The TruthSeeker1234 $1000.00 Challenge

[tsig]

The advantage of doing it here is that lots of intelligent people read this site. No audience needs to be developed. If TruthSeeker1234 wants to show off his knowledge, what's he waiting for? We've been clamoring for him to back his claims all along. Again and again and again, he's refused to do so. No one and nothing stands in his way except his pitiful intellectual cowardice.

The only knowlede that BS549 has demonstrated is the aility to use the Internet. All else is in doubt.

 

[TruthSeeker1234]

State of Grace got it backwards when he said

let me also take the time to explain your role here. It is to provide evidence of the "inside Job", not to broker a book deal nor shamelessly promote yourself. It is bad enough you are promoting garbage.

Backwards. The entire point of my challenge is to get somebody, ANYBODY, who is willing to go on record in support of the official theory. I'd like someone to defend the proposition "Resolved: The WTC 1,2,7 collapsed from impact damage and fires". This is the opposite of my providing evidence of the "inside job". Undoubtably, plenty of evidence for the inside job will be presented in my destruction of the official story. However, the structure of the debate is not as State of Grace wants it.

A seperate debate could indeed be waged, with me defending the proposition "Resolved: The WTC1,2,7 were brought down by incindiaries and explosives." That is also interesting, but is not the subject of this challenge.

 

[Ducky]

I see truthseeker1234 has still not started the thread for the debate, despite asking the mods how to do so (and getting a reply) and is now focused on some book deal of some sort.

Coward.

 

[TruthSeeker1234]

I find it very illuminating that JREF thinks a fair debate would give "undue weight" to the alternative theory. This is a clever way of saying, "We are frieghtened that a fair debate would expose the lack of evidence in support of the official theory, and the mountain of evidence that contradicts it." The only way JREF can continue to maintain the charade is to do what TV segment producers do, it's called "stacking the deck". News producers with an agenda will have the reporter appear to state both sides of the case, then present one unattractive proponent for one side, and 3 or 4 attractive proponents for the other side. It's a sophisticated form of "argumentum ad populum" and you see it all the time.

 

[TruthSeeker1234]

fowlsound also does not understand the challenge.

I see truthseeker1234 has still not started the thread for the debate, despite asking the mods how to do so (and getting a reply) and is now focused on some book deal of some sort.

Coward.

The debate will be started by someone presenting the positive case. It will be an essay that satisfies the scientific curiosity of the layperson observer who wonders just what caused those buildings to do what they did.

I will then respond by demolishing the positive case.

There will be equal time, pictures and videos are allowed.

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

garnos was inquisitive

How about proven beyond a reasonable doubt?

Proving a negative is generally considered a logical fallacy.

Nope. I have to have my co-author in place first.

Yep, just keep moving those goalposts.

Essentially unedited, that is part of the appeal. My co-author and I can agree on the title, the sub-title, we can each write an introduction.

Essentially unedited, or unedited? Which is it? Do you even know of a publisher to which you can sell this idea?

Yes. It hasn't been done before. All the other material out there comes from one side or the other. A book from both sides is unique, AFAIK.

No, it's not unique. That aside; this isn't mental masturbation about "what is the soul", this is (on your part) accusing numerous people of mass murder. A book presenting "both sides" of the issue trivializes the importance of it and continues to present the image that you are just looking for a fast buck.

First, JREF have declined to allow a closed thread, which was the idea from the get go.

No, the idea from the get go was for a one-on-one debate. It doesn't need some special thread with mod interaction. The two parties are the only two that post in it.

It was a JREFer's idea, not mine. Second, more to the point, there is a legal difference between quoting in context, and republishing an entire work, and exploiting that entire republihed work for profit, and claiming an original copyright. JREF have not addressed my question, actually, and given their refusal to allow the closed thread, I consider the question closed. THe idea of a debate book is a good one, regardless of where it takes place.

Once again, reaffirming the idea you are just out to make money; not to have an honest debate of the issue.

a) That has already been done.

By whom?

 

[jon]

I find it very illuminating that JREF thinks a fair debate would give "undue weight" to the alternative theory. This is a clever way of saying, "We are frieghtened that a fair debate would expose the lack of evidence in support of the official theory, and the mountain of evidence that contradicts it." The only way JREF can continue to maintain the charade is to do what TV segment producers do, it's called "stacking the deck". News producers with an agenda will have the reporter appear to state both sides of the case, then present one unattractive proponent for one side, and 3 or 4 attractive proponents for the other side. It's a sophisticated form of "argumentum ad populum" and you see it all the time.

No one is stopping you from having a debate on this forum - you could start a thread now. What Jeff actually said is that a thread which met your conditions "gives the conspiracy theory issue more weight than it deserves, and sets a precedent that could lead to much ugliness." This seems fair enough - for example, if the forum is running a CT debate, then people might want 'special' threads for ID, chi, whatever... Also, why should JREF give up their copyright on discussions here in order for you (and perhaps your coauthor) to be able to profit from mass-killing?

If you want a debate, start a thread already. If you're worried about being 'outnumbered' by skeptics - though if your evidence is that strong, I don't see why you should be - why not persuade others in the Scholars, on Loose Change forums, whatever, to post in the debate. As I'm sure you've seen, people will be allowed to post their views as long as they stick within the forum rules (i.e. not being abusive etc.). 300 posts in already, not having a debate, but you squirming about finding reasons not to have a debate if you're going to start a debate thread (here or elsewhere) just do it...

I won't hold my breath.

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

I find it very illuminating that JREF thinks a fair debate would give "undue weight" to the alternative theory. This is a clever way of saying, "We are frieghtened that a fair debate would expose the lack of evidence in support of the official theory, and the mountain of evidence that contradicts it." The only way JREF can continue to maintain the charade is to do what TV segment producers do, it's called "stacking the deck". News producers with an agenda will have the reporter appear to state both sides of the case, then present one unattractive proponent for one side, and 3 or 4 attractive proponents for the other side. It's a sophisticated form of "argumentum ad populum" and you see it all the time.

********. From here

...
I would add to this, that by doing so, they are also able to implant the idea that their ideas are on equal footing, have equal value, and are in similar standing in the relevant fields of expertise. This behavior was summed up nicely in Daniel C. Dennett's essay The Hoax of Intelligent Design and How It Was Perpetrated in the book Intelligent Thought: Science Versus the Intelligent Design Movement pgs 39-41

The campaigners for intelligent design have become adept at feeding off the difficulty of this idea, by starting with a straightforward counterclaim and then retreating into the fog of technical confusion when their counterclaims are refuted. For instance, the philosopher William Dembski, one of the two most prominent ideologues of the ID movement, has attempted to argue that a particular sort of design product does require an intelligent designer, and that the designs found in nature include such products, but his various expressions of the argument to date, which depend on some rather abstruse mathematical formulations, have been show to be technically flawed. Few, if any, theoreticians give his project any hope of success, since the flaws they have uncovered are central to his thesis.
...
How can non-scientists assess their own judgement in this case? Not by trusting wishful thinking. If you can just see that Dembski must be onto something even thought you can't follow the mathematics, you are falling right into the trap. ... Perhaps, then, you should wait with bated breath on the sidelines while the experts duke it out in the scientific arena. This would be fine, except that Dembski has left the playing field and is appealing directly to the spectators, instead of contending with the scientists on their own terms.
In his trade books, magazine articles, and popular lectures, Dembski makes it appear that there is scientific controversy - but there isn't, as we can see by comparing his path with others. ... Instead, he and his cohorts use a ploy that works like this. First you misuse or misdescribe some scientist's work, provoking an angry rebuttal. Then, instead of dealing forthrightly with the charges leveled, you cite the rebuttal as evidence there is a "controversy" to teach.
Note that the trick is content-free. You can use it on any topic. ... And here is the delicious part:You can often exploit the very technicality of the issues to your own advantage, counting on most of us to miss the point amid all the difficult details. ... Clever! What looks to scientists - and is - a knockout objection by Dr. Schneider is portrayed to almost everyone else as ridiculous hairsplitting.

 

[tsig]

I find it very illuminating that JREF thinks a fair debate would give "undue weight" to the alternative theory. This is a clever way of saying, "We are frieghtened that a fair debate would expose the lack of evidence in support of the official theory, and the mountain of evidence that contradicts it." The only way JREF can continue to maintain the charade is to do what TV segment producers do, it's called "stacking the deck". News producers with an agenda will have the reporter appear to state both sides of the case, then present one unattractive proponent for one side, and 3 or 4 attractive proponents for the other side. It's a sophisticated form of "argumentum ad populum" and you see it all the time.

So now you are accusing Jeff and JREF of being dishonest?

Sounds like you are already rehearsing your statement of victory.

Can I write it for you.

"I challenged Jref and I won, take my word on it".

 

[tsig]

fowlsound also does not understand the challenge.



I will then respond by demolishing the positive case.

There will be equal time, pictures and videos are allowed.

Sounds more like a lynching than a debate.

 

[chipmunk stew]

********. From here

I wonder how much crossover there is...

 

[MRC_Hans]

I find it very illuminating that JREF thinks a fair debate would give "undue weight" to the alternative theory. This is a clever way of saying, "We are frieghtened that a fair debate would expose the lack of evidence in support of the official theory, and the mountain of evidence that contradicts it." The only way JREF can continue to maintain the charade is to do what TV segment producers do, it's called "stacking the deck". News producers with an agenda will have the reporter appear to state both sides of the case, then present one unattractive proponent for one side, and 3 or 4 attractive proponents for the other side. It's a sophisticated form of "argumentum ad populum" and you see it all the time.

TS: Now honestly, do you believe any of this yourself? Do you really, really believe that you will be able, in a fair debate, to do anything seriously to the conventional explanation? I mean something that anybody but already convinced CT'ers will give any credit at all?

EVERY argument you have presented here thus far (not that that amounts to a lot) has been demolished several times over. Now, if you have better arguments than those you have presented so far, why not just present them? Why try to make deals? Do you really think that many people here would trust you in a deal? Heck, most of us wouldn't trust you to tell us the right time of the day.

Hans

 

[chipmunk stew]

For the love of Ed, this is stupid.

TS, no more stalling.

Get to it.

 

[Pythra]

Thank you, Chipmunk, for trying to get this show on the road.

I look forward to hearing TS1234's excuse for not participating.

 

[Horatius]

The debate will be started by someone presenting the positive case. It will be an essay that satisfies the scientific curiosity of the layperson observer who wonders just what caused those buildings to do what they did.

I will then respond by demolishing the positive case.

There will be equal time, pictures and videos are allowed.

I offer $1000.00 to anyone who will debate me, one on one, on a closed thread, and start the thread with the positive case for the impact/fire hypothesis. Resolved: WTC1,2, and 7 came down due to impact damage and fire.

Debate according to Arkan's rules. $100 up front (i.e. upon your having opened the thread made the first post being made), $900.00 balance paid upon completion of the debate.

OK, it's not the $1,000,000.00 challenge, but at least it's physically possible for someone to have an online debate, unlike the JREF $1,000,000.00 challenge.

How about it, anyone want my money?

Hell, yes.

I still have not heard back from Triterope, maybe he was not serious after all.

So Abby, I suppose you're up next!

Congratulations Abby Scott. Let's debate!

Perhaps it's fitting that you are a comedian, compared with what i do for a living, that makes us pretty much equally qualified to debate this issue! Like you, I too like to use 911 as a source for material. Your movie brought a smile to my face.

I'm sure our adventure together will be a goldmine of comedy nuggets for you. Promise me that you will write a nice summary of the explanation of the 9/11 collapses that is enough to satisfy the scientific curiosity of a typical layperson observer who wonders what the explanation is for what he just saw. If you promise me this, I will send you $100 and wait for your positive case. Then we will debate back and forth, and I'll keep sending you $100 at a time. When I'm out $1000, it will be over.

Hopefully I have the right Abby. I was so wrong before, I thought Stellafane was Kate! How silly of me. Anyways, let me know.

I agreed to your original terms. They seem to be changing constantly.

Now please tell me exactly the format again?

This is to be a thread as you suggested, correct?

So, if Abbyas starts the thread, will you meet her there? And send her the first $100? What if everyone who posts in this thread promises to stay out of it, and just leave it to you two? How about it, will you honour your commitment as outlined above? Or do I make my donation now?

ETA: Or go talk to Chipmunk Stew, whichever.

 

[juryjone]

I find it interesting that TS keeps calling what he proposes a "formal debate" and a "fair debate', as if they are one and the same thing. As someone familiar with formal debating societies in high school, I think what we here would consider a fair debate is not even in the ballpark of what TS wants to do.

What most everyone here is wanting is a discussion where someone brings up a point, and that point is discussed until someone concedes the point. That is what I consider a fair debate, and it is something that is like kryptonite to CTers like TS.

A formal debate, as practiced in high schoool and other debate societies, starts from a premise - "Resolved: WTC 1, 2 & 7 fell from the reults of the plane impact and the resulting fire." (Sound familiar?) Two teams of two people each debate the proposition in the following manner:

First Affirmative: Presents a scripted case for the proposition. This is what TS wants Abby or Triterope to do.

First Negative: Partially scripted. Presents the case against the proposition. Also refutes some points brought up by First Affirmative.

Second Affirmative: Refutes as many points brought up by First Negative as possible. Wraps up the case for Affirmative. Generally offers no new arguments.

Second Negative: Ah, this is where it gets really interesting. Second Negative is basically able to do whatever he or she wants, because they have the last word. They can refute previous arguments, or they can go off on a tangent and bring up totally new arguments that the affirmative side is not given the opportunity to counter.

Now, in general, the judges of the debate are trying to see how much everyone can stick to the point and will downplay any attempts by Second Negative to bring up new material. However, an able speaker can sway the judges, even if they deviate from the points already brought up.

Let's look at what TS has proposed. He proposes that someone write an essay, a script, based on the resolution. He will then reply, but they both will have equal time. That means that TS will have the last word. There will be no judges, therefore TS can go off on whatever tangents, never having to address any of the points his opponent makes, and certainly not having to concede any of his own points.

In addition, if he can't change the rules of this forum to something he likes, then he wants to take it offline, where he can declare victory after he "edits" the material and turns it into a book, a source of blood money.

TS is not stupid. He's just evil.

 

[LashL]

The advantage of doing it here is that lots of intelligent people read this site. No audience needs to be developed. If TruthSeeker1234 wants to show off his knowledge, what's he waiting for? We've been clamoring for him to back his claims all along. Again and again and again, he's refused to do so. No one and nothing stands in his way except his pitiful intellectual cowardice.

The problem is that BS1234 does not possess sufficient knowledge to properly debate the issues - not a single one of them. He has demonstrated that consistently. He never backs up anything he says. He relies solely on what he's heard from hanging around conspiracy sites, so he has no legitimate sources to cite to back up his ludicrous claims.

On the rare occasion that he cites a legitimate cite, he does so in the vaguest of terms when he thinks that something in a a engthy paper of hundreds of pages or more supports his position, but he refuses to provide a page number and expects others to locate a pinpoint cite for him.

When he is called on his bluffs, as he has been repeatedly, he runs away.

When he thinks that sufficient time has passed, he returns acting the fool again.

There is nothing honourable about him, and nothing honest about him. He's just here to waste the time of people who actually think critically in hopes that he can fool his pals at the tinhat sites that he is worthy of this forum.

He isn't.

 

[LashL]

The debate will be started by someone presenting the positive case. It will be an essay that satisfies the scientific curiosity of the layperson observer who wonders just what caused those buildings to do what they did.

I will then respond by demolishing the positive case.

There will be equal time, pictures and videos are allowed.

In other words, you have no faith in your position, you have no concept of how to debate, and you hope that by rewriting (repeatedly) the rules of the debate you're allegedly hankering for, it will come down to you saying, "AHA! Just LOOK at that photo! Just LOOK at this video! This proves, PROVES, I tells ya', that it was an inside job because I said so!"

Tinhatters like you don't need no stinkin' evidence, you don't need no stinkin' science, you don't need no stinkin' expertise, because google and amateur photo analysis will do.

Pretty pathetic, TS.

The terms of your debate offer were accepted a long time ago. You've been obfuscating and moving the goalposts ever since.

It would be so simple to just get on with it instead of incessantly whining like a 5 year old, yet, here you are, still obfuscating, still whining, and still moving the goalposts.

Pathetic.

Either get on with it or STFU already.

 

[stateofgrace]

State of Grace got it backwards when he said
Backwards. The entire point of my challenge is to get somebody, ANYBODY, who is willing to go on record in support of the official theory. I'd like someone to defend the proposition "Resolved: The WTC 1,2,7 collapsed from impact damage and fires". This is the opposite of my providing evidence of the "inside job". Undoubtably, plenty of evidence for the inside job will be presented in my destruction of the official story. However, the structure of the debate is not as State of Grace wants it.

A seperate debate could indeed be waged, with me defending the proposition "Resolved: The WTC1,2,7 were brought down by incindiaries and explosives." That is also interesting, but is not the subject of this challenge.

Oh I see, I must have got lost in the maze of clauses and conditions you have put down since your original challenge.

I really could not care less about your petty ego trip or the structure of this debate. Personally I couldn't care less whether you debate or not.

You have issued a challenge it as been accepted. Now no more clauses, no more conditions .Get on with it. If you feel your position is so strong. Start the thread yourself.

My objection is not to the thread it is to your motivation behind it. Your motivation is as transparent as your theories. That being one of opportunity, a way to promote yourself either personally or
financially.

This opportunity is something you are not entitled to, for it is an opportunity based on lies and the blood of the innocent people who died.

Herein lies the different between you and me. I see and respect 911 for the dreadful event it was where thousands of innocent people died at the hands of Islamic fundamentalists. You on the other hand see it as an opportunity, a way out of your mundane everyday life where you are a nobody. So you take your opportunity, and grasp at fame and fortune by any means possible. It is a game,a show.

Unfortunately in this show there are clowns and you my friend are the one handing out the balloons.

 

[Abbyas]

TS1289, I want specifics. This will not be a book as the price is way, way under the standard. This will be a thread as you proposed and a thread only. Nor will I give you permission to use my words in a manner published anywhere than other than said thread.

I also want a written contract. With details of payment type and date.