Debate Info

10

11

Make's a lot of sense

Unbelievable

Debate Score:	21
Arguments:	23
Total Votes:	21
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph

Make's a lot of sense (10)

Unbelievable (10)

Debate Creator

Judge-Ito (135)

Conservanazi's real name is...

Yes. We have confirmation. This really couldn't get any better!

REAL NAME : Kurt Eichenwald.

BRIEF SUMMARY : Kurt (57) is an American 'journalist' and author.

He has most recently gained wide spread attention for his few TV appearances

and twitter comments, resulting in a major backlash and his own ostracising from the community.

Given recent events and Kurt's own mental health issues, it is not surprising to

find him hiding on a website like this.

Be warned.

For anyone interested in learning more about Kurt aka Conservanazi,

one youtuber has compiled all of Kurts biggest failures here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FDezfo2w1gY&t=197s

-Given Kurt's behaviour on this website, we expect him to deny this, we will not be posting the evidence we have in fear of legal reprisals, we just want you to know, Kurt, that we, all, now know too.

Make's a lot of sense Side Score: 10		Unbelievable Side Score: 11
Add New Argument		Add New Argument

Judge-Ito (135)

1 point

For those members of the website upset by the decision to name Conservanazi, possibly out of fear of losing their own anonymity, you have nothing to worry about.

To answer your questions as best I can and to the relief of the moderators of createdebate.com,

the website has not been hacked.

Sources will not be elaborated on.

Kurt's out of the bag.

5 years ago Side: Make's a lot of sense

Support Dispute Clarify

↑ Hide Replies

Amarel (5669) Clarified

1 point

That’s not Nazi. Nazis name is Dereck. .

5 years ago Side: Make's a lot of sense

Support Dispute Clarify

↑ Hide Replies

Judge-Ito (135) Disputed

1 point

I'm afraid you've been mislead.

His name is Kurt Eichenwald, he was a journalist that completely lost the plot and now he spends all his time on here.

We have evidence, what's yours.

5 years ago Side: Unbelievable

Support Dispute Clarify

↓ Show Replies

Amarel (5669) Disputed

1 point

I don’t know your evidence, I know mine. I’m not providing my evidence because idk what people here would do with his whole name.

5 years ago Side: Make's a lot of sense

Support Dispute Clarify

↓ Show Replies

Judge-Ito (135) Disputed

1 point

"I don’t know your evidence"" I’m not providing my evidence"

Ok, I know this could be hard to process for some, you have clearly been duped.

Just ask yourself, what do you really know?

You don't have to answer on here just think about it:

Have you even met him in person?

Been over to his house and met his family or friends?

Seen any identification?

5 years ago Side: Unbelievable

Support Dispute Clarify

↓ Show Replies

Amarel (5669) Disputed

1 point

Just ask yourself, why should you believe I have any evidence at all? And why should I believe you?

5 years ago Side: Make's a lot of sense

Support Dispute Clarify

↓ Show Replies

Judge-Ito (135) Disputed

1 point

"Just ask yourself, why should you believe I have any evidence at all?"

Due to the evidence I have, I don't believe you, i actually know for a fact you are wrong.

"And why should I believe you?"

You don't have to but it's clearly in your best interests.

5 years ago Side: Unbelievable

Support Dispute Clarify

↓ Show Replies

Amarel (5669) Disputed

1 point

My interest are pretty well unaltered by whether I am correct about a trolls name. So I’m comfortable with my conclusion

5 years ago Side: Make's a lot of sense

Support Dispute Clarify

↓ Show Replies

Judge-Ito (135)

1 point

You're 'interests' maybe, whatever the fuck that means,

but your credibility is altered, i would say damaged.

5 years ago Side: Make's a lot of sense

Support Dispute Clarify

↓ Show Replies

Amarel (5669) Disputed

1 point

You said that failing to believe you is clearly not in my best interests. So what the fuck does that mean?

I may be wrong about my conclusion, that’s not a problem. But believing you when I have less than a reason to? That would damage credibility.

5 years ago Side: Unbelievable

Support Dispute Clarify

↓ Show Replies

Judge-Ito (135) Disputed

1 point

No.

I said believing Conservanazi is not Kurt Eichenwald, based on no evidence,

is not in your best interests.

Unless you have your own actual evidence to the contrary, which you don't,

it would be in your best interest to realise your current position is not in your best interest :)

5 years ago Side: Make's a lot of sense

Support Dispute Clarify

↓ Show Replies

Amarel (5669) Disputed

1 point

There is no reason to believe that Nazi is Kurt Eichenwald other than you saying so. Given that, the fact that one does not strike me as the other, and the fact I have my own evidence which makes me believe otherwise, believing you with less than a reason would damage my credibility.

If you wish to persuade, then show your evidence. I don’t wish to persuade. I don’t care one way or the other.

5 years ago Side: Unbelievable

Support Dispute Clarify

↓ Show Replies

Judge-Ito (135) Disputed

1 point

"There is no reason to believe that Nazi is Kurt Eichenwald other than you saying so."

So you have 1 reason.

"Given that, the fact that one does not strike me as the other,"

So you would discredit a warning based on your perceived ability to decipher the identity of people on the internet, people that you have never met. I'll be generous and call that one 0.

"and the fact I have my own evidence which makes me believe otherwise,"

Ever met them? Seen them? Do you know for fact? No. So that's another 1.

It would damage your credibility to go with 0 reason to 2 wouldn't it?

He is Kurt.

He's lying to you.

5 years ago Side: Make's a lot of sense

Support Dispute Clarify

↓ Show Replies

Amarel (5669) Disputed

1 point

Have you ever met him? Care to share pictures? Maybe a pic of Kurt on CD? Didn’t think so.

This is the Internet. You have provided no evidence that Nazi is Kurt. You have merely asserted.

No one told me that Nazi is Dereck, I discovered it myself. Nazi says that’s not him.

You claimed Nazi was someone he does not seem to be. I have 0 reason to believe you. I have 1 reason to believe he is specifically someone other than who you claim. So I have -1 reason to believe you.

Incidentally, it would damage my credibility if I believed you with 0 reasons. I have -1.

5 years ago Side: Unbelievable

Support Dispute Clarify

↓ Show Replies

Mingiwuwu (1446) Clarified

0 points

If you think dereck cheetham is anything other than a pseudonym, you've underestimated the levels to which a sociopath will go to con you into feeling you can trust them.

5 years ago Side: Make's a lot of sense

Support Dispute Clarify

↓ Show Replies

Add New Argument

SportsAnimal (27)

1 point

EVIDENCE OF HIS REAL NAME

Earl Bradley

Earl Brian Bradley (born May 10, 1953) is a former pediatrician from Lewes, Delaware and convicted serial child molester.

"He has been described by a number of reputable news outlets and commentators as "the worst pedophile in American history."

Bradley had access to an estimated 7,000 pediatric patients. According to a personal injury law firm in Baltimore, MD, one of many representing class action plaintiffs, 1,400 families in the class action alleged abuse. Bradley was ultimately found guilty on all charges and was sentenced to 14 consecutive terms of life plus 165 years in prison without parole on June 26, 2011. His conviction was affirmed by the Delaware Supreme Court on September 6, 2012.

Earl Bradley

Born

Earl Brian Bradley

May 10, 1953 (age 65)

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

Occupation

Pediatrician (former)

Criminal charge

Child rape, assault and sexual exploitation of a child

Criminal penalty

Life plus 165 years

Criminal status

Currently incarcerated at the Cheshire Correctional Institution in Cheshire, Connecticut.[1]

Conviction(s)

June 23, 2011

The facility he is locked up in gives him unfettered access to the internet.

Supporting Evidence: Earl Bradley (en.m.wikipedia.org)

5 years ago Side: Unbelievable

Support Dispute Clarify

Add New Argument

Browse More Debates