CreateDebate



Welcome to CreateDebate!

CreateDebate is a social tool that democratizes the decision-making process through online debate. Join Now!
  • Find a debate you care about.
  • Read arguments and vote the best up and the worst down.
  • Earn points and become a thought leader!

To learn more, check out the FAQ or Tour.



Be Yourself

Your profile reflects your reputation, it will build itself as you create new debates, write arguments and form new relationships.

Make it even more personal by adding your own picture and updating your basics.


FB
Facebook addict? Check out our page and become a fan because you love us!


pic
Identify Ally
Declare Enemy
Challenge to a Debate
Report This User

Allies
View All
pic
pic
pic
pic
pic
pic
pic
pic
pic


Enemies
View All
pic
pic
pic
pic
pic
pic
pic
pic
pic


Hostiles
View All
pic
pic
pic
pic
pic
pic
pic
pic
pic
pic
pic
pic
pic
pic
pic
pic
pic
pic
pic
pic
pic
pic
pic
pic
pic
pic
pic
pic
pic


RSS Cartman

Reward Points:17880
Efficiency: Efficiency is a measure of the effectiveness of your arguments. It is the number of up votes divided by the total number of votes you have (percentage of votes that are positive).

Choose your words carefully so your efficiency score will remain high.
92%
Arguments:23354
Debates:41
meter
Efficiency Monitor
Online:


Joined:
10 most recent arguments.
1 point

Have you read a single link that you have posted on this website?

1 point

There are only 2887 professionals with this knowledge? That sounds like an incredibly small field.

1 point

You have no evidence. You had no evidence before, and you have no evidence now. I can't keep explaining to you why you don't have what you say you have because you demonstrate that you know you don't have it. You just won't admit it. So, I can't help you. Sorry.

1 point

every other qualified professional says did it

It isn't every other professional.

You've completely misrepresented what he said.

He only presented links to WTC 7.

1 point

You have to ignore a multitude of facts in order to conclude they were "wrong" instead of intentionally dishonest in the first place. 

Those are the facts I am asking you for.

 You have not mentioned that the government controlled the 9/11 investigation from the beginning,

That's because I asked you for your evidence. What's more shocking is that you haven't mentioned that yet.

 created a commission which was "set up to fail" (according to two different commission members),

We already discussed this.

ignored dozens of eye witness statements

You have actually provided no evidence for this.

failed to conduct a single test for explosives residue.

Possible incompetence.

You have created an alternative reality where none of this actually happened

False. I asked you for your information and you have me nothing.

You can't arbitrarily pick and choose which bits of information you acknowledge in order to make your theory sound better.

Aww, are you claiming the monopoly on that?

If someone says they know something and they don't know it, then they have LIED.

That is not the kind of lying that constitutes a cover up.

But there was demonstrably no transparency in this particular situation.

They won't let you see data about WTC 7 so there is no transparency. You are ridiculous.

There are precise systems in place for the investigation of domestic crime in the United States, and the government actively prevented these investigations from taking place, instead choosing to implement its own.

Bullshit.

If that is what you believe then "evidence" is the third word we have stumbled across during this conversation which you seemingly do not understand the meaning of.

You have already been destroyed for claiming I don't know what the word lying means. How fucking stupid to you have to be to keep accusing me of not knowing words?

1 point

Lie:

an intentionally false statement.

If you find out the government was wrong about something you don't have any information about what their intentions were.

The government has been telling the public how the buildings went down for the last 16 years, so your assertion is contrary to what they themselves have claimed repeatedly.

So, if someone says they know something that means they definitely know it?

The entire purpose of a cover up is to make sure the information you have (i.e. distribute to the public) supports the cover up.

Ok, but that is also the exact purpose of transparency. If they are right it is not a cover up, and if they are wrong it is a cover up? That's not how cover ups work by definition.

You are using extremely blatant circular reasoning. 

No, I was just pointing out facts.

If the government wanted to cover something up, they would ensure the "information they have" supports the cover up

And if they didn't want to cover something up, they would still release information that supports them. You are just begging the question.

This is evidenced particularly well in the fact that no government agency conducted any tests for explosives residue at Ground Zero, despite (literally) dozens of reports of explosions, explosives and "secondary devices" in the towers.

This is your first piece of evidence. Why was it so hard for you to give me the evidence?

1 point

Government secrets are different than secret governments. When we aren't at peace we need the government to at least keep military things secret, right?

1 point

You have lied a thousand times and will lie a thousand more. What's your point?

2 points

Of course we aren't entitled to know. We weren't entitled to know for every president before him. Why would it change for Trump?

1 point

You haven't presented any evidence that the government lied about anything. You don't know how the buildings went down. The government doesn't know how the buildings went down. If the government acts against the information they have it is a cover up. If they act on information they have and you don't agree that's just the government being the government. That happens to 50% of the population on every issue. Go fuck yourself you nut job.

Displaying 10 most recent debates.

Winning Position: Greatest Accomplishment
Tied Positions: Broken promises vs. Promise kept
Winning Position: Yes
Winning Position: Hypocrite
Tied Positions: No vs. Yes
Winning Position: All of Delvis' Arguments
Winning Position: No

About Me


Biographical Information
Gender: Fellow
Age: 106
Marital Status: Married
Political Party: Independent
Country: United States
Postal Code: 92064
Religion: Agnostic
Education: Masters

Want an easy way to create new debates about cool web pages? Click Here