Round 1. GAOTU789 v Skyfloating: Friends in High Places

The topic for this debate is "The Elite are not categorically evil".

GAOTU789 will be arguing the pro position and will open the debate.
Skyfloating will argue the con position.

Each debater will have one opening statement each. This will be followed by 3 alternating replies each. There will then be one closing statement each and no rebuttal.


Character limits are nolonger in effect- you may use as many characters as a single post allows. It still pays to be clear and concise though.

Editing is strictly forbidden. This means any editing, for any reason. Any edited posts will be completely deleted. This prevents cheating. If you make an honest mistake which needs fixing, you must U2U me. I will do a limited amount of editing for good cause. Please use spell check before you post.

Opening and closing statements must not contain any images, and must have no more than 3 references. Excluding both the opening and closing statements, only two images and no more than 5 references can be included for each post.

Responses should be made within 48 hours. Extensions and extended breaks for the holidays will be permitted.

This is a non-elimination tournament. 2 ranking points are awarded for participation and 2 more for each victory. Each member of the winning team recieves 2 additional points.

The Member-Judging System is in effect. The total number of stars awarded to each member by readers (counted at the time of judging) will be counted to determine a winner.

We have ways of determining when a member has multiple accounts. Any member who attempts to use multiple accounts to influence the outcome of a debate will be barred from the debate forum in perpetuity and will face additional consequences as well, possibly including a permanent ban from ATS.

Thank you to Vagabond for coming up with such a great idea. Thank you to everybody participating in this tournament. Good luck too all of you. Good luck to Skyfloating, my opponent in this debate. With that said, on with the show.


The topic of this debate is: The Elite are not categorically evil..

I will be concise and to the point in my opening.Throughout the course of this debate, I will show you evidence that will prove to you that this statement is true. If you take the time and think about the topic, how could it not be true?

If you look up the definition of "elite", there are several possible choices which cover a broad spectrum of people across our planet. I will show you that regardless of which definition you chose, to say that everyone that fits that description is evil is just wrong. It is extremely bigotted to paint everyone with such broad and generallized brush strokes; it almost borders on xenophobia. You wouldn't say that poor people are categorically stupid or lazy, would you? I wouldn't because it is wrong and a baseless generalization. Evil doesn't care about class or race or geographical location just as good doesn't. Both are present at all levels of society and that is the point. The measure of one's status does not make them evil. Many, many good people have come from the upper echelons of our society and to snub thier contributions to our world by calling them evil smacks of jealousy and resentment. Truely, the claim that all members of society that can fall into the category of elite are evil is wrong and over the course of this debate I will show you why.

Thank you.
Your up Skyfloating.

The Horrors commit against lesser people

I will be arguing the side that the elite is evil.
Clarification: I will not be arguing that anyone who is rich or in a position of influence and power is evil as I hold this to be an immature stance. I will be arguing

a) that the elite, meaning the rulers of this world are of ill-intent and
b) that elitism is, by definition, evil.

The word „elite“ ,itself is indicative of ill intent. Throughout history, groups that have thought of themselves as “elite” have used this identification to justify horrendous acts against those termed “lesser”.

Hitler saw the Aryan race as elite towards the rest of the world thus justifying the acts of killing all “undesirables”.

The Al Qaeda sees itself as “Allahs chosen”, elite to others, justifying a Jihad against non-believers.

Cults and Sects recruit followers with the promise of being members of an “elite” that are superior to other people and therefore have privileges that others don’t.

The Mafia, being an “elite” organization feel “entitled” to blackmail, homicide, drug trafficking an other evils, all in the name of “honour” among the elite.

Feeling elite breeds a disregard for “lower level” people to an extent that it doesn’t matter if 1000 or 10 000 of them die as a result of wars, disasters or famines. The utter disregard of elitists toward human life was witnessed in ancient Rome in the way slaves were treated and it was witnessed in earlier times when it was felt acceptable to hold slaves and treat them like animals. The African tyrant and elitist Mugabe, one of the richtest (if not the richtest) men of Africa does not feel it necessary to apologize for years of senseless manslaughter and letting people starve while he himself enjoys all luxuries imaginable. Mugabe is archetypical of the elite and a picture to keep in mind during this debate.

I don’t see how anyone can possibly view “disregard for lesser people” (which is what elitism essentially is) as something good.


Like a splinter in your mind

„You´ve felt it your entire life, that there´s something wrong with the world. You don' t know what it is, but it`s there, like a splinter in your mind, driving you mad“ - A famous quote from „The Matrix“

The quoted statement is a sentiment held by many. Don't we just all want to be happy? Don´t we just want to wake up everyday with a feeling of eagerness at what the day will bring? Do we not all want to live in a world of beauty, creativity, accountability, diversity, progress?

But we don`t. At least not most of us. Why? If the stated purpose of almost anyone is to be healthy, wealthy and happy, then why arent´t we? Why are we instead living on a slave-planet governed by 9 to 5 job treadmills that dont even leave us enough to pay taxes to our rulers? Who is running the show?

While I won´t pretend to know who exactly „they“ are, who exactly the elite or the secret elite is (although I will be making some suggestions on this), we can all see the effects of their workings. We can see that whoever is ultimately in charge, does not have the best interests of the majority in mind.

This is painfully obvious.

My opponent will predictably tell you how the rulers of this planet are alright and that we should go back to sleep, resting comfortably in our delusion that everything is well. This however, is clearly at odds with the effects we see of our goverance on a daily basis. While elite organizations such as the CFR, or more importantly, the Trilateral Comission (not to mention organizations that are not in the open) keep saying they work for the betterment of the world, these are some of the evils we have been given as a gift:

Nuclear Warfare
Biological Warfare
Psychological Warfare
Electronical Warfare
Air Warfare
Naval Warfare
Space Warfare

...and the list goes on.

If you ask any John Doe on the street, he wil probably say he doesnt want war. And if he says he does, he will quickly change his mind when actually experiencing bombs falling in his neighbourhood. So if nobody wants bombs and bloodshed, why is so much money invested in it?

It costs more than a million to produce one nuclear bomb. Pentagon strategists are beginning to lean towards favouring biological warfare though. Do you know why? Because, according to cost estimates, it costs 1000 Dollars per victim to kill with nuclear bombs and only 50 Dollars per victim to attack with bio-weapons. Need I say more?

This alone would suffice to show that those who govern us are not only evil but even criminally insane.
So who might the rulers that continue to bring war and strife to the world, be? Stay tuned for answers in this debate.

The Elite are categorically evil"

Reply 1


My opponent has decided to give us his definition of Elite but unfortunately,
it isn't the standard and commonly accepted one.

e·lite : noun

1. (often used with a plural verb) the choice or best of anything considered collectively, as of a group or class of persons.
2. (used with a plural verb) persons of the highest class: Only the elite were there.
3. a group of persons exercising the major share of authority or influence
within a larger group: the power elite of a major political party.
4. a type, approximately 10-point in printing-type size, widely used in
typewriters and having 12 characters to the inch. Compare pica1.

–adjective:

5. representing the most choice or select; best: an elite group of authors.

dictionary.reference.com...


Do the examples that my opponent has used fall into this definition? Yes.
But if we are to accept the examples given, we can not exclude other people or entities that would also fit the definition. Dictionary.com itself uses authors as an example of a group. My opponents argument sounds a little paranoid.He doesn't mention the topic at hand, which is:
"The Elite are categorically evil" but instead goes right into this:

I will be arguing the side that the elite is evil.
Clarification: I will not be arguing that anyone who is rich or in a position of influence and power is evil as I hold this to be an immature stance. I will be arguing

a) that the elite, meaning the rulers of this world are of ill-intent and
b) that elitism is, by definition, evil.

Rulers of the world? We have people that rule the different countries of this
world but can we honestly say that they are all evil? Every last one? Because that is what my opponent would have you believe. But then he says:

While I won´t pretend to know who exactly „they“ are, who exactly
the elite or the secret elite is (although I will be making some suggestions on this)

So in essence, my opponent doesn't know who these people are but he is entirely sure they are all evil and then gives us his opinions about the evils of elitism.

Wow. I better move on before I start getting paranoid


In all parts of life there are people who excel at what they do. They are either born with the talent to be or dedicate their lives to becoming the top tier, the "Elite" of there chosen calling. Athlete's, scientist's, politician's, actor's, musician's, artist's and on and on. Let's start with an example from the sporting world.

I don't think you could find anyone to say that Steve Nash
isn't an Elite Athlete. He has been the MVP of the NBA twice amongst many other honours. One of his proudest accomplishment's though is the Steve Nash Foundation.
The goals of the foundation are to help under priviliged chlidren , or "lower level" or "lesser" people, as my opponent named them,get a head start in life. Does this sound like the act of an evil man?


Ok thats someone who was born with the talent to be become an Elite athlete.How about some one who had to dedicate thier life to becoming an Elite player in there field. I am talking about Oprah Winfrey. Alright, alright. Enough with the laughing. I know your thinking how the heck does Oprah be considered Elite? She's just a talk show
host and publishes some women's magazine, right?

She has been ranked the richest African American of the 20th century,[2] the most philanthropic African American of all time,[3] and the world's only black billionaire for three straight years.[4][5][6][7] She is also, according to some assessments, the most influential woman in the world.[8][9]

If that doesn't qualify as Elite, I am not sure what would. Being the only black billionare gives here access to the most exclusive club of all. It really doesn't get much more Elite when you can say you are the only one in the club on the planet.And she has a genourous heart.

In 2005 she became the first black person listed by Business Week as one of America's top 50 most generous philanthropists, having given an estimated $303 million.[85] Winfrey was the 32nd most philanthropic. In the wake of Hurricane Katrina, Oprah asked her viewers to open their hearts—and they did. As of September 2006, donations to the
Oprah Angel Network Katrina registry total more than $11 million.

There is a truly evil person at work there, don't you think? Although she may have a unique membership to one club, she is also part of another group of people, philanthropists. Alot of the philanthropists that make the biggest difference in our world are part of the Elite. I'll touch on them some more in my next reply.

It's clear that the people of our world who can be considered Elite aren't all evil. Of course there are some among them who could be considered evil but I think the percentage of them would be quite low. There would be many more that would be considered corrupt or, to a lesser extent, misguided but not evil. You could even say they are driven by the wrong ideals. It's hard not to open the paper or turn in the news and not see some story about the corruption or underhandedness that happens everyday.That still doesn't make them evil.

In my opening post I already explained why I will not be arguing that any rich or powerful people are "evil". My opponent will therefore certainly not get me to argue that Steve Nash or Oprah Winfrey are "evil". This is an absurd proposal and its not what most of us mean when we theorize about the ELITE being evil. I will now elaborate on what most of us mean by ELITE:

The Power Elite and The Military Industrial Complex


My opponent suggests I might be paranoid, but I won´t even need a conspiracy-theory here. The term „Power Elite“ is an academic term that describes „a small group of people who control a disproportionate amount of wealth, privilege, and access to decision-making of global consequence“
source

The Power Elite is made up of the political, military and economic elite who share common worldviews and interact with each other. In sociology and political education, we learn that the Power Elite see themselves as superiour to the rest of society and, as the source article states „the big three institutional orders have an „uneasy“ alliance based upon their „community of interests“ driven by the military metaphysic which has transformed the economy into a „permanent war economy“.

Another academic and widely accepted term (again without the need for conspiracy-theory) that describes the same group of people is „Military-inustrial complex“ (MIC), a term famously used by President Eisenhower. According to internet dictionaries(MIC) MIC is used to describe „an entire network of contracts and flows of money and resources among individuals as well as institutions of defense contractors, The Pentagon, and the Congress and Executive Branch. This sector is intrinsically prone to Principal-agent problems, moral hazard and rent seeking. Cases of political corruption have also surfaced with regularity.“ (emphasis added)


It is terms like „power elite“ and „MIC“ which have been created to come to terms with just why this world is so much at odds with the desires of most of its people. We are holding this debate on a website that has formed many additional theories on who and what the elite is, but most of them agree that there is an evil in the world and that it is „coming from the top“.

History has proven that „conquer, divide and rule“ are not driven by the common man, but by the elite, who rear their ugly head to stain history with their wicked „games“ again and again. These games have little to do with Oprah Winfrey and Steve Nash or other media-stars my opponent brings into the debate, but with the ELITE...the highest of the high, the most powerful of the powerful. And these figures are rarely seen in the spotlight of public attention...they wouldnt want to be either.

"The Elite are not categorically evil"

Reply 2


The fact that we have a group of people who can be referred to as The Elite is partially due to our capitalism based society. Members of our society, through ingenuity, good timing and luck gain a disproportionate share of wealth. They also feel the need to give back to society and help the under privileged and marginalized people's of our world. Through their good fortune, they can help a large number of people through different ways. This is called philanthropy. Lets look at some of the greatest philanthropists of today.

Bill Gates is one of the richest people on the planet and is involved in many different business ventures and not just Microsoft. In his position as one the world's Elite, he formed The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, a charity that helps a myriad of causes in over 100 countries all over the world. It is the largest philanthropic organization in the world, according to Fortune Magazine It's motto is "Guided by the belief that every life has equal value, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation works to reduce inequities and improve lives around the world." A look at the fact sheet at agtesfoundation.org shows that they have given out 14.4 billion dollars in grants since the foundations inception in the year 2000, with 1.56 billion in 2006 alone. That is an extraordinary amount of money and isn't all of their donations, it is just grants.

Another philanthropist closely associated with the Gates foundation is Warren Buffet. His own philanthropic foundation, The Susan Thompson Buffet Foundation, named after his late wife, focuses on a myriad of causes, some of which are..

* Education - 37 %
* Health Care - 30 %
* International Relief - 15 %
* Other (arts, environment, civil liberties) - 13 %
* Social Sciences - 5 %

The STBF gives out an estimated 12 million dollars annually with that amount increasing significantly after his death. He also donated almost 30 billion dollars to the Gates Foundation in 2006 because he admired the work that it is doing.

Now these are individuals who are counted amongst the Elite and yet do good things for the world's under privileged. Lets look at an organization that does philanthropic work. "The World's Greatest Philanthropy", the Shriner's of North America. Now for those of you that don't know, the Shriner's are a body of the Freemason's, a group that most Conspiracy Theorists agree is part of the "Evil Elite". Well I can tell you that this isn't true from looking at the Shriner's, all of whom are Master Mason's. The Shriner's operate 22 hospitals throughout North America offering orthopedic and burn care to children from all over the world. Oh and it is free of charge to the patients and there families. Let's look at some stats for last year.

In 2006, Shriners Hospitals approved 27,819 new patient applications and cared for 128,578 patients. In 2006, Shriners Hospitals for Children provided the following:

· 228,261 radiology procedures;

· 296,859 outpatient, outreach and telemedicine visits;

· 67,735 orthotic and prosthetic devices;

· 24,627 surgical procedures;

· 469,469 physical therapy treatments; and

· 227,857 occupational therapy treatments.

Now this sounds like an evil bunch of men. The nerve of them helping out almost 129 thousand children last year. Them evil mason's are at it again.


My opponent clearly has decided that the actual question of the debate:
"The Elite are not categorically evil" is irrelevant and continues to bring us only his definition. Talking about the MIC and the Power Elite is fine but let's think about who brought one of these entities to the light, former American President and head of the US ARMY Dwight D. Eisenhower. Wouldn't he be considered a member of the Elite? He is after all the president of the most powerful country on Earth. If he is so evil, why would he warn us about this? Wouldn't it be in his best interest not to mention it? This again shows that the basis of the statement that not all people considered Elite are evil is true.

Dear Reader,

my opponent continues to use a definition of "Elite" that is not accepted by a majority of academic scholars as well as most of the world in general. In this way he can term people who are merely VIPs as "The Elite". But one of the very quotes showing thew aims of his "elite" reveals that these people in fact do not even see themselves as the elite. I quote from my opponents last post:

"Guided by the belief that every life has equal value, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation works to reduce inequities and improve lives around the world."

Here my opponent supplies the very evidence that these philantropists do not feel elite. The very word elite does not include the belief "that every life has equal value", but that some are better than others, higher than others. Unless my opponent disregards any logic, he will have to concede that I am right in this case.

My opponent further fails to provide any rebuttal WHATSOEVER of the countless elite-organizations I have listed as acting in evil in my first and second post (Hitler was known as elite, Oprah Winfrey not. Case closed).

My opponent then brings up Shriners and Masons...another group I never referred to in my two first posts. And I will continue not to talk about groups who are neither evil nor members of the elite. Any pedestrian passerby can join masonry nowdays. I know this for a fact as I am a mason myself

Rather than labouring on the charity work of some not-so-elite groups and people lets instead now highlight some of the techniques of the actual elite, as they can be observed by anyone half-intelligent. As the elite doesnt like openly admitting their evils (naturally) we can learn more about the ruling class by studying the EFFECTS they have on this world. If the effects are no good, obviously those causing the effects cannot be good. A tree is known by its fruit. As a majority of the worlds population live in either poverty, ignorance or in other forms of limitation, we can easily deduce that the rulers of the world do not have the majorities best interests in mind. This is a simple equation that cannot really be debunked by my opponent.

Playing with peoples ignorance

One of the unpleasant character-traits of the evil-minded is to use peoples ignorance for their own benefit and to keep people in that ignorance intentionally so that power can be held. To keep knowledge that would empower the majority hidden, obscure, compartmentalized. This is actually quite common. If you want to hord power, always conceal and never reveal. Techniques the elite use to keep the masses preoccupied:


The Money System

Teach people that it is most important to get a 9 to 5 job. This means teaching them that they are to make money for others instead of themselves. It is seen as “normal” and a virtue to be working for the profit of others (bosses) instead of oneself. Have all these corporate slaves give the rest of the little money they have left, to the government (tax) or spent on liabilities and useless consumer goods (which requires generating constant desire for stuff nobody needs). Do not educate the sheep on how to build wealth, have money work for you, invest in assets or intellectual property. Have them leave school and college as complete idiots who think that it is desirable to “just get a job somewhere” and stay there for the rest of their lives. Behind closed doors, the elite is laughing.


The Mass Media System

Keep a steady flow of fear-programming going, with interludes of pointlessness and superficiality. In other words, in between reports of war and terror, insert the latest gossip on second-rate “superstars”. This type of mind-food shall serve to weaken and dull the populace into a docile and inert herd. Have every news channel and source be similar to others in order to create a mentally inept hive-mind that doesn’t know much of anything other than what is broadcast from “established sources”. Have the sheeple think that Oprah Winfrey and the Shriners are "the elite" (as my opponent tried to teach)


The Schooling System

Replace self-determined thinking and questioning, with indoctrination (stuffing children with pre-determined answers to everything). Suppress creativity, imagination, body-movement, communication and other basics of life. Replace these with abstract data that will never ever be useful during a lifetime (like just where the heck in history some murderous king fell off his horse…have the kids memorize the date). Instill fear of failure if much of this useless data isn’t memorized. Have the kids waste a good part of their childhood in this system.


The Political System

Establish a stereotype system of politics in which it looks as if people have a „choice“ of who they vote, although it always ends up being one of two sides. Establish utterly predictable patterns, goals and talk of both sides. In this manner you can conceal third and fourth alternatives or even cooperation between the two sides. Have people waste emotional energy defending one side and attacking the other with predictable arguments.


The System of Religion

Establish religions stripped of most spiritual practice and replaced by empty ritual and mudslinging against non-believers and other religions. Establish wars based upon “religion” (obviously no true religion is interested in war, of course)

Control Food Distribution

After monopolizing the greater part of food production in the world, start to mass-produce junk food bereft of any nutritional or strengthening value.

The Energy System

Hide and Suppress alternative energies (such as the electric car) and keep people dependent on more expensive and even more unclean energies. Monopolize into the hands of a few.

Fake Scarcity

By deliberately keeping something scarce (although more of an item would be available), heighten the demand, increase the price and create a general atmosphere of unease surrounding a certain product (example: Oil).

The Desire-Fear Circus

Keep the masses attention hooked and distracted by continually presenting things to fear (enemies) and things to desire (goods, experiences...but keep some of the desired experiences out of reach)

The False Flag Trick

Create a problem, watch people react, then offer the solution. Don’t show people that you are the originator of the problem.

The Repetition Drill
Repeat a certain message thousands of times in many different variations in order to brainwash people and make them believe certain things you want them to believe.


I ask readers to open their eyes and not be swayed by the superficial worldview in which the elite are philantropists, my opponent presents.

I have shown

1. What feeling and being "elite" means

2. The horrors those elite have commited against humanity

3. Some of the evil techniques they use.

The very existence of the website ATS shows that not all people are fooled by "the elite is not categorically evil".

"The Elite are not categorically evil"

Reply 3


First, I would like to address a few of the comments made in my opponent's reply. He said that I hadn't addressed any of the groups that he has mentioned as "evil" in previous post's. I had touched on them but let me go into a little more detail with some comparisons to show that the Elite are not all evil, since that is the crux of the debate. I will even use the very narrow definition that my opponents is using for Elite for some of the comparisons to show that even within those parameter's, everyone isn't evil.




Let's start with Hitler, since he has been mentioned twice. Hitler started the second great global conflict of the twentieth century. He hoped that either alone, or more likely, through a loose knit coalition of like minded Fascist and Imperial Dictators to control the world. Is that evil? Sure is, but he didn't go unopposed. I mentioned Dwight Eisenhower in my last post. I was referencing him as an outgoing President of the United States but he also is relevant here. He was the Supreme Commander of US operations in Europe during WW2 and was the head of the D-Day operation. If Hitler is to be considered Elite under my opponents definition, than wouldn't Eisenhower have to be considered Elite? He did go on to win the Presidency of the US twice, from 1953-61 and was responsible for the speech in which he warns about the dangers in the Military Industrial Complex, which my opponent named early also. Eisenhower was head of the US Army, followed by Supreme Commander of NATO Forces. He was also partially responsible for the end of the Korean War and was supportive of the civil rights movement. So if Hitler is to be considered evil and Elite, than Eisenhower would also have to be placed as an Elite also. He couldn't possibly considered evil though.

A quote from my opponent that I feel shows that all the examples I have given fall into the definition he has been using through the course of this debate.

The Power Elite is made up of the political, military and economic elite who share common worldviews and interact with each other.

My opponent has decided to tell us that Bill Gates and Warren Buffet don't feel elite despite the quote above. I am sure that these two guys fall into the economic elite that is mentioned in the previous statement. Eisenhower would cover the other two, political and military.

Here my opponent supplies the very evidence that these philanthropists do not feel elite. The very word elite does not include the belief "that every life has equal value", but that some are better than others, higher than others. Unless my opponent disregards any logic, he will have to concede that I am right in this case.

On the contrary, using logic I can come to the conclusion that these people are Elite and although I don't claim to know how they feel, I can guess that they don't feel the same as your average citizen that is living the 9-5 rat race. That doesn't mean that they hold ill feelings and wish harm upon people that aren't of their same status, power and wealth.

My opponent also uses some examples, that after some reflection, I am not sure how they could fit the definition that he has been using here to describe the Elite. Al Queda, the Mafia, unnamed cults and sects, Mugabe. All of these organizations and people don't come from the Power Elite. If these are to be accepted, I have to ask how the examples I have used are excluded by my opponent. If we take Al Queda as Elite, we must also accept the US Marines. They are "The Few, The Proud". If the Mafia fit the bill, than both John F. and Robert Kennedy would also fit yes? They had the power and ability to fight them and enact the laws that lead to their downfall. Surely Nelson Mandela must be included if we take Mugabe as the "archetypical" image of an Elite, as my opponent called him earlier.

So you can clearly see, that regardless of who's definition you chose to accept in this debate, not everyone that can be categorized as Elite is evil. I am not for one second saying that evil doesn't exist in our world or people that could be considered Elite are not evil. It would be foolish to say such a thing. It is, however, just as foolish to think that everyone that is Elite is evil.

Playing with peoples ignorance
The Money System
The Mass Media System
The Schooling System
The Political System
The System of Religion
Control Food Distribution
The Energy System
Fake Scarcity
The Desire-Fear Circus
The False Flag Trick
The Repetition Drill

Now there is a smörgåsbord of conspiracy theory! By the looks of that list, everyone is in on it. The clergy, our politicians, media, teachers. Where does the list end? Oh right everybody except, Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, Oprah Winfrey, Eisenhower, the Kennedy's and anybody else that I mentioned. It appears from my opponents last post that capitalism, democracy and organized religion are to blame but I have shown you that elected politicians and capitalist that aren't evil. I guess I could show you a religious leader that isn't evil, just to round that trio. I don't think there is a person that would call the Dalai Lama evil. He is one of the most holy men in Buddism, head of the exiled Tibetan government and a Nobel Peace Prize winner. Surely he has to fall into the definition of Elite? Oh wait, he isn't an evil human so he can't be Elite right? That is what my opponent hopes you to believe.

Above Top Secret was mentioned also and I think it is important that I point out that the websites motto is "Deny Ignorance". Throughout this debate I believe I have done just that in showing you the reader that everyone that is Elite is not evil.

All global-scale conflicts in human history have been initiated by the ruling classes

I congratulate my opponent to his last response as it finally touches on the gist of the debate. He rightly provides the names of some truly elitist people, such as the marines (although Id say only the commanders of that organizations are part of THE elite), who may not be evil. I say "may not" because the goals and actions of the marines...as honourable as they may be...ultimately lead to the same old outcomes we have seen since thousands of years: War. And war leads to killing. And killing we have already defined as evil by any moral and ethical standards. In the case my opponent makes for Eisenhower I can only respond: I cannot possibly argue that everyone in a position of power or riches is "evil". I CAN however argue that elitist attitudes breed bad things. My opponent also defines the Dalai Lama as "elite". But I think most readers will agree that the Dalai Lama has been a shining example of resistance towards ruling class oppresion. I thank my opponent for the support

It is important not to loose sight of how the world is run and remind ourselves what "elitist" really means: To see oneself as better and more deserving than those "lesser" people. Anyone who would enter my house with that attitude would quickly be asked to leave. It is this very attitude that is the prime source of all evils. I am not promoting the idea that "we are all the same", but I do believe we all deserve that which is good for us and that every life has equal value, as the BillGatesFoundation puts it. It is therefore safe to say that the minority (the elite) would see elitism as something "good" and the rest of the world would see elitism as something bad. My side of the debate therefore has the majority-vote.
This majority has used many different words to describe elitism (aristocracy, oligarchy, etc.) but very rarely have these words been associated with good deeds.

The very few exceptions my opponent shows, confirm the rule: Elitism does not breed good...neither psychologically, nor socially or culturally.

Thanks to the Internet more information (and with it Power) is now available to the non-ruling-class. We have places like ATS scrutinizing the dark, hidden, secretive, dirty and manipulative actions of the ruling class (the elite). Here we learn of the elitist attitudes of organizations such as the CFR and the Trilateral Commision (who's member list reads like a who's who of the Elite), here we learn of para-politics, crypto-politics, hidden hands, machiavellian tactics, black propaganda or how the elite use "silent weapons for quiet wars" (some of which were shown in my last post which my opponent confused with tactics used by us commoners...but none of us use these tactics on a grand scale).

If my opponent were right that the elite is not categorically evil, then most of the content on ATS alone would be an insubstantial waste of time and the world would be living in peace and prosperity.

My opponents position is a sweeping slap in the face of thousands of academics, conspiracy researchers, journalists and an attack on what most of us here at ATS feel, see and hear: That whoever it is that is ruling the affairs of the world cannot be all that good. This is an incomplete list of some of the wars the ruling class elite have initiated for our "benefit" (wikipedia):

List of wars by death toll
60,000,000–72,000,000 - World War II (1939–1945), (see World War II casualties)[39][40]
30,000,000–60,000,000 - Mongol Conquests (13th century) (see Mongol invasions and Tatar invasions)[41][42][43][44]
25,000,000 - Manchu conquest of Ming China (1616–1662)[45]
20,000,000–70,000,000 - World War I (1914–1918)
20,000,000 - Taiping Rebellion (China, 1851–1864) [46]
20,000,000 - Second Sino-Japanese War (1931–1945)[47]
10,000,000 - Warring States Era (China, 475 BC–221 BC)
7,000,000 - 20,000,000 Conquests of Timur the Lame (1360-1405) (see List of wars in the Muslim world)[48][49]
5,000,000–9,000,000 - Russian Civil War (1917–1921)[50]
5,000,000 - Conquests of Menelik II of Ethiopia (1882- 1898)[51][52]
3,800,000 - Second Congo War (1998–2004)[53]
3,500,000–6,000,000 - Napoleonic Wars (1804–1815) (see Napoleonic Wars casualties)
3,000,000–11,500,000 - Thirty Years' War (1618–1648)[54]
3,000,000–7,000,000 - Yellow Turban Rebellion (China, 184–205)
2,500,000–3,500,000 - Korean War (1950–1953) (see Cold War)[55]
2,300,000–3,800,000 - Vietnam War (entire war 1945–1975)
300,000–1,300,000 - First Indochina War (1945–1954)
100,000–300,000 - Vietnamese Civil War (1954–1960)
1,750,000–2,100,000 - American phase (1960–1973)
170,000 - Final phase (1973–1975)
175,000–1,150,000 - Secret War (1962–1975)
2,000,000–4,000,000[56] - French Wars of Religion (1562–1598) (see Religious war)
2,000,000 - Shaka's conquests (1816-1828)[57]
300,000–3,000,000[58] - Bangladesh Liberation War
1,500,000–2,000,000 - Afghan Civil War (1979 -)
1,000,000–1,500,000 Soviet intervention (1979–1989)
1,300,000–6,100,000 - Chinese Civil War (1928–1949) note that this figure excludes World War II casualties
300,000–3,100,000 before 1937
1,000,000–3,000,000 after World War II
1,000,000–2,000,000 - Mexican Revolution (1910–1920)[59]
1,000,000 - Iran-Iraq War (1980–1988)[60]
1,000,000 - Japanese invasions of Korea (1592-1598)[61]
1,000,000 - Second Sudanese Civil War (1983–2002)
1,000,000 - Nigerian Civil War (1967–1970)
618,000[62] - 970,000 - American Civil War (including 350,000 from disease) (1861–1865)
900,000–1,000,000 - Mozambique Civil War (1976–1993)
868,000[63] - 1,400,000[64] - Seven Years' War (1756-1763)
800,000 - 1,000,000 - Rwandan Civil War (1990-1994)
800,000 - Congo Civil War (1991–1997)
600,000 to 1,300,000 - First Jewish-Roman War (see List of Roman wars)
580,000 - Bar Kokhba’s revolt (132–135CE)
570,000 - Eritrean War of Independence (1961-1991)
550,000 - Somali Civil War (1988 - )
500,000 - 1,000,000 - Spanish Civil War (1936–1939)
500,000 - Angolan Civil War (1975–2002)
500,000 - Ugandan Civil War (1979–1986)
400,000–1,000,000 - War of the Triple Alliance in Paraguay (1864–1870)
400,000 - Darfur conflict (2003-)
400,000 - War of the Spanish Succession (1701-1714)
371,000 - Continuation War (1941-1944)
350,000 - Great Northern War (1700-1721)[65]
315,000 - 735,000 - Wars of the Three Kingdoms (1639-1651) English campaign ~40,000, Scottish 73,000, Irish 200,000-620,000[66]
300,000 - Russian-Circassian War (1763-1864) (see Caucasian War)
300,000 - First Burundi Civil War (1972)
270,000–300,000 - Crimean War (1854–1856)
255,000-1,120,000 - Philippine-American War (1898-1913)
230,000–1,400,000 - Ethiopian Civil War (1974–1991)
220,000 - Liberian Civil War (1989 - )
214,000 - 655,000+ - Iraq War (2003-Present) (see 2003 invasion of Iraq)
200,000 - 1,000,000[67] - Albigensian Crusade (1208-1259)
200,000–800,000 - Warlord era in China (1917–1928)
200,000 - Second Punic War (BC218-BC204) (see List of Roman battles)
200,000 - Sierra Leone Civil War (1991–2000)
200,000 - Algerian Civil War (1991 - )[68][69]
200,000 - Guatemaltec Civil War (1960–1996)
190,000 - Franco-Prussian War (1870–1871)
180,000 - 300,000 - La Violencia (1948-1958)
170,000 - Greek War of Independence (1821-1829)
150,000 - Lebanese Civil War (1975–1990)
150,000 - North Yemen Civil War (1962–1970)
150,000 - Russo-Japanese War (1904–1905)
148,000-1,000,000 - Winter War (1939)
125,000 - Eritrean-Ethiopian War (1998–2000)
120,000 - 384,000 Great Turkish War (1683-1699) (see Ottoman-Habsburg wars)
120,000 - Bosnian War (1992–1995)
120,000 - Third Servile War (BC73-BC71)
117,000 - 500,000 - Revolt in the Vendée (1793-1796)
101,000 - 115,000 - Arab-Israeli conflict (1929- )
100,500 - Chaco War (1932–1935)
100,000 - 1,000,000 - War of the two brothers (1531–1532)
100,000 - 400,000 - Western New Guinea (1984 - ) (see Genocide in West Papua)
100,000 - 200,000 - Indonesian invasion of East Timor (1975-1978)
100,000 - Persian Gulf War (1991)
100,000–1,000,000 - Algerian War of Independence (1954–1962)
100,000 - Thousand Days War (1899–1901)
100,000 - Peasants' War (1524-1525)[70]
80,000 - Third Punic War (BC149-BC146)
75,000 - 200,000? - Conquests of Alexander the Great (BC336-BC323)
75,000 - El Salvador Civil War (1980–1992)
75,000 - Second Boer War (1898–1902)
70,000 - Boudica's uprising (AD60-AD61)
69,000 - Internal conflict in Peru (1980 - )
60,000 - Sri Lanka/Tamil conflict (1983-)
60,000 - Nicaraguan Rebellion (1972-91)
55,000 - War of the Pacific (1879-1885)
50,000 - 200,000 - First Chechen War (1994–1996)
50,000 - 100,000 - Tajikistan Civil War (1992–1997)
50,000 - Wars of the Roses (1455-1485)
45,000 - Greek Civil War (1945-1949)
41,00–100,000 - Kashmiri insurgency (1989 - )
36,000 - Finnish Civil War (1918)
35,000 - 40,000 - War of the Pacific (1879–1884)
35,000 - 45,000 - Siege of Malta (1565)
31,000–100,000 - Second Chechen War (1999 - )
30,000 - Turkey/PKK conflict (1984 - )
30,000 - Sino-Vietnamese War (1979)
23,384 - Indo-Pakistani War of 1971 (December 1971)
23,000 - Nagorno-Karabakh War (1988-1994)
20,000 - 49,600 U.S. Invasion of Afghanistan (2001 – 2002)
15,000–20,000 - Croatian War of Independence (1991–1995)
11,053 - Malayan Emergency (1948-1960)
10,000 - Amadu's Jihad (1810-1818)
7,264–10,000 - Indo-Pakistani War of 1965 (August-September 1965)
7,000–24,000 - American War of 1812 (1812-1815)
7,000 - Kosovo War (1996–1999) (disputed)
5,000 - Turkish invasion of Cyprus (1974)
4,588 - Sino-Indian War (1962)

Anyone still saying the elite (the ruling initiators of war, as only they have the power and resources to wage large scale wars...consider the "hidden hands" that make money off wars by providing weaponry) are not evil?

"The Elite are not categorically evil"

Closing Statement.


First, I want to thank Skyfloating for an engaging and thought provoking debate. Well done mate.


Throughout the course of this debate, I have shown many factual examples of members of the Elite who are not evil. Which proves my stance on this debate, which is: every one who is considered Elite is not evil. It appears that my opponent has finally conceded that point.

He rightly provides the names of some truly elitist people, such as the marines (although Id say only the commanders of that organizations are part of THE elite), who may not be evil. I say "may not" because the goals and actions of the marines...as honourable as they may be...ultimately lead to the same old outcomes we have seen since thousands of years: War.

Thank you for confirming my stance. Although a topic for another debate, I will say that war is sometimes justifiable if it frees people from oppression. The oppressor's , my opponent may say, are the Elite that he is talking about. To that I will say that I have conceded that members of the Elite can be considered evil, undoubtedly, but that doesn't make them all evil, which is the point I have made during this discourse.

In the case my opponent makes for Eisenhower I can only respond: I cannot possibly argue that everyone in a position of power or riches is "evil".

Once again, thank you for confirming my stance.

My side of the debate therefore has the majority-vote.

Really? The majority may hold some resentment towards people they deem elitist but I doubt that transfers into the feeling that they are all evil.

The very few exceptions my opponent shows, confirm the rule:

I really can't say thank you enough.

And killing we have already defined as evil by any moral and ethical standards.

We have? I must have missed that part. Murder is evil, killing can be justified but again that is a topic for another debate.


It is really quite simple. Everyone deemed Elite is not evil. My opponent has given us a list of casualties caused by war and conflict throughout the centuries. He claims they were all initiated by the Elite whom he considers all to be evil. So in closing I would like to present one final piece of evidence to refute that claim using one of the wars listed as the basis. This final piece of evidence was written by the leaders of one side of the particular war in question. I'll finish off with a couple of sentences from it.

The Declaration of Independence

IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Thank you

Evil in High Places


In his final post my opponent says I conceded that he is right, which any awake reader sees I have not done. I only conceded that he has finally made mention of actual elites after having wasted a large part of the debate on mere VIPs and charity-organizations.

My opponent then makes his final error in logic and common sense by saying "killing can be justified but that's a topic for another debate". As I have shown the dictionary defines "evil" as causes leading to death. And not only the dictionary says so, our hearts do so too. Sure, by going on a re-definition craze and saying "killing is not evil", I guess my opponent "wins" this debate, but I suspect any human being with a beating heart and a conscience will disagree. Whats more, the definition of killing is not a topic for another debate, but at the core of the question of whether the elite is evil or not. He finishes his final post by quoting a part of the Declaration of Independence. How the quoted text supports his case is beyond me. Amusingly, it seems to support my side of the debate:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness"

This is exactly why the elitist position of "all men are not equal, we are better" runs counter to happiness, liberty and life.

But even without the topic of war and killing it is easy to prove how the elite are evil. Some facts on the elite organization The Trilateral Commision":

"Since many of the members were businesspeople or bankers, actions that they took or encouraged that helped the banking industry have been noted. Jeremiah Novak, writing in the July 1977 issue of Atlantic, said that after international oil prices rose when Nixon set price controls on American domestic oil, many developing countries were required to borrow from banks to buy oil: "The Trilaterists' emphasis on international economics is not entirely disinterested, for the oil crisis forced many developing nations, with doubtful repayment abilities, to borrow excessively. All told, private multinational banks, particularly Rockefeller's Chase Manhattan, have loaned nearly $52 billion to developing countries. An overhauled IMF would provide another source of credit for these nations, and would take the big private banks off the hook.This proposal is the cornerstone of the Trilateral plan."

This answers some questions about the oppresion in Africa, doesn't it? Think of the effects the elites policies have had on Africa since then: Wars, Famines, Child Soldiers, Starvation, endless conflict up to this day.Throughout this debate I have asked the reader to look at the effects of the elites doings and thereby pass judgement on if they are good or evil. I think I have made a good case of how deranged the current ruling class inherently is and shown why to rid ourselves from the current ruling class will support humanities aims of liberty and happiness.

And now to the big picture: How does war (=killing) tie in to big money? This external source might help:

War economy is the term used to describe the contingencies undertaken by the modern state to mobilize its economy for war production. Philippe Le Billon describes a war economy as a "system of producing, mobilising and allocating resources to sustain the violence". The war economy can form an economic system termed the "military-industrial complex". Many states increase the degree of planning in their economies during wars; in many cases this extends to rationing, and in some cases to conscription for civil purposes, such as the Women's Land Army and Bevin Boys in the United Kingdom in World War II.

Franklin D. Roosevelt said that if the Axis Powers win, then "we would have to convert ourselves permanently into a militaristic power on the basis of war economy."[1]

In what is known as total war, these economies are often seen as targets by many militaries. The Union blockade during the American Civil War is regarded as one of the first examples of this.

Concerning the side of aggregate demand, this concept has been linked to the concept of "military Keynesianism", in which the government's military budget stabilizes business cycles and fluctuations and/or is used to fight recessions.

On the supply side, it has been observed that wars sometimes have the effect of accelerating progress of technology to such an extent that an economy is greatly strengthened after the war, especially if it has avoided the war-related destruction. This was the case, for example, with the United States in World War I and World War II. Some economists (such as Seymour Melman) argue, however, that the wasteful nature of much of military spending eventually can hurt technological progress.

By now, most readers will have grasped the big picture: War (killing, evil) equals money (profit). Amassing riches equals being a member of the elite. In this is the simple answer to why so many ills have befallen this planet of ours.

Much respect to the reader, to my debate opponent GAOTU and to The Vagabond.

The Star Count for this debate has been done ahead of the other debates in order to faciliate the seeding of these two debaters in the upcoming tournament.

The star count at approximately 3pm Pacific on 1/25/08 is 20-15 in favor of GAOTU789.

GAOTU789 is the winner.