Which side makes a better case?
  • Filter by:
  • Pro
  • Draw
  • Con
  • 5 months ago

    My sources:

    a. https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2018/01/dutch-intelligence-hacked-video-cameras-in-office-of-russians-who-hacked-dnc/

    b. https://www.volkskrant.nl/wetenschap/dutch-agencies-provide-crucial-intel-about-russia-s-interference-in-us-elections~b4f8111b/

    c. https://www.justice.gov/storage/report.pdf

    d. https://medium.com/@dojalumni/statement-by-former-federal-prosecutors-8ab7691c2aa1

    e. https://themoscowproject.org/explainers/aiding-abetting/index.html

    f. https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/kevincollier/assange-seth-rich-lies-guccifer-wikileaks-hannity


    h. https://www.axios.com/why-trumps-wheres-the-server-is-the-wrong-question-30a4c97c-2822-47b3-b939-1fc2a7490d99.html

    i. https://www.thedailybeast.com/trumps-missing-dnc-server-is-neither-missing-nor-a-server

    j. https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/zmkxp9/dnc-server-conspiracy-theory-russian-hack-explained

    k. https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/07/17/dnc-server-hack-russia-trump-2016-219017

    l. https://www.bankinfosecurity.com/incident-responders-shred-trumps-dnc-server-conspiracy-a-11214

    m. https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2019/mar/18/wikileaks-russias-useful-idiot-its-agent-influence/

    n. https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/media/2018/11/what-earth-going-wikileaks-trump-and-russia

    o. https://www.ajc.com/blog/jamie-dupree/mueller-wikileaks-used-dead-dnc-worker-bid-cover-russia-ties/SWSSsHGY7BJNc8pSrzZ9XJ/

    p. https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/04/ben-wittes-five-conclusions-mueller-report/588259/

    q. https://www.factcheck.org/2019/05/what-mueller-barr-say-about-obstruction-of-justice/

    r. https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/04/19/mueller-report-analysis-legal-experts-226662

    s. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/04/01/what-we-know-about-genesis-russia-investigation/?utm_term=.a77a54c3b2b2

    t. https://www.justsecurity.org/63398/revisiting-carter-page/

    u. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/24/opinion/trump-carter-page-fisa-application.html

    • 5 months ago

      @bronson There is literally nothing about that which is a gish gallop. I did a lot of research on the subject, and I mentioned that research in the debate. You foolishly laughed at some of my claims, but they are well documented.

      A gish gallop would have happened if you had a limited time frame (like the 3 minute time limit on some debates), and I then made 30 points expecting you to debunk them all in your tiny allotment of time. But that did not happen here. Each of us had all the time we needed, and I don't think either of us ever had more than 2 points going on at a time. This list of sources is just the links I had saved in my notes from the preparation I did for this debate.

    • 5 months ago

      @sharkb8 all you did was post 21 links for 21 different claims. That's a Gish Gallop. Let's start with the first one since it figured so prominently in your argument.

      Show me where the Dutch government ever corroborated this claim by the media.

    • 5 months ago

      @bronson I’m not rehashing the debate in the comments. That’s bad etiquette. I made claims during the debate and then posted links backing up my assertions. Most people just ignore the sources comment.

    • 5 months ago

      @sharkb8 is that an admission that the Dutch government never, in fact, made this claim?

  • 5 months ago

    Idiocy by Daniel. Bronson had facts....and Daniel was in TOTAL DENIAL of facts.

    I wonder if Daniel gets his facts from leftist 'graphic novels' that depict their fantasies - because nothing he really put forth was based on facts.

    Witches DON'T exist - so a 'witch hunt' is a fraudulent hunt.

    I am guessing Daniel doesn't believe in the rule of law and following DoJ regulations...because there was NO specified crime. ALSO - the appointment was flawed - Rod Rosenstein should have recused himself since HE had RECOMMENDED that Trump fire Comey. AND - since Mueller and Comey were close friends - an ethical Mueller would have not accepted the appointment - since Mueller would have recognized that Rosenstein should not be appointing anyone if an investigation would include Comey.

    I am amazed at how many false statements that Daniel gave.
    He spun stories about Trump saying to NOT investigate Flynn to Comey ...when the reality was that Trump stated that Flynn had been removed...and hopefully - it (the matter) could be let go...Flynn had suffered enough. THAT is not improper, illegal, or otherwise any obstruction of justice.
    Daniel kept insisting his version of the facts. Talk about disconnected from reality!
    Bronson kept putting forth facts - and Daniel talked over him!

    Daniel totally blew by the point made by Bronson - the previous special prosecutor - Patrick Fitzgerald acted in a totally inappropriate manner....and essentially railroaded Scooter Libby. Wasted $50 Million - and ruined someone's life. And Mueller was hoping to do like Fitzgerald - get people caught in traps of different recollections....(like Libby) and end up with something to convince the public that Trump did something bad. A fraud perpetrated on Trump and the public.

    Mueller hired Andrew Weissman - a totally unethical and sleazy prosecutor who should have been disbarred - not hired by Mueller. Any investigation using Weissman is compromised from the get-go.

    BTW - the Mueller 'dossier' (fitting name - like the sleazy unverified and salacious Christopher Steele dossier) - already has been shown to have 'creative editing' (i.e. - LIES...in the text.) Most serious - in Volume 2 - there was a transcript of a voice message to LTG Flynn's lawyer by Trump's lawyer. By removing portions of the complete transcript - it comes across as 'suspicious' - and of concern. BUT - the COMPLETE transcript suggests nothing improper, unethical and the editing of the transcripts is unethical - and perhaps illegal and worthy of disbarment.

    Carter Page - Daniel again is in denial. The FISA warrant was a FRAUD. The FISA warrant "verified" the claim that Carter Page was a 'Russian Agent' - a false claim with ZERO basis for the claim....and the FBI had routinely used Carter Page as an 'assistant' in reporting Russian activity, including an effort by Russia to 'recruit' Page. Since Page was regularly interviewed and debriefed by American Intelligence agents...and was helpful - that information was REQUIRED to be included in the FISA application as 'exculpatory evidence'.

    WHERE IS THE VIDEO EVIDENCE of RUSSIANS HACKING? The link provided doesn't specify ANY proof that the DNC servers were HACKED by ANYONE. In fact, a US Intel analysis of the 'hacked data' shows that the download speeds was too fast for an outsider to hack and steal files via the internet. The date/time stamps of the created files shows it was most likely transferred to a USB thumb drive....an 'insider/whistleblower' upset that the DNC had rigged the election in favor of Hillary and against Bernie. BTW- the DNC NEVER turned over the servers to be analyzed by the FBI. The actual analysis was done by DNC's toady computer support team - CrowdStrike. That is NOT admissible as evidence for ANYTHING - since it can be corroborated and verified independently! BACK TO THE DRAWING BOARD DANIEL....NO PROOF THAT RUSSIANS HACKED THE DNC SERVERS. Yes - Mueller posted that lie in his dossier - but without proof. Again - a fraudulent and unproven claim submitted by an unethical prosecutor.

    Daniel tries to escape reality by admitting that everything is okay, no problem to see, move along, because Mueller found no collusion between Trump and Russia. BUT - what Daniel wants to ignore was the corruption of the high level DoJ and FBI to A) PROTECT HILLARY from her criminality....and B) to try to find a way to harm Trump. That Mueller failed to investigate the origin of the Christopher Steele Dossier, who paid for it, how Steele got Russian fake stories...and then higher ups in the DoJ and FBI 'weaponized it' for FISA warrants to illegally survel the Trump campaign is another piece of evidence that Mueller was a corrupt unethical hack doing Democrat bidding. And Daniel is okay with that!

    BTW - there are 17 different 'intel agencies' in the US...and ONLY 4 'collaborated' in the assessments used by the corrupt DoJ and FBI. To say ALL Intel Agencies is to repeat a PROVEN LIE.

  • 5 months ago

    @bronson and @sharkb8

    Read the article at the link. It is FACT Based...but a parody. It is hilarious -because it puts out REAL facts in a funny way....and BTW Daniel - it torpedoes the 'Russia hacked the DNC servers.' Read it and weep!


    • 5 months ago

      This one obviously goes to Daniel. Con's entire case comes down to
      - Julian Assange said he had a different source for where he got the hacked emails.
      - 2 leaders at US intelligence agencies lied about something in the past... therefore they (and apparently everyone else at their agencies and other intelligence agencies) are lying about this.
      - The US intelligence agencies were wrong about WMD's... therefore they're lying here.

      Does he actually think that's a convincing case? He has one guy who could be wrong or lying against all of Pro's evidence (like the private firms, none of whom Con responded to). 1 guy vs. tons of guys certainly is not favorable to Bronson's point.

      And then does he really think that it's a convincing case to say that because a couple of guys lied about something in the past, therefore they are lying about something now, as are every single person in their office alongside them? Yeahno definitely not a good argument.

      I could have used more of a case from Pro about the specific benefits of the Special Counsel investigation, but considering this was more of a back and forth between the two rather than a formal debate, I suppose that might just be the way things worked out. Regardless, Con's case was so weak that Daniel didn't need to say much.

      • 5 months ago

        @phoenix Thanks for the summary. I did have more of an opening planned but he jumped right in while I was making my first point. I was fine with it because then we just went at each other the rest of the way, but I would have given more of a focused case had I had the time to do so.

      • 5 months ago

        @phoenix You give the debate to Daniel based on your opinion - because the facts are NOT in evidence that Mueller acted ethically. The Mueller investigation was improperly started, and the appointments were unethical. Bronson pointed out the prior special prosecutor ran an unethical investigation.....(look up Scooter Libby) - and Daniel avoided that like the plague.

        Bronson had more facts presented....and Daniel kept talking over him and never refuted Bronson's facts.

      • 5 months ago

        @mvineyard I voted Pro because Con's case was virtually non-existent. I didn't love Daniel's case, but he had significantly more backing for his position than Bronson did. So fucking what if a previous prosecutor ran an unethical investigation? That's completely irrelevant to this investigation. If you've ever studied logic, bringing up a previous, unconnected bad investigation is not a contention for your current point. It is a way of putting a visual example to how one can picture your your current contention, but it is NOT a self-standing contention on it's own.

        Judging by the book you wrote in the comment above, you are pretty damn biased on this issue. You think Con had more facts, simply because he said the shit you wanted to hear lol.

        Also what fucking debate did you watch? Con talked over Pro WAY more often than the other way around. Daniel spends half the debate rolling his eyes and letting Bronson go. It was pretty funny to watch actually :D.

      • 5 months ago

        @phoenix Damn....I am biased because I looked at the facts and came to a conclusion? Wow.
        A jury comes out with a decision....are they biased? Biased FOR the defendant if they rule not guilty? Biased against the defendant if they rule guilty? Get real.

        I have probably studied logic far more than you did....and as an engineer (multiple disciplines - using logic is more than just a debate tactic. It is essential in programming. It is essential in designing things.

        I am intimately familiar with the whole Russia collusion and the corruption of Mueller - but my guess is - you don't give a damn about the corruption.

        Special counsels can run amok and do damage. That was Bronson's point about Patrick Fitzgerald...and the mistreatment of Scooter Libby. Mueller's number 1 assistant was a sleazy unethical prosecutor - Andrew Weissman....who should have been disbarred years ago - rather than be selected to be on Mueller's team.
        AND - the fraud in some of the Mueller report is a start of it being discredited - but I don't think Daniel....OR YOU...give a damn about the real facts.

      • 5 months ago

        @phoenix BTW - one point that Daniel kept hammering on...and Bronson kept trying to refute - the allegation that the DNC servers were HACKED by Russians.

        The Mueller Report makes that claim. BASED ON ???? The FBI never examined the servers (DNC would not turn them over.) SO - the major point that Daniel kept pushing (including claiming that the Dutch had surveillance cameras....which showed NOTHING siginificant....that was a B.S. link and insinuation)...was a complete LIE.

        Here is an important section of an article (link posted at the end)

        " the FBI and DOJ, and all of the downstream claims by the intelligence apparatus; including the December 2016 Joint Analysis Report and January 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment, all the way to the Weissmann/Mueller report and the continued claims therein; were based on the official intelligence agencies of the U.S. government and the U.S. Department of Justice taking the word of a hired contractor for the Democrat party….. despite their inability to examine the server and/or actually see an unredacted technical forensic report from the investigating contractor.

        The entire apparatus of the U.S. government just took their word for it…

        …and used the claim therein as an official position…."

        As I said previously - the claim that the Russian hacked the DNC servers would NEVER survive in court. The FBI and other US government agencies are taking the word of the DNC's private contractor...and that lacks independent verification. BUT - Daniel refuses to acknowledge this. AND -the Mueller Report is FURTHER discredited by the assertion - based on 3rd party hear-say evidence (which is not admissible in court!!)


      • 5 months ago

        @mvineyard your opinions are your own. I voted based on what was said in the debate. Not based on preconceived opinions about the topic. Kthxbai.

      • 5 months ago

        @mvineyard funny how you think that his assessment is based on his opinion but you consider your opinion a fact.. and you don’t even see the oxymoron.. cute indeed..

      • 5 months ago

        @gigi Funny how real facts I present can be considered 'merely' opinion. Funny how his assessment is based on opinion and not facts. BUT- that is what I have learned happens here on QallOut. It isn't about facts for many - it is about supporting preconceived beliefs. Daniel has preconceived beliefs, and won't let facts change his opinion. He won't listen to facts that directly refute his 'facts' - so .....there we are.

      • 5 months ago

        @phoenix I guess if Daniel can spout a distorted lie that 'sounds good' - faster and louder than someone can challenge the fact - AND if it fits your preconceived beliefs, you will be happy. Never let the truth get in the way of your beliefs, I guess.

        Daniel's linchpin argument was the DNC servers being hacked by Russia. Bronson argued that the DNC servers were NOT hacked by Russia.
        I posted an article that showed that the US government admitted that they took the word of the DNC's pet IT company - CrowdStrike - as to the hacking....something unproved and inadmissible in court.
        I also pointed out that an 'external' internet hack - would have resulted in slower download speeds, and the date/time stamps on created files would show that. As is - the creation of files shows very high download speeds, something that would occur had an insider copied files to a USB drive.
        BUT - I guess facts are not important when you have preconceived ideas that you don't want disrupted.

      • 5 months ago

        @mvineyard you both base your arguments on secondary sources and independent events but it’s close to impossible to know all the actual facts..or all the truth behind these hence the debate.. so trying to present what you think it’s truth as a fact while dismissing your fellow debater arguments as opinion is oxymoron. Your assessment of the facts that you select to keep and the ones you dismiss, and the subsequent conclusions that you make is the absolute definition of opinion. The same for all of us here. It’s not about throwing out selective facts but the way someone connects them using critical thinking, and that’s subjective. Your truth is not always the truth I am afraid. And it’s ok not to be convinced by other people’s argument but to pretend that your views are not opinion based is at the very least naive I think

      • 5 months ago

        @gigi @mvineyard It’s entirely possible that my subjective interpretation of the facts is wrong. It’s also possible your subjective interpretation of the facts is wrong. That’s why I did a significant amount of research to find as many means of verification as possible. And when there are numerous different sources, such as Dutch Intelligence, US Intelligence, and 3 different private agencies, who all back up the same thing, and only people who have not directly examined the metadata say otherwise, the evidence is overwhelmingly on my side. At the worst, my interpretation may be incorrect. But it’s much more likely that my interpretation is correct, and it’s certainly not the case that I am contradicting facts.

      • 5 months ago

        @sharkb8 & @gigi

        The most crucial part of arguments focuses on the claim that Russia hacked the DNC servers.

        The government, in a deposition to reply to a legal submittal by Roger Stone's lawyer's ADMITTED that the government DID NOT have any forensic analysis of the servers to be able to PROVE conclusively that Russia hacked the server. They admit that they have taken a report by CrowdStrike to the DNC (with lots of redactions) - and they believe it....with no further action by the government to satisfy a legal requirement that it be independently verified. Since CrowdStrike works directly for the DNC....they could be colluding to give a report to make the DNC happy. The FBI admit - they haven't seen actual evidence of Russia hacking...just the CrowdStrike report.

        So - HOW THE HELL CAN Daniel or anyone maintain the claim that Russia hacked the DNC servers without REAL EVIDENCE....just hearsay claims?

        I haven't seen any 'overwhelming evidence'...the Dutch stuff was like finding a bolt and a nut - and claiming it is evidence of a 1996 Mercedes sedan was there.
        Metadata? Where?
        What about the report by a government IT department that the WikiLeaks data shows it was more likely downloaded onto a USB drive by an insider (a 'whistleblower') - rather than any outside 'agency'?

        There are far more holes in Daniel's claims....and Bronson tried to point them out...over Daniel's REPEATED AND VERY VOCAL insistence that he has the facts.

        Okay Daniel - refute the facts I have presented.
        Did the Government examine the DNC servers? Yes or NO? (HINT - they admit in a legal deposition that they did not).

        DANIEL - do you want to debate the topic I mentioned on the FB QallOut page for this topic - to wit - "The Mueller Team was an extremely unethical team of hacks - Andrew Weissman should have been disbarred years before and not allowed on the team; Peter Strzok is another unethical investigator who- upon the discovery of his e-mail texts - should have been FIRED and an immediate investigation of EVERYTHING he touched...including all witnesses, all directions/orders given to others, etc. AND - Mueller himself has a record of shady operations and has demonstrated unethical behavior - and even his accepting the position required him to ignore ethics/conflict of interest rules." This takes a focused look on the people of the Mueller investigation. Are they honest - or corrupt? If they are corrupt - should they be running an investigation?

        Take a look at the link I provided previously- you can see a portion of the government's response - and follow a link to look at the complete filing.


      • 5 months ago

        @mvineyard in Mid-July I’ll take you up on that debate. I have a film I’m producing and a documentary I’m editing first but they’ll be done around the 4th of July.

      • a month ago

        @phoenix I have noticed that people ignorant of.the subject matter seem to be persuaded by terrible arguments. For example Daniel repeatedly mentioned the "Dutch Government" when in fact that Dutch Government literally never made such a claim. One publication said it, everyone repeated that same story (imagine something saying something on FB and everyone shares that post -- somehow the volume of shares convinced you that the OP was "more true" because more people repeated the original claim). The Dutch Government at no point in time corroborated this story, but you believe it any way, because you're persuaded by the *appearance* of evidence rather than actual evidence (for which you have none of course). In your mind assertions repeated ad nauseam add up to evidence lol.

        The case for skepticism is simple and straightforward. Secretive spy agencies with a history of lying tend to...lie. Known liars who got caught lying under oath are not credible sources of information. It's funny that I have to explain this but then I remember I'm not dealing with rational people here lol.

        Does that mean they are for sure lying? No, but it is definitely a good reason to doubt what they are saying. What's the case for faith anyways?

        Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. We simply dont have that in this case. We have an extraordinary claim but no extraordinary evidence. Just assertions from various individuals and agencies.

      • a month ago

        @phoenix basically you've accepted assertions as evidence and I haven't. That's what this comes down to. You either have faith in James Clapper and John Brennan or you doubt them. Everything else follows from that initial decision.