CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
A scientific theory is a hypothesis to be tested by other scientists, who then try to disprove it. At least this is the case with the two most influential scientific theories of our era: evolution and relativity.
Whatever you call it, it should be looked at SERIOUSLY and NOT ignored. They don't usually make claims without serious thought. There ARE a few crackpots out there, but, it is usually known who they are. If it comes from a "known quantity", a reputable scientist, not taking a look at his/her FACTS … with an open mind … can lead to A FALSE OPINION.
First of all, I don't have an "old lady", I have a wife that doesn't deserve that term. Secondly, I don't know where you got the idea that I dispute the fact that I was born a man.
There are others that "by science" were born with a body that said one thing, and a mind AND "internal gender" that does not fit their body. That is an "indisputable fact" that science confirms, and some Christians AND Muslims do not. Are we talking science, or are we not?
No, we are not confused. We see things scientifically. That keeps OUR minds open. Try closing your mouth and opening your eyes and ears … you may see some light.
Bunk, a 'scientific theory' = an educated guess. Empirical evidence limits reality to physical evidence. What makes science any different than ancient peoples who worshiped physical gods. Xtianity its a modern day equivalent of idolatry, this pig religion requires a physical Jesus like the ancient Greeks worship physical God myths. This shitty faith its in exile waiting for the 2nd coming of Jesus son of Zeus.
Tell it to Al Gore and his hysterics about 'climate change'. The "scientists" know who butters their toast! Remember all the evidence and proof Bush war criminals presented to Congress which proved that Iraq possessed Weapons of Mass Destruction?
If it comes from a "known quantity", a reputable scientist, not taking a look at his/her FACTS … with an open mind … can lead to A FALSE OPINION.
I agree with you, Al. That said, even scientists are human, and are susceptible to bias, corruption and errors of judgement. A number of qualified scientists worked on the NIST study of the collapse of WTC 7, for example. They concluded that office fires caused it to collapse. However, numerous other qualified scientists say that NIST's theory is physically impossible (and I agree with them).
I worked with metals most of my life. Hot fires weaken steel, steel is what holds up buildings. A hot fire on one floor, that is supporting MANY floors above it will MORE than likely weaken that support. Numerous qualified scientists find that FACT to be entirely "possible", and I agree with THEM!
It wasn't just an "office fire", it was a burning, very large AIRPLANE fire that, on impact, ALREADY weakened the structure IN THAT AREA! "Numerous other qualified scientists" must have missed that???? IMO, YOU are simply another "conspiracy theorist" that will do ANYTHING to destroy democracy. VOTE THESE IDIOTS OUT!
Personally, I admit that my entire existence is completely pointless. I am an utterly bone thick Irish retard who is too much of a coward to argue with what people actually say, so I simply make up my own version.
It's taken you 13 hours to reply to my last comment you nauseatingly worthless child porn lover. Stfu, before I have you deported, you silly paddy twat.
It's taken you 13 hours to reply to my last comment you nauseatingly worthless child porn lover. Stfu, before I have you deported, you silly twat.
Yet here you are waiting 13 hours for my reply you retard as you’re on here 24/7 attempting to get even one fellow imbecile to agree with your You Tube 9/11 bullshit .
No Old Man let me show you the brilliance of the Leftist voter base and this is rich with stupidity !
Recently, Rosie O'Donnell, a co-host of ABC talk show The View, made comments on the show that renewed controversy over the collapse of World Trade Center 7.
While saying she didn't know what to believe about the U.S. government's involvement in the attacks of Sept. 11, she said, "I do believe that it's the first time in history that fire has ever melted steel. I do believe that it defies physics that World Trade Center tower 7—building 7, which collapsed in on itself—it is impossible for a building to fall the way it fell without explosives being involved. World Trade Center 7. World Trade [Center] 1 and 2 got hit by planes—7, miraculously, the first time in history, steel was melted by fire. It is physically impossible." LMMFAO AL your people are incredibly STUPID !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Bunk. What an idiot. A 110 floor building: its made out of Steel! A passenger jet, its made out of aluminum. A plane hits a bird, and the impact causes extensive to the plane.
If a plane hit a steel structure the entire plane the building would not just consume without parts and pieces of the plane falling to the ground from the outside of the building!
Building #7 it collapsed at near free fall speeds and no plane hit it. A big US bomber plane stuck the Empire State Building in the 2nd World War, and did not cause the implosion of that building - which still stands to this day!
What happened to the wings and engines to the "missile" which struck the Pentagon. 9/10 what happened to the 2.3 trillion dollars that he Pentagon could not account for? The very next day all the info of Pentagon corruption so conveniently destroyed!
Same thing occurred with building #7, which held on the Enron corruption evidence!
No genius, why did the US attack and invade Iraq immediately after 9/11? Idiot.
It wasn't just an "office fire", it was a burning, very large AIRPLANE fire that, on impact, ALREADY weakened the structure IN THAT AREA!
WTC 7 was not hit by an airplane. If you're going to argue then at least learn the facts first, because it is infuriating arguing against ignorance. Watch it collapse when placed adjacent to three confirmed controlled demolitions:-
WTC 7 Collapsing Side-By-Side With Controlled Demolitions
Gee, what happened to the other airplane? One hit one tower, one crashed in a field, one hit the Pentagon, …. one simply "vanished" … with hundreds of people missing ….. maybe the government is keeping them with the "missing" children from Sandy Hook??
I was in Spain at the time, watching the "goings-on" on a computer. I could have SWORN I saw a second plane hit the tower that was NOT burning! SHEESH, I must be going blind! OH, I get it, You're saying the nasty American Government, in cooperation with that conservative President … photoshopped that happening?? Nasty bunch, those politicians! I will have to think about this … I would hope that YOU do also. REALLY THINK! It IS infuriating arguing against ignorance!
By the way. If our government DID do as you claim, what do you think we should replace them with?? Nazis? White supremacists? A "Dear Leader"? Maybe a Russian Oligarch?? Or maybe you think Trump is more trustworthy? ;-b duh!
Gee, what happened to the other airplane? One hit one tower, one crashed in a field, one hit the Pentagon, …. one simply "vanished" … with hundreds of people missing ….. maybe the government is keeping them with the "missing" children from Sandy Hook??
Wtf? Are you stupid? How many skyscrapers do you think collapsed on 9/11? I'll give you a hint. It was three. Two planes, three skyscrapers. Understand? WTC 1, WTC 2 and WTC 7 all collapsed vertically into their own footprints.
HOW, I repeat HOW can you not see that was a controlled demolition? Some of you guys are an actual case study in the effects of psychological deception.
I'm happy to announce that we STILL have freedom of speech, and you can also still THINK freely. (For the time being, anyway). So, you think "WTF" you want, I'll try to stay on the more "sane" side of things. It IS hard to argue with ignorance, so, I'm done here. Enjoy.
Oh, by the way, you didn't say. WTF do we do bout our sneaky, conniving government? Swap them for ……………….. ?
I worked with metals most of my life. Hot fires weaken steel, steel is what holds up buildings. A hot fire on one floor, that is supporting MANY floors above it will MORE than likely weaken that support.
Al, evidently you don't seem to understand the concept of falling to the path of least resistance. When the top 11 floors of a 110 floor building "weaken", they do not fall through the path of greatest resistance and crush the remaining 99 floors which have held them up for the past 40 years. That is sheer, unadulterated fantasy. It is so fundamentally stupid, in fact, that the idea could only be entertained by someone with absolutely no understanding of the basic laws of motion. And we are not even talking about it happening once. We are talking about it happening three times in the same afternoon.
There are some SERIOUSLY stupid people in America, and unfortunately you appear to be one of them.
Yes , yes , there , there calm down ..... You must be right because your narrative is backed by a Danish You Tube nutter and a .......janitor who’s another conspiracy theorist ...... You dont do basic science do you buddy ?
Go away you retard only a half -wits like you takes that “ journal “ seriously
So, to clarify, you don't take a peer-reviewed scientific journal seriously, but you DO take seriously a pseudo-Wiki run by banned Conservapedia editors which anybody in the entire world can modify? Gotcha.
How many houses have you robbed today though, gypo? Be honest.
So to clarify you’re sticking to your crank 9/11 journal that no credible scientist takes seriously , but you refuse to take the word of mainstream scientists over the cracpot mob ? Gotcha
How many janitor jobs were you turned down on today , be honest
The Journal of 9/11 Studies is a peer- crank-reviewed, online, open source pseudojournal that gives 9/11 Truthers a place to just ask questions
You keep repeating this line as if it somehow refutes the 72 peer-reviewed articles I dumped on your doorstep. When Rational Wiki is staffed by scientists rather than 17 year old edgelords then I will take its rhetoric seriously on matters of science. Capiche?
Awww. Does laughing at science make the bad thoughts go away?
I tell you what, attacking Rational Wiki is too easy because it's a pseudo-Wiki run by literal confirmed idiots. Instead, here are a list of confirmed hoaxes hosted on the actual Wikipedia platform:-
As you can see, many of these hoax pages were not removed for over 10 years. Hence, Wikipedia is a "crank" site and I am going to ignore all the information it hosts because it is obviously all false. Or no, because I'M NOT A REDUNDANTLY THICK, THIEVING IRISH GYPO, AM I?
Real science 👌😂😂😂😂😂 You mean like the Danish kiddy fiddler you claimed was a “ real scientist “? Or wait you said the Janitor at the trade center had the “ real beef “ didn’t you ? 👌😂😂😂😂🤪🤪
Your stupidity is unequaled I see after several years of coming out with the same horseshit you’ve still convinced no one you thick twat , why’s that ?
The Journal of 9/11 Studies is a peer- crank-reviewed, online, open source pseudojournal that gives 9/11 Truthers a place to just ask questions
LMFAO! Rational Wiki (the place you plagiarised this exact line from, because you are a morally corrupt, thieving Irish tinker) was: "originally founded by atheist trolls making fun of religion, but at the same time, are completely unaware that what they write is anything but rational".
You are a blatant plagiarist and a liar, who is so stupid he believes anything if it has the word "Wiki" tagged on the end and looks authoritative, regardless of whether it was written by intellectually retarded halfwit edgelords (which it was) with no proper referencing. The article you refer to LITERALLY references ScrewLooseChange, a pseudo-documentary which has no connection to the Journal of 9/11 Studies, and which was directed by a renowned cretin who has been meticulously debunked.
You're literally just a waste of air. A thieving little pikey who steals his rhetoric from a pseudo-Wiki formed by banned Conservapedia editors.
Real science 👌😂😂😂😂😂 You mean like the Danish kiddy fiddler you claimed was a “ real scientist “? Or wait you said the Janitor at the trade center had the “ real beef “ didn’t you ? 👌😂😂😂😂🤪🤪
Your stupidity is unequaled I see after several years of coming out with the same horseshit you’ve still convinced no one you thick twat , why’s that ?
But no it isn't, you pathetic wanker. The NIST study has never been peer-reviewed by any scientists because NIST refuses to release its modelling data to the public.
Everything you say is a lie because you are a liar through and through. It is absolutely positively clear which side the scientists are on:-
Oh, I see. You're not a "real" scientist unless you're a jobless prick who ignores 72 peer-reviewed articles and comes back with a plagiarised line from a pseudo-Wiki. LOL!
Lol. Yes Dermot. Laughing at science makes it go away. All thieving Irish gypsies know this.
"I was one of the referees of the Harrit et al. paper. The editors asked for my opinion. And after about two weeks of studying what the authors had written, checking relevant references, and gathering my thoughts, I finally provided my advice to authors in 12 single-spaced pages, together with my recommendation to the Editors that they publish the paper after the authors had considered my suggestions. Still, some skeptical readers may ask how anyone can rate a scientific paper as “fabulous.” Well, I am the principal author of 109 papers (and a co-author of an additional 81) in peer-review journals. And have refereed a least 600, and possibly as many as 1000, manuscripts. So you would be right in calling me an aficionado of articles published in scientific journals. And I found absolutely nothing to criticize in the final version of the Harrit et al. paper! Apropos, twelve of my own publications have appeared in the American Institute of Physics’ Journal of Chemical Physics (an old fashioned paper journal), so it is accurate to say that chemical physics (of inorganic materials) is my main specialty."
