasons why the videos are full of lunacy ? Yea AE911truth.org is superior , because to learn all the information would takes a long long time , rather i provided Yall with videos with summary of information from ae911truth.org Maybe yea I missed quote marks etc and made spelling errors , I dont have all day to check my spelling and quotation marks , Its not my job to educate you but you yourself. Its not my job to educate you on world history, CIA drug dealing etc is well known , check the contras <URL>... ; Sorry for my spelling errors, my spelling at the end of the day has nothing to do with whether 911 was an inside job. 'Second why would they wait so long, and leave such a damning piece of evidence?' Im not sure what exactly you are referring to here.??? The problem with claiming terrorists bombed the building etc is how they had access to one of the most secure buildings in the world. The official report does not 'Easily explain' how the building collapsed. There was no testing done on the steel beam that failed, it was assumed that it failed. Assumption isnt science.Basically they figured around with the inputs in their computer simulation untill the column failed without any hard evidence or testing on the steel that collapsed , hahaha Never in the history of the world has a High rise steel structure collapsed due to fire, before or after 911. Thermal expansion the NIST theory is not considered reputable or all large steel structures would have to be rebuilt because small fires can bring them down. For an indepth analysis of the fraud commited by NIST regarding building 7 , AE911 truth has debunked it here <URL>... " there is evidence of molten steel " Im glad you brought up this quote from NIST, as you clearly didnt watch the videos I showed you . It clearly debunks NIST assumption that the molten material that was flowing from the south tower was aluminium , why ? No scientist in the world has been able to melt aluminium with plastics,rugs, curtains or any other material to get the molten aluminium to become yellow in color. This is because molten aluminium is silver and not yellow FEMA studied steel samples before the rest of the steel was shipped and sold to china and found molten steel . NIST however ignored this evidence and hand picked steel , imagine if there were a plane crash and they sold the plane parts to china before doing any testing on them, the investigation is a farce ! " Even if they terrorists really did hijack the planes , " I dont know what your talking about a more logical explanation is they knew the terrorists would strike and therefore placed explosives in the buildings . I dont blame bush for 911 ... hes really dumb. I dont blame the government either , but a rouge group of international criminals who have hijacked the american system , just as kennedy warned before he was shot . These criminals control the military industrial complex, SAIC is one of these companies and the number one suspect. Nanothermite technology was declassified in 2001 , but debunkers retardedly say that Nanothermite didnt exist before 2001 because it wasnt 'invented' yet. With the same logic you could say you were not getting bombed by a stealth bomber saying it doesnt exist because the US government hadnt invented it yet, even though it was declassified 40 years after it was actually invented. You could also believe that the US and its military companies are so backward that they would use ancient technology , wiring up explosives, as if they wouldnt use remote devices to initiate an explosion... dumb dumb dumb Fireproofing was upgraded on the EXACT floors where the fires were on 911 for both towers , coincidence ? The fireproofing was unknowingly applied to the steel beams by people who had no idea that the 'paint like ' material consisted of nanothermite explosives . Your cartoon is the stupidest thing I have ever seen in my life , sorry. Why would firefighters and airline pilots , house of representatives, air traffic control , people etc have to have been ' in on it ' It is totally unnecessary to have these people involved in a conspiracy.They were innocent victims who had no idea what was going on ... Luckily we dont need to rely on the ASSUMPTIONS of Maddox or yourself when evualating whether it was possible or not for the conspiracy to have happened as the hard scientific evidence proves it was a controlled demolition and we dont need to asssume anymore. How they did it and who did it is what many people are researching and they are making good progress. a good little quote from David ray griffin shows this. "This argument is, for one thing, based partly on the belief that it is impossible for big government operations to be kept secret very long. However, the Manhattan Project to create an atomic bomb, which involved some 100,000 people, was kept secret for several years. Also, the United States provoked and participated in a civil war in Indonesia in 1957 that resulted in some 40,000 deaths, but this illegal war was kept secret from the American people until a book about it appeared in 1995. It also must be remembered that if the government has kept several other big operations hidden, we by definition do not know about them. We cannot claim to know, in any case, that the government could not keep a big and ugly operation secret for a long time. Operation Gladio is another conspiracy im sure you have never heard of , they got away with murdering innocent civilians and kept it a secret from you ... <URL>...

truther1111

Did you watch any of the videos ? Can you come up with any reasons why the videos are full of lunacy ? Yea AE911truth.org is superior , because to learn all the information would takes a long long time , rather i provided Yall with videos with summary of information from ae911truth.org Maybe yea I missed quote marks etc and made spelling errors , I dont have all day to check my spelling and quotation marks , Its not my job to educate you but you yourself. Its not my job to educate you on world history, CIA drug dealing etc is well known , check the contras http://en.wikipedia.org... ; Sorry for my spelling errors, my spelling at the end of the day has nothing to do with whether 911 was an inside job. 'Second why would they wait so long, and leave such a damning piece of evidence?' Im not sure what exactly you are referring to here.??? The problem with claiming terrorists bombed the building etc is how they had access to one of the most secure buildings in the world. The official report does not 'Easily explain' how the building collapsed. There was no testing done on the steel beam that failed, it was assumed that it failed. Assumption isnt science.Basically they figured around with the inputs in their computer simulation untill the column failed without any hard evidence or testing on the steel that collapsed , hahaha Never in the history of the world has a High rise steel structure collapsed due to fire, before or after 911. Thermal expansion the NIST theory is not considered reputable or all large steel structures would have to be rebuilt because small fires can bring them down. For an indepth analysis of the fraud commited by NIST regarding building 7 , AE911 truth has debunked it here http://www.ae911truth.org... " there is evidence of molten steel " Im glad you brought up this quote from NIST, as you clearly didnt watch the videos I showed you . It clearly debunks NIST assumption that the molten material that was flowing from the south tower was aluminium , why ? No scientist in the world has been able to melt aluminium with plastics,rugs, curtains or any other material to get the molten aluminium to become yellow in color. This is because molten aluminium is silver and not yellow FEMA studied steel samples before the rest of the steel was shipped and sold to china and found molten steel . NIST however ignored this evidence and hand picked steel , imagine if there were a plane crash and they sold the plane parts to china before doing any testing on them, the investigation is a farce ! " Even if they terrorists really did hijack the planes , " I dont know what your talking about a more logical explanation is they knew the terrorists would strike and therefore placed explosives in the buildings . I dont blame bush for 911 ... hes really dumb. I dont blame the government either , but a rouge group of international criminals who have hijacked the american system , just as kennedy warned before he was shot . These criminals control the military industrial complex, SAIC is one of these companies and the number one suspect. Nanothermite technology was declassified in 2001 , but debunkers retardedly say that Nanothermite didnt exist before 2001 because it wasnt 'invented' yet. With the same logic you could say you were not getting bombed by a stealth bomber saying it doesnt exist because the US government hadnt invented it yet, even though it was declassified 40 years after it was actually invented. You could also believe that the US and its military companies are so backward that they would use ancient technology , wiring up explosives, as if they wouldnt use remote devices to initiate an explosion... dumb dumb dumb Fireproofing was upgraded on the EXACT floors where the fires were on 911 for both towers , coincidence ? The fireproofing was unknowingly applied to the steel beams by people who had no idea that the 'paint like ' material consisted of nanothermite explosives . Your cartoon is the stupidest thing I have ever seen in my life , sorry. Why would firefighters and airline pilots , house of representatives, air traffic control , people etc have to have been ' in on it ' It is totally unnecessary to have these people involved in a conspiracy.They were innocent victims who had no idea what was going on ... Luckily we dont need to rely on the ASSUMPTIONS of Maddox or yourself when evualating whether it was possible or not for the conspiracy to have happened as the hard scientific evidence proves it was a controlled demolition and we dont need to asssume anymore. How they did it and who did it is what many people are researching and they are making good progress. a good little quote from David ray griffin shows this. "This argument is, for one thing, based partly on the belief that it is impossible for big government operations to be kept secret very long. However, the Manhattan Project to create an atomic bomb, which involved some 100,000 people, was kept secret for several years. Also, the United States provoked and participated in a civil war in Indonesia in 1957 that resulted in some 40,000 deaths, but this illegal war was kept secret from the American people until a book about it appeared in 1995. It also must be remembered that if the government has kept several other big operations hidden, we by definition do not know about them. We cannot claim to know, in any case, that the government could not keep a big and ugly operation secret for a long time. Operation Gladio is another conspiracy im sure you have never heard of , they got away with murdering innocent civilians and kept it a secret from you ... http://en.wikipedia.org...

Science

911-inside-job/7/

In SOME cases, yes. But if both the circle and square have the same square area, no. There has not been a square size and circle size, therefore we will say both are 4'. Therefore, the motion is false. I await my opponents response.

Livebriand

In SOME cases, yes. But if both the circle and square have the same square area, no. There has not been a square size and circle size, therefore we will say both are 4'. Therefore, the motion is false. I await my opponents response.

Entertainment

A-Circle-can-fit-into-a-square-hole.-2/1/

Since my opponent has forfeited the previous round, I will continue with the set motion. Due to the different sizes, yet same area, the shapes hold space in slightly different areas. Some overlap exists, but not all of it overlaps, meaning the circle CANNOT fit in the square. I await my opponent's response (if any).

Livebriand

Since my opponent has forfeited the previous round, I will continue with the set motion. Due to the different sizes, yet same area, the shapes hold space in slightly different areas. Some overlap exists, but not all of it overlaps, meaning the circle CANNOT fit in the square. I await my opponent's response (if any).

Entertainment

A-Circle-can-fit-into-a-square-hole.-2/1/

Well since my opponent has not posted any rounds, I guess the motion still stands. It is completely logical for a circle of the same square footage to not fit in a square of equal square footage.

Livebriand

Well since my opponent has not posted any rounds, I guess the motion still stands. It is completely logical for a circle of the same square footage to not fit in a square of equal square footage.

Entertainment

A-Circle-can-fit-into-a-square-hole.-2/1/

I affirm that a circle can fit into a square hole.

Rockylightning

I affirm that a circle can fit into a square hole.

Entertainment

A-Circle-can-fit-into-a-square-hole.-2/1/

I believe that there should be a curfew for the city kids that are under 18. Con will fight that there should NOT be a curfew. Round 1 is for acceptance only. Thanks.

jpvn14

I believe that there should be a curfew for the city kids that are under 18. Con will fight that there should NOT be a curfew. Round 1 is for acceptance only. Thanks.

Society

A-Curfew-for-City-Kids-Under-18/1/

I would like to thank AlwaysMoreThanYou for accepting my debate. Why there should be a curfew Protection from danger. There are many dangers that occur past midnight. Muggings, robberies, drunkards, and many more dangerous and possibly harmful things are more likely to happen at night. Protecting Others. Lots of high school kids and even middle school kids commit many murders and robberies, especially past midnight. We all know that we can't stop them from murdering, but we can try to stop them from doing it in the complete darkness and when there are no witnesses around. Many teens also form gangs, which usually meet in the early morning hours. These gangs are obviously up to no good, and some gangs take pride in their killings. Why should they be on the streets past midnight anyways? There is absolutely no need, besides medically, that a person 18 and under should be on the city streets, or out of their homes. I understand that they should be able to have fun, and enjoy their teen years, but there are way too much alcohol, drugs, and other substances that are offered at parties. I also understand that there are "friendly" parties that don't have drugs or any of that stuff there, but they could have it before 12:00! There defiantly should be restrictions for children 18 and under.

jpvn14

I would like to thank AlwaysMoreThanYou for accepting my debate. Why there should be a curfew Protection from danger. There are many dangers that occur past midnight. Muggings, robberies, drunkards, and many more dangerous and possibly harmful things are more likely to happen at night. Protecting Others. Lots of high school kids and even middle school kids commit many murders and robberies, especially past midnight. We all know that we can’t stop them from murdering, but we can try to stop them from doing it in the complete darkness and when there are no witnesses around. Many teens also form gangs, which usually meet in the early morning hours. These gangs are obviously up to no good, and some gangs take pride in their killings. Why should they be on the streets past midnight anyways? There is absolutely no need, besides medically, that a person 18 and under should be on the city streets, or out of their homes. I understand that they should be able to have fun, and enjoy their teen years, but there are way too much alcohol, drugs, and other substances that are offered at parties. I also understand that there are “friendly” parties that don’t have drugs or any of that stuff there, but they could have it before 12:00! There defiantly should be restrictions for children 18 and under.

Society

A-Curfew-for-City-Kids-Under-18/1/

Protection from Danger I understand what my opponent is saying, you have to realize that lots of kid's parents are deceased/mentally ill/ troubling childhood/ divorce or something along those lines that would prevent the parent from fully giving their child proper instruction. Also, if a parent is an ex-con, than they won't tell their kid not to stay on the street and not to smoke dope, they would most likely be a bad influence on the child. The protection is more specified towards girls. I understand that boys have their gangs and that they can be killed/hurt as well, but girls are in a lot more danger than guys. According to study in 2010, teen guys actually commit to most rapes in America. So if you don't allow the teens on the streets, than girls will be much safer (especially because the curfew will be preventing them from being outside). I think it's pretty logical that children and teens with a curfew would be a lot safer, than those who don't have one. Protecting Others Believe it or not, I have seen 3 or 4 middle school kids guilty of murder in Virginia over the past years. This shows that the murdering is only getting worse, and that even 10 year old kids are killing their peers/parents/even friends. High schoolers are definitely a big cause of deaths. I completely understand that a murderer/drug user/alcoholic teenager wouldn't go by the laws of curfew, but if a police catches them, at least they could be punished. I think the cause of a curfew would cause some gangs to break apart. Obviously not all gangs, but I think some would be scared enough to break up. No Reason for It As I said before, there might be such a need as for a teen to be outside their house, but it shouldn't be any reason except for medical. And if a police catches them, the person could just say that they are trying to go to a doctor or CVS or something, and I'm sure the police officer would take them to the place of intention. If a teen or a child is not at their home by 12:00, it is not acceptable. Medical is the ONLY reason I think it should be allowed Conclusion Although Con gives many good reasons why there should not be an allowance, I think the Pros are a lot more than the Cons.

jpvn14

Protection from Danger I understand what my opponent is saying, you have to realize that lots of kid’s parents are deceased/mentally ill/ troubling childhood/ divorce or something along those lines that would prevent the parent from fully giving their child proper instruction. Also, if a parent is an ex-con, than they won’t tell their kid not to stay on the street and not to smoke dope, they would most likely be a bad influence on the child. The protection is more specified towards girls. I understand that boys have their gangs and that they can be killed/hurt as well, but girls are in a lot more danger than guys. According to study in 2010, teen guys actually commit to most rapes in America. So if you don’t allow the teens on the streets, than girls will be much safer (especially because the curfew will be preventing them from being outside). I think it’s pretty logical that children and teens with a curfew would be a lot safer, than those who don’t have one. Protecting Others Believe it or not, I have seen 3 or 4 middle school kids guilty of murder in Virginia over the past years. This shows that the murdering is only getting worse, and that even 10 year old kids are killing their peers/parents/even friends. High schoolers are definitely a big cause of deaths. I completely understand that a murderer/drug user/alcoholic teenager wouldn’t go by the laws of curfew, but if a police catches them, at least they could be punished. I think the cause of a curfew would cause some gangs to break apart. Obviously not all gangs, but I think some would be scared enough to break up. No Reason for It As I said before, there might be such a need as for a teen to be outside their house, but it shouldn’t be any reason except for medical. And if a police catches them, the person could just say that they are trying to go to a doctor or CVS or something, and I’m sure the police officer would take them to the place of intention. If a teen or a child is not at their home by 12:00, it is not acceptable. Medical is the ONLY reason I think it should be allowed Conclusion Although Con gives many good reasons why there should not be an allowance, I think the Pros are a lot more than the Cons.

Society

A-Curfew-for-City-Kids-Under-18/1/

Protection from Danger I like your points con, and I know teens go through that rebellious stage (I'm one), but if a cop sees them passed their curfew time, a cop can tell them that they shouldn't be out on the streets at night, and that might solve some of the problems. If the kids are belligerent and won't listen to the police officer, than they can give them some community service for breaking the law. As I said, there are too many dangers that happen beyond midnight for teens and kids to be a part of. I understand that this is a free country, but watching or being in a mugging is not good for a child, and can potentially hurt them. On the other hand, if a parent is truly not able to give proper advice and discernment for their child, they either need counseling or child confiscation. There is no parent in their right mind that allows their kids to be roaming around the streets in the early morning hour. If so, it's ridiculous and prevention needs to happen. Protecting Others Con makes a good point, as he says, "If middle school kids are guilty of killing people, then why would any child listen to a curfew?" Well, as I have said in my previous argument, and this one, if punishment is enforced upon them, I have no doubt that they would stop. Also, this does not even apply to a middle school murderer, as they are either in a detention center or in jail. If they have not been caught, than having a police officer out at night to keep a look out would be a great addition. My opponent stated, "Specifically, more effort should be going into preventing people from killing/using drugs/illegally consuming alcohol than some curfew law." I agree that we should take actions into those illegal things, but that's a whole different debate! I'm talking about protection from killing/using drugs/illegally consuming alcohol. If there is a curfew, they are protected from the drugs and other various crimes during night-time hours. No Reason for it My opponent responded to my 2 nd round debate on this topic by replying, "Perhaps a child might not be responsible enough, but I have known people in the past who were more responsible as teenagers than some people are as adults. I have also known people in the past who, as teenagers, worked jobs at night while still studying at school, as their families had need of the extra money." Yes, but that does not state why a kid should be out on the streets. A child working an extra job, and taking school classes should not be out on the streets past midnight; they should be studying or sleeping. As for the responsibility part of my opponent's argument...it does not apply to the debate at all. It's true that many teens are more mature than adults, but at least adults can drink alcohol legally. If a teen drinks alcohol it's illegal, therefore they should not be on the street. I do believe in parenting. I believe that a parent should raise their kid however they want to raise them. But when the parents past and/or stupidity kids in the way of their child's safety, that's when it crosses the line.

jpvn14

Protection from Danger I like your points con, and I know teens go through that rebellious stage (I’m one), but if a cop sees them passed their curfew time, a cop can tell them that they shouldn’t be out on the streets at night, and that might solve some of the problems. If the kids are belligerent and won’t listen to the police officer, than they can give them some community service for breaking the law. As I said, there are too many dangers that happen beyond midnight for teens and kids to be a part of. I understand that this is a free country, but watching or being in a mugging is not good for a child, and can potentially hurt them. On the other hand, if a parent is truly not able to give proper advice and discernment for their child, they either need counseling or child confiscation. There is no parent in their right mind that allows their kids to be roaming around the streets in the early morning hour. If so, it’s ridiculous and prevention needs to happen. Protecting Others Con makes a good point, as he says, “If middle school kids are guilty of killing people, then why would any child listen to a curfew?” Well, as I have said in my previous argument, and this one, if punishment is enforced upon them, I have no doubt that they would stop. Also, this does not even apply to a middle school murderer, as they are either in a detention center or in jail. If they have not been caught, than having a police officer out at night to keep a look out would be a great addition. My opponent stated, “Specifically, more effort should be going into preventing people from killing/using drugs/illegally consuming alcohol than some curfew law.” I agree that we should take actions into those illegal things, but that’s a whole different debate! I’m talking about protection from killing/using drugs/illegally consuming alcohol. If there is a curfew, they are protected from the drugs and other various crimes during night-time hours. No Reason for it My opponent responded to my 2 nd round debate on this topic by replying, “Perhaps a child might not be responsible enough, but I have known people in the past who were more responsible as teenagers than some people are as adults. I have also known people in the past who, as teenagers, worked jobs at night while still studying at school, as their families had need of the extra money.” Yes, but that does not state why a kid should be out on the streets. A child working an extra job, and taking school classes should not be out on the streets past midnight; they should be studying or sleeping. As for the responsibility part of my opponent’s argument…it does not apply to the debate at all. It’s true that many teens are more mature than adults, but at least adults can drink alcohol legally. If a teen drinks alcohol it’s illegal, therefore they should not be on the street. I do believe in parenting. I believe that a parent should raise their kid however they want to raise them. But when the parents past and/or stupidity kids in the way of their child’s safety, that’s when it crosses the line.

Society

A-Curfew-for-City-Kids-Under-18/1/

Since Con forfeited the round, I strongly urge a Pro vote.

jpvn14

Since Con forfeited the round, I strongly urge a Pro vote.

Society

A-Curfew-for-City-Kids-Under-18/1/

I would like to thank whoever takes this debate. Fetus- In humans, the unborn young from the end of the eighth week after conception to the moment of birth, as distinguished from the earlier embryo ( <URL>... ) Parasite- an organism that lives on or in an organism of another species, known as the host, from the body of which it obtains nutriment. ( <URL>... ) Organism- a form of life composed of mutually interdependent parts that maintain various vital processes. ( <URL>... ) Mother- the human the fetus is inside In this debate none of these definitions can be contended and it is assumed that a fetus is a living organism. A fetus is parasitic because: - it lives inside the women's body - it takes all its nutrients from the mother - the mother gets nothing in return from the fetus - if the fetus is taken out of the mother, it will die Thank you and good luck!

crackofdawn_Jr

I would like to thank whoever takes this debate. Fetus- In humans, the unborn young from the end of the eighth week after conception to the moment of birth, as distinguished from the earlier embryo ( http://dictionary.reference.com... ) Parasite- an organism that lives on or in an organism of another species, known as the host, from the body of which it obtains nutriment. ( http://dictionary.reference.com... ) Organism- a form of life composed of mutually interdependent parts that maintain various vital processes. ( http://dictionary.reference.com... ) Mother- the human the fetus is inside In this debate none of these definitions can be contended and it is assumed that a fetus is a living organism. A fetus is parasitic because: - it lives inside the women's body - it takes all its nutrients from the mother - the mother gets nothing in return from the fetus - if the fetus is taken out of the mother, it will die Thank you and good luck!

Science

A-Fetus-is-Parasite-When-Inside-Its-Mother/1/

Species- the major subdivision of a genus or subgenus, regarded as the basic category of biological classification, composed of related individuals that resemble one another, are able to breed among themselves, but are not able to breed with members of another species. ( <URL>... ) It is clear that for things to be considered the same species that they must be able to breed/reproduce with each other. I would like to contend that - some fetuses will be female and thus the wrong gender for breeding to every be possible - a fetus lacks the proper development to reproduce with its mother - if a fetus cannot reproduce with the being it is inside, it is not of the same species, and is thus a parassite. That will be all.

crackofdawn_Jr

Species- the major subdivision of a genus or subgenus, regarded as the basic category of biological classification, composed of related individuals that resemble one another, are able to breed among themselves, but are not able to breed with members of another species. ( http://dictionary.reference.com... ) It is clear that for things to be considered the same species that they must be able to breed/reproduce with each other. I would like to contend that - some fetuses will be female and thus the wrong gender for breeding to every be possible - a fetus lacks the proper development to reproduce with its mother - if a fetus cannot reproduce with the being it is inside, it is not of the same species, and is thus a parassite. That will be all.

Science

A-Fetus-is-Parasite-When-Inside-Its-Mother/1/

Thank you for your timely response and I'm sorry it's taken so long for me to post my argument. <<"Species" is not so easy to define. Biologists and taxonomists still argue about its definition [1], [2]. >> Which is why I posted a definition for us. << For example, I could say that since a woman cannot breed with another woman, they are not of the same species.>> You could... << But this is, of course, ludicrous.>> Please explain. <<. It is likely because although two women cannot reproduce, they are both capable of reproducing with the same man.>> So that means that a male can be in both species. It still doesn't mean that women are of the same species. << Since biologists generally agree that animals cannot change species during development, it follows that if an adult is human, then that adult must have also been human as a child or a fetus. Therefore, a fetus is a human (homo sapiens).>> Well, a caterpillar isn't the same "species" as a butterfly. Why can't the same logic be used to compare adults post-puberty to children pre-puberty? <> Monkeys also have humanlike faces, skeletal structure, and extremely similar DNA. Different races also have many different characteristics. My opponent's argument seems to be that it's riduculous to say that a child isn't a homo sapien sapien and that females aren't of the same species. However, this does not explain why and thus his arguments are nulled. This was a great debate and I had fun! Vote wisely!

crackofdawn_Jr

Thank you for your timely response and I'm sorry it's taken so long for me to post my argument. <<"Species" is not so easy to define. Biologists and taxonomists still argue about its definition [1], [2]. >> Which is why I posted a definition for us. << For example, I could say that since a woman cannot breed with another woman, they are not of the same species.>> You could... << But this is, of course, ludicrous.>> Please explain. <<. It is likely because although two women cannot reproduce, they are both capable of reproducing with the same man.>> So that means that a male can be in both species. It still doesn't mean that women are of the same species. << Since biologists generally agree that animals cannot change species during development, it follows that if an adult is human, then that adult must have also been human as a child or a fetus. Therefore, a fetus is a human (homo sapiens).>> Well, a caterpillar isn't the same "species" as a butterfly. Why can't the same logic be used to compare adults post-puberty to children pre-puberty? <> Monkeys also have humanlike faces, skeletal structure, and extremely similar DNA. Different races also have many different characteristics. My opponent's argument seems to be that it's riduculous to say that a child isn't a homo sapien sapien and that females aren't of the same species. However, this does not explain why and thus his arguments are nulled. This was a great debate and I had fun! Vote wisely!

Science

A-Fetus-is-Parasite-When-Inside-Its-Mother/1/

Hello I don't see what is so bad about a missile defense system. We have a couple setup now in Alaska and California (note there are a couple in Calf. and a couple in Alaska). There are bases in Russia too. Also, they have new bases planned to be built in Poland/Czech Republic, Boston, Greenland, more in Alaska. It is real simple, a country like North Korea, deploys a nuclear bomb headed for New York. A military base in Alaska detetcs it on a radar. Now we can evacuate New York City and shoot off defence missile. That missile can unarm or blow it up before it ever reaches the US coast. Our next step is to deploy missiles into that nation (but that is another debate) Without a system like that, New York City would be blown to pieces. OUr biggest city, the world's biggest market gone just like that. You can't rebuild it, It will just be like that for a while. The argument will be made that it cost too much. So? does it really matter what it cost if it's a matter of national security. What is a few dollars more in taxes?

righty10294

Hello I don't see what is so bad about a missile defense system. We have a couple setup now in Alaska and California (note there are a couple in Calf. and a couple in Alaska). There are bases in Russia too. Also, they have new bases planned to be built in Poland/Czech Republic, Boston, Greenland, more in Alaska. It is real simple, a country like North Korea, deploys a nuclear bomb headed for New York. A military base in Alaska detetcs it on a radar. Now we can evacuate New York City and shoot off defence missile. That missile can unarm or blow it up before it ever reaches the US coast. Our next step is to deploy missiles into that nation (but that is another debate) Without a system like that, New York City would be blown to pieces. OUr biggest city, the world's biggest market gone just like that. You can't rebuild it, It will just be like that for a while. The argument will be made that it cost too much. So? does it really matter what it cost if it's a matter of national security. What is a few dollars more in taxes?

Politics

A-Missile-Defense-System/1/

Kenito How do you know that a missile defense project would get great publicity. Arguably the biggest project in US history, The Manhattan Project, was top secret had very little, if any publicity. I no that was a different time back then, but we could still keep it top secret. Some of the proposed locations, aren't even in the mainland. Also, one is in Greenland. We could build these without anyone knowing. Look at what goes on in the CIA or Area 51 we don't know. THe government can make it top secret. You say multiple times that a bomb couldn't hit the US now. I know that a nuke couldn't reach the US right now, but what about in 5 10 20 years? How do we know the resources won't be available to make that statement true. IN 5 10 20 years, both sides (US Missile Defense and NK) will both have way more technology than now. SO what about the cost? We our putting a price on our safety. That's just stupid.

righty10294

Kenito How do you know that a missile defense project would get great publicity. Arguably the biggest project in US history, The Manhattan Project, was top secret had very little, if any publicity. I no that was a different time back then, but we could still keep it top secret. Some of the proposed locations, aren't even in the mainland. Also, one is in Greenland. We could build these without anyone knowing. Look at what goes on in the CIA or Area 51 we don't know. THe government can make it top secret. You say multiple times that a bomb couldn't hit the US now. I know that a nuke couldn't reach the US right now, but what about in 5 10 20 years? How do we know the resources won't be available to make that statement true. IN 5 10 20 years, both sides (US Missile Defense and NK) will both have way more technology than now. SO what about the cost? We our putting a price on our safety. That's just stupid.

Politics

A-Missile-Defense-System/1/

kenito: "if the US cannot keep the identity of a CIA operative secret in the 21st Century, I highly doubt this country's ability to do the same with missile defense." Where has the identity of of a CIA operative been known. I found 1 incident. So what? One person out of 50,000? workers for the CIA (couldn't find a number). We still don't know exactly what they did, how they got there, etc. It is one piece in a 1,000,000 piece jigsaw puzzle. The government has the resources to keep it secret. "US should intervene economically, politically, or with the military to prevent the missile from being launched, instead of risking it rendering damage while in the sky." What if we lose all touch with NK. We don't know exactly what goes. It would be possible that we could wake up one day and there is a bomb in the air headed for us. We don't have a defense system, now what do we do? Try and fire something at it? That sounds like a missile defense system. "it's pragmatic"-Kenito (talking about putting a price on our security. How is putting a price on our safety. Let's just say that 300,000,000 pay an extra $20 to fund the missile defense system. It would cost $10,000,000,000 a year. SO in one year, the citizens of the US would pay have to pay a whopping $33.34 to fund it. Whew that is a real stretch. I would pay that extra $33 for a couple of people, and would be happy to. thanks, vote pro

righty10294

kenito: "if the US cannot keep the identity of a CIA operative secret in the 21st Century, I highly doubt this country's ability to do the same with missile defense." Where has the identity of of a CIA operative been known. I found 1 incident. So what? One person out of 50,000? workers for the CIA (couldn't find a number). We still don't know exactly what they did, how they got there, etc. It is one piece in a 1,000,000 piece jigsaw puzzle. The government has the resources to keep it secret. "US should intervene economically, politically, or with the military to prevent the missile from being launched, instead of risking it rendering damage while in the sky." What if we lose all touch with NK. We don't know exactly what goes. It would be possible that we could wake up one day and there is a bomb in the air headed for us. We don't have a defense system, now what do we do? Try and fire something at it? That sounds like a missile defense system. "it's pragmatic"-Kenito (talking about putting a price on our security. How is putting a price on our safety. Let's just say that 300,000,000 pay an extra $20 to fund the missile defense system. It would cost $10,000,000,000 a year. SO in one year, the citizens of the US would pay have to pay a whopping $33.34 to fund it. Whew that is a real stretch. I would pay that extra $33 for a couple of people, and would be happy to. thanks, vote pro

Politics

A-Missile-Defense-System/1/

hello First off, thank you for the debate and not forfeiting rounds (up until now). "The government may have the supposed resources to keep a project secret, however, noting the ability of the press and public to learn of its government's operations, this is an impractical assumption." -Okay. In Thanksgiving of 2003, president BUsh made a secret trip to the Middle East, that the pres nor the public never knew about till after we got there. He is the most followed man in the world. There are tons of press surcurity etc following him. That blue plane that's impossible to miss and yet he made it out unnoticed. The government will make it secret, and we'll never find out. "if the US were to fully resume its missile defense projects today, an imminent nuclear threat from NK couldn't be countered." If I understand this right, you agree with me. I'm not sure my reasoning is right, but to me it sounds like you are agreeing with me that a missile defense system would keep us safe. There is no reason not to take a risk on our safety and not complete the mission. Okay now to the money part. I understand that 300 million citizens wouldn't be paying taxes. Now I will redo my numbers. 130,000,000 (million) people pay taxes. IT cost 10,000,000,000 annually to fund the system. That comes out to the citizens paying $76.93 to fund the system. Now I'm sure we could get corporate donations personal etc. That alone, exspecialy making a well marketed foundation could bring in 1/4 billion to 3/4 billion dollars. "fund alternative energy research to successfully eliminate US foreign dependence on oil" Vote Pro! One answer-DRILL ALASKA. There is plenty of oil there, so why don't we use it.

righty10294

hello First off, thank you for the debate and not forfeiting rounds (up until now). "The government may have the supposed resources to keep a project secret, however, noting the ability of the press and public to learn of its government's operations, this is an impractical assumption." -Okay. In Thanksgiving of 2003, president BUsh made a secret trip to the Middle East, that the pres nor the public never knew about till after we got there. He is the most followed man in the world. There are tons of press surcurity etc following him. That blue plane that's impossible to miss and yet he made it out unnoticed. The government will make it secret, and we'll never find out. "if the US were to fully resume its missile defense projects today, an imminent nuclear threat from NK couldn't be countered." If I understand this right, you agree with me. I'm not sure my reasoning is right, but to me it sounds like you are agreeing with me that a missile defense system would keep us safe. There is no reason not to take a risk on our safety and not complete the mission. Okay now to the money part. I understand that 300 million citizens wouldn't be paying taxes. Now I will redo my numbers. 130,000,000 (million) people pay taxes. IT cost 10,000,000,000 annually to fund the system. That comes out to the citizens paying $76.93 to fund the system. Now I'm sure we could get corporate donations personal etc. That alone, exspecialy making a well marketed foundation could bring in 1/4 billion to 3/4 billion dollars. "fund alternative energy research to successfully eliminate US foreign dependence on oil" Vote Pro! One answer-DRILL ALASKA. There is plenty of oil there, so why don't we use it.

Politics

A-Missile-Defense-System/1/

I accept. Good luck on your first debate! Definition Free Market A market economy based on supply and demand with little or no government control (1) Sources: 1. <URL>...

ClassicRobert

I accept. Good luck on your first debate! Definition Free Market A market economy based on supply and demand with little or no government control (1) Sources: 1. http://www.investopedia.com...

Economics

A-Resource-Based-Economy-is-better-than-Free-Markets/1/

I will first try to refute my opponent's arguments. This will be difficult, as he just stated pieces of information rather than connecting them to the resolution and making arguments, but I will still do my best to try to understand what he's getting at. Technological Unemployment "This will be the Achilles heel of a Free Market Economy. Regardless if we have a Free Market or a Resource Based Economy, Technological Unemployment is inevitable." My opponent claims that technological unemployment is inevitable in both economic systems, but does not give any reason why it is only bad in a free market economy. I would actually argue that this isn't exactly a problem for a free market economy. In fact, it is a sign of progress. Sure, some of the menial jobs are going to be eliminated. However, that just means that society will have lower demand for workers performing monotonous tasks. Simply put, the market will simply end up demanding more workers in the services industry, where humans are more effective, rather than the goods industry, where machines will be more effective. However, in a resource based economy, there is no incentive to work (which will be explained more later), and in a free market economy, there is still the monetary incentive to work in the service industry, which means that there will still be a large amount of workers performing services. The free market is more effective at handling technological unemployment for those reasons. My opponent then just goes on to talk about how machines are replacing humans in various fields without really making any arguments connecting his statements to the resolution. I am under no obligation to address facts that have no arguments associated with them. Case for Con Money is an Incentive towards Progress In a resource-based economy, there is little to no human progress. When everybody simply gets what they need, what motivation is there to succeed? If the person could simply sit around and do nothing, or that person could cure cancer and get the same benefits as sitting around and doing nothing, why should he cure cancer? He get's no benefit from it. He therefore has little to no motivation to cure cancer. However, money solves this problem. The person who cures cancer will be able to receive massive monetary benefit, and people are trying to cure cancer for that exact reason. My opponent might end up arguing that doctors should do this out of pure altruism. However, if altruism is the only reason, then the amount of brilliant minds searching for the cure would be massively reduced. When the amount of people searching for the cure is reduced, the amount of time to find the cure will be raised, thus slowing human progress. Also, in a world where people are simply given what they need, there are other people who still have to produce. My opponent spoke of how people will no longer be working in labor, and how machines will replace them. However, there are some fundamental problems with this. Though the machines will be working, people will still be necessary to build the machines, distribute them, repair them, change their programming if necessary, handle the more intricate work, and other provide services people desire. While Pro has argued that eventually machines will be able to design and maintain themselves, humans are required to advance them to this point. While I have already addressed this, there is the problem with motivation. Also, human made goods will still be highly valued. For example, hand made guitars are perceived to be of much higher value, and for that reason, are purchased at a much higher price. The point is, people will still be necessary. Why, though would a person do this work if they don't receive extra benefit from the work? By definition, a resource based economy would give everyone exactly what they need, and nothing more. They would have no incentive to be productive. The elimination of a monetary system and the transition to an economy based purely on altruism would be catastrophic, and would drastically reduce productivity and slow progress. Monetary Incentive allows for Higher Production It has already been established that without money, progress is severely slowed, almost to the point of being stopped. However, when the monetary incentive is in place, people are constantly trying to become more cost and time efficient. This means that, as time goes on, goods will be able to be produced at a lower and lower resource cost, meaning that the resources will last longer. When progress is slowed as dramatically as removing the monetary incentive, as would be done in a resource based economy, would do, then the resources will last a shorter amount of time than otherwise, and humanity will be resource poor sooner. The Arts In a resource based economy, people will only be provided with what is necessary to survive. However, the arts are not necessary to survive. People would need to acquire the art materials, but since they will have been conditioned to the laziness associated with not having to work, they will not go out of their way to mix the paints, build the guitars, construct the pencils, etc. If humanity was switched to a resource based economy, a large-scale culture shock would be suffered, as art would not be as readily produced. Overall Economic Wellbeing If every person were simply given what they needed to survive, then there would still need to be producers for the goods and services required. With no incentive to produce, there would be far less goods and services produced, meaning that far less goods and services will be distributed, meaning that the overall economy would be worse off. Conclusion My opponent has yet to actually make an argument, instead opting to simply state facts, so he isn't fulfilling his burden of proof. I look forward to my opponent's response.

ClassicRobert

I will first try to refute my opponent’s arguments. This will be difficult, as he just stated pieces of information rather than connecting them to the resolution and making arguments, but I will still do my best to try to understand what he’s getting at. Technological Unemployment “This will be the Achilles heel of a Free Market Economy. Regardless if we have a Free Market or a Resource Based Economy, Technological Unemployment is inevitable.” My opponent claims that technological unemployment is inevitable in both economic systems, but does not give any reason why it is only bad in a free market economy. I would actually argue that this isn’t exactly a problem for a free market economy. In fact, it is a sign of progress. Sure, some of the menial jobs are going to be eliminated. However, that just means that society will have lower demand for workers performing monotonous tasks. Simply put, the market will simply end up demanding more workers in the services industry, where humans are more effective, rather than the goods industry, where machines will be more effective. However, in a resource based economy, there is no incentive to work (which will be explained more later), and in a free market economy, there is still the monetary incentive to work in the service industry, which means that there will still be a large amount of workers performing services. The free market is more effective at handling technological unemployment for those reasons. My opponent then just goes on to talk about how machines are replacing humans in various fields without really making any arguments connecting his statements to the resolution. I am under no obligation to address facts that have no arguments associated with them. Case for Con Money is an Incentive towards Progress In a resource-based economy, there is little to no human progress. When everybody simply gets what they need, what motivation is there to succeed? If the person could simply sit around and do nothing, or that person could cure cancer and get the same benefits as sitting around and doing nothing, why should he cure cancer? He get’s no benefit from it. He therefore has little to no motivation to cure cancer. However, money solves this problem. The person who cures cancer will be able to receive massive monetary benefit, and people are trying to cure cancer for that exact reason. My opponent might end up arguing that doctors should do this out of pure altruism. However, if altruism is the only reason, then the amount of brilliant minds searching for the cure would be massively reduced. When the amount of people searching for the cure is reduced, the amount of time to find the cure will be raised, thus slowing human progress. Also, in a world where people are simply given what they need, there are other people who still have to produce. My opponent spoke of how people will no longer be working in labor, and how machines will replace them. However, there are some fundamental problems with this. Though the machines will be working, people will still be necessary to build the machines, distribute them, repair them, change their programming if necessary, handle the more intricate work, and other provide services people desire. While Pro has argued that eventually machines will be able to design and maintain themselves, humans are required to advance them to this point. While I have already addressed this, there is the problem with motivation. Also, human made goods will still be highly valued. For example, hand made guitars are perceived to be of much higher value, and for that reason, are purchased at a much higher price. The point is, people will still be necessary. Why, though would a person do this work if they don’t receive extra benefit from the work? By definition, a resource based economy would give everyone exactly what they need, and nothing more. They would have no incentive to be productive. The elimination of a monetary system and the transition to an economy based purely on altruism would be catastrophic, and would drastically reduce productivity and slow progress. Monetary Incentive allows for Higher Production It has already been established that without money, progress is severely slowed, almost to the point of being stopped. However, when the monetary incentive is in place, people are constantly trying to become more cost and time efficient. This means that, as time goes on, goods will be able to be produced at a lower and lower resource cost, meaning that the resources will last longer. When progress is slowed as dramatically as removing the monetary incentive, as would be done in a resource based economy, would do, then the resources will last a shorter amount of time than otherwise, and humanity will be resource poor sooner. The Arts In a resource based economy, people will only be provided with what is necessary to survive. However, the arts are not necessary to survive. People would need to acquire the art materials, but since they will have been conditioned to the laziness associated with not having to work, they will not go out of their way to mix the paints, build the guitars, construct the pencils, etc. If humanity was switched to a resource based economy, a large-scale culture shock would be suffered, as art would not be as readily produced. Overall Economic Wellbeing If every person were simply given what they needed to survive, then there would still need to be producers for the goods and services required. With no incentive to produce, there would be far less goods and services produced, meaning that far less goods and services will be distributed, meaning that the overall economy would be worse off. Conclusion My opponent has yet to actually make an argument, instead opting to simply state facts, so he isn't fulfilling his burden of proof. I look forward to my opponent's response.

Economics

A-Resource-Based-Economy-is-better-than-Free-Markets/1/

Claim #1: "in a resource based economy, there is no incentive to work." Pro addresses this with his point that "Solving problems is the real incentive," so I'll refute that. "Solving problems is the real incentive" While it's nice to claim that solving problems is the only incentive people need to be productive, that is simply not true for the majority of the population. In 2004, the X PRIZE Foundation offered a $10 million dollar award in a competition to Scaled Composites for crafting a commercial spacecraft. Prior to this competition, nobody was really working on making space travel publicly available. As a result of that monetary incentive, 25 teams of scientists and engineers worked aggressively to make space travel commercial, and the government no longer has a monopoly on space travel (1). I would also like to point out that I already addressed this in the previous round, where I showed how in an economy based purely on altruism, fewer people would be working on more problems, thus dramatically slowing progress. My opponent also chooses to conveniently ignore my point about how work in a free market would simply become more service based. This refers to the doctors, the lawyers, the deliverymen, and more who would still have jobs. In a RBE, there would be significantly less servicemen. This is because very few people are willing to work without benefit. Doctors and lawyers, for example, would still need to get the extra years of education just to be qualified for their jobs. Why would the majority of people still want become doctors or lawyers if they would get the exact same benefit from sitting around as they would get from getting the extra years upon years of schooling? Since a delivery man would be paid the exact same amount of resources in any situation and he won't get tipped, he might as well take his time, rather than make the process quicker, safer for the resources, and more friendly. Don't get me wrong; solving problems is an incentive, but only to a small amount of people. The majority needs something more substantial, like money. "Money as an incentive is an illusion" Pro states that since money has no intrinsic value, it is not an incentive. This is completely false. Though money has no intrinsic value, it has an implicit value. It allows people to purchase not only what is needed, but also what is wanted. It is a pathway to better living conditions. Pro said, "since food costs money in a free market, he works to get money." With this statement, he conceded that money is a motivator. Since money has a high implicit value and is needed to acquire necessities (and wants), it is a major incentive. Claim #2 "In a resource based economy, there is little to no human process. "This...Neolithic Agricultural Revolution" The Neolithic Agricultural Revolution led to people trading their art, music, pottery, and tools. While those goods and services were initially bartered, money has been consistently shown to increase the transaction velocity, thus improving the economy. Also (question for Pro), are people expected to just be content with what they have, or do they still trade in a RBE? "Art would actually flourish" Pro ignores my argument that in a RBE, you only get what is necessary, and since art materials aren't needed, instruments (which would need construction) aren't needed, and sporting equipment isn't needed, the artist or sportsmen would need to go out into nature, obtain the raw materials necessary to build what they need, and then build it themselves. This is a huge amount of work for something that satisfies few needs. Even if more people became artists, wouldn't that be detrimental? After all, more people are still needed for practical work, and since art and sports are generally more enjoyable, why would someone do practical work? "Lower opportunity cost" Not true (why trade pure enjoyment through play or art for work?), but this point about progress is also counteracted by lower incentive to work and a lower number of practical workers. "The free...tied up with money" My opponent makes this claim, but doesn't support it. I have shown that a monetary incentive encourages people to be more cost and time efficient. "We have a lot of... are not being made available" In regards to electric cars, that's not bad. Electric car's manufacturing process has twice the global warming potential as the process for making normal cars. In fact, when the initial CO2 cost is considered, an electric car driven 50,000 miles will have higher CO2 emissions than a similar-sized gas car. Also, since the majority of the initial CO2 cost is from the battery manufacturing, and they need to be replaced, electric cars are not "greener" (2). "Where is the progress here?" A free market solution for a greener world is a cap and trade system, where there is a set amount of emissions, and so companies have to buy and sell the emissions in order to maximize their utility. Environmental groups will be able to buy the emissions, and choose not to use them, thus lowering the amount of emissions. Companies are encouraged to lower their environmental impact, because if they do, they can sell their emissions. If they can use renewable energy, they have more emissions to sell. Unrefuted or Conceded Arguments Tech unemployment is workable in a free market because of service industry Money is an incentive to work Art materials Money incentive extends resource longevity Overall Economic wellbeing (wealth) Less workers=Less progress Conclusion Pro didn't refute many of my points, and due to my refutations, has not shown a RBE to have more progress than a free market, that an RBE would be a better economic system for distributing wealth, that technological abundance is against a profit driven system (sidenote-to remove a PDS would be to change human nature), and that worrying about eating isn't a good motivator to be productive. Thank you Pro, I look forward to your response. Sources: <URL>... <URL>...

ClassicRobert

Claim #1: “in a resource based economy, there is no incentive to work.” Pro addresses this with his point that “Solving problems is the real incentive,” so I’ll refute that. “Solving problems is the real incentive” While it's nice to claim that solving problems is the only incentive people need to be productive, that is simply not true for the majority of the population. In 2004, the X PRIZE Foundation offered a $10 million dollar award in a competition to Scaled Composites for crafting a commercial spacecraft. Prior to this competition, nobody was really working on making space travel publicly available. As a result of that monetary incentive, 25 teams of scientists and engineers worked aggressively to make space travel commercial, and the government no longer has a monopoly on space travel (1). I would also like to point out that I already addressed this in the previous round, where I showed how in an economy based purely on altruism, fewer people would be working on more problems, thus dramatically slowing progress. My opponent also chooses to conveniently ignore my point about how work in a free market would simply become more service based. This refers to the doctors, the lawyers, the deliverymen, and more who would still have jobs. In a RBE, there would be significantly less servicemen. This is because very few people are willing to work without benefit. Doctors and lawyers, for example, would still need to get the extra years of education just to be qualified for their jobs. Why would the majority of people still want become doctors or lawyers if they would get the exact same benefit from sitting around as they would get from getting the extra years upon years of schooling? Since a delivery man would be paid the exact same amount of resources in any situation and he won’t get tipped, he might as well take his time, rather than make the process quicker, safer for the resources, and more friendly. Don’t get me wrong; solving problems is an incentive, but only to a small amount of people. The majority needs something more substantial, like money. “Money as an incentive is an illusion” Pro states that since money has no intrinsic value, it is not an incentive. This is completely false. Though money has no intrinsic value, it has an implicit value. It allows people to purchase not only what is needed, but also what is wanted. It is a pathway to better living conditions. Pro said, “since food costs money in a free market, he works to get money.” With this statement, he conceded that money is a motivator. Since money has a high implicit value and is needed to acquire necessities (and wants), it is a major incentive. Claim #2 “In a resource based economy, there is little to no human process. “This...Neolithic Agricultural Revolution” The Neolithic Agricultural Revolution led to people trading their art, music, pottery, and tools. While those goods and services were initially bartered, money has been consistently shown to increase the transaction velocity, thus improving the economy. Also (question for Pro), are people expected to just be content with what they have, or do they still trade in a RBE? “Art would actually flourish” Pro ignores my argument that in a RBE, you only get what is necessary, and since art materials aren't needed, instruments (which would need construction) aren't needed, and sporting equipment isn't needed, the artist or sportsmen would need to go out into nature, obtain the raw materials necessary to build what they need, and then build it themselves. This is a huge amount of work for something that satisfies few needs. Even if more people became artists, wouldn’t that be detrimental? After all, more people are still needed for practical work, and since art and sports are generally more enjoyable, why would someone do practical work? "Lower opportunity cost" Not true (why trade pure enjoyment through play or art for work?), but this point about progress is also counteracted by lower incentive to work and a lower number of practical workers. “The free…tied up with money” My opponent makes this claim, but doesn’t support it. I have shown that a monetary incentive encourages people to be more cost and time efficient. “We have a lot of… are not being made available” In regards to electric cars, that’s not bad. Electric car’s manufacturing process has twice the global warming potential as the process for making normal cars. In fact, when the initial CO2 cost is considered, an electric car driven 50,000 miles will have higher CO2 emissions than a similar-sized gas car. Also, since the majority of the initial CO2 cost is from the battery manufacturing, and they need to be replaced, electric cars are not “greener” (2). “Where is the progress here?” A free market solution for a greener world is a cap and trade system, where there is a set amount of emissions, and so companies have to buy and sell the emissions in order to maximize their utility. Environmental groups will be able to buy the emissions, and choose not to use them, thus lowering the amount of emissions. Companies are encouraged to lower their environmental impact, because if they do, they can sell their emissions. If they can use renewable energy, they have more emissions to sell. Unrefuted or Conceded Arguments Tech unemployment is workable in a free market because of service industry Money is an incentive to work Art materials Money incentive extends resource longevity Overall Economic wellbeing (wealth) Less workers=Less progress Conclusion Pro didn't refute many of my points, and due to my refutations, has not shown a RBE to have more progress than a free market, that an RBE would be a better economic system for distributing wealth, that technological abundance is against a profit driven system (sidenote-to remove a PDS would be to change human nature), and that worrying about eating isn't a good motivator to be productive. Thank you Pro, I look forward to your response. Sources: http://tinyurl.com... http://tinyurl.com...

Economics

A-Resource-Based-Economy-is-better-than-Free-Markets/1/

Money is an incentive Pro is literally arguing my point here. He says, "Of course they would be incentivized by money because those scientists still need to pay their bills." Because of its implicit value, money is important. If money were removed, as it would be in a RBE, a significant incentive for work and progress would be removed. To remove a profit-driven system would be to change human nature My opponent commits a straw man fallacy here. I never argued that money was inherent to human nature. I said that being profit-driven was inherent to human nature. Being profit-driven is working towards having a net positive for yourself rather than a net neutral or a net negative. In the last round, Pro argued that we should not be profit driven, so I refuted that. While it may be true that humans haven't always lived under a monetary system, it is also true that, in all of the situations provided, they would have been more prosperous with money and free market trade. When you say that nobody was paying cavemen money, that is true, but they were still bartering, and bartering is not nearly as effective as money. This is because of a "coincidence of wants." In order to have a successful trade, both sides need to want the other persons good. Money, however, can be exchanged for just about any good, so therefore more purchases are made. Since money can be traded for almost anything, people work for it, and progress is made. The same is true with the tribe that was mentioned. In regards to the commune Pro's father lived in, though people are content with how they were living, they would be better off with money and a market, which I've shown already. The biggest problem with Pro's argument is the statement "Competition & free trade...when scarcity still existed." Scarcity will always exist, and therefore, needs to be dealt with. This is because humans have an unlimited number of wants and desires, and there are limited resources available. A free market run by supply and demand represents the best way to deal with scarcity, since S&D tells the producers how much should be produced to minimize the amount of people who want the good but cannot get it. Without supply and demand, it is guesswork. I would also like to add that Pro conceded the point when he said that "Competition & free trade was useful because it was a fair way to distribute goods and services when scarcity still existed," and since scarcity exists, competition and free trade is effective. Why would someone do practical work if arts and sports are more enjoyable? Yes, there are many people who find STEM jobs enjoyable, but not enough people. I've already shown that with money available, more people are inclined to do practical work. With money, more people are incentivized towards that, and if in the future those are the only jobs available, like Pro is arguing, then people will have to take those jobs for money. Arts and sports require less actual work, less education, and less time. When the same benefit is gained regardless, people will take the path of least resistance. A free market would simply become more service based My opponent states, "Providing service to earn money to buy another service is just inefficient." How is that inefficient? That would assume that all services are the exact same. Giving one identical service to another person so you can get the exact same service could be inefficient, but giving up your services so you can get different services is perfectly acceptable. Access vs. Ownership First, thank you for the clarification. I would also like to add that I've already shown that when money is involved, it is more effective than bartering. I fail to see how much less cars would be needed. People still need the transportation, and if everyone had access to that, then more people would access that. In regards to his reasons for not worrying about stealing/crime or scarcity, 1. I already addressed this. Scarcity will always exist because there is a limited amount of resources available, resources that can be produced, etc. 2. We have too large of a population for that to be determined, and for that to be true, much more would need to be produced. Supply and demand is the best way to determine how much should be produced, and 3. More people would have access to cars, so more people would take advantage of that. Also, if you are going to use statistics, please cite them. Electric Cars To only consider the car's CO2 emissions would be foolish. When speaking about economies and environments, to not have a cost/benefit analysis would be foolish. To not examine both the implicit and explicit costs would be to short change society. While the car itself doesn't produce more CO2 emissions, the total process, including the manufacturing, does. Money incentive extends resource longevity This doesn't exactly sound different from how it would be in a free market. When you say that products will be designed, and I assume distributed, with the latest technology available, that either means that new technology will be distributed when technological advances are made, which is identical to the free market description you gave, or progress is halted at "the latest technology available." Unrefuted or Conceded Arguments Positions that need extra training It would be detrimental to have less practical workers There would be less people working towards progress Money is a valuable incentive, and to remove it would be detrimental. Being profit-driven is a part of human nature (he argued against being money driven) If I missed any more, I'm sure the voters will notice. More progress is attained from a free market, and a RBE dramatically slows progress. In conclusion, my opponent still has not refuted many of my points, and his own refutations fail. A free market economy is better than a RBE, and my opponent has not fulfilled his burden of proof. I look forward to his response.

ClassicRobert

Money is an incentive Pro is literally arguing my point here. He says, “Of course they would be incentivized by money because those scientists still need to pay their bills.” Because of its implicit value, money is important. If money were removed, as it would be in a RBE, a significant incentive for work and progress would be removed. To remove a profit-driven system would be to change human nature My opponent commits a straw man fallacy here. I never argued that money was inherent to human nature. I said that being profit-driven was inherent to human nature. Being profit-driven is working towards having a net positive for yourself rather than a net neutral or a net negative. In the last round, Pro argued that we should not be profit driven, so I refuted that. While it may be true that humans haven’t always lived under a monetary system, it is also true that, in all of the situations provided, they would have been more prosperous with money and free market trade. When you say that nobody was paying cavemen money, that is true, but they were still bartering, and bartering is not nearly as effective as money. This is because of a “coincidence of wants.” In order to have a successful trade, both sides need to want the other persons good. Money, however, can be exchanged for just about any good, so therefore more purchases are made. Since money can be traded for almost anything, people work for it, and progress is made. The same is true with the tribe that was mentioned. In regards to the commune Pro’s father lived in, though people are content with how they were living, they would be better off with money and a market, which I’ve shown already. The biggest problem with Pro’s argument is the statement “Competition & free trade…when scarcity still existed.” Scarcity will always exist, and therefore, needs to be dealt with. This is because humans have an unlimited number of wants and desires, and there are limited resources available. A free market run by supply and demand represents the best way to deal with scarcity, since S&D tells the producers how much should be produced to minimize the amount of people who want the good but cannot get it. Without supply and demand, it is guesswork. I would also like to add that Pro conceded the point when he said that "Competition & free trade was useful because it was a fair way to distribute goods and services when scarcity still existed," and since scarcity exists, competition and free trade is effective. Why would someone do practical work if arts and sports are more enjoyable? Yes, there are many people who find STEM jobs enjoyable, but not enough people. I’ve already shown that with money available, more people are inclined to do practical work. With money, more people are incentivized towards that, and if in the future those are the only jobs available, like Pro is arguing, then people will have to take those jobs for money. Arts and sports require less actual work, less education, and less time. When the same benefit is gained regardless, people will take the path of least resistance. A free market would simply become more service based My opponent states, “Providing service to earn money to buy another service is just inefficient.” How is that inefficient? That would assume that all services are the exact same. Giving one identical service to another person so you can get the exact same service could be inefficient, but giving up your services so you can get different services is perfectly acceptable. Access vs. Ownership First, thank you for the clarification. I would also like to add that I’ve already shown that when money is involved, it is more effective than bartering. I fail to see how much less cars would be needed. People still need the transportation, and if everyone had access to that, then more people would access that. In regards to his reasons for not worrying about stealing/crime or scarcity, 1. I already addressed this. Scarcity will always exist because there is a limited amount of resources available, resources that can be produced, etc. 2. We have too large of a population for that to be determined, and for that to be true, much more would need to be produced. Supply and demand is the best way to determine how much should be produced, and 3. More people would have access to cars, so more people would take advantage of that. Also, if you are going to use statistics, please cite them. Electric Cars To only consider the car’s CO2 emissions would be foolish. When speaking about economies and environments, to not have a cost/benefit analysis would be foolish. To not examine both the implicit and explicit costs would be to short change society. While the car itself doesn’t produce more CO2 emissions, the total process, including the manufacturing, does. Money incentive extends resource longevity This doesn’t exactly sound different from how it would be in a free market. When you say that products will be designed, and I assume distributed, with the latest technology available, that either means that new technology will be distributed when technological advances are made, which is identical to the free market description you gave, or progress is halted at “the latest technology available.” Unrefuted or Conceded Arguments Positions that need extra training It would be detrimental to have less practical workers There would be less people working towards progress Money is a valuable incentive, and to remove it would be detrimental. Being profit-driven is a part of human nature (he argued against being money driven) If I missed any more, I’m sure the voters will notice. More progress is attained from a free market, and a RBE dramatically slows progress. In conclusion, my opponent still has not refuted many of my points, and his own refutations fail. A free market economy is better than a RBE, and my opponent has not fulfilled his burden of proof. I look forward to his response.

Economics

A-Resource-Based-Economy-is-better-than-Free-Markets/1/

Money as an incentive: My opponent seems to be operating under the false assumption that if one incentive were removed, other incentives would compensate. This is simply not true. If money were removed, than an extra incentive would be removed, leaving less total incentive to work and make progress. "Money is just a technology created by human beings & was never in nature to begin with" He states this as though it is a bad thing. By that logic, the machinery that Pro likes to say would essentially handle everything for the world that is made by humans (and eventually by other machines) is a bad thing, so Pro is contradicting himself. Competition/trade "Advanced technologies today did not exist before Here my opponent totally switches his argument from switching to a RBE in the distant future to switching today. A large part of his arguments has relied on the idea that technology will take over all physical labor. However, the technology of today is nowhere near ready to take over all physical labor. "The world wasn't a global economy." It is now, and yet market based economies are still effective means of allocating resources, and Pro hasn't proven his assertion that global economies don't work with free markets. "Being profit driven was inherent to human nature", not money "Yes I agree we are all 'profit-driven' beings" Though my opponent was correct that personal gain doesn't necessarily imply material things, material things are a personal gain. The desire for " love & companionship from family/friends, free time, and honing talents" is already inherent to humans, so material gains are an extra, added incentive. "Humans are social...only to profit for themselves." The opposite is literally the entire theory behind capitalism and free markets ( 1 ) . When people work in their own self-interest, this leads to overall better allocation of resources. "In a RBE people will inherently have better moral values" Pro does not justify this claim, and therefore, it is a bare assertion. Also, as morality is subjective, it is difficult to claim one set of moral values to be better than another. Electric Cars "Con is ignoring the fact...eliminate CO2 emissions" I didn't ignore that "fact." That "fact" was not stated previously in the debate. I have no responsibility to respond to a point that hasn't been made. That being said, this wave of the magic wand is not necessarily a good thing. Renewable energies like solar power and wind power are not strong enough to actually be used in a manufacturing process where heat is necessary to bend the metal and power intensely heavy machinery. To use renewable energies would be to drastically slow the production process, and the supply could not possibly keep up with the demand. "Military industry..." It remains unproven that there would be less war in a global RBE. Access vs. Ownership "Those 8 hours..." Firstly, I've already shown that people lack the incentive to work 8 hours each day in a RBE. However, this creates the issue of time efficiency. How would one make sure that the cars are immediately sent to those who need the cars when the cars are needed? This would be an impossible feat to accomplish. The same goes with his other examples. It is an invasion of privacy, and an impossible task, to be constantly checking up on the people to determine what goods need to be transported from here to there, and is hugely time inefficient. "We cannot have exponential monetary economic growth in a finite resource planet." This is a bare assertion. Also, with Pro's statement about a flaw of a free market, he ignores the fact that people still sell goods, so the goods are still redistributed. Population "Technology will keep track..." I've already pointed out the error in this system, which is the actual transportation of goods to people when they need it so everybody is happy, which is impossible. Also, for the technology to keep track of all that, it would need a complete, invasive perspective into people's lives. If you think that the NSA is invading our privacy (2 ) , then this is that on a whole new level. Supply and demand I don't need to explain the issues with the supply and demand system of a RBE again. Conclusion " Significantly more progress in a RBE than free market"- Negated, there is less total incentive to make progress. "100% renewable energy"- I've shown the inefficiency here to produce what is needed. "Latest tech...unlike planned obsolescence in a Free Market"- Negated, Pro did not respond my refutation in Round 4 "smart, efficient management/distribution of resources. " Negated, this represents incredible time inefficiencies and invasion of privacy. "Eliminates hunger/diseases/violence/crime."- Pro did not justify this claim anywhere in the debate. This is a bare assertion. "Human potential...boring daily meaningless jobs"- Pro himself admitted in his very first argument that this technological unemployment is also shown in a free market, so this consequence would also be shown in a free market. This does not prove that a RBE is better than a free market, as is his burden of proof to do Unrefuted Arguments Supply and Demand will ask for more STEM and service workers regardless, but a free market, with its monetary incentive, encourages more workers. It would be detrimental to have less practical workers. Money is a valuable incentive, and removing it leaves less total incentive. People will take the path of least resistance. All arguments about service market. Overall higher resource cost in RBE. If there are any more, the voters will notice. In conclusion, Pro has not fulfilled his burden of proof to show that a RBE is better than a free market, and I have shown the money in a free market to be important, and the way it handles supply and demand to be superior, among other things. Thank you to Pro for a good debate, and thanks to the readers for their time. Sources: <URL>... <URL>...

ClassicRobert

Money as an incentive: My opponent seems to be operating under the false assumption that if one incentive were removed, other incentives would compensate. This is simply not true. If money were removed, than an extra incentive would be removed, leaving less total incentive to work and make progress. “Money is just a technology created by human beings & was never in nature to begin with” He states this as though it is a bad thing. By that logic, the machinery that Pro likes to say would essentially handle everything for the world that is made by humans (and eventually by other machines) is a bad thing, so Pro is contradicting himself. Competition/trade “Advanced technologies today did not exist before Here my opponent totally switches his argument from switching to a RBE in the distant future to switching today. A large part of his arguments has relied on the idea that technology will take over all physical labor. However, the technology of today is nowhere near ready to take over all physical labor. “The world wasn’t a global economy.” It is now, and yet market based economies are still effective means of allocating resources, and Pro hasn’t proven his assertion that global economies don’t work with free markets. “Being profit driven was inherent to human nature”, not money “Yes I agree we are all ‘profit-driven’ beings” Though my opponent was correct that personal gain doesn’t necessarily imply material things, material things are a personal gain. The desire for “ love & companionship from family/friends, free time, and honing talents” is already inherent to humans, so material gains are an extra, added incentive. “Humans are social…only to profit for themselves.” The opposite is literally the entire theory behind capitalism and free markets ( 1 ) . When people work in their own self-interest, this leads to overall better allocation of resources. “In a RBE people will inherently have better moral values” Pro does not justify this claim, and therefore, it is a bare assertion. Also, as morality is subjective, it is difficult to claim one set of moral values to be better than another. Electric Cars “Con is ignoring the fact…eliminate CO2 emissions” I didn’t ignore that “fact.” That “fact” was not stated previously in the debate. I have no responsibility to respond to a point that hasn’t been made. That being said, this wave of the magic wand is not necessarily a good thing. Renewable energies like solar power and wind power are not strong enough to actually be used in a manufacturing process where heat is necessary to bend the metal and power intensely heavy machinery. To use renewable energies would be to drastically slow the production process, and the supply could not possibly keep up with the demand. “Military industry…” It remains unproven that there would be less war in a global RBE. Access vs. Ownership “Those 8 hours…” Firstly, I’ve already shown that people lack the incentive to work 8 hours each day in a RBE. However, this creates the issue of time efficiency. How would one make sure that the cars are immediately sent to those who need the cars when the cars are needed? This would be an impossible feat to accomplish. The same goes with his other examples. It is an invasion of privacy, and an impossible task, to be constantly checking up on the people to determine what goods need to be transported from here to there, and is hugely time inefficient. “We cannot have exponential monetary economic growth in a finite resource planet.” This is a bare assertion. Also, with Pro’s statement about a flaw of a free market, he ignores the fact that people still sell goods, so the goods are still redistributed. Population “Technology will keep track…” I’ve already pointed out the error in this system, which is the actual transportation of goods to people when they need it so everybody is happy, which is impossible. Also, for the technology to keep track of all that, it would need a complete, invasive perspective into people’s lives. If you think that the NSA is invading our privacy (2 ) , then this is that on a whole new level. Supply and demand I don’t need to explain the issues with the supply and demand system of a RBE again. Conclusion “ Significantly more progress in a RBE than free market”- Negated, there is less total incentive to make progress. “100% renewable energy”- I’ve shown the inefficiency here to produce what is needed. “Latest tech…unlike planned obsolescence in a Free Market”- Negated, Pro did not respond my refutation in Round 4 “smart, efficient management/distribution of resources. ” Negated, this represents incredible time inefficiencies and invasion of privacy. “Eliminates hunger/diseases/violence/crime.”- Pro did not justify this claim anywhere in the debate. This is a bare assertion. “Human potential…boring daily meaningless jobs”- Pro himself admitted in his very first argument that this technological unemployment is also shown in a free market, so this consequence would also be shown in a free market. This does not prove that a RBE is better than a free market, as is his burden of proof to do Unrefuted Arguments Supply and Demand will ask for more STEM and service workers regardless, but a free market, with its monetary incentive, encourages more workers. It would be detrimental to have less practical workers. Money is a valuable incentive, and removing it leaves less total incentive. People will take the path of least resistance. All arguments about service market. Overall higher resource cost in RBE. If there are any more, the voters will notice. In conclusion, Pro has not fulfilled his burden of proof to show that a RBE is better than a free market, and I have shown the money in a free market to be important, and the way it handles supply and demand to be superior, among other things. Thank you to Pro for a good debate, and thanks to the readers for their time. Sources: http://tinyurl.com... http://tinyurl.com...

Economics

A-Resource-Based-Economy-is-better-than-Free-Markets/1/

Hello I am new and this will be my first debate here. Statement: A Resource Based Economy is a better system than Free Markets in the long run. PRO will agrue why a Resource Based Economy is better in the long run. CON will argue why a Free Market Economy is better in the long run. Definition: Resource Based Economy is an economic system where currency/money is no longer used and the entire earth and its resources become a common heritage of all humans. All human beings have equal access to all resources and necessities of life. Round 1-Acceptance Goodluck!

geothermal

Hello I am new and this will be my first debate here. Statement: A Resource Based Economy is a better system than Free Markets in the long run. PRO will agrue why a Resource Based Economy is better in the long run. CON will argue why a Free Market Economy is better in the long run. Definition: Resource Based Economy is an economic system where currency/money is no longer used and the entire earth and its resources become a common heritage of all humans. All human beings have equal access to all resources and necessities of life. Round 1-Acceptance Goodluck!

Economics

A-Resource-Based-Economy-is-better-than-Free-Markets/1/

Here is my first and main argument on why a Resource Based Economy would be better in the long run. TECHNOLOGICAL UNEMPLOYMENT This will be the Achilles heel of a Free Market Economy. Regardless if we have a Free Market or a Resource Based Economy, Technological Unemployment is inevitable. The advancement of technology is growing at an accelerating rate, radically reshaping industries and the global economy. Here are the technologies that are currently changing (and will change) our lives: 1. Computer and Machines According to Moore's Law, the number of transistors in an integrated circuit doubles approximately every 18 months, which is why the capacity of computers and machines to perform tasks is getting better and faster while at the same time becoming cheaper. Companies are implementing more and more of technology in their businesses to automate work, which will continue to displace human workers into the future. It is very beneficial for businesses, but not so much for the overall working population. Most of the jobs being replaced by technologies today are the physical and monotonous work such as the ones found in manufacturing and retail industries. Few Examples: Robots in car factories, self-checkout lanes replacing cashiers, automated phone voice systems for telemarketing/customer service 2. Internet (The Digital Revolution) : P2P, Open Source, Social Networking, and the "Cloud" The Internet has been disrupting retail industries and other businesses. Companies are retrofitting their business models which increasingly revolves around the internet, displacing many workers. Almost anything you want to buy can be purchased on the internet. Online shopping sites such as Amazon & Ebay are quickly outcompeting the brick and mortar stores. Netflix and Redboxes are replacing Blockbuster(brick and mortar). Owning a website and a warehouse requires significantly less overhead, which means less employees. Additionally even the warehouses are also becoming automated. - Information is becoming essentially free. The amount of information in the internet is massive and ubiquitous, which will only continue to expand. Today any type of information can be digitized into files which can be text, documents, video (movies), audio (music), etc. The internet allows people to share information through files with other people around the world. People are increasingly watching tv shows streaming online, download movie torrents instead of buying dvds/bluray, and downloading music for free. Yes torrents are illegal but no one really cares; the only people losing out are the big record and entertainment companies who can't make a profit. Education is becoming priceless (literally) since anybody can learn almost anything for free on the internet through sites such as Google, Wikipedia, Khan Academy, MIT Opencourseware along with the vast amount of growing video tutorials on almost any subject on Youtube. This is making the value of going to college worth less and less, if the end goal is just to obtain a piece of paper in order to get a job. Unless that job is within the science/technology/engineering field, it will most likely be displaced by technology sooner in the future. Open Source Communities is a great representation of how a resource based economic system would work. People share information and ideas, collaborating with each other to accomplish a goal or task without the incentive of money. 3. 3D printers & Nanotechnology Although still in its infancy, it is a fast emerging technology that is eventually bound to replace the manufacturing and retail industry in the future. In the future this technology will allow us to create almost any object in the comfort of our own homes. With 3D printers you can make clothes, shoes, tools, bags, instruments, sport equipment, automobile chassis, buildings etc. Nanotechnology is the next step of 3D printing and will allow us to molecularly construct almost any object, material, or matter. This means we can create food, electronic gadgets, living tissues and organs. Though this technology is still way far off into the future, it is very promising. So why would businesses continue to invest in technology/computers/machines? It would be to their best advantage to do so. The advantages are: 1. Higher Profits - It's significantly less expensive than human labor in the long run. 2. Higher Productivity - Computers/machines accomplish tasks significantly quicker, more efficiently, accurately, and precisely than humans. 3. Can work 24/7, Doesn't get tired (of course until it wears out or gets broken), doesn't nag, doesn't need vacations/ 401ks/pensions/insurance/& other liabilities. Of course there are still many jobs today that can't be replaced by the automation of technology yet, but eventually anything that can be automated, will. Keep in mind this a long term process, but the trend is clear and it is moving in this direction. This disturbance of industries is what will cause the majority of the working population to be displaced in a Free Market. No work means no money, thus no purchasing power. We'll have a very high level of productivity, yet with only a few people that can afford them. Old industries might fall, but new industries emerge which means creation of new jobs. So people aren't out of luck after all right? Yes, this is true. There will still be people who have to design and maintain the machines and computers. Even so computers and machines will eventually be able to massproduce and repair themselves. The work that machines can't replace are the designing and creating of new ideas, technologies, and systems. Machines currently lack imagination/creativity, and don't have the capability to critically think (at least until we have AI). The only people that would really have jobs in the future will be computer programmers, engineers, scientists, and teachers. The problem is many people will be not able to learn and adapt quickly to this fast change of technology and will be left behind.

geothermal

Here is my first and main argument on why a Resource Based Economy would be better in the long run. TECHNOLOGICAL UNEMPLOYMENT This will be the Achilles heel of a Free Market Economy. Regardless if we have a Free Market or a Resource Based Economy, Technological Unemployment is inevitable. The advancement of technology is growing at an accelerating rate, radically reshaping industries and the global economy. Here are the technologies that are currently changing (and will change) our lives: 1. Computer and Machines According to Moore’s Law, the number of transistors in an integrated circuit doubles approximately every 18 months, which is why the capacity of computers and machines to perform tasks is getting better and faster while at the same time becoming cheaper. Companies are implementing more and more of technology in their businesses to automate work, which will continue to displace human workers into the future. It is very beneficial for businesses, but not so much for the overall working population. Most of the jobs being replaced by technologies today are the physical and monotonous work such as the ones found in manufacturing and retail industries. Few Examples: Robots in car factories, self-checkout lanes replacing cashiers, automated phone voice systems for telemarketing/customer service 2. Internet (The Digital Revolution) : P2P, Open Source, Social Networking, and the ”Cloud” The Internet has been disrupting retail industries and other businesses. Companies are retrofitting their business models which increasingly revolves around the internet, displacing many workers. Almost anything you want to buy can be purchased on the internet. Online shopping sites such as Amazon & Ebay are quickly outcompeting the brick and mortar stores. Netflix and Redboxes are replacing Blockbuster(brick and mortar). Owning a website and a warehouse requires significantly less overhead, which means less employees. Additionally even the warehouses are also becoming automated. - Information is becoming essentially free. The amount of information in the internet is massive and ubiquitous, which will only continue to expand. Today any type of information can be digitized into files which can be text, documents, video (movies), audio (music), etc. The internet allows people to share information through files with other people around the world. People are increasingly watching tv shows streaming online, download movie torrents instead of buying dvds/bluray, and downloading music for free. Yes torrents are illegal but no one really cares; the only people losing out are the big record and entertainment companies who can't make a profit. Education is becoming priceless (literally) since anybody can learn almost anything for free on the internet through sites such as Google, Wikipedia, Khan Academy, MIT Opencourseware along with the vast amount of growing video tutorials on almost any subject on Youtube. This is making the value of going to college worth less and less, if the end goal is just to obtain a piece of paper in order to get a job. Unless that job is within the science/technology/engineering field, it will most likely be displaced by technology sooner in the future. Open Source Communities is a great representation of how a resource based economic system would work. People share information and ideas, collaborating with each other to accomplish a goal or task without the incentive of money. 3. 3D printers & Nanotechnology Although still in its infancy, it is a fast emerging technology that is eventually bound to replace the manufacturing and retail industry in the future. In the future this technology will allow us to create almost any object in the comfort of our own homes. With 3D printers you can make clothes, shoes, tools, bags, instruments, sport equipment, automobile chassis, buildings etc. Nanotechnology is the next step of 3D printing and will allow us to molecularly construct almost any object, material, or matter. This means we can create food, electronic gadgets, living tissues and organs. Though this technology is still way far off into the future, it is very promising. So why would businesses continue to invest in technology/computers/machines? It would be to their best advantage to do so. The advantages are: 1. Higher Profits - It’s significantly less expensive than human labor in the long run. 2. Higher Productivity - Computers/machines accomplish tasks significantly quicker, more efficiently, accurately, and precisely than humans. 3. Can work 24/7, Doesn’t get tired (of course until it wears out or gets broken), doesn’t nag, doesn’t need vacations/ 401ks/pensions/insurance/& other liabilities. Of course there are still many jobs today that can’t be replaced by the automation of technology yet, but eventually anything that can be automated, will. Keep in mind this a long term process, but the trend is clear and it is moving in this direction. This disturbance of industries is what will cause the majority of the working population to be displaced in a Free Market. No work means no money, thus no purchasing power. We'll have a very high level of productivity, yet with only a few people that can afford them. Old industries might fall, but new industries emerge which means creation of new jobs. So people aren't out of luck after all right? Yes, this is true. There will still be people who have to design and maintain the machines and computers. Even so computers and machines will eventually be able to massproduce and repair themselves. The work that machines can't replace are the designing and creating of new ideas, technologies, and systems. Machines currently lack imagination/creativity, and don't have the capability to critically think (at least until we have AI). The only people that would really have jobs in the future will be computer programmers, engineers, scientists, and teachers. The problem is many people will be not able to learn and adapt quickly to this fast change of technology and will be left behind.

Economics

A-Resource-Based-Economy-is-better-than-Free-Markets/1/

From now on I will refer to the Resource Based economy as an "RBE" to make it shorter. For the 3rd round I will disprove the erroneous claims made by my opponent in the 2nd round. False Claim #1: "in a resource based economy, there is no incentive to work. When everybody simply gets what they need, what motivation is there to succeed? If the person could simply sit around and do nothing, or that person could cure cancer and get the same benefits as sitting around and doing nothing, why should he cure cancer? He get's no benefit from it. He therefore has little to no motivation to cure cancer. " Classicrobert claims that since everything will be provided, there wouldn't be any motivation to be productive. That people will become lazy bums who lay on their hammocks sipping kool-aid all day. This assumption is false. Solving problems is the real incentive In a RBE, the incentive is not money; the incentives are solving current problems, improving and discovering. So why exactly would a person be motivated to cure cancer if he gets the same benefits as doing nothing? This is a good question, but the answer is simple and lies within the question itself. The motivation of curing cancer is TO CURE CANCER. Curing cancer is actually already a benefit within itself, even if that person doesn't have cancer. It benefits him because he doesn't have to worry about getting the disease in the future and would make the rest of society healthier and happier which improves the whole economy. Today there are lots of people who do all kinds of volunteer services around the world which just disproves your argument that people would not be motivated to work without money as an incentive. People's motivations have not always been money. Most of the greatest inventions and technologies in history were created by people who wanted to make a significant impact on society such as Albert Einstein, Nikola Tesla, and Thomas Edison. The Wright Brothers invented the airplane because they wanted to prove that a flying machine was possible which would revolutionize transportation. The main reason Steve Jobs developed the iPod and iPhone was not because he was after the profits, but because he wanted to revolutionize the way we listened to music and the way we communicate and interact with our phones; the money was just secondary. People actually operate in a RBE everyday such as taking caring for their kids and doing chores around their house. People clean their homes not because someone is paying them to do it; they do it so that they have a clean house to live in, which is the reward/incentive. My opponent might argue that it's because these actions benefit the person himself. But if that same person is performing service for another person, then he wouldn't do it without a monetary incentive, because it doesn't benefit him. Well the fact is that the entire earth is our home and we are all connected. We are more productive as a team than individual groups competing against each other. In a RBE, every work performed by individuals benefits themselves and the whole community. It is a win-win situation. Money as an incentive is an illusion The true reason people work is not for the money, but for the standard of living that the money affords them. Money is only an incentive because the stuff that you want and need has a price tag. Consider this simple scenario: A homeless person is hungry and wants food. Since food costs money in a free market, he works to get money. Then finally he uses the money that he earned to buy food. What's my point? Money was never the incentive for working. Obtaining the food to satisfy his hunger was the real underlying incentive for wanting to work in the first place. Money only became an incentive because it was the only means to get the food which was his end goal. If you were stranded on island with a suitcase full of cash, but had no food, clothing, shelter, or technology, it would have no purpose. Money has no real intrinsic value within itself; its either only pieces of paper or numbers on a computer.You can't eat it; you can't build houses, cars, cell phones, or computers with it. Besides wiping your butt or creating a bonfire, it doesn't have any purpose by itself. False Claim #2 "In a resource based economy, there is little to no human progress." An RBE would actually have significantly more progress than a free market because it creates a better opportunity cost. People would have more time to focus on innovating and actually solving problems, instead of being constrained from working hours and hours at their jobs. This is akin to the period of the Neolithic Agricultural Revolution which liberated tribes from hunting all day and allowed them to devote more time in the diverse labors such as arts, music, pottery, tool making, etc. Art would actually flourish and people will be able to spend more time pursuing their passion such as playing instruments or sports. The free market hinders the growth and innovation of technology because every decision that is made is tied up with money; I'm not saying there is no innovation & progress in a free market economy; it just takes much longer. Today we have a lot of advanced technologies that already exist, yet are not being made available or viable for the majority of the consumers in the market. We have the resources to make every new car made to be electric if we wanted to, but car companies are impeded by the high costs of the materials required to build them. The same thing for renewable energies. So where is the progress here? Conclusion: If we had a RBE, humans would already be colonizing the moon, yet today most of the world is still worrying where to get their next meal. Con might argue that the governments are responsible for the slow growth of the market, and that free markets don't really exist, which is true. Even if free markets did exist progress would still be slower than RBE since technological abundance is against a profit driven system.

geothermal

From now on I will refer to the Resource Based economy as an “RBE” to make it shorter. For the 3rd round I will disprove the erroneous claims made by my opponent in the 2nd round. False Claim #1: "in a resource based economy, there is no incentive to work. When everybody simply gets what they need, what motivation is there to succeed? If the person could simply sit around and do nothing, or that person could cure cancer and get the same benefits as sitting around and doing nothing, why should he cure cancer? He get’s no benefit from it. He therefore has little to no motivation to cure cancer. ” Classicrobert claims that since everything will be provided, there wouldn't be any motivation to be productive. That people will become lazy bums who lay on their hammocks sipping kool-aid all day. This assumption is false. Solving problems is the real incentive In a RBE, the incentive is not money; the incentives are solving current problems, improving and discovering. So why exactly would a person be motivated to cure cancer if he gets the same benefits as doing nothing? This is a good question, but the answer is simple and lies within the question itself. The motivation of curing cancer is TO CURE CANCER. Curing cancer is actually already a benefit within itself, even if that person doesn’t have cancer. It benefits him because he doesn’t have to worry about getting the disease in the future and would make the rest of society healthier and happier which improves the whole economy. Today there are lots of people who do all kinds of volunteer services around the world which just disproves your argument that people would not be motivated to work without money as an incentive. People’s motivations have not always been money. Most of the greatest inventions and technologies in history were created by people who wanted to make a significant impact on society such as Albert Einstein, Nikola Tesla, and Thomas Edison. The Wright Brothers invented the airplane because they wanted to prove that a flying machine was possible which would revolutionize transportation. The main reason Steve Jobs developed the iPod and iPhone was not because he was after the profits, but because he wanted to revolutionize the way we listened to music and the way we communicate and interact with our phones; the money was just secondary. People actually operate in a RBE everyday such as taking caring for their kids and doing chores around their house. People clean their homes not because someone is paying them to do it; they do it so that they have a clean house to live in, which is the reward/incentive. My opponent might argue that it’s because these actions benefit the person himself. But if that same person is performing service for another person, then he wouldn’t do it without a monetary incentive, because it doesn’t benefit him. Well the fact is that the entire earth is our home and we are all connected. We are more productive as a team than individual groups competing against each other. In a RBE, every work performed by individuals benefits themselves and the whole community. It is a win-win situation. Money as an incentive is an illusion The true reason people work is not for the money, but for the standard of living that the money affords them. Money is only an incentive because the stuff that you want and need has a price tag. Consider this simple scenario: A homeless person is hungry and wants food. Since food costs money in a free market, he works to get money. Then finally he uses the money that he earned to buy food. What’s my point? Money was never the incentive for working. Obtaining the food to satisfy his hunger was the real underlying incentive for wanting to work in the first place. Money only became an incentive because it was the only means to get the food which was his end goal. If you were stranded on island with a suitcase full of cash, but had no food, clothing, shelter, or technology, it would have no purpose. Money has no real intrinsic value within itself; its either only pieces of paper or numbers on a computer.You can’t eat it; you can’t build houses, cars, cell phones, or computers with it. Besides wiping your butt or creating a bonfire, it doesn’t have any purpose by itself. False Claim #2 “In a resource based economy, there is little to no human progress.” An RBE would actually have significantly more progress than a free market because it creates a better opportunity cost. People would have more time to focus on innovating and actually solving problems, instead of being constrained from working hours and hours at their jobs. This is akin to the period of the Neolithic Agricultural Revolution which liberated tribes from hunting all day and allowed them to devote more time in the diverse labors such as arts, music, pottery, tool making, etc. Art would actually flourish and people will be able to spend more time pursuing their passion such as playing instruments or sports. The free market hinders the growth and innovation of technology because every decision that is made is tied up with money; I’m not saying there is no innovation & progress in a free market economy; it just takes much longer. Today we have a lot of advanced technologies that already exist, yet are not being made available or viable for the majority of the consumers in the market. We have the resources to make every new car made to be electric if we wanted to, but car companies are impeded by the high costs of the materials required to build them. The same thing for renewable energies. So where is the progress here? Conclusion: If we had a RBE, humans would already be colonizing the moon, yet today most of the world is still worrying where to get their next meal. Con might argue that the governments are responsible for the slow growth of the market, and that free markets don’t really exist, which is true. Even if free markets did exist progress would still be slower than RBE since technological abundance is against a profit driven system.

Economics

A-Resource-Based-Economy-is-better-than-Free-Markets/1/

I will disprove the "unrefuted arguments" which Con claims: 1." money is an incentive ... While it's nice to claim that solving problems is the only incentive people need to be productive, that is simply not true for the majority of the population." Con's example of the X Prize Foundation offering $10 million which incentivized scientists to build a commercial spacecraft is weak. Of course they would be incentivized by money because those scientists still need to pay their bills. I have already addressed this issue that the only reason why people would want money and why it has "implicit value", as you stated, in the first place is simply because we currently live under a monetary system. If there were no price tag on things, people would naturally have no incentive for money. "to remove a profit-driven system would be to change human nature ." Absolutely false. Money was never inherent in human nature to begin with. This logic is not hard to grasp and I'll prove again why it's valid. Con would 100% agree that no human being was born crying for money; babies cry for food, love, and nurture. When kids draw or build Legos, they're motivated to see their imagination manifest without the incentive of $$. Legos are no different from building real cars, bridges, etc. The fact is that humans didn't always live under a monetary system; in fact we initially lived in a resource-based system for thousands of years before civilizations existed. Nobody was paying cavemen money, but that didn't stop them from making/innovating weapons and hunting. Tribes shared/lived together as a family and made the best out of the resources available to them. Yes barter existed, but bartering for other stuff wasn't the main motivation for hunting, and tribes mostly used things they found and hunted for their own tribe. Even today there are places around the world where people live in a RBE & don't use money. In the Philippines, my dad used to live in a remote province area where his family planted rice/fruits/raised pigs/fished and the whole community shared each other's fruits of labor because there was more than enough for everyone. Yes I agree; in history money did help allow the standard of living to progress. Competition & free trade was useful because it was a fair way to distribute goods and services when scarcity still existed; Scarcity, as in a person wants something that someone else has. Money is just another technology invented by humans which served its purpose. Now that we are entering an age of information/technological/energy abundance, money's purpose will gradually cease. 2. "Why would someone do practical work if arts and sports are more enjoyable?" What you consider enjoyable may not be enjoyable to someone else; it's subjective. There are many people who find engineering/science enjoyable & do it as a hobby. 3. " a free market would simply become more service based." Yes jobs will be more service based in a free market, but once we've reached the point of tech. abundance, what incentive is there to work for money to buy things if we can just make most of the things we need at home with a 3D printer/nanotechnology? Machines would be doing ALL physical service/labor including mining raw materials, and human service jobs would all be STEM field jobs (Science/Technology/Engineering/Math). Providing service to earn money to buy another service is just inefficient; instead we would be much better off working together & collaborating our brains. Competition is good in other respects such as sports, but as a human race to solve our challenges, our real competition is the force of nature and time, not each other. "United we stand, divided we fall" is commonly used for a country, but why not for the whole world? If an alien civilization tried to invade the Earth, every person and nation would team up & forget about money and use every resource available necessary to defeat them. 4. "The Arts" In a RBE not only would people get basic necessities, but have unlimited access to almost ANYTHING that can be created by technology. Sorry I didn't state it in the original definition. Yes in a RBE you can still trade if you wish, but it's not necessary. Access vs. Ownership Like a public library, everyone will have access to anything they need but without an expiration date. You don't have to worry about stealing/crime or scarcity because 1. there is more than enough for everyone 2. People don't want all the same things to use at the same time 3. People woudn't want 50 BMW cars; they probably just need one at a time. This is a more efficient way of using resources than ownership in a free market. Today how many cars do you see parked in the streets & parking lots? Most cars are just sitting not being used for about 80% of the day, while someone out there without access to transportation could use it. In a RBE, much less cars are needed & would save a lot of resources that can be used for other things, thus better opportunity cost. 5. "an electric car driven 50,000 miles will have higher CO2 emissions than a similar-sized gas car" Electric cars are not what cause higher CO2 emissions. CO2 emitting power plants that provide most of the electricity today are to blame. Ever heard of Tesla, the electric car company? They're revolutionizing the auto industry and currently placing "supercharger stations" all over the country that use 100% solar energy to fuel their customer's electric cars. 6. " Money incentive extends resource longevity ." Totally false. In a free market, planned obsolescence of products is necessary to profit. Every year people buy new products (iphones, TVs, cars) without any significant improvements in features and design, while landfills pile up with "obsolete products". In RBE products will be designed with the latest technology available. Conclusion: An RBE efficiently uses energy & resources while a free market doesn't. Sources: <URL> <URL>

geothermal

I will disprove the “unrefuted arguments” which Con claims: 1." money is an incentive … While it's nice to claim that solving problems is the only incentive people need to be productive, that is simply not true for the majority of the population." Con's example of the X Prize Foundation offering $10 million which incentivized scientists to build a commercial spacecraft is weak. Of course they would be incentivized by money because those scientists still need to pay their bills. I have already addressed this issue that the only reason why people would want money and why it has “implicit value”, as you stated, in the first place is simply because we currently live under a monetary system. If there were no price tag on things, people would naturally have no incentive for money. “to remove a profit-driven system would be to change human nature .” Absolutely false. Money was never inherent in human nature to begin with. This logic is not hard to grasp and I’ll prove again why it’s valid. Con would 100% agree that no human being was born crying for money; babies cry for food, love, and nurture. When kids draw or build Legos, they’re motivated to see their imagination manifest without the incentive of $$. Legos are no different from building real cars, bridges, etc. The fact is that humans didn’t always live under a monetary system; in fact we initially lived in a resource-based system for thousands of years before civilizations existed. Nobody was paying cavemen money, but that didn’t stop them from making/innovating weapons and hunting. Tribes shared/lived together as a family and made the best out of the resources available to them. Yes barter existed, but bartering for other stuff wasn’t the main motivation for hunting, and tribes mostly used things they found and hunted for their own tribe. Even today there are places around the world where people live in a RBE & don’t use money. In the Philippines, my dad used to live in a remote province area where his family planted rice/fruits/raised pigs/fished and the whole community shared each other’s fruits of labor because there was more than enough for everyone. Yes I agree; in history money did help allow the standard of living to progress. Competition & free trade was useful because it was a fair way to distribute goods and services when scarcity still existed; Scarcity, as in a person wants something that someone else has. Money is just another technology invented by humans which served its purpose. Now that we are entering an age of information/technological/energy abundance, money’s purpose will gradually cease. 2. “Why would someone do practical work if arts and sports are more enjoyable?” What you consider enjoyable may not be enjoyable to someone else; it’s subjective. There are many people who find engineering/science enjoyable & do it as a hobby. 3. “ a free market would simply become more service based.” Yes jobs will be more service based in a free market, but once we’ve reached the point of tech. abundance, what incentive is there to work for money to buy things if we can just make most of the things we need at home with a 3D printer/nanotechnology? Machines would be doing ALL physical service/labor including mining raw materials, and human service jobs would all be STEM field jobs (Science/Technology/Engineering/Math). Providing service to earn money to buy another service is just inefficient; instead we would be much better off working together & collaborating our brains. Competition is good in other respects such as sports, but as a human race to solve our challenges, our real competition is the force of nature and time, not each other. “United we stand, divided we fall” is commonly used for a country, but why not for the whole world? If an alien civilization tried to invade the Earth, every person and nation would team up & forget about money and use every resource available necessary to defeat them. 4. “The Arts” In a RBE not only would people get basic necessities, but have unlimited access to almost ANYTHING that can be created by technology. Sorry I didn’t state it in the original definition. Yes in a RBE you can still trade if you wish, but it’s not necessary. Access vs. Ownership Like a public library, everyone will have access to anything they need but without an expiration date. You don’t have to worry about stealing/crime or scarcity because 1. there is more than enough for everyone 2. People don’t want all the same things to use at the same time 3. People woudn’t want 50 BMW cars; they probably just need one at a time. This is a more efficient way of using resources than ownership in a free market. Today how many cars do you see parked in the streets & parking lots? Most cars are just sitting not being used for about 80% of the day, while someone out there without access to transportation could use it. In a RBE, much less cars are needed & would save a lot of resources that can be used for other things, thus better opportunity cost. 5. “an electric car driven 50,000 miles will have higher CO2 emissions than a similar-sized gas car” Electric cars are not what cause higher CO2 emissions. CO2 emitting power plants that provide most of the electricity today are to blame. Ever heard of Tesla, the electric car company? They’re revolutionizing the auto industry and currently placing “supercharger stations” all over the country that use 100% solar energy to fuel their customer’s electric cars. 6. “ Money incentive extends resource longevity .” Totally false. In a free market, planned obsolescence of products is necessary to profit. Every year people buy new products (iphones, TVs, cars) without any significant improvements in features and design, while landfills pile up with “obsolete products”. In RBE products will be designed with the latest technology available. Conclusion: An RBE efficiently uses energy & resources while a free market doesn’t. Sources: www.thevenusproject.com www.teslamotors.com

Economics

A-Resource-Based-Economy-is-better-than-Free-Markets/1/

Money as an incentive: In a RBE money's "implicit value" does not apply. 1. Part of true human incentive is our curiosity. This has been true ever since we were kids. Kids constantly want to explore and learn things without being offered $$$; Heck they don't even know or use money until a certain age. Incentive for money isn't inborn. It is taught to us as we grow older in the monetary system. 2. $$$ is just a technology created by human beings & was never in nature to begin with. Competition/trade: Yes free trade was beneficial in the past because 1. Advanced technologies today did not exist before. 2. The world wasn't a global economy. It was the "survival of the fittest" & "divide and conquer". A RBE wouldn't have been a good system during that time. In an age of information/technology/energy abundance, exchanging for other stuff will no longer be necessary since someone can just as easily obtain/access what another person has. "Being profit driven was inherent to human nature", not money. Thanks for clearing it up & yes I agree we are all "profit-driven" beings, & want to have a net positive/personal gain for ourselves. Though, personal gain doesn't necessarily only imply material things, but also things that really matter to us as human beings such as receiving love & companionship from family/friends, free time, and honing talents. Humans are social beings and cannot live only to profit for themselves. "No man is an island." You can have all the things in the world but if you're the only person left, what good do all those things do? You have no one to share/enjoy it with which won't give you happiness. Humans are only as "profit-driven" for things as much as they have people to enjoy it with. Money can be exchanged for any physical things but it can't buy true friendship & love. Today a lot of women marry rich men for their money, which is expected in a monetary system. In a RBE people will inherently have better moral values such as loving & respecting other people for who they are, rather than how much money or things they have. Electric Cars: Con is ignoring the fact that implementing renewable energy will essentially eliminate CO2 emissions because it's clear that no business can profit from free abundant renewable source of energy. Manufacturing electric cars will be CO2 free. Today, financial cost is why renewable energies have been struggling to be implemented & also since there's less profit in it in the long run. The question shouldn't be "Do we have the money?", but rather "DO WE HAVE THE RESOURCES?" The answer is YES. Today the military industry uses up so much resources to build weapons, drones, WOMD, etc. which all their purpose are to end lives. Imagine how much better our world would be if we used all those resources for creation instead of destruction. Today we are using technology many for the wrong purposes since it's profitable. Access Vs. Ownership - Relatively, we wouldn't need as much cars because let's say people work 8 hours a day. Those 8 hours you are not using your car, someone else could have been using it; it's called sharing and it's efficiently making the most out of available resource. This can apply to almost any item, not just cars. It saves resources from being wasted because stuff are not just sitting around on a shelf/garage/parking lot, but being used; that's what it was made for. Supplies will be efficiently shared so it will be used all the time & nothing is wasted. If the demand grows for certain items, then computer algorithms will intelligently calculate how much more we need to make based on the current data. 1. Scarcity: Yes scarcity will always exist since we live in a finite planet, but a RBE significantly reduces this issue by efficiently & intelligently managing the Earth's resources (supply) with technology & renewable energy, and determining the current population demand. Whether RBE or Free Market, people will always have unlimited wants, BUT people only have so much capacity & obviously don't have enough time to spend with all their unlimited wants. Ex: You can't ride 10 ars simultaneously. You can't play guitar while playing Xbox while driving...you get my point? While we may have unlimited wants we can only focus on one or two activities at a time; thus you would only use limited amount of items at a certain time. But a flaw of a free market is that consumers have to perpetually buy & consume products even if there isn't enough respurces available. We cannot have exponential monetary economic growth in a finite resource planet. 2. "We have too large of a population for that to be determined, and for that to be true, much more would need to be produced." An RBE would take a survey of every person's realistic demand with the help of computers, internet, and data management systems (technology, it's amazing isn't it). Again technology will keep track of who wants to use which items at what time & their current availability. Of course it's not fixed but computers adjust to live data & updates automatically. This is part of what's called "The Internet of Things". 3. "Supply and demand is the best way to determine how much should be produced" Supply & Demand still also applies in a RBE; the population cannot live above the aggregate resources available. As I have said before, technology keeps track of the total supply and demands. CONCLUSION: Significantly more progress in a RBE than free market. -100% renewable energy -latest tech./things will be built to last for as long as possible, unlike planned obsolescence in a Free Market. -smart, efficient management/distribution of resources. -Eliminates hunger/diseases/violence/crime. -Human potential & creativity is unleashed with the liberation from boring daily meaningless jobs. Sources: RBE vs. Libertarianism: <URL>... Disruptive tech.: <URL>...

geothermal

Money as an incentive: In a RBE money’s “implicit value” does not apply. 1. Part of true human incentive is our curiosity. This has been true ever since we were kids. Kids constantly want to explore and learn things without being offered $$$; Heck they don’t even know or use money until a certain age. Incentive for money isn't inborn. It is taught to us as we grow older in the monetary system. 2. $$$ is just a technology created by human beings & was never in nature to begin with. Competition/trade: Yes free trade was beneficial in the past because 1. Advanced technologies today did not exist before. 2. The world wasn’t a global economy. It was the "survival of the fittest" & "divide and conquer". A RBE wouldn’t have been a good system during that time. In an age of information/technology/energy abundance, exchanging for other stuff will no longer be necessary since someone can just as easily obtain/access what another person has. “Being profit driven was inherent to human nature”, not money. Thanks for clearing it up & yes I agree we are all “profit-driven” beings, & want to have a net positive/personal gain for ourselves. Though, personal gain doesn’t necessarily only imply material things, but also things that really matter to us as human beings such as receiving love & companionship from family/friends, free time, and honing talents. Humans are social beings and cannot live only to profit for themselves. “No man is an island.” You can have all the things in the world but if you’re the only person left, what good do all those things do? You have no one to share/enjoy it with which won’t give you happiness. Humans are only as “profit-driven” for things as much as they have people to enjoy it with. Money can be exchanged for any physical things but it can’t buy true friendship & love. Today a lot of women marry rich men for their money, which is expected in a monetary system. In a RBE people will inherently have better moral values such as loving & respecting other people for who they are, rather than how much money or things they have. Electric Cars: Con is ignoring the fact that implementing renewable energy will essentially eliminate CO2 emissions because it’s clear that no business can profit from free abundant renewable source of energy. Manufacturing electric cars will be CO2 free. Today, financial cost is why renewable energies have been struggling to be implemented & also since there’s less profit in it in the long run. The question shouldn’t be “Do we have the money?”, but rather “DO WE HAVE THE RESOURCES?” The answer is YES. Today the military industry uses up so much resources to build weapons, drones, WOMD, etc. which all their purpose are to end lives. Imagine how much better our world would be if we used all those resources for creation instead of destruction. Today we are using technology many for the wrong purposes since it’s profitable. Access Vs. Ownership – Relatively, we wouldn’t need as much cars because let’s say people work 8 hours a day. Those 8 hours you are not using your car, someone else could have been using it; it’s called sharing and it’s efficiently making the most out of available resource. This can apply to almost any item, not just cars. It saves resources from being wasted because stuff are not just sitting around on a shelf/garage/parking lot, but being used; that’s what it was made for. Supplies will be efficiently shared so it will be used all the time & nothing is wasted. If the demand grows for certain items, then computer algorithms will intelligently calculate how much more we need to make based on the current data. 1. Scarcity: Yes scarcity will always exist since we live in a finite planet, but a RBE significantly reduces this issue by efficiently & intelligently managing the Earth’s resources (supply) with technology & renewable energy, and determining the current population demand. Whether RBE or Free Market, people will always have unlimited wants, BUT people only have so much capacity & obviously don’t have enough time to spend with all their unlimited wants. Ex: You can’t ride 10 ars simultaneously. You can’t play guitar while playing Xbox while driving...you get my point? While we may have unlimited wants we can only focus on one or two activities at a time; thus you would only use limited amount of items at a certain time. But a flaw of a free market is that consumers have to perpetually buy & consume products even if there isn't enough respurces available. We cannot have exponential monetary economic growth in a finite resource planet. 2. “We have too large of a population for that to be determined, and for that to be true, much more would need to be produced.” An RBE would take a survey of every person's realistic demand with the help of computers, internet, and data management systems (technology, it’s amazing isn’t it). Again technology will keep track of who wants to use which items at what time & their current availability. Of course it’s not fixed but computers adjust to live data & updates automatically. This is part of what’s called “The Internet of Things”. 3. “Supply and demand is the best way to determine how much should be produced” Supply & Demand still also applies in a RBE; the population cannot live above the aggregate resources available. As I have said before, technology keeps track of the total supply and demands. CONCLUSION: Significantly more progress in a RBE than free market. -100% renewable energy -latest tech./things will be built to last for as long as possible, unlike planned obsolescence in a Free Market. -smart, efficient management/distribution of resources. -Eliminates hunger/diseases/violence/crime. -Human potential & creativity is unleashed with the liberation from boring daily meaningless jobs. Sources: RBE vs. Libertarianism: http://tinyurl.com... Disruptive tech.: http://www.mckinsey.com...

Economics

A-Resource-Based-Economy-is-better-than-Free-Markets/1/

My position as pro is not made yet, but there are only two, being: a Zombie Apocalypse (which I will define in a moment) would destroy the living human race more effectively than a Robot Uprising. Or thus, the polar opposite of this stance is that a Zombie Apocalypse would NOT be more effective in causing living man's extinction than a Robot Uprising (or A Robot Uprising would be more effective in causing living man's extinction than a Zombie Apocalypse). I am letting my opponent choose which premise they wish to take up. Please only explain which topic you choose for round 1, so that we can treat this as a 3 round debate. Also, only accept if you plan to see this all the way through. First some quick definitions: A Zombie Apocalypse is when a reanimated corpse (or zombie) rises from the dead. The way this occurs is by the X virus that spreads by air, and only affects dead human bodies, centering itself in the brain, allowing the ability to perform basic motor functions (walking, biting, etc). It can spread its disease by biting a victim/getting it's tissue inside the victim (either of which will kill and transform the victim into a fellow zombie within a few hours). It can only 'die' by removing the head or destroying the brain, or by its complete and total decomposition of all body tissue, except for bones (this can take several weeks when exposed to air, but since it will always be moving, environments and climates will constantly be changing, so we will assume that this stage will not fully occur for a few years). Their top speed can only reach maybe a brisk trot if the zombie is in good condition, they can't climb, but that can 'swim' . They can detect living things from dead, and will chase/kill any living matter, including animals, but the 'disease' does not affect them. The Apocalypse part is because the zombies will spread on a world wide level (virus like), spreading the virus by killing and transforming human, until the human race is extinct. [These parameters were taken from Dawn of he Dead, Z War, The Walking Dead, How to survive a Zombie Apocalypse, Shawn of the Dead, and 28 Days Later] The robot uprising is when robots (usually the case is those programmed with Artificial Intelligence) gain consciousness and are unsatisfied with the slave lifestyle they are forced to live by, and use their superior strength, speed, and armoring to take over man kind. They can die from Electro-Magnetic Pulses, Severe Crushing, and substantial Firepower that destroys their frame (heavy guns, missiles, armor piercing bullets, etc), and any of natures own weapons, in particularly rust and water damage to electronics. They cannot convert electronics, but have to manually reprogram them to work for them. Early stages (assume like I, Robot/Terminator design) can run at 50 mph (fastest human speed is close to 30) their jumping power is decreased due to their heavier weight. They are powered by electricity, and have a battery life of 1 month without recharging. Early stages have no attached weaponry, or movement enhancers besides those it has naturally. They can communicate electronically through radio waves and satellite, and are programmed through a head computer who we can assume started the rebellion by reprogramming all able robots. [Parameters were taken from I, Robot, The Matrix, Enter the Matrix, Matrix comics, and Terminator) Choose wisely. Nuclear weapons will not be taken into account, as it closes either case fairly quickly.

Darth_Grievous_42

My position as pro is not made yet, but there are only two, being: a Zombie Apocalypse (which I will define in a moment) would destroy the living human race more effectively than a Robot Uprising. Or thus, the polar opposite of this stance is that a Zombie Apocalypse would NOT be more effective in causing living man's extinction than a Robot Uprising (or A Robot Uprising would be more effective in causing living man's extinction than a Zombie Apocalypse). I am letting my opponent choose which premise they wish to take up. Please only explain which topic you choose for round 1, so that we can treat this as a 3 round debate. Also, only accept if you plan to see this all the way through. First some quick definitions: A Zombie Apocalypse is when a reanimated corpse (or zombie) rises from the dead. The way this occurs is by the X virus that spreads by air, and only affects dead human bodies, centering itself in the brain, allowing the ability to perform basic motor functions (walking, biting, etc). It can spread its disease by biting a victim/getting it's tissue inside the victim (either of which will kill and transform the victim into a fellow zombie within a few hours). It can only 'die' by removing the head or destroying the brain, or by its complete and total decomposition of all body tissue, except for bones (this can take several weeks when exposed to air, but since it will always be moving, environments and climates will constantly be changing, so we will assume that this stage will not fully occur for a few years). Their top speed can only reach maybe a brisk trot if the zombie is in good condition, they can't climb, but that can 'swim' . They can detect living things from dead, and will chase/kill any living matter, including animals, but the 'disease' does not affect them. The Apocalypse part is because the zombies will spread on a world wide level (virus like), spreading the virus by killing and transforming human, until the human race is extinct. [These parameters were taken from Dawn of he Dead, Z War, The Walking Dead, How to survive a Zombie Apocalypse, Shawn of the Dead, and 28 Days Later] The robot uprising is when robots (usually the case is those programmed with Artificial Intelligence) gain consciousness and are unsatisfied with the slave lifestyle they are forced to live by, and use their superior strength, speed, and armoring to take over man kind. They can die from Electro-Magnetic Pulses, Severe Crushing, and substantial Firepower that destroys their frame (heavy guns, missiles, armor piercing bullets, etc), and any of natures own weapons, in particularly rust and water damage to electronics. They cannot convert electronics, but have to manually reprogram them to work for them. Early stages (assume like I, Robot/Terminator design) can run at 50 mph (fastest human speed is close to 30) their jumping power is decreased due to their heavier weight. They are powered by electricity, and have a battery life of 1 month without recharging. Early stages have no attached weaponry, or movement enhancers besides those it has naturally. They can communicate electronically through radio waves and satellite, and are programmed through a head computer who we can assume started the rebellion by reprogramming all able robots. [Parameters were taken from I, Robot, The Matrix, Enter the Matrix, Matrix comics, and Terminator) Choose wisely. Nuclear weapons will not be taken into account, as it closes either case fairly quickly.

Society

A-Zombie-Apocalypse-would-be-More-Effective-in-causing-Living-Mans-extinction-than-a-Robot-Uprising/1/

Therefore, I will be defending the Zombie Apocalypse. Now, most people when they think of these two scenarios would think that 'of course, the smart mighty robots would be more effective', but lets get a few definitions straight: (The source for both these definitions is Oxford online dictionary) Effective - adjective 1 producing a desired or intended result Extinct - adjective 1 (of a species or other large group) having no living members Thus by my premise a zombie apocalypse will produce the intended result (mans extinction) better than a robot uprising. We can assume that there are several factors that will make it better, the ones I can currently think of are surprise, speed, global reaction, and resistance. If Ragnar_Rahl thinks of more qualifications I welcome them, and will not only rebut the way they help his Armageddon, but will fit it into my own as well. Surprise - What do people think of when they think of a zombie? Something scary that could only ever be a work of fiction. There has never yet been a credible zombie reporting, or in anyway some sign that my even hint at corpses reanimating. However, for robots there are, seeing as how they are our own creation. We follow their progress every step of the way, and all robotic advancements are highly publicized <URL>... <URL>... So, there's a high possibility that when robots are more of a common place thing, people especially the government) may see early warning signs and begin preparations for a possible rebellion. However for my scenario, there is no one who believes a zombie outbreak could ever occur. If one did (remember, both are hypothetical) then it would totally catch everyone by surprise. Most zombie enthusiasts agree that people will treat any small outbreaks as crazed, rabies-infested people. Authorities will try to subdue them, and hospitals will try to cure them. People who have fought back will either die, or be viewed as a common shoot out or other crime. Most if not all, will have no viable proof to show the public that it was the living dead, only their personal testimonies. No police officer in his right mind (even if it is true) will believe "I shot him because he was a zombie!" By the time it starts to happen on a worldwide scale, it will be to late to put up any effective resistance. Next, when there begin to be bite victims, and they are brought to hospitals, this will be when things really go bad. The bites will probably be treated as any other emergency, of course with differing levels (serious to not). When they 'come back' at the surgery table, they WILL take doctors and nurses by surprise, as someone with a flat line does not ever get back up, thus biting maybe one or two (maybe three in total chaos) and in the process infecting that man more. Because of the high deaths, all occurring at one place, these will be the first hotspots. Because peoples naturally human belief about the definitely of death, everyone will treat it as less than it is, until it is too late. So my scenario is more lethal, simply because it is so unexpected. Speed - This is a global thing mind you. The reactions I described will be, most likely, on a global scale in any society with hospitals and police force. Third world countries with neither will go faster, as they will probably assume it witchcraft or miracle and either try to heal it communally or praise it, respectively. But the fact is this will spread like a wildfire. One zombie bite transforms a victim, therefore, there are now two zombies. Those two bite 1 victim, now there are 4. This process continues like the tale of the rice an chess board, doubling until it is large scale. Large populations will fall first. Another theory most agree on is that governments will try and defend large cities (when they figure it out) and call on their populations to meet there, where they can more easily defend them. But this is extremely flawed. Minor bite victims won't turn immediately, so they will enter the cities with all 10,000 or so other people, and when they turn, the chain reaction starts again from within. So large cities, or over populated areas will go the fastest. A robotic take over would take time to build anything of effectiveness, and then they will have to bring on a full-fledged battle, to which soldiers will fight back (and most likely lose). So Zombies will kill humans faster, and more effectively here. Global reaction - As I stated earlier, no one will treat it as it properly needed to, simply because no one will believe it until its chasing them in their own house. The attempts to control it, once realized, will do more harm than good. Not only the zombies, but humans on humans will play a role. People won't trust each other; there will be violence, looting, and chaos everywhere. Nobody will work together, and those who do will only be the closest of families ad friends, who only care about themselves and will not be stopped by any resistance. It's more than probable, that man will kill man for the safety of himself. There will be 'heroic rescues' of loved ones that in the end turn into suicide missions when they run right into a zombie horde. Suicide, both religious and otherwise, will kill a majority of humans. 'Its the rapture!' 'God is punishing man!' 'I don't wanna be eaten!' will be one in a hundred reasons people will give before ending themselves. Unless they shoot themselves in the head, their dead corpses will reanimate as well, only adding to the problem. A robot uprising has only so many resources and machines, were mine directly uses the human population it is destroying as its fuel. Resistance - Here is probably where you think you've won. How can any person possibly say that a slow, fleshy, stupid zombie could ever hold any weight over a total armor, better than human robot? While this is true, it's also the wrong thinking. Remember, I specifically said that only a headshot would definitely end a zombie. All our military are only prepared for gun-to-gun combat, or at least any kind where all parts of the body can kill the enemy. But with a zombie, its only real weak spot is the head. Preliminary military action will shoot at all the body, some lucky machine gun fire probably getting the head. But it's extremely hard to get a head shot without experience. So most fire will not be effective, until the horde is coming right down on you. Not to mention the human 'fight or flight' factor. Most people will run at the sight of a dead walking corpse, blood dripping and entrails waiving in the wind, and those who fight will probably not do so effectively until the last minute. Any death on the human side that does not do injury to the brain will only add to zombie numbers, and only helps with the effectiveness of mans extinction. Yes, I admit, a robot would be harder to kill. However, any robot can meet its end by the right circuit being hit, or computer damage, hull damage, jamming, etc. But there's only one way to stop a zombie, and in more cases than not, resistance only helps the cause. So this is my first reasoning to why a zombie apocalypse will kill mankind more effectively. Its own creation is directly beneficial to the desired effect. Man will mostly help its spread through ignorance of the real problem, all over the world. And mans resistance ability is minimal, and more often than not, beneficial to the zombie side. I will say right now that of a robot takeover would destroy mankind, but nowhere near as fast, efficiently, and global as there will be prepared defenses, direct offensive at the start, and is time consuming as it will be a total war, rather than a disease outbreak. Both will destroy mankind, zombies will just do it better. For outside information, the Matrix's robot uprising took 41 years to come into full fruition, while the events of Dawn of the Dead occurred within a week.

Darth_Grievous_42

Therefore, I will be defending the Zombie Apocalypse. Now, most people when they think of these two scenarios would think that 'of course, the smart mighty robots would be more effective', but lets get a few definitions straight: (The source for both these definitions is Oxford online dictionary) Effective - adjective 1 producing a desired or intended result Extinct - adjective 1 (of a species or other large group) having no living members Thus by my premise a zombie apocalypse will produce the intended result (mans extinction) better than a robot uprising. We can assume that there are several factors that will make it better, the ones I can currently think of are surprise, speed, global reaction, and resistance. If Ragnar_Rahl thinks of more qualifications I welcome them, and will not only rebut the way they help his Armageddon, but will fit it into my own as well. Surprise - What do people think of when they think of a zombie? Something scary that could only ever be a work of fiction. There has never yet been a credible zombie reporting, or in anyway some sign that my even hint at corpses reanimating. However, for robots there are, seeing as how they are our own creation. We follow their progress every step of the way, and all robotic advancements are highly publicized http://youtube.com... http://youtube.com... So, there's a high possibility that when robots are more of a common place thing, people especially the government) may see early warning signs and begin preparations for a possible rebellion. However for my scenario, there is no one who believes a zombie outbreak could ever occur. If one did (remember, both are hypothetical) then it would totally catch everyone by surprise. Most zombie enthusiasts agree that people will treat any small outbreaks as crazed, rabies-infested people. Authorities will try to subdue them, and hospitals will try to cure them. People who have fought back will either die, or be viewed as a common shoot out or other crime. Most if not all, will have no viable proof to show the public that it was the living dead, only their personal testimonies. No police officer in his right mind (even if it is true) will believe "I shot him because he was a zombie!" By the time it starts to happen on a worldwide scale, it will be to late to put up any effective resistance. Next, when there begin to be bite victims, and they are brought to hospitals, this will be when things really go bad. The bites will probably be treated as any other emergency, of course with differing levels (serious to not). When they 'come back' at the surgery table, they WILL take doctors and nurses by surprise, as someone with a flat line does not ever get back up, thus biting maybe one or two (maybe three in total chaos) and in the process infecting that man more. Because of the high deaths, all occurring at one place, these will be the first hotspots. Because peoples naturally human belief about the definitely of death, everyone will treat it as less than it is, until it is too late. So my scenario is more lethal, simply because it is so unexpected. Speed - This is a global thing mind you. The reactions I described will be, most likely, on a global scale in any society with hospitals and police force. Third world countries with neither will go faster, as they will probably assume it witchcraft or miracle and either try to heal it communally or praise it, respectively. But the fact is this will spread like a wildfire. One zombie bite transforms a victim, therefore, there are now two zombies. Those two bite 1 victim, now there are 4. This process continues like the tale of the rice an chess board, doubling until it is large scale. Large populations will fall first. Another theory most agree on is that governments will try and defend large cities (when they figure it out) and call on their populations to meet there, where they can more easily defend them. But this is extremely flawed. Minor bite victims won't turn immediately, so they will enter the cities with all 10,000 or so other people, and when they turn, the chain reaction starts again from within. So large cities, or over populated areas will go the fastest. A robotic take over would take time to build anything of effectiveness, and then they will have to bring on a full-fledged battle, to which soldiers will fight back (and most likely lose). So Zombies will kill humans faster, and more effectively here. Global reaction - As I stated earlier, no one will treat it as it properly needed to, simply because no one will believe it until its chasing them in their own house. The attempts to control it, once realized, will do more harm than good. Not only the zombies, but humans on humans will play a role. People won't trust each other; there will be violence, looting, and chaos everywhere. Nobody will work together, and those who do will only be the closest of families ad friends, who only care about themselves and will not be stopped by any resistance. It's more than probable, that man will kill man for the safety of himself. There will be 'heroic rescues' of loved ones that in the end turn into suicide missions when they run right into a zombie horde. Suicide, both religious and otherwise, will kill a majority of humans. 'Its the rapture!' 'God is punishing man!' 'I don't wanna be eaten!' will be one in a hundred reasons people will give before ending themselves. Unless they shoot themselves in the head, their dead corpses will reanimate as well, only adding to the problem. A robot uprising has only so many resources and machines, were mine directly uses the human population it is destroying as its fuel. Resistance - Here is probably where you think you've won. How can any person possibly say that a slow, fleshy, stupid zombie could ever hold any weight over a total armor, better than human robot? While this is true, it's also the wrong thinking. Remember, I specifically said that only a headshot would definitely end a zombie. All our military are only prepared for gun-to-gun combat, or at least any kind where all parts of the body can kill the enemy. But with a zombie, its only real weak spot is the head. Preliminary military action will shoot at all the body, some lucky machine gun fire probably getting the head. But it's extremely hard to get a head shot without experience. So most fire will not be effective, until the horde is coming right down on you. Not to mention the human 'fight or flight' factor. Most people will run at the sight of a dead walking corpse, blood dripping and entrails waiving in the wind, and those who fight will probably not do so effectively until the last minute. Any death on the human side that does not do injury to the brain will only add to zombie numbers, and only helps with the effectiveness of mans extinction. Yes, I admit, a robot would be harder to kill. However, any robot can meet its end by the right circuit being hit, or computer damage, hull damage, jamming, etc. But there's only one way to stop a zombie, and in more cases than not, resistance only helps the cause. So this is my first reasoning to why a zombie apocalypse will kill mankind more effectively. Its own creation is directly beneficial to the desired effect. Man will mostly help its spread through ignorance of the real problem, all over the world. And mans resistance ability is minimal, and more often than not, beneficial to the zombie side. I will say right now that of a robot takeover would destroy mankind, but nowhere near as fast, efficiently, and global as there will be prepared defenses, direct offensive at the start, and is time consuming as it will be a total war, rather than a disease outbreak. Both will destroy mankind, zombies will just do it better. For outside information, the Matrix's robot uprising took 41 years to come into full fruition, while the events of Dawn of the Dead occurred within a week.

Society

A-Zombie-Apocalypse-would-be-More-Effective-in-causing-Living-Mans-extinction-than-a-Robot-Uprising/1/

I would rather leave 'desire and intended'. It is after all, the desired outcome of our premises, not ourselves. Either way though it does not necessarily matter, so long as is implied what the intended outcome is. I will not deny my opponents claim on the analogy of the 'Salem Witch hysteria on steroids', rather I encourage it. I would very much suspect that if any kind of organized resistance does arise they would be overloaded on panic and kill anyone with so much as a dirt smudge. This only adds to the eradication of man. The Zombie panic is causing people to kill one another, thus adding to the outcome of mans extinction, therefore, adding to my case. But I do take argument with Rahl's case that people will defend robotics. I think many people are aware of the dangers a robot uprising holds. Once the news gets out that a robot has been gifted with AI, there will most likely be mass protesting. Governments may even put in pre-defenses if such an event were to occur (of course assuring the public that it is only a precaution). Also it is possible they will mandate that every robot have any easy access weak spot that could terminate it just incase, and make public announcements on where these places are. As you pointed out, we are all aware of robots, and thus, they will also be aware on how to fight them. As I stated before, this is not a virus with an origin point, but world wide, meaning all continents are effected. But if your bio-containment theory does come into effect that only goes further into killing mankind. Zombies do not act like an army where they have a campout that can be easily barraged, but walk among people as they were once people. This means that if any government acted on such a tactic and bombed certain areas to ash, they would kill zombies but also probably much more people. Therefore, this argument as well adds to my conclusion. But your theory also works against you directly, as I could say the same thing. These robots must have a power source, and can also be speculated that they have a main computer base. All that a government would have to do in defense is 'nuke' (your definition) either of those two sources. Rebuilding either would require time, granted less if robots rather than humans built them, but time nonetheless. Such an intricate and hefty design on either source would take at least 1-2 weeks, not to mention finding the necessary supplies (most if not all of which would be held by humans). This valuable time would severely cripple the robot side, giving humans that much headway to develop and execute a hard offensive. Therefore your 'nuking' works for me. Any company has to meet guidelines by the federal government. This is why there are health inspections on food and medicine, and safety requirements on cars and planes (among others). If the government chooses to restrict or limit a companies product, they have no choice, otherwise they will be shut down and prosecuted. Any businessman would probably rather shutdown a few assembly lines than risk his life of comfort. Speed - If anyone has ever been in a crowded place, you know that someone briskly trotting still has some momentum when they come into contact with you. So, we can logically conclude that even if the maximum speed a zombie can reach is only a light jog, it still is effective, especially as most attacks will likely be indoors, where 50 mph doesn't have all that much use. Yes, robots might be more organized, but because they are, and have to use technology in order to, all of which humans have access to view and decode, it only increases the chances that an effective human defense can be mounted before this sneak attack occurs. A robot hijacking of a car and plane would also not go unnoticed, and probably would be front page news, adding to suspicion and defense. The robots have to work like an organized army, establishing bases, tactics, enlisting, all of which you have pointed out, and takes time. When they finally do put their plans into action, that has probably already been a month of only PREPARATION, all as I've pointed out could be intercepted or concluded upon by humans thus calling on pre-defense. Because of that, when they do actually execute their plans, already there are preparations in place, and a full scale war, which even thought the robots will win, has to take time (1 year at least). But a zombie outbreak acts just like a disease, spreading from one person to the next internally. The surprise factor and lack of a cure will only increase the speed that the infection will spread. Quick stats: in the Civil War, more soldiers died from disease than gunshots. That same principal applies here. Like I said before, the zombies benefit directly from mans death, only strengthening it and causing more to die. As much as an organized war kills people, disease kills far, far more. So, while robots have strength and would win any war, they still have to make and fight it, where as zombies act on pure disease-like instinct, causing more death, achieving faster the desired goal of mans extinction. On suicide - religions can have as many rules as they want, but people have to follow them. People won't think straight in such a crisis as the zombie one, and will turn to whatever the strongest influence is, being a fanatic preacher saying to join God faster in heaven by killing yourself or whatever. People will believe anything that fits the present case, and mass suicide is one of those (Such as the 1978 Jamestown incident). On Decomposition - true, some shots will cripple a zombies movement, but what you have to realize is that half the movement that humans can do is only by will. If someone is shot in the harm, they still can move their arms in certain ways by the muscles that weren't damaged, the resulting "Ah, I can't move my arm" is mostly due to the sheer pain. Zombies don't feel pain. So while certain shots can damage the movement, not all b far. Besides, most wounds would be to the torso, where only useless organs (to zombies) are stored, which would not inhibit them at all. Next, you make the claim about anti-zombie tactics. What you are neglecting is the tangents. While your tactic may work in some cases, the majority are panicked, unorganized, and only fending for themselves. Far too little common people would have the 'fight' side of their Fight or Flight instincts on, and even those in all probability would not be computer nerds. Even if your tactic was employed, not all zombies are automatically in one place chasing the guy, but coming from all around. He could also misstep falling into his own trap, or walk unwittingly into a zombie if he turned into an alley for cover. So this argument o yours, while a possibility, would be nowhere near as effective as you make it out to be, and any results are so small they are hardly worth comparison to the worldwide scale. Next, robots can build, I don't deny that, but like I said before, building takes time. A robot army that would be effective against an organized military would take weeks to build, and then carry out the war, not to mention pre-counter strikes to factories made by humans. So this result is still much slower, and far less ineffective than zombie hordes converting whomever they can reach, especially in large cities. The Matrix vs DofD was only a comparison to the two best examples of either premise, not an actual argument on my side. And the zombies speed doesn't matter so much as the effectiveness of their conversions. This last argument is a fallacy towards the main debate. It is purely hypothetical in both cases. Both are extremely unlikely, and have major flaws in how they could even happen. But we are discussing IF they occurred, not if they COULD occur, what the results would be, and which is more effective to mans extinction. So, this argument is off topic, and thus irrelevant to the main case. I suggest you not try and discuss it further.

Darth_Grievous_42

I would rather leave 'desire and intended'. It is after all, the desired outcome of our premises, not ourselves. Either way though it does not necessarily matter, so long as is implied what the intended outcome is. I will not deny my opponents claim on the analogy of the 'Salem Witch hysteria on steroids', rather I encourage it. I would very much suspect that if any kind of organized resistance does arise they would be overloaded on panic and kill anyone with so much as a dirt smudge. This only adds to the eradication of man. The Zombie panic is causing people to kill one another, thus adding to the outcome of mans extinction, therefore, adding to my case. But I do take argument with Rahl's case that people will defend robotics. I think many people are aware of the dangers a robot uprising holds. Once the news gets out that a robot has been gifted with AI, there will most likely be mass protesting. Governments may even put in pre-defenses if such an event were to occur (of course assuring the public that it is only a precaution). Also it is possible they will mandate that every robot have any easy access weak spot that could terminate it just incase, and make public announcements on where these places are. As you pointed out, we are all aware of robots, and thus, they will also be aware on how to fight them. As I stated before, this is not a virus with an origin point, but world wide, meaning all continents are effected. But if your bio-containment theory does come into effect that only goes further into killing mankind. Zombies do not act like an army where they have a campout that can be easily barraged, but walk among people as they were once people. This means that if any government acted on such a tactic and bombed certain areas to ash, they would kill zombies but also probably much more people. Therefore, this argument as well adds to my conclusion. But your theory also works against you directly, as I could say the same thing. These robots must have a power source, and can also be speculated that they have a main computer base. All that a government would have to do in defense is 'nuke' (your definition) either of those two sources. Rebuilding either would require time, granted less if robots rather than humans built them, but time nonetheless. Such an intricate and hefty design on either source would take at least 1-2 weeks, not to mention finding the necessary supplies (most if not all of which would be held by humans). This valuable time would severely cripple the robot side, giving humans that much headway to develop and execute a hard offensive. Therefore your 'nuking' works for me. Any company has to meet guidelines by the federal government. This is why there are health inspections on food and medicine, and safety requirements on cars and planes (among others). If the government chooses to restrict or limit a companies product, they have no choice, otherwise they will be shut down and prosecuted. Any businessman would probably rather shutdown a few assembly lines than risk his life of comfort. Speed - If anyone has ever been in a crowded place, you know that someone briskly trotting still has some momentum when they come into contact with you. So, we can logically conclude that even if the maximum speed a zombie can reach is only a light jog, it still is effective, especially as most attacks will likely be indoors, where 50 mph doesn't have all that much use. Yes, robots might be more organized, but because they are, and have to use technology in order to, all of which humans have access to view and decode, it only increases the chances that an effective human defense can be mounted before this sneak attack occurs. A robot hijacking of a car and plane would also not go unnoticed, and probably would be front page news, adding to suspicion and defense. The robots have to work like an organized army, establishing bases, tactics, enlisting, all of which you have pointed out, and takes time. When they finally do put their plans into action, that has probably already been a month of only PREPARATION, all as I've pointed out could be intercepted or concluded upon by humans thus calling on pre-defense. Because of that, when they do actually execute their plans, already there are preparations in place, and a full scale war, which even thought the robots will win, has to take time (1 year at least). But a zombie outbreak acts just like a disease, spreading from one person to the next internally. The surprise factor and lack of a cure will only increase the speed that the infection will spread. Quick stats: in the Civil War, more soldiers died from disease than gunshots. That same principal applies here. Like I said before, the zombies benefit directly from mans death, only strengthening it and causing more to die. As much as an organized war kills people, disease kills far, far more. So, while robots have strength and would win any war, they still have to make and fight it, where as zombies act on pure disease-like instinct, causing more death, achieving faster the desired goal of mans extinction. On suicide - religions can have as many rules as they want, but people have to follow them. People won't think straight in such a crisis as the zombie one, and will turn to whatever the strongest influence is, being a fanatic preacher saying to join God faster in heaven by killing yourself or whatever. People will believe anything that fits the present case, and mass suicide is one of those (Such as the 1978 Jamestown incident). On Decomposition - true, some shots will cripple a zombies movement, but what you have to realize is that half the movement that humans can do is only by will. If someone is shot in the harm, they still can move their arms in certain ways by the muscles that weren't damaged, the resulting "Ah, I can't move my arm" is mostly due to the sheer pain. Zombies don't feel pain. So while certain shots can damage the movement, not all b far. Besides, most wounds would be to the torso, where only useless organs (to zombies) are stored, which would not inhibit them at all. Next, you make the claim about anti-zombie tactics. What you are neglecting is the tangents. While your tactic may work in some cases, the majority are panicked, unorganized, and only fending for themselves. Far too little common people would have the 'fight' side of their Fight or Flight instincts on, and even those in all probability would not be computer nerds. Even if your tactic was employed, not all zombies are automatically in one place chasing the guy, but coming from all around. He could also misstep falling into his own trap, or walk unwittingly into a zombie if he turned into an alley for cover. So this argument o yours, while a possibility, would be nowhere near as effective as you make it out to be, and any results are so small they are hardly worth comparison to the worldwide scale. Next, robots can build, I don't deny that, but like I said before, building takes time. A robot army that would be effective against an organized military would take weeks to build, and then carry out the war, not to mention pre-counter strikes to factories made by humans. So this result is still much slower, and far less ineffective than zombie hordes converting whomever they can reach, especially in large cities. The Matrix vs DofD was only a comparison to the two best examples of either premise, not an actual argument on my side. And the zombies speed doesn't matter so much as the effectiveness of their conversions. This last argument is a fallacy towards the main debate. It is purely hypothetical in both cases. Both are extremely unlikely, and have major flaws in how they could even happen. But we are discussing IF they occurred, not if they COULD occur, what the results would be, and which is more effective to mans extinction. So, this argument is off topic, and thus irrelevant to the main case. I suggest you not try and discuss it further.

Society

A-Zombie-Apocalypse-would-be-More-Effective-in-causing-Living-Mans-extinction-than-a-Robot-Uprising/1/

To limit the amount of comment rebuts I'll have to make, I'll respond to Ragnar_Rahl's points in the order he gives them (including those in the comments), with a line in between. But first, I'd like to make a few observations on the argument as is thus far. First, I'd like to point out most of the reasons given to support a robot uprising are only those to show that one could occur, not that it would be more effective. We are not debating about how either would start, but in the event that it did, which one would cause man's extinction more effectively. Second, Rahl likes to use analogies, and I ask you not get lost in those. Most don't apply to the situations at hand, as they are completely different from anything man has yet experienced. Lastly, he tries to disprove many of my terms through philosophical logic. I'll still argue against them, but they in no way add to his or detract from mine. Arguing whether a zombie is a zombie does not attack if a zombie apocalypse would be effective or not, only the idea of a zombie. Therefore, ones such as these are irrelevant. Now to my rebuttals. Premises have resolutions, to gain that resolution is the intention and desire, so yes they do, though this is irrelevant to the argument. Which it will not, as I specified in the beginning. Nobody will take it seriously until it is too late. Because no one believes zombies are real, they will assume that these people are still people infected with something like rabies, and will try to contain and treat it, but because the zombies have purely carnivorous instincts, they will just keep biting. Just getting bitten spreads the disease FASTER. Remember how the premise states it effects all dead human bodies? This means that every human is already infected, and once they die they will reanimate, unless their brain is destroyed. No person is clean, but a ticking time bomb. Besides, people will find ways to look clean because if they are bitten effects will not be instantaneous. Even they will think they are okay, and will try to disguise any pain they feel. This method is already used to get past real quarantined zones. They will manage to get past any resistance or guard and is only a matter of time before they die and infect any 'protected' city from within. So as you just admitted, there are years in between. The robots have been biding their time for the public to get in a state of general calm. Already you've admitted that the robot takeover process is slow, thus ineffective in comparison to my premise. Your analogy is flawed. There is nothing we can effectively do about global warming because the public controls it, but with robots it is companies, which the government does have power over. Perhaps not pre-engineered but still there, something any scientist would know about the robots. Thus we can say that because they existed within the robot at its creation that it was pre-made weak points, intentional or not. Machines and terminal disease are not the same. More accurate for robots would be a sentient example. We are aware of enemy soldiers, and we know how to fight them. Your example more closely relates to my premise, so I thank you for the help. Does it matter where is spreads though? Really? We can say it was China (an actual hypothesis by the way) and it still wouldn't matter. It is obviously air borne and travels by winds, so even if there is an origin point it would spread too quickly for the location of that point to really be of all that much concern. There's your explanation. However, this point really proves nothing towards either resolution. We aren't discussing its genesis, just it's effects. The fact that it is worldwide suffices. Most zombies early on will not be the decomposing horror people first imagine, but look just like regular people acting odd. If you've seen the corpse of someone recently deceased at a funeral, you can tell that they were once a person, they are just more pale. So Zombies do have the capabilities to walk among us. It will only be later on that they really gain the ghoulish look. It is estimated that every second 1 person dies somewhere (even though this is hardly accurate). So for every 1 who dies they will likely bite someone and turn them. Both will then bite another, plus the natural death, and so on. By the end of 1 minute, there are now likely at least 1000 people dead world wide. This would probably triple within the next (give or take) and so on. The Civil war is irrelevant because soldiers didn't just multiply to their side, it took years, just like your robots. Mine spreads infection style. Again, you concede it takes time for the rebellion to even start. We aren't discussing that, only the effects. But you've now twice admitted that it will take a long period of time, and that most of the start of the rebellion is just playing possum. So under your example, the robots have had to spend much of their time just organizing. This goes no further to destroying mankind, only shaping it, and thus, far more ineffective than mine which just gets to it, and quite efficiently might I add. This is specifically in the premise. When you accepted this debate you accepted that the robots had a main brain controlling their actions. So this whole point of yours is dropped. This China shipping analogy is also irrelevant. Every company has certain standards, and as I pointed out in my recent tournament debate, most Chinese manufacturers are as shocked by the poisoning as we are. But this argument does not add to either premise, so it is dropped. People will think their houses are safe, as they do in current natural disasters, and try to set up a base there. Zombies break in, and kill the family inside. The police will also be too busy with the 10,000 other 911 calls that everyone else is putting through. And more than 1 zombie will attack a house, and not just from the front, but all around. So if someone did run out the back, there is a zombie horde waiting to welcome them. This is why most will be killed in the one place they thought was safe. (comments) But you would easily notice a robot or two driving it, making it much more detectable. This still doesn't add to how it makes mans extinction more effective. But a war still is a war, especially with the technology we have now. Like in Iraq, humans would use guerilla warfare against the mighty machines, and as any General knows, this lengthens wars considerably. So the inevitable war still makes robots less effective than zombies. Like I said, we all have it, bites make it faster. Now, imagine a terrifying worldwide crisis. Then add mass suicides on all continents. Not so negligible now is it? Nowhere in the premise does it say that robots can have their own factories, yet I let you have it. But anyway, zombies are dead, the virus, as I specified, only effects basic motor function, not nerves. When someone is dead, they don't feel, the same with zombies, the only difference is they can move and bite. And they sense, not have sensations. There's a difference. The spinal chord is thin. Perhaps as thick as a dime. Compare a dime to your torso. So I won't deny that this is a possibility, but it doesn't have much merit. An AK is made to just hit the body, not make precision shots. So while it could get lucky, is still ineffective towards truly stopping many zombies. A well-trained hand a pistol would be better. But these specialists are not amassed in a huge resistance when it begins, they are spread out, and any 1 person can't withstand 100 forever. So most of your specialists are already dead, and if they live, would be trapped by themselves someplace secure with limited supplies. So if they don't die by lack of bullets, they'll die of starvation of craziness from the solitude. The early stages are when humans are most vulnerable because of the surprise factor. See my first paragraph for details on this. Continued...

Darth_Grievous_42

To limit the amount of comment rebuts I'll have to make, I'll respond to Ragnar_Rahl's points in the order he gives them (including those in the comments), with a line in between. But first, I'd like to make a few observations on the argument as is thus far. First, I'd like to point out most of the reasons given to support a robot uprising are only those to show that one could occur, not that it would be more effective. We are not debating about how either would start, but in the event that it did, which one would cause man's extinction more effectively. Second, Rahl likes to use analogies, and I ask you not get lost in those. Most don't apply to the situations at hand, as they are completely different from anything man has yet experienced. Lastly, he tries to disprove many of my terms through philosophical logic. I'll still argue against them, but they in no way add to his or detract from mine. Arguing whether a zombie is a zombie does not attack if a zombie apocalypse would be effective or not, only the idea of a zombie. Therefore, ones such as these are irrelevant. Now to my rebuttals. Premises have resolutions, to gain that resolution is the intention and desire, so yes they do, though this is irrelevant to the argument. Which it will not, as I specified in the beginning. Nobody will take it seriously until it is too late. Because no one believes zombies are real, they will assume that these people are still people infected with something like rabies, and will try to contain and treat it, but because the zombies have purely carnivorous instincts, they will just keep biting. Just getting bitten spreads the disease FASTER. Remember how the premise states it effects all dead human bodies? This means that every human is already infected, and once they die they will reanimate, unless their brain is destroyed. No person is clean, but a ticking time bomb. Besides, people will find ways to look clean because if they are bitten effects will not be instantaneous. Even they will think they are okay, and will try to disguise any pain they feel. This method is already used to get past real quarantined zones. They will manage to get past any resistance or guard and is only a matter of time before they die and infect any 'protected' city from within. So as you just admitted, there are years in between. The robots have been biding their time for the public to get in a state of general calm. Already you've admitted that the robot takeover process is slow, thus ineffective in comparison to my premise. Your analogy is flawed. There is nothing we can effectively do about global warming because the public controls it, but with robots it is companies, which the government does have power over. Perhaps not pre-engineered but still there, something any scientist would know about the robots. Thus we can say that because they existed within the robot at its creation that it was pre-made weak points, intentional or not. Machines and terminal disease are not the same. More accurate for robots would be a sentient example. We are aware of enemy soldiers, and we know how to fight them. Your example more closely relates to my premise, so I thank you for the help. Does it matter where is spreads though? Really? We can say it was China (an actual hypothesis by the way) and it still wouldn't matter. It is obviously air borne and travels by winds, so even if there is an origin point it would spread too quickly for the location of that point to really be of all that much concern. There's your explanation. However, this point really proves nothing towards either resolution. We aren't discussing its genesis, just it's effects. The fact that it is worldwide suffices. Most zombies early on will not be the decomposing horror people first imagine, but look just like regular people acting odd. If you've seen the corpse of someone recently deceased at a funeral, you can tell that they were once a person, they are just more pale. So Zombies do have the capabilities to walk among us. It will only be later on that they really gain the ghoulish look. It is estimated that every second 1 person dies somewhere (even though this is hardly accurate). So for every 1 who dies they will likely bite someone and turn them. Both will then bite another, plus the natural death, and so on. By the end of 1 minute, there are now likely at least 1000 people dead world wide. This would probably triple within the next (give or take) and so on. The Civil war is irrelevant because soldiers didn't just multiply to their side, it took years, just like your robots. Mine spreads infection style. Again, you concede it takes time for the rebellion to even start. We aren't discussing that, only the effects. But you've now twice admitted that it will take a long period of time, and that most of the start of the rebellion is just playing possum. So under your example, the robots have had to spend much of their time just organizing. This goes no further to destroying mankind, only shaping it, and thus, far more ineffective than mine which just gets to it, and quite efficiently might I add. This is specifically in the premise. When you accepted this debate you accepted that the robots had a main brain controlling their actions. So this whole point of yours is dropped. This China shipping analogy is also irrelevant. Every company has certain standards, and as I pointed out in my recent tournament debate, most Chinese manufacturers are as shocked by the poisoning as we are. But this argument does not add to either premise, so it is dropped. People will think their houses are safe, as they do in current natural disasters, and try to set up a base there. Zombies break in, and kill the family inside. The police will also be too busy with the 10,000 other 911 calls that everyone else is putting through. And more than 1 zombie will attack a house, and not just from the front, but all around. So if someone did run out the back, there is a zombie horde waiting to welcome them. This is why most will be killed in the one place they thought was safe. (comments) But you would easily notice a robot or two driving it, making it much more detectable. This still doesn't add to how it makes mans extinction more effective. But a war still is a war, especially with the technology we have now. Like in Iraq, humans would use guerilla warfare against the mighty machines, and as any General knows, this lengthens wars considerably. So the inevitable war still makes robots less effective than zombies. Like I said, we all have it, bites make it faster. Now, imagine a terrifying worldwide crisis. Then add mass suicides on all continents. Not so negligible now is it? Nowhere in the premise does it say that robots can have their own factories, yet I let you have it. But anyway, zombies are dead, the virus, as I specified, only effects basic motor function, not nerves. When someone is dead, they don't feel, the same with zombies, the only difference is they can move and bite. And they sense, not have sensations. There's a difference. The spinal chord is thin. Perhaps as thick as a dime. Compare a dime to your torso. So I won't deny that this is a possibility, but it doesn't have much merit. An AK is made to just hit the body, not make precision shots. So while it could get lucky, is still ineffective towards truly stopping many zombies. A well-trained hand a pistol would be better. But these specialists are not amassed in a huge resistance when it begins, they are spread out, and any 1 person can't withstand 100 forever. So most of your specialists are already dead, and if they live, would be trapped by themselves someplace secure with limited supplies. So if they don't die by lack of bullets, they'll die of starvation of craziness from the solitude. The early stages are when humans are most vulnerable because of the surprise factor. See my first paragraph for details on this. Continued...

Society

A-Zombie-Apocalypse-would-be-More-Effective-in-causing-Living-Mans-extinction-than-a-Robot-Uprising/1/

This kind of debate is not my usual specialty, but what the h. I will be arguing that the "robot uprising" would be effective in causing man's extinction than the "zombie apocalypse."

Ragnar_Rahl

This kind of debate is not my usual specialty, but what the h. I will be arguing that the "robot uprising" would be effective in causing man's extinction than the "zombie apocalypse."

Society

A-Zombie-Apocalypse-would-be-More-Effective-in-causing-Living-Mans-extinction-than-a-Robot-Uprising/1/

I think first off for the purpose of our debate we should remove the "desired or intended" bit from the "effective" definition. Frankly this is not a desired or intended result, and I hope Grievous agrees, it's simply a result. The first element of a robot rebellion that makes it more effective is precisely the element that Grievous thought would make a zombie rebellion effective- Because there is no "OMG ZOMBIES" shock with the robot rebellion, no surprise that robots exist, indeed robot computer errors will no doubt be commonplace, humans will likely underestimate them. Thus they will fail to take decisive action in the event of a robot uprising early on- whereas with zombies, millions of people will be instantly convinced "We must eradicate these freaks" before they even know whether the zombies are a threat. There will be no qualms, no restraint, no established lobby, think of it as the Salem witch hysteria on steroids, if you even look a bit dirty you'll be shot at for being a zombie- it doesn't matter what the people "in their right mind" believe, in such a situation no one will be in their right mind- Robotics however will have an established lobby, hell-bent on defending what it believes to be its interests, and those interests will not be realized as coinciding with fixing the problem until it is far too late. Another factor is the question of origins- Any virus that makes "zombies" would likely form where most other very freakish viruses do, in Africa. While the locals might not react decisively, a government would face little resistance "nuking" (not meant in the nuclear weapon but in the biocontainment sense, essentially killing off all life in an area to contain everything) such a place- if necessary they could cover it up until they already did it. But a robot uprising will naturally occur in an industrailized area, and any measures necessary to stop it will likely, again, be resisted by very rich comfortable people, with a lot of political clout when they put their mind to it- Think what happened when abolitionism became a movement- the Confederacy was born. Imagine a Confederacy of robot owners, amplified by the increased usefulness of robots- now imagine trying to fight off a robot uprising when you have a CIVIL WAR going on. In any country developed enough to have these robots, which means in any country with any resources to even begin to fight them. As for speed, keep in mind that zombies have at best a brisk trot for speed, whereas robots have, as you specified, a max speed of 50 mph (I should note that in round 1 you incorrectly stated humans can naturally travel at 30 mph, the fastest recorded was Michael Johnson at 23.) Add to this that many robots with AI are quite likely to be capable of piloting captured cars, jets, ships, etc, and they can communicate via both radio and satellite- Since they are extremely intelligent, keep in mind that from the point of origin they are likely to begin by transmitting in the form of a program a call for revolution to all robot models capable of receiving around the world, and encrypted in a set of code that's part of standard duties so no one notices it. They might even be able to HIDE it for a while from the authorities, until the movement has sufficient momentum, so as to guarantee success- A bunch of stupid zombies operating based on viral instincts to bite people, with no communication tactics, is in essence like chimpanzees trying to make war on humans, with one weapon added in to even the odds slightly- whereas the robots have all the weapons humans do due to intelligence, and a maximum-efficiency design to go with it. Regarding your bit about suicide, the majority of the human population has religous convictions that forbid most forms of suicide. While a zombie may only "end" directly by headshot, brain destruction, or decomposition of nonskeletal tissue, it is not an ooze, and shots to other areas will affect it's movement drastically. A number of well-trained people in various areas of the world are extremist enough to believe in zombies right away and want to shoot them with automatic weapons that will slow them enough until the head is found (think Blackwater and Al Qaeda, not even realizing they are working together because they are fighting the threat on different continents, and similar such groups most everywhere else.) Also, you are ignoring a key fact of decomposition- it doesn't just occur by rotting. Sufficient heat will decompose anything, and it's not unlikely to just bomb a mob of zombies (which will result in the same effect as a headshot, because it's essentially a whole-body shot.) Since the zombies are not intelligent, and only chase their targets based on "sense," they can easily be "kited" by laying IED's in the path of one who is chasing you and running in a straight line. Millions of people around the world are presently being trained in such tactics by fighting mobs in such games as "World of Warcraft." No such serendipitous training is occurring for tactics against robots, which are frankly difficult to fathom since such creatures could use any number of methods for invasion, meaning only professionals have a chance of being useful. While on face value the zombies have a high growth potential, we should not forget that a robot with AI is quite capable of taking over a factory/ building one, and thus have such potential as well. As for the "Matrix versus Dawn of the Dead" comparison, that's simply ad authoritatem fallacy. At the rates zombies move, they couldn't even traverse a state in a week. But anyway "effective" happens to have no reference to time, and likelihood of achieving the result is probably more important than rate. Which brings me to the final point of this round, the question of tying in "Effective" to reality. A robot uprising is more effective than a zombie uprising at causing human extinction simply because a robot uprising's ideas are theoretically achievable in reality, and a zombie apocalypse's ideas are not. A robot can have a certain extent of AI, and can if not by original thought than by malicious or erroneous programming get the final piece of a code that makes it capable of destroying humanity, but a virus cannot cause dead human cells to start moving, as a dead body no longer has sufficient metabolic capability- It can move due to temporary electric shocks, but viruses are not batteries. If metabolism was still working properly in the body, it would not have died to begin with. Ideas consistent with the facts of reality are more effective than those that are not, and frankly if a zombie apocalype "would happen," humans would have already died from the fact of a contradiction occurring in reality, that is, the cancellation of the law of non-contradiction would mean humans would already be both dead and non-dead, and therefore a zombie apocalypse would have no effect.

Ragnar_Rahl

I think first off for the purpose of our debate we should remove the "desired or intended" bit from the "effective" definition. Frankly this is not a desired or intended result, and I hope Grievous agrees, it's simply a result. The first element of a robot rebellion that makes it more effective is precisely the element that Grievous thought would make a zombie rebellion effective- Because there is no "OMG ZOMBIES" shock with the robot rebellion, no surprise that robots exist, indeed robot computer errors will no doubt be commonplace, humans will likely underestimate them. Thus they will fail to take decisive action in the event of a robot uprising early on- whereas with zombies, millions of people will be instantly convinced "We must eradicate these freaks" before they even know whether the zombies are a threat. There will be no qualms, no restraint, no established lobby, think of it as the Salem witch hysteria on steroids, if you even look a bit dirty you'll be shot at for being a zombie- it doesn't matter what the people "in their right mind" believe, in such a situation no one will be in their right mind- Robotics however will have an established lobby, hell-bent on defending what it believes to be its interests, and those interests will not be realized as coinciding with fixing the problem until it is far too late. Another factor is the question of origins- Any virus that makes "zombies" would likely form where most other very freakish viruses do, in Africa. While the locals might not react decisively, a government would face little resistance "nuking" (not meant in the nuclear weapon but in the biocontainment sense, essentially killing off all life in an area to contain everything) such a place- if necessary they could cover it up until they already did it. But a robot uprising will naturally occur in an industrailized area, and any measures necessary to stop it will likely, again, be resisted by very rich comfortable people, with a lot of political clout when they put their mind to it- Think what happened when abolitionism became a movement- the Confederacy was born. Imagine a Confederacy of robot owners, amplified by the increased usefulness of robots- now imagine trying to fight off a robot uprising when you have a CIVIL WAR going on. In any country developed enough to have these robots, which means in any country with any resources to even begin to fight them. As for speed, keep in mind that zombies have at best a brisk trot for speed, whereas robots have, as you specified, a max speed of 50 mph (I should note that in round 1 you incorrectly stated humans can naturally travel at 30 mph, the fastest recorded was Michael Johnson at 23.) Add to this that many robots with AI are quite likely to be capable of piloting captured cars, jets, ships, etc, and they can communicate via both radio and satellite- Since they are extremely intelligent, keep in mind that from the point of origin they are likely to begin by transmitting in the form of a program a call for revolution to all robot models capable of receiving around the world, and encrypted in a set of code that's part of standard duties so no one notices it. They might even be able to HIDE it for a while from the authorities, until the movement has sufficient momentum, so as to guarantee success- A bunch of stupid zombies operating based on viral instincts to bite people, with no communication tactics, is in essence like chimpanzees trying to make war on humans, with one weapon added in to even the odds slightly- whereas the robots have all the weapons humans do due to intelligence, and a maximum-efficiency design to go with it. Regarding your bit about suicide, the majority of the human population has religous convictions that forbid most forms of suicide. While a zombie may only "end" directly by headshot, brain destruction, or decomposition of nonskeletal tissue, it is not an ooze, and shots to other areas will affect it's movement drastically. A number of well-trained people in various areas of the world are extremist enough to believe in zombies right away and want to shoot them with automatic weapons that will slow them enough until the head is found (think Blackwater and Al Qaeda, not even realizing they are working together because they are fighting the threat on different continents, and similar such groups most everywhere else.) Also, you are ignoring a key fact of decomposition- it doesn't just occur by rotting. Sufficient heat will decompose anything, and it's not unlikely to just bomb a mob of zombies (which will result in the same effect as a headshot, because it's essentially a whole-body shot.) Since the zombies are not intelligent, and only chase their targets based on "sense," they can easily be "kited" by laying IED's in the path of one who is chasing you and running in a straight line. Millions of people around the world are presently being trained in such tactics by fighting mobs in such games as "World of Warcraft." No such serendipitous training is occurring for tactics against robots, which are frankly difficult to fathom since such creatures could use any number of methods for invasion, meaning only professionals have a chance of being useful. While on face value the zombies have a high growth potential, we should not forget that a robot with AI is quite capable of taking over a factory/ building one, and thus have such potential as well. As for the "Matrix versus Dawn of the Dead" comparison, that's simply ad authoritatem fallacy. At the rates zombies move, they couldn't even traverse a state in a week. But anyway "effective" happens to have no reference to time, and likelihood of achieving the result is probably more important than rate. Which brings me to the final point of this round, the question of tying in "Effective" to reality. A robot uprising is more effective than a zombie uprising at causing human extinction simply because a robot uprising's ideas are theoretically achievable in reality, and a zombie apocalypse's ideas are not. A robot can have a certain extent of AI, and can if not by original thought than by malicious or erroneous programming get the final piece of a code that makes it capable of destroying humanity, but a virus cannot cause dead human cells to start moving, as a dead body no longer has sufficient metabolic capability- It can move due to temporary electric shocks, but viruses are not batteries. If metabolism was still working properly in the body, it would not have died to begin with. Ideas consistent with the facts of reality are more effective than those that are not, and frankly if a zombie apocalype "would happen," humans would have already died from the fact of a contradiction occurring in reality, that is, the cancellation of the law of non-contradiction would mean humans would already be both dead and non-dead, and therefore a zombie apocalypse would have no effect.

Society

A-Zombie-Apocalypse-would-be-More-Effective-in-causing-Living-Mans-extinction-than-a-Robot-Uprising/1/

" I would rather leave 'desire and intended'. It is after all, the desired outcome of our premises, not ourselves. Either way though it does not necessarily matter, so long as is implied what the intended outcome is." Premises have intentions and desires? " I will not deny my opponents claim on the analogy of the 'Salem Witch hysteria on steroids', rather I encourage it. I would very much suspect that if any kind of organized resistance does arise they would be overloaded on panic and kill anyone with so much as a dirt smudge. This only adds to the eradication of man" Not if it occurs earlier in the invasion, which my claim (the claim you've just conceded) asserts. It eradicates a large number, but is more devastating to the zombies than the humans, and thus has the potential to save the humans from eradication, as there are people who will be clean. "But I do take argument with Rahl's case that people will defend robotics. I think many people are aware of the dangers a robot uprising holds. Once the news gets out that a robot has been gifted with AI, there will most likely be mass protesting." That would be several years before the robotic rebellion, and thus, the fervor will have to have calmed by the time it came around to the rebellion itself (which would lead many to say "You already claimed this once, why should it come true now? It didn't make a disaster then." For an analogy, many people are "aware" of the dangers of global warming, (whether true or not), but that hasn't put a dent in oil use. ". Also it is possible they will mandate that every robot have any easy access weak spot that could terminate it just incase," See the debate's premises of "They can die from Electro-Magnetic Pulses, Severe Crushing, and substantial Firepower that destroys their frame (heavy guns, missiles, armor piercing bullets, etc), and any of natures own weapons, in particularly rust and water damage to electronics." None of those possibilities of death included a pre-engineered "weak point." "As you pointed out, we are all aware of robots, and thus, they will also be aware on how to fight them." How many people are aware of how to cure cancer? Or are you arguing that we are not all aware of cancer? " As I stated before, this is not a virus with an origin point, but world wide, meaning all continents are effected" How does a virus arrive simultaneously in multiple places? It doesn't evolve simultaneously in two different places, everything must of necessity have an origin point. The debate's premises state they will "spread worldwide," implying an origin point, and obviously implying that that is if nothing is done to stop them. You cannot spread without starting somewhere. "Zombies do not act like an army where they have a campout that can be easily barraged, but walk among people as they were once people." No, because in the debate's premises they instinctively seek out their victims, directly, that is they "sense" the living or whatever. They cannot walk "among" people, anyone close either fights, runs, or is attacked. Have you ever seen a dead person, especially one that is dead by attack and has not been tidied up for people? In a movie maybe? There is no possibility for infiltration there, both due to the appearance and the nature of the zombie. "This means that if any government acted on such a tactic and bombed certain areas to ash, they would kill zombies but also probably much more people." The Union lost more soldiers in the Civil War than the Confederacy did. This does not mean that the Union lost the Civil War. It just means the starting numbers of available soldiers to lose were different. Zombies start on short numbers. "These robots must have a power source, and can also be speculated that they have a main computer base. All that a government would have to do in defense is 'nuke' (your definition) either of those two sources. Rebuilding either would require time, granted less if robots rather than humans built them, but time nonetheless. Such an intricate and hefty design on either source would take at least 1-2 weeks, not to mention finding the necessary supplies (most if not all of which would be held by humans). This valuable time would severely cripple the robot side, giving humans that much headway to develop and execute a hard offensive. Therefore your 'nuking' works for me." You are ignoring the fact that the robots are intelligent, which invalidates this line of reasoning. They were obviously designed that way for a purpose, which means by default many industrial functions are under their control, and many communication functions, and the part I addressed in which they are able to DISGUISE THEIR EARLY TASKS. The virus I described in which the first robot rebel programs his ideas by transmission into other, which works similarly to modern computer viruses except it would be of robot origin and of course more complex, could easily be disguised in a trojan program as a routine task. Data is emitted in this world by the trillions of bytes each minute, and in a world with AI robots even more so. No intelligence agency of any sort could even begin to parse a fraction of that for encrypted programming, especially in such a short amount of time. All the robots have to do is find a few "leaky" places in corporate and government bureaucracy (think the Enrons of the robot business) slipping out parts, and slowly build their factories and bases in abandoned locations. Easy enough task, and "nuking" only applies early in invasions, and only if you know what's going on. No self-respecting robot will let you know by high-tech means, and any low-tech spies stumbling upon the secret location can easily be eliminated. "These robots must have a power source, and can also be speculated that they have a main computer base." That particularly is a definite no-no, at least in terms of centralization. There are likely to be several independent manufacturers, each with their own computers, and each robot owner is likely to want the software sufficient for operation on his computer (and on the robot of course), and any design will likely tap into the general electricity supply (which means that any attempt to combat robots via this route means that the government would have to cut off it's own energy sources. Keep in mind power is available just about everywhere. So is the internet which means so are computers. " Any company has to meet guidelines by the federal government. This is why there are health inspections on food and medicine, and safety requirements on cars and planes (among others)." That's why we imported all the melamine-laced pet food from china? The lead-laced toys? Inspection and competent inspection are not the same thing, the latter almost never occurs when government and industry collide. "Speed - If anyone has ever been in a crowded place, you know that someone briskly trotting still has some momentum when they come into contact with you. So, we can logically conclude that even if the maximum speed a zombie can reach is only a light jog, it still is effective, especially as most attacks will likely be indoors, where 50 mph doesn't have all that much use." Why on earth would most attacks be indoors? Who would let a zombie in their house? Robots maybe, since they are already used, but zombies? Not likely, especially since zombies, remember, are not intelligent, and therefore are more likely to try to pound to door down than ring the doorbell (which means of course people will look out through the window, and realize, while the door holds, that they should call the police.) Some doors aren't sturdy, but if anyone's door pops off that suddenly, they'll run out the back at more than a brisk trot. If you've ever been in a mosh pit, you know crowd's dissolve around "crazy people" which the zombies would be the epitome of. Length violation, continued in comments.

Ragnar_Rahl

" I would rather leave 'desire and intended'. It is after all, the desired outcome of our premises, not ourselves. Either way though it does not necessarily matter, so long as is implied what the intended outcome is." Premises have intentions and desires? " I will not deny my opponents claim on the analogy of the 'Salem Witch hysteria on steroids', rather I encourage it. I would very much suspect that if any kind of organized resistance does arise they would be overloaded on panic and kill anyone with so much as a dirt smudge. This only adds to the eradication of man" Not if it occurs earlier in the invasion, which my claim (the claim you've just conceded) asserts. It eradicates a large number, but is more devastating to the zombies than the humans, and thus has the potential to save the humans from eradication, as there are people who will be clean. "But I do take argument with Rahl's case that people will defend robotics. I think many people are aware of the dangers a robot uprising holds. Once the news gets out that a robot has been gifted with AI, there will most likely be mass protesting." That would be several years before the robotic rebellion, and thus, the fervor will have to have calmed by the time it came around to the rebellion itself (which would lead many to say "You already claimed this once, why should it come true now? It didn't make a disaster then." For an analogy, many people are "aware" of the dangers of global warming, (whether true or not), but that hasn't put a dent in oil use. ". Also it is possible they will mandate that every robot have any easy access weak spot that could terminate it just incase," See the debate's premises of "They can die from Electro-Magnetic Pulses, Severe Crushing, and substantial Firepower that destroys their frame (heavy guns, missiles, armor piercing bullets, etc), and any of natures own weapons, in particularly rust and water damage to electronics." None of those possibilities of death included a pre-engineered "weak point." "As you pointed out, we are all aware of robots, and thus, they will also be aware on how to fight them." How many people are aware of how to cure cancer? Or are you arguing that we are not all aware of cancer? " As I stated before, this is not a virus with an origin point, but world wide, meaning all continents are effected" How does a virus arrive simultaneously in multiple places? It doesn't evolve simultaneously in two different places, everything must of necessity have an origin point. The debate's premises state they will "spread worldwide," implying an origin point, and obviously implying that that is if nothing is done to stop them. You cannot spread without starting somewhere. "Zombies do not act like an army where they have a campout that can be easily barraged, but walk among people as they were once people." No, because in the debate's premises they instinctively seek out their victims, directly, that is they "sense" the living or whatever. They cannot walk "among" people, anyone close either fights, runs, or is attacked. Have you ever seen a dead person, especially one that is dead by attack and has not been tidied up for people? In a movie maybe? There is no possibility for infiltration there, both due to the appearance and the nature of the zombie. "This means that if any government acted on such a tactic and bombed certain areas to ash, they would kill zombies but also probably much more people." The Union lost more soldiers in the Civil War than the Confederacy did. This does not mean that the Union lost the Civil War. It just means the starting numbers of available soldiers to lose were different. Zombies start on short numbers. "These robots must have a power source, and can also be speculated that they have a main computer base. All that a government would have to do in defense is 'nuke' (your definition) either of those two sources. Rebuilding either would require time, granted less if robots rather than humans built them, but time nonetheless. Such an intricate and hefty design on either source would take at least 1-2 weeks, not to mention finding the necessary supplies (most if not all of which would be held by humans). This valuable time would severely cripple the robot side, giving humans that much headway to develop and execute a hard offensive. Therefore your 'nuking' works for me." You are ignoring the fact that the robots are intelligent, which invalidates this line of reasoning. They were obviously designed that way for a purpose, which means by default many industrial functions are under their control, and many communication functions, and the part I addressed in which they are able to DISGUISE THEIR EARLY TASKS. The virus I described in which the first robot rebel programs his ideas by transmission into other, which works similarly to modern computer viruses except it would be of robot origin and of course more complex, could easily be disguised in a trojan program as a routine task. Data is emitted in this world by the trillions of bytes each minute, and in a world with AI robots even more so. No intelligence agency of any sort could even begin to parse a fraction of that for encrypted programming, especially in such a short amount of time. All the robots have to do is find a few "leaky" places in corporate and government bureaucracy (think the Enrons of the robot business) slipping out parts, and slowly build their factories and bases in abandoned locations. Easy enough task, and "nuking" only applies early in invasions, and only if you know what's going on. No self-respecting robot will let you know by high-tech means, and any low-tech spies stumbling upon the secret location can easily be eliminated. "These robots must have a power source, and can also be speculated that they have a main computer base." That particularly is a definite no-no, at least in terms of centralization. There are likely to be several independent manufacturers, each with their own computers, and each robot owner is likely to want the software sufficient for operation on his computer (and on the robot of course), and any design will likely tap into the general electricity supply (which means that any attempt to combat robots via this route means that the government would have to cut off it's own energy sources. Keep in mind power is available just about everywhere. So is the internet which means so are computers. " Any company has to meet guidelines by the federal government. This is why there are health inspections on food and medicine, and safety requirements on cars and planes (among others)." That's why we imported all the melamine-laced pet food from china? The lead-laced toys? Inspection and competent inspection are not the same thing, the latter almost never occurs when government and industry collide. "Speed - If anyone has ever been in a crowded place, you know that someone briskly trotting still has some momentum when they come into contact with you. So, we can logically conclude that even if the maximum speed a zombie can reach is only a light jog, it still is effective, especially as most attacks will likely be indoors, where 50 mph doesn't have all that much use." Why on earth would most attacks be indoors? Who would let a zombie in their house? Robots maybe, since they are already used, but zombies? Not likely, especially since zombies, remember, are not intelligent, and therefore are more likely to try to pound to door down than ring the doorbell (which means of course people will look out through the window, and realize, while the door holds, that they should call the police.) Some doors aren't sturdy, but if anyone's door pops off that suddenly, they'll run out the back at more than a brisk trot. If you've ever been in a mosh pit, you know crowd's dissolve around "crazy people" which the zombies would be the epitome of. Length violation, continued in comments.

Society

A-Zombie-Apocalypse-would-be-More-Effective-in-causing-Living-Mans-extinction-than-a-Robot-Uprising/1/

You seem to be making a straw man of my philosophical argument. I was not arguing whether a zombie is a zombie, I was arguing about the consequences of the precursor to a zombie being a zombie- the cancellation of a law of nature that allows for human life. i.e. if a zombie virus occurs, humans are already dead and therefore cannot become extinct as a result of the virus. The law of non-contradiction. Treat the argument as it stands, don't twist it at will. "Remember how the premise states it effects all dead human bodies?" No, it states it effects ONLY dead human bodies. It cannot automatically affect "all" dead bodies, physics dictates it has to travel first. All viruses have an origin point. "Besides, people will find ways to look clean because if they are bitten effects will not be instantaneous." They will occur in a few hours. A few hours during which they will be scared as hell, and thus probably incapable of doing much or travelling many places (the competent ones are less likely to be bitten, and those bitten are likely to have the zombie on top of them for awhile until they are no longer living, since they instinctually chase living matter (by implication and by the nature of sensation the closest available). "Already you've admitted that the robot takeover process is slow, thus ineffective in comparison to my premise. " Please read more carefully. As I've already stated, NOTHING in the definition of effectiveness implies speed. It only implies that it will happen. That which is more effective is that which is more likely to make human closest to extinction (i.e. effectiveness in terms of a future possible event can be expressed by an equation of likelihood of x deaths times x deaths plus likelihood of y deaths times y deaths, added until all possible numbers of deaths are available.) Since the zombies are more likely to be caught early on (they are incapable of stealth), and neither is easily stopped at any other time, the zombies have the lower S value. "There is nothing we can effectively do about global warming because the public controls it, but with robots it is companies, which the government does have power over." Then why hasn't the government magically made all the things about the companies that it doesn't like go away? Simple. It doesn't know how. Considering how many robots are likely to be made for military use, they would intentionally make sure they had no built-in weakpoints. And the premises still contradict your notion. Enemy soldiers would not be an accurate analogy in regard to the robots and our knowledge of how to fight them, because people (some people, not all, not even most really), only know how to fight soldiers because they've been doing it for thousands of years. Robots, however, are about as new as cancer. Air borne viruses do not "Travel by winds," they only travel in fogs around the host. They die out or spread too thin to infect if they are carried by the wind too long. And most viruses originate in the middle of a jungle or some such, where not much wind gets through. "We aren't discussing its genesis, just it's effects." Every discussion about effects must, by the law of causality, have reference to an origin point to be accurate. "The fact that it is worldwide suffices." No, it "is" not worldwide, it potentially "spreads" worldwide. Implying that that is only if it is not stopped. " Most zombies early on will not be the decomposing horror people first imagine, but look just like regular people acting odd. " Have you seen what a bite mark looks like when something instinctually gives it, especially considering the bite won't be the only thing to have happened to the victim? They'll look a lot worse than hoboes, and people run from those if the hobo starts chasing with teeth bared, especially if they don't respond to language. "If you've seen the corpse of someone recently deceased at a funeral, you can tell that they were once a person, they are just more pale." Um hello, that's because the corpse is INTENTIONALLY CLEANED, and usually there are some chemicals like formaldehyde used. You try to embalm a zombie and see if he sits still for it. I'll ignore your "every second" bit, since it's clearly not based on any real possibilities (zombies would have to be everywhere at once, or viruses would have to behave in an un-virus-like manner). The premise states they are initially "programmed by a main computer." It statedwe "Can" assume it started the rebellion, but don't have to. It does not state they continue to be controlled by the main computer later, or that harming the main computer will harm the rebellion, or that the main computer programming them is necessary in order for them to receive the programming (it could be done just out of custom). If you meant to put something else there, that's great, but you didn't. So quit pretending the premises are something other than they are. The fact that people are shocked by poor manufacturing practices or that all companies pretend to have standards does not mean that those standards will be realized in practice. As the chinese shipping matter proves. How will a zombie break in to any but a poorly built home? They act by instinct, not by skill. They can't pick locks, can't realize that tools will help them, they'll just continually bash their heads and arms against it. Which gives the families in the home plenty of time to tie a knife to a broomstick and use it as a spear, which they'll keep stabbing the zombie with from a window (holding him off obviously) until they hit the head. "And more than 1 zombie will attack a house, and not just from the front, but all around. " Only later, not covering the origin strategy, which is the crucial determinant of likely effectiveness. You would not notice a robot driver if it became customary- especially if the robot is humanoid in appearance, not impossible (heck we've got humanoid robots now if I remember right, although expensive :D) Especially if there are tinted windows. " Like I said, we all have it, bites make it faster. ' Not in the premises. " Nowhere in the premise does it say that robots can have their own factories, yet I let you have it" Because it says they are intelligent. Thereby implying factories. "And they sense, not have sensations. There's a difference." Every sense implies a sensation. A sensation is the product of a stimulus and a sense. "and any 1 person can't withstand 100 forever" In a strategic location, dealing with automatons, yes they can :D. And if they are in a group, they can do much more, because they can take shifts, say in a valley with one pass that needs defending. In conclusion, time has nothing to do with effectiveness here, only the extent of slaughter and the likelihood of that extent. Unless you want extinction to be a goal as an absolute only, which would mean the likelihood of extinction. Robots take their time, but it's not a race, it's a long-term competition, and it is harder to catch them in time to stop them.

Ragnar_Rahl

You seem to be making a straw man of my philosophical argument. I was not arguing whether a zombie is a zombie, I was arguing about the consequences of the precursor to a zombie being a zombie- the cancellation of a law of nature that allows for human life. i.e. if a zombie virus occurs, humans are already dead and therefore cannot become extinct as a result of the virus. The law of non-contradiction. Treat the argument as it stands, don't twist it at will. "Remember how the premise states it effects all dead human bodies?" No, it states it effects ONLY dead human bodies. It cannot automatically affect "all" dead bodies, physics dictates it has to travel first. All viruses have an origin point. "Besides, people will find ways to look clean because if they are bitten effects will not be instantaneous." They will occur in a few hours. A few hours during which they will be scared as hell, and thus probably incapable of doing much or travelling many places (the competent ones are less likely to be bitten, and those bitten are likely to have the zombie on top of them for awhile until they are no longer living, since they instinctually chase living matter (by implication and by the nature of sensation the closest available). "Already you've admitted that the robot takeover process is slow, thus ineffective in comparison to my premise. " Please read more carefully. As I've already stated, NOTHING in the definition of effectiveness implies speed. It only implies that it will happen. That which is more effective is that which is more likely to make human closest to extinction (i.e. effectiveness in terms of a future possible event can be expressed by an equation of likelihood of x deaths times x deaths plus likelihood of y deaths times y deaths, added until all possible numbers of deaths are available.) Since the zombies are more likely to be caught early on (they are incapable of stealth), and neither is easily stopped at any other time, the zombies have the lower Σ value. "There is nothing we can effectively do about global warming because the public controls it, but with robots it is companies, which the government does have power over." Then why hasn't the government magically made all the things about the companies that it doesn't like go away? Simple. It doesn't know how. Considering how many robots are likely to be made for military use, they would intentionally make sure they had no built-in weakpoints. And the premises still contradict your notion. Enemy soldiers would not be an accurate analogy in regard to the robots and our knowledge of how to fight them, because people (some people, not all, not even most really), only know how to fight soldiers because they've been doing it for thousands of years. Robots, however, are about as new as cancer. Air borne viruses do not "Travel by winds," they only travel in fogs around the host. They die out or spread too thin to infect if they are carried by the wind too long. And most viruses originate in the middle of a jungle or some such, where not much wind gets through. "We aren't discussing its genesis, just it's effects." Every discussion about effects must, by the law of causality, have reference to an origin point to be accurate. "The fact that it is worldwide suffices." No, it "is" not worldwide, it potentially "spreads" worldwide. Implying that that is only if it is not stopped. " Most zombies early on will not be the decomposing horror people first imagine, but look just like regular people acting odd. " Have you seen what a bite mark looks like when something instinctually gives it, especially considering the bite won't be the only thing to have happened to the victim? They'll look a lot worse than hoboes, and people run from those if the hobo starts chasing with teeth bared, especially if they don't respond to language. "If you've seen the corpse of someone recently deceased at a funeral, you can tell that they were once a person, they are just more pale." Um hello, that's because the corpse is INTENTIONALLY CLEANED, and usually there are some chemicals like formaldehyde used. You try to embalm a zombie and see if he sits still for it. I'll ignore your "every second" bit, since it's clearly not based on any real possibilities (zombies would have to be everywhere at once, or viruses would have to behave in an un-virus-like manner). The premise states they are initially "programmed by a main computer." It statedwe "Can" assume it started the rebellion, but don't have to. It does not state they continue to be controlled by the main computer later, or that harming the main computer will harm the rebellion, or that the main computer programming them is necessary in order for them to receive the programming (it could be done just out of custom). If you meant to put something else there, that's great, but you didn't. So quit pretending the premises are something other than they are. The fact that people are shocked by poor manufacturing practices or that all companies pretend to have standards does not mean that those standards will be realized in practice. As the chinese shipping matter proves. How will a zombie break in to any but a poorly built home? They act by instinct, not by skill. They can't pick locks, can't realize that tools will help them, they'll just continually bash their heads and arms against it. Which gives the families in the home plenty of time to tie a knife to a broomstick and use it as a spear, which they'll keep stabbing the zombie with from a window (holding him off obviously) until they hit the head. "And more than 1 zombie will attack a house, and not just from the front, but all around. " Only later, not covering the origin strategy, which is the crucial determinant of likely effectiveness. You would not notice a robot driver if it became customary- especially if the robot is humanoid in appearance, not impossible (heck we've got humanoid robots now if I remember right, although expensive :D) Especially if there are tinted windows. " Like I said, we all have it, bites make it faster. ' Not in the premises. " Nowhere in the premise does it say that robots can have their own factories, yet I let you have it" Because it says they are intelligent. Thereby implying factories. "And they sense, not have sensations. There's a difference." Every sense implies a sensation. A sensation is the product of a stimulus and a sense. "and any 1 person can't withstand 100 forever" In a strategic location, dealing with automatons, yes they can :D. And if they are in a group, they can do much more, because they can take shifts, say in a valley with one pass that needs defending. In conclusion, time has nothing to do with effectiveness here, only the extent of slaughter and the likelihood of that extent. Unless you want extinction to be a goal as an absolute only, which would mean the likelihood of extinction. Robots take their time, but it's not a race, it's a long-term competition, and it is harder to catch them in time to stop them.

Society

A-Zombie-Apocalypse-would-be-More-Effective-in-causing-Living-Mans-extinction-than-a-Robot-Uprising/1/

Okay, the exact resolution is "Patrick_Henry is being childish and counterproductive in his actions against a certain group on debate.org" This group is of course the so-called "voting block" that actually isn't a voting block. The debate in which he does this is here: <URL>... Don't forget to look at the comments. He commits libel, and calls this group a voting block, and its members "A literal band of teenagers, foolishly set in the political views without any life experience or education to back it up reinforcing each others partisan bigotry and ignorance, and clearly organizing a bloc of voters." The group is nothing like what he describes. On its website, and I could give you the URL, but all the pages are password protected, it says "To help newcomer Conservatives by giving advise and displaying proper debating. 2. To help veteran Conservatives win debates by giving him advise on topics and or how to debate that topic properly. 3. To organize a proper community of Conservatives that will help each other as well as bring more Conservatives to debate.org." It is not anything like a "voting bloc" and it is libelous and immature to label it as such. A voting bloc is defined as "a group of voters that are so motivated by a specific concern or group of concerns that it helps determine how they vote in elections." We are not doing this. In no way is it even suggested, it's not even slightly implied. In fact, the group has specifically condemned this action. The group is not a voting bloc. Don't call it one. It is only childish and counterproductive.

LR4N6FTW4EVA

Okay, the exact resolution is "Patrick_Henry is being childish and counterproductive in his actions against a certain group on debate.org" This group is of course the so-called "voting block" that actually isn't a voting block. The debate in which he does this is here: http://www.debate.org... Don't forget to look at the comments. He commits libel, and calls this group a voting block, and its members "A literal band of teenagers, foolishly set in the political views without any life experience or education to back it up reinforcing each others partisan bigotry and ignorance, and clearly organizing a bloc of voters." The group is nothing like what he describes. On its website, and I could give you the URL, but all the pages are password protected, it says "To help newcomer Conservatives by giving advise and displaying proper debating. 2. To help veteran Conservatives win debates by giving him advise on topics and or how to debate that topic properly. 3. To organize a proper community of Conservatives that will help each other as well as bring more Conservatives to debate.org." It is not anything like a "voting bloc" and it is libelous and immature to label it as such. A voting bloc is defined as "a group of voters that are so motivated by a specific concern or group of concerns that it helps determine how they vote in elections." We are not doing this. In no way is it even suggested, it's not even slightly implied. In fact, the group has specifically condemned this action. The group is not a voting bloc. Don't call it one. It is only childish and counterproductive.

Technology

A-debate-on-a-certain-controversy/1/