Round 2. Illusionsaregrander v Truth Within: Mind Control

The topic for this debate is "It is plausible that covert radio signals are presently being used to exert influence on the emotional state and behavior of civilian populations in democratic nations".

Illusionsaregrander will be arguing the pro position and will open the debate.
Truth Within 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.


There are no limits on the length of posts, but you may only use 1 post per turn.

Editing is strictly forbidden. For reasons of time, mod edits should not be expected except in critical situations


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. Each invidual post may contain up to 10 sentences of external source material, totaled from all external sources.
Links to multiple pages within a single domain count as 1 reference but there is a maximum of 3 individual links per reference, then further links from that domain count as a new reference. Excess quotes and excess links will be removed before judging.

The Socratic Debate Rule is in effect. Each debater may ask up to 5 questions in each post, except for in closing statements- no questions are permitted in closing statements. These questions should be clearly labeled as "Question 1, Question 2, etc.
When asked a question, a debater must give a straight forward answer in his next post. Explanations and qualifications to an answer are acceptable, but must be preceeded by a direct answer.

A new time limit policy is in effect
Each debate must post within 24 hours of the timestamp on the last post. If your opponent is late, you may post immediately without waiting for an announcement of turn forfeiture. If you are late, you may post late, unless your opponent has already posted.

Each debater is entitled to one extention of 24 hours. The request should be posted in this thread and is automatically granted- the 24 hour extention begins at the expiration of the previous deadline, not at the time of the extention request.

In the unlikely event that tardiness results in simultaneous posting by both debaters, the late post will be deleted unless it appears in its proper order in the thread.


Judging will be done by a panel of anonymous judges. After each debate is completed it will be locked and the judges will begin making their decision. One of the debate forum moderators will then make a final post announcing the winner.

I would like to thank my opponent, the moderator and the reader for the opportunity to debate this topic.

"It is plausible that covert radio signals are presently being used to exert influence on the emotional state and behavior of civilian populations in democratic nations".

I am arguing that yes, it is plausible that covert radio signals are being used to influence emotions and behaviours of civilian populations.

Some of the ways these covert radio signals are used to influence human behaviour should be perfectly obvious, despite their "covert" nature. A covert message is sent, via radio waves from the police station to the officers at, say, a peace rally, and those messages received by the officers influence the behaviours of those officers overtly, and the civilian population consequently without their, (the civilians) ever knowing about the radio transmission. Although the radio waves themselves are not acting directly upon the civilians in this case, there is no doubt that the covert radio signals themselves are part of a causal chain of events that leads to a change in behaviour in the civilian population. Particularly if that covert message includes directions to shoot them with rubber bullets. I would suggest that being shot with rubber bullets is quite likely to also affect a change in their mood, or emotional state, although perhaps not. And while I do acknowledge that this most obvious method of using covert radio signals to influence civilian moods and behaviours may not be the most exciting, or conspiratorially minded interpretation of the question, I will point out that there is no requirement inherent in the question itself that the covert radio signal itself exert a direct influence over the civilians behaviour. The question specifically states that these covert radio signals be USED to influence the emotional state and behaviours of civilian populations. This scenario certainly meets that requirement.

Military uses of radio signals to influence the physiology and mental state of enemy combatants include, according to this article, "Human Network Attacks" by Mr. Timothy L. Thomas, Foreign Military Studies Office, Fort Leavenworth, KS.;

www.au.af.mil...

"More important is acoustic technology because it creates deafening noises, such as explosions, whizzing sounds, rumblings and heartrending screams, to upset psychological stability."

That same article describes what are called "New Concept Weapons,"

"Infrasound weapons use sound waves with frequencies lower than 20 Hz to cause cardiac, respiratory, digestive and central nervous system malfunctions, disorientation and emotional disorders. The journal People's Military Surgeon noted that such a weapon has already been developed and tested, and that infrasound waves generated by the device are adjustable to cause controllable amounts of disorientation, nausea, vomiting and incontinence.24 The journal also describes the use of microwave weapons to cause electronic interference, lasers to disable equipment and incoherent light sources and super-high frequency weapons, with the latter capable of interfering with the functioning of the human nervous system and capable of causing unbearable noise and whistling sounds."

Although these articles are describing the use of such weapons upon soldiers, military personnel, one can easily see how this same technology could plausibly be used on civilian populations residing in areas where "enemy combatants" are thought to be hiding, or seeking assistance.

Other more "conspiratorial" means of influencing civilian behaviour more directly via covert radio waves include what is known in some circles as V2K which is short hand for "voice to skull" where words or phrases are transmitted directly into the "mind" of the target, and interpreted there, without those words or phrases being audible to others. This article printed in the Washington Post, describes an investigation into the claims of people who feel they are being targeted by the Government in just such a way.

www.washingtonpost.com...

"Mind Games"
By Sharon Weinberger
Sunday, January 14, 2007; Page W22

"But there are hints of ongoing research: An academic paper written for the Air Force in the mid-1990s mentions the idea of a weapon that would use sound waves to send words into a person's head. "The signal can be a 'message from God' that can warn the enemy of impending doom, or encourage the enemy to surrender," the author concluded.

In 2002, the Air Force Research Laboratory patented precisely such a technology: using microwaves to send words into someone's head. "

So, clearly it is plausible that radio signals are being used to exert influence over civilian populations moods and behaviours. In many different ways.

Greetings! A huge thanks to The Vagabond for hosting another AMAZING debate tournament.

I wish my opponent Illusionsaregrander the best of luck!

ROUND II

OPENING POST

Topic: It is plausible that covert radio signals are presently being used to exert influence on the emotional state and behavior of civilian populations in democratic nations.

I AM WEARIN' MY TIN FOIL HAT. ARE YOU?

I have to admit – when I read the debate topic, I almost crapped my pants. In a nutshell, the argument is saying that it is reasonable to assume that governments of democratic societies could use radio waves to control the minds of its civilians.

Then I remembered that I had to debate this on ATS! OUCH!

Needless to say, I felt like a pilgrim in an unholy land. I even felt slighted a bit because I felt that it was unfair that all my opponent had to do was prove that radio waves could effect the human mind, which we know that they can because of experiments and the introduction of recent "non lethal" weapons. I thought I was dead in the water.

All of a sudden…..EUREKA! (I guess my tin foil hat worked!)

SO - HERE WE GO!

First - I think it is very important to specify exactly what it is we are talking about.

The topic argues the plausibility of covert use of radio signals to exert influence on civilians of democratic civilians.

Already - I see major flaws in my opponents argument.

My opponent states:

Some of the ways these covert radio signals are used to influence human behaviour should be perfectly obvious, despite their "covert" nature. A covert message is sent, via radio waves from the police station to the officers at, say, a peace rally, and those messages received by the officers influence the behaviours of those officers overtly, and the civilian population consequently without their, (the civilians) ever knowing about the radio transmission.

And then nullifies his own statement by admitting:

Although the radio waves themselves are not acting directly upon the civilians in this case, there is no doubt that the covert radio signals themselves are part of a causal chain of events that leads to a change in behaviour in the civilian population.

So if the radio waves are not directly influencing the civilians, then what does this have to do with the debate?

While I admire your creativity, a causal chain of events does not prove anything here. In this case it is the RUBBER BULLETS - not the radio signals that exert influence.

While I think we can all agree that this argument holds no ground - it brings us to a much larger and more important element of this debate.

We will call it:

The Rubber Bullet Effect: Exerting Influence - Or Causing General Annoyance

Throughout the course of this debate - I will demonstrate that:

While we know that scientifically radio signals can affect the human brain in the sense that it can disrupt or debilitate the mind - HOWEVER- there is NOTHING to prove that these signals can affect, or control one's emotional state or behavior.

I want to make this crystal clear.

To confuse, disorient or otherwise debilitate a person electronically is not to control that person. To make a person lose control of himself is not the same as gaining or taking control over him.

If I kick someone in the testicles, I am not exerting influence over them - I am preventing them from keeping control of themselves.

I cannot control their TRUE emotional state or permanently change their behavior.

Even if I repeatedly kick them and tell them that, unless they behave a certain way, I will not stop kicking them, they may do as I ask, but that is because they are trying to protect themselves. It WILL NOT change or affect their emotional state or general behaviors.

I believe my opponent sums it up best when he says:

I would suggest that being shot with rubber bullets is quite likely to also affect a change in their mood, or emotional state, although perhaps not.

Well, then perhaps it might not be PLAUSIBLE

My opponent brings up a good point. Causality, and what that really means. Rather than summarizing "in a nutshell" the topic for debate, I am going to cut and paste it directly from The Vagabonds post so there is no question of my altering it.

The topic for this debate is "It is plausible that covert radio signals are presently being used to exert influence on the emotional state and behavior of civilian populations in democratic nations".

What I have to show.

1) That radio signals are being used covertly. (without the knowledge of the democratic civilian that the radio signals are being used)

2) That the technology is plausible. Clearly, if the technology did not exist, it could not be plausible.

3) That the population the technology is used upon is civilian and democratic. Note that there is NO requirement that the government using the technology be the government of that particular democratic civilian population. Note that there is NO requirement that a "government" be the ones using this technology on a democratic civilian population. There is no stipulation at all in regard to who may be using this technology.

4) That the technology is plausibly being used in the "present." And not at some distant time in the future or past.

5) That radio waves are a causal factor in the change in behaviour or emotional state of said democratic civilian.

What I do NOT have to show.

1) I am NOt required to prove that the radio waves as a causal factor exert a DIRECT or immediate influence. I have to show that they are "used to" exert influence upon the behaviour and emotional state of these democratic civilians, and this can include a causal chain of events.

2) I do NOT have to prove the government is the one doing this, or if a government IS involved it is doing it to its OWN people.

3) I do NOT have to demonstrate this is IN FACT happening. I have to show that it is plausible (possible) that it is happening in the present. I do not have to show that it is ACTUALLY happening in the present.

Causality. I do appreciate my opponents bringing this up. I was concerned that I had not really clarified this issue, and clearly, I have not done so adequately. I think that many people do initially leap to the conclusion that causality is simple, and direct, "I do action x to object y, and object y responds." However it is rarely the case that our expectations of a "direct causation" are borne out by closer examination.

If, to borrow my opponents argument, bullets are the cause of a specific behavioural or emotional change in a person, why arent our prisons full of bullets? I think because we DO recognize that bullets are a part of a causal chain of events, and not the ONLY causal factor in an event such as a shooting.

We do not blame the gun that fires the bullets, and incarcerate it. Nor do we incarcerate the finger that pulls the trigger separately from the mind, or consciousness that initiates, or is the Prime Mover, of that chain of causality. You could not successfully, if being tried for murder, strike a deal to evade punishment for the crime by offering to "execute" the finger on your hand that pulled the trigger by amputation. We recognize that a chain of events occurred, and that the prime mover, the origin of that chain of events is the responsible party. And we recognize that the finger, the gun and the bullets are USED TO exert influence in this chain of events culminating in some end. In my example this end is to have some influence on the emotional state and behaviour of the "end user." In the case of murder, death is a very tangible change in the behaviour or emotional state of a democratic civilian.

Now I admitted in the original example where a prime mover, the police chief or commander, issues a covert command via radio signals to the officers in the field to shoot rubber bullets into a crowd of democratic civilian protesters, that I could not GUARANTEE that this chain of events will culminate in some change in behaviour or emotional state of the democratic civilian. There is a wide variety in human beings, and as the Rodney King video showed, under some circumstances, even extreme actions by person x upon person y, using various means, may have little effect at all. There is little doubt that the intent in using these devices is to exert influence. And if the person being shot with rubber bullets was ME for example, this chain of events WOULD have significant influence on both my emotional state and behaviour.
I would ask that you consider if this may not be the case for you as well.

Now my opponent has made a leap from "to exert some influence" on the emotional state of a democratic civilian to "control" of that democratic civilian. Control was not the question. I can see the desire to take it in that direction, why that may be desirable in a strategic sense in this debate, as control would be difficult to demonstrate in ANY scenario because of the unpredictability of the human animal in general. However "exert influence over" and "control" ARE NOT equivalent terms.

A better strategy for winning the debate would be to refrain from conceding that;

"Needless to say, I felt like a pilgrim in an unholy land. I even felt slighted a bit because I felt that it was unfair that all my opponent had to do was prove that radio waves could effect the human mind, which we know that they can because of experiments and the introduction of recent "non lethal" weapons. I thought I was dead in the water."

"Bold" added to the text by me for emphasis. You have to be careful with those tinfoil hats. A study conducted by MIT shows that rather than offer protection from radio waves, they can under certain circumstances actually amplify the effect of the waves. From Wikipedia;

en.wikipedia.org...

"A study by graduate students at MIT determined that a tin-foil hat could either amplify or attenuate incoming radiation depending on frequency. The effect was observed to be roughly independent of the relative placement of the wearer and radiation source."

Illusionsaregrander
Now my opponent has made a leap from "to exert some influence" on the emotional state of a democratic civilian to "control" of that democratic civilian.

I guess the title of the thread

MIND CONTROL

is misleading then.

Let's get this debate back on track.
My interpretation of "Radio Signals" means the actual "Waves" or "Transmission" of an electronic signal through the air. NOT a causal chain of events of people talking on walkie talkies. There would be NO WAY to prove that.

Let's look at, by my opponents definition, what he has to show.

1) That radio signals are being used covertly. (without the knowledge of the democratic civilian that the radio signals are being used)

So far, my opponent has cited nothing to prove that this is happening - or that there are covert programs ANYWHERE in democratic societies that even COULD be using radio signals to affect emotional states and/or behavior.

Socratic Question 1: Is there solid proof or even INDICATIONS that covert waves are plausibly being used on any populations at all?

Socratic Question 2: If so - what would the benefit be to whomever is covertly using these radio waves?

2) That the technology is plausible. Clearly, if the technology did not exist, it could not be plausible.

So far the only technology that my opponent has cited is sonic and sound wave technology - NOT radio signal technology.

Radio Waves vs Sound Waves

Sound waves are produced by objects, which vibrate rather rapidly. This can be demonstrated by feeling your throat while speaking, seeing a speaker vibrate as the sound comes out, or striking a tuning fork.

Radio waves are produced by moving charged particles.

If there is radio signal technology out there, meaning electromagnetic signals - I am more than willing to argue it.

3) That the population the technology is used upon is civilian and democratic. Note that there is NO requirement that the government using the technology be the government of that particular democratic civilian population. Note that there is NO requirement that a "government" be the ones using this technology on a democratic civilian population. There is no stipulation at all in regard to who may be using this technology.

Again - my opponent has yet to cite any relevant application of the technology on democratic civilian populations. In fact - my opponent has yet to define, or cite, what this technology is yet!

The only thing I can recognize so for is my opponent's ability to wade through a jungle of endless semantics about what the argument requires.

4) That the technology is plausibly being used in the "present." And not at some distant time in the future or past.

Seeing a pattern yet? The burden of proof is on my opponent to prove that these things are "presently" happening, and yet there is NOTHING to support this yet.

Socratic Question 3: Do you have any verified proof or information - or even an indication that the use of covert radio signals are PRESENTLY being used to effect the emotional state or behavior of democratic civilian populations?

5) That radio waves are a causal factor in the change in behaviour or emotional state of said democratic civilian.

Actually, it is "democratic civilian POPULATIONS", not one person. Let us not confuse the MAJOR difference between the concept of the masses vs the individual.

And I am still waiting to hear how my opponent intends to show how radio waves are having a causal effect on emotional states and behavior.

__________________________________________________________

As far as the whole Rubber Bullet Metaphor goes - let's drop it. What was a minor case of me being a smart arse has spun way too far out of control.

__________________________________________________________

Now my opponent has made a leap from "to exert some influence" on the emotional state of a democratic civilian to "control" of that democratic civilian. Control was not the question. I can see the desire to take it in that direction, why that may be desirable in a strategic sense in this debate, as control would be difficult to demonstrate in ANY scenario because of the unpredictability of the human animal in general.

It is clear that that the intent of this debate had something to do with control. After all - it is the TITLE of the debate. If you would like - we can get some clarification.

However "exert influence over" and "control" ARE NOT equivalent terms.

Er...the thesaurus seems to think so.

A better strategy for winning the debate would be to refrain from conceding that;

all my opponent had to do was prove that radio waves could effect the human mind, which we know that they can because of experiments and the introduction of recent "non lethal" weapons.

Finally-

In my original post I did say that radio waves can affect the mind. By doing so - I conceded NOTHING. In fact - it strengthens my argument.

Allow me to clarify.

ANY electromagnetic wave in high enough frequency can disturb or debilitate the human mind. This is not to say that it can affect the behavior or emotional state of an ENTIRE population - or even a single person. Again - debilitating someone is not influencing OR controlling them.

If I had to stick to my opponents definition of "control" I would indeed be in trouble. Had I known we were to ignore the question in favor of the debate title, I certainly would have. Then I would not have had to show a "covert" occurrence, and could simply have used television news broadcasts and advertising as demonstrations. My opponent states, yet again conceding the point halfheartedly;

"While we know that scientifically radio signals can affect the human brain in the sense that it can disrupt or debilitate the mind - HOWEVER- there is NOTHING to prove that these signals can affect, or control one's emotional state or behavior.

Here we have both an affirmation that radio signals affect the mind, and a negation of that claim in the same sentence. While my opponent jabs at my use of semantics, I find the inconsistencies in my opponents argument, and cavalier use of language, sort of puts me in a position to either clarify, or ignore, their points.

To avoid this; I think I will ask directly, and so I invoke my Socratic privilege.

1) Are you aware of the fact that cell phones, television, radios, and hand held wireless communication devices use radio waves?

2) Are you aware that the mind is the origin of behaviours and emotions and that not all these are conscious?

3) Does the use of alcohol disrupt or debilitate the mind?

4) Would you be so kind as to provide YOUR definition of "control" or "influence" since you have indicated that disturbance and debilitation cannot be construed as "control or influence?" As you phrase it;

"ANY electromagnetic wave in high enough frequency can disturb or debilitate the human mind. This is not to say that it can affect the behavior or emotional state of an ENTIRE population - or even a single person. Again - debilitating someone is not influencing OR controlling them."

5) Would you point out to me where in either the question or the heading of the topic you draw support for the position that the "ENTIRE population" must be affected as you imply in your statement provided directly above?

My opponent dismisses my argument, which was quite carefully chosen because it does meet all the qualifications of the question as posed, and it also allows a "covert action" to be made "overt" for the sake of argument. I would offer my opponent has done little besides display a misunderstanding of the function of the mind and the workings of electronic communication devices. Perhaps my opponents next post will clarify those issues.

Now to answer my opponents Socratic questions.

1) "Is there solid proof or even INDICATIONS that covert waves are plausibly being used on any populations at all?"

Answer: Covert waves? By this I am going to assume you mean "radio waves or electromagnetic waves used in a covert fashion," as there is no such beast as a "covert wave" itself. Apparently they are pretty covert, in the sense that you were not aware that cell phones, televisions, etc., operate using that technology. And so, yes, I have to say it is plausible that they are being used "on a population."

2) "If so - what would the benefit be to whomever is covertly using these radio waves?"

Answer: To exert influence over the behaviour and emotional state of another. To disperse a crowd in my original example, and make it less attractive to gather for a protest.

3) "Do you have any verified proof or information - or even an indication that the use of covert radio signals are PRESENTLY being used to effect the emotional state or behavior of democratic civilian populations? "

Answer: I would argue that many "covert radio signals" were used in the course of the campaign to influence the emotional state and behaviour of the civilian American population designed to make us believe that Saddam Hussein was somehow linked to the 9-11 attacks and possessed weapons of mass destruction. And there is no reason to believe that we have lost the ability to use radio signals covertly since that time.

"If you would like - we can get some clarification."

If you feel the need to get clarification on any point, you certainly do not have to ask me. If you are saying that I have to agree with your interpretation, then I respectfully disagree. I would say that the point of a debate is that there IS disagreement over an issue, and that the individuals in the debate are charged with building a case for their interpretation. Which, rather than simply complaining about my case, you might consider doing.

Aside from an explanation of the difference between a sound wave and a radio wave, which indicates to me that you think a "radio" which produces "sound waves" does not utilize "radio signal technology" in doing so, and a list of synonyms, which are words with "the same or NEARLY the same meaning" as another word, you havent provided much of a case for your position at all.

Ladies and gentlemen - it is clear now that my opponent has such a fundamental misunderstanding of the intent of this debate topic, that I have to clear some things up.

OK.

Apparently - your entire argument is riding on your original example that you "carefully chose" to address the topic because it met the requirements of the topic.

The fact is it does not. Here is why:

You begin you argument by saying:

A covert message is sent, via radio waves from the police station to the officers at

Ok. Right away - that fails the topic.

In this case it is not the "radio signals", that are exerting the influence. It is the message being carried on the radio signals. Without the message - there would have been no influence. So it follows then that the radio signals have NO influence in this situation aside from carrying the message.

RADIO SIGNAL as defined by dictionary.com states: noun; a radio wave used to transmit and receive messages

So your original example crashes and burns before it can even take off. Perhaps you should have chosen more wisely. Th rest of the argument cannot stand on its nonexistent premise.

It seems that you are now backtracking on the fact that you didn't clearly understand the topic we were to debate from the very beginning.

Aside from an explanation of the difference between a sound wave and a radio wave, which indicates to me that you think a "radio" which produces "sound waves" does not utilize "radio signal technology" in doing so, and a list of synonyms, which are words with "the same or NEARLY the same meaning" as another word, you havent provided much of a case for your position at all.

It was a shame I needed to distinguish a sound wave from a radio wave for you, but since all you provided were examples of SOUND weapons and devices, I really had no choice but to clarify that point.

Again - I think you should have read the topic more clearly.

"More important is acoustic technology because it creates deafening noises, such as explosions, whizzing sounds, rumblings and heartrending screams, to upset psychological stability."

None of these have ANYTHING to do with RADIO SIGNALS. They all produce SOUND WAVES.

You see? It's a good thing I cleared that up.

"But there are hints of ongoing research: An academic paper written for the Air Force in the mid-1990s mentions the idea of a weapon that would use SOUND WAVES to send words into a person's head."

Again - SOUND WAVES. Not radio signals. BIIIIG DIFFERENCE.

Even in your most recent post you state:

Answer: I would argue that many "covert radio signals" were used in the course of the campaign to influence the emotional state and behaviour of the civilian American population designed to make us believe that Saddam Hussein was somehow linked to the 9-11 attacks and possessed weapons of mass destruction.

Even here you show a great misunderstanding of the topic. Again - it is NOT the RADIO SIGNALS that were covert - it was the message. In this case the covert "message" may have been to draw a link between 911 and Hussein. The "covert" decision was not to send the radio signals - the "covert" decision was to spread inaccurate information _ WHICH HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE RADIO SIGNALS.

WE ARE NOT DEBATING COVERT MESSAGES. WE ARE DEBATING RADIO SIGNALS THAT HAVE BEEN COVERTLY SENT.

Do you see the difference? The topic asks for you to show the plausibility of "covert radio signals" exerting influence on the behavior and emotional states of civilians.

The topic does not ask you to talk about the messages being carried on the signals.

I regret that I have had to spend so much time explaining the topic to you as I feel it has hampered us from debating the actual topic.

If you feel the need to get clarification on any point, you certainly do not have to ask me. If you are saying that I have to agree with your interpretation, then I respectfully disagree. I would say that the point of a debate is that there IS disagreement over an issue, and that the individuals in the debate are charged with building a case for their interpretation. Which, rather than simply complaining about my case, you might consider doing.

So it would you seem you did need a little clarification on the topic, because all of your examples, supporting technology and even you mode of logic are so far fallen from the topic itself that we are not disagreeing over the issue . Instead - we are disagreeing on the wording of the topic - which you completely missed the boat on.

I will complain about your case when you are using supportive evidence and citing examples that have NOTHING TO DO with what we are supposed to be debating.


ON TO THE QUESTIONS:

1) Are you aware of the fact that cell phones, television, radios, and hand held wireless communication devices use radio waves?

YES. I am aware.

2) Are you aware that the mind is the origin of behaviours and emotions and that not all these are conscious?

YES.

3) Does the use of alcohol disrupt or debilitate the mind?

In certain quantities. Yes.

4) Would you be so kind as to provide YOUR definition of "control" or "influence" since you have indicated that disturbance and debilitation cannot be construed as "control or influence?" As you phrase it;

To exercise restraint or direction over; dominate; command - from Dictionary.com

5) Would you point out to me where in either the question or the heading of the topic you draw support for the position that the "ENTIRE population" must be affected as you imply in your statement provided directly above?

I was using it for contrast. People do that in debates. I was illustrating there is no way to influence one person or an entire population. Thought that was pretty clear. Is this an important point of contention?

The question is, for the third time;

"It is plausible that covert radio signals are presently being used to exert influence on the emotional state and behavior of civilian populations in democratic nations".

"Being used to." I simply do not see what about that phrase is so complicated that my opponent cannot understand it. A needle can be used to administer a sedative. The needle does not "knock you out." The sedative does. A gun can be "used to" shoot someone. The gun never touches the person. The bullet does. There is no, none, nada, zip, requirement implicit in the phrase "used to exert influence" that the radio wave itself act directly upon the mind without some translating device, a receiver. That statement does not preclude it being a direct action, but it does not require it. And if you feel that it does, feel free as part of actually constructing an argument of your own, to clarify why "used to" means "must act directly upon." Simply wishing it to be so, and acting certain of it, and insisting it loudly and often, does not make it so.

And if it is so ridiculous to consider the message as part of the "causation" of this change in emotional state or behaviour, as my opponent huffily suggests, if the "message" is utterly inadmissible as part of a causal sequnce, and of no consequence to the argument whatsoever, why then post a definition of a radio signal as;

"noun; a radio wave used to transmit and receive messages."

Surely you are not suggesting that the topic itself is rigged in such a way that its author would intend me to have to prove something, "a radio signal," acts in a way other than that which, by your own definition, it is designed to.

And since by definition, your definition, the nature of a radio wave is to transmit messages, which are then received and translated (decoded) into sound waves in some cases, why would that make the use of acoustic weapons irrelevant to this argument? The radio signal is still USED TO carry the message that is translated at some geographic location as, yes, a sound wave, which then influences the behaviours and emotional states of the human end recipient. It isnt that I didnt understand sound waves and radio signals, it is that I mistakenly assumed it was obvious. And I am indebted to you for pointing out to me that it wasnt. For if it wasnt obvious to you, then perhaps that fact was also not obvious to the reader.

You then go on to add;

"Again - it is NOT the RADIO SIGNALS that were covert - it was the message."

If you want to be just ridiculous about the definition of covert, and which part of what is the covert part, I will ask you "Have you ever seen a radio signal? Know what one looks like at all? Heard one whizzing by you on its way to a cell phone or TV?" Then they are all covert. In that example I provided, with the intent that it be a clear example, both the radio signal and the message were covert. Although, if you insist that the radio signal alone need be covert, and they all are, it only makes my burden of proof lighter as it will allow me to use radio and television messages and programming that are OVERT after translation as evidence. However, though you are the one defining these terms in this way in this post, judging from your argument thus far, you would only be complaining about the terms you set in this post in the next one.

"You see? It's a good thing I cleared that up."

MMmmmm hmmm. Sure is. If beating a mistaken dead horse can be construed as clearing something up.

I asked you, in question 3, "Does the use of alcohol disrupt or debilitate the mind?" You answered "In certain quantities, Yes." I asked this question because, much like your sound wave, radio signal argument, you decided there was no need to actually use reason or logic when asserting, repeatedly;

"ANY electromagnetic wave in high enough frequency can disturb or debilitate the human mind. This is not to say that it can affect the behavior or emotional state of an ENTIRE population - or even a single person. Again - debilitating someone is not influencing OR controlling them."

I will not repost all of the cases where you insist that debilitating and disturbing, disrupting, etc, is not influencing or controlling someone, out of sheer weariness. I ask you then, if this is the case, and you agree that in certain quantities alcohol debilitates the mind, why we frequently and customarily call drunkeness "being under the influence of alcohol?"

I think you DO understand that what debilitates a mind also influences it, and, as you yourself say "influence" is a synonym for control, a word with the same or nearly the same meaning, so what debilitates a mind to some degree controls it. I think spinning, twisting, deliberately distorting definitions to suit yourself, and when all else fails, USING BIG PRINT, is what you have decided passes for a logically sound, consistent argument.

And when I asked if you could point out where, as you had been asserting, there was some requirement that an ENTIRE population must be affected for someone to show that radio signals were being used to exert influence over peoples emotions and behaviours you say;

"I was using it for contrast. People do that in debates. I was illustrating there is no way to influence one person or an entire population. Thought that was pretty clear. Is this an important point of contention?

Only when it suits you is it an important point of contention. Surely you are not suggesting that the topic itself is set up in such a way that my position is indefensible by virtue of the question alone. That would not be a debate.

One part of the original argument that you left out when beating the sound wave -vs- the radio wave issue to death, was this; from the Washington Post article located here;

www.washingtonpost.com...

"Mind Games"
By Sharon Weinberger
Sunday, January 14, 2007; Page W22

"But there are hints of ongoing research: An academic paper written for the Air Force in the mid-1990s mentions the idea of a weapon that would use sound waves to send words into a person's head. "The signal can be a 'message from God' that can warn the enemy of impending doom, or encourage the enemy to surrender," the author concluded.

In 2002, the Air Force Research Laboratory patented precisely such a technology: using microwaves to send words into someone's head. "

And before we have to listen to yet another inaccurate lecture on the nature of "waves" of various sorts; here is an explanation of why a microwave qualifies, from the website "Windows to the Universe,"

"Microwaves, which we use for cooking and for communication, are short wavelength radio waves with wavelengths between a few and a few hundred millimeters (tenths of inches to tens of inches)."

And so that I personally do not have to explain it in detail in my closing argument, please take the time to read the rest of the article if you are unclear as to how that all works here, it is designed to be a simple explanation;

www.windows.ucar.edu...=/physical_science/magnetism/em_radio_waves.html

If you desire a more technical one, you can find one here;

www.wa1mba.org...

The requirements for getting a patent include that a thing be "useful." And so, even though we cannot get our hands on the actual device that was patented by the Air Force, or see it in operation, because it is classified, we know that it had to meet this "useful" requirement simply by virtue of the fact that a patent was granted.

From Bitlaw

www.bitlaw.com...

Useful Requirement:

The patent law specifies that the subject matter must be "useful." The term "useful" in this connection refers to the condition that the subject matter has a useful purpose and also includes operativeness, that is, a machine which will not operate to perform the intended purpose would not be called useful, and therefore would not be granted a patent. "

This makes it plausible. Which is another requirement of the question. Not, as my opponent has, and surely will again claim, "verified proof." Again, if the framer of the original question intended that "verified proof" was a requirement, why say "plausible?"

The subject we are debating is presented as such: (for the millionth time)

"It is plausible that covert radio signals are presently being used to exert influence on the emotional state and behavior of civilian populations in democratic nations".

The the title of the thread is "Mind Control".

In order to debate this topic - my opponent and I both must agree on the intent of the topic and what it implies. This clearly has not been the case.

From the onset, Illusionsaregrander has contended that this topic has something to do with "messages" and not "radio signals". He used the publics' perception that Sadam Hussein was linked to 911 as a result of these covert "messages". He used the example of a police commander issuing a covert radio order to fire rubber bullets at a crowd of protesters and argued that this was a valid example of radio signals exerting influence on a civilian population through a causal process.

These would all be GREAT examples if we were talking about covert "messages". But the topic explicitly states "radio signals" and does not mention anything about the "messages" that the signals are carrying.

Socratic Question 1: If the author of this topic had intended we debate covert "messages" being sent via radio waves, don't you think the term "message" or something similar would have been used?

I am not debating the term "being used to". I am not trying to change the definition of "Radio Signal" or "Control". I wish we could get to that point in the debate. But we can not because Illusionsaregrander has completely misunderstood the topic.

This is my point: If we were debating the plausibility of covert radio MESSAGES and their influence on civilian populations in democratic nations, then my my opponent would be right on track to having a really great debate.

In fact - if that is what this debate is about - then I admit full and total defeat - because I think that it is safe to assume - that covert MESSAGES are dispatched on a daily - if not hourly basis to attempt to shape the minds and behaviors of people around them. This is the White House Press Room, this is an ad for tooth paste, this is the Rush Limbaugh Show. In other words - IF this were our debate, Illusionsaregrander would have a very easy time illustrating his point.

However, ladies and gentlemen, that is not what this debate is about. Messages are not radio signals - And we are not debating messages.

This debate is about the plausibility of someone, somewhere, covertly and intentionally sending "radio signals", not "messages via radio signals", but actual electric particles out into the air, to control the behavior or emotional state of civilians in a democratic nation.

This implies that it is the actual radio signal - NOT THE MESSAGE BEING CARRIED VIA THE SIGNAL - is the force that is exerting influence. This is so important and such a vital part to understanding this debate, and without it, we can not move forward to really set up arguments about this topic.

So I would like to take this opportunity to do 2 things before our final arguments begin:

1. Appologize to the readers of this debate for being denied a debate that is about the topic at hand, and instead being given a debate about the intention of the topic itself.
   
   
2. Appologize of the the bickering between me and my opponent.
   

My opponent set out a list of things that he had to show in order to show some form of plausibility of his argument.

1) That radio signals are being used covertly. (without the knowledge of the democratic civilian that the radio signals are being used)

2) That the technology is plausible. Clearly, if the technology did not exist, it could not be plausible.

3) That the population the technology is used upon is civilian and democratic. Note that there is NO requirement that the government using the technology be the government of that particular democratic civilian population. Note that there is NO requirement that a "government" be the ones using this technology on a democratic civilian population. There is no stipulation at all in regard to who may be using this technology.

4) That the technology is plausibly being used in the "present." And not at some distant time in the future or past.

5) That radio waves are a causal factor in the change in behaviour or emotional state of said democratic civilian.

I have said it earlier, point by point, that my opponent has failed to illustrate any of these point. It still remains that my opponent has failed to "show" any of these things.

So even if my opponent wished to argue his misconstrued version of the topic, he has still failed to present a valid case for his own version of what he thinks the debate is about.

There has been no mention of the plausibility that there are covert radio signals being sent.

His examples of "technology" are all acoustic, audio and sonic technologies that, as I have shown, have nothing to do with radio signals and therefore these technologies have no utility even being mentioned in this debate.

He has failed to show how a democratic population has anything to do with this, or how the "present" plays into this in any form.

My argument stands that this topic was misunderstood by Illusionsaregrander from the beginning and this debate has turned into argument about who understood the topic. I urge all of the readers of this debate to go back through the posts of my opponent and I believe you will see this misunderstanding to be true.

I now yield to my opponent to start the closing arguments.

Well. I barely know where to begin after that last contribution from my opponent. Because this is a debate, and part of a debate is to counter your opponents arguments, I will address my opponents argument, if it can be called that, regarding radio signals and messages.

A definition of "signal" for my opponent, and the reader. Please take the time to look at the definitions for yourself, as there are several, I personally chose numbers 3 and 4, because a radio signal is not a "gesture," though my opponent may argue that next. I believe the term "radio signal" implies that some electromagnetic wave be involved, and so I avoided choosing the definitions of signal that lacked that component.

www.answers.com...

signal (sĭg'nəl)
"3. Electronics; An impulse or a fluctuating electric quantity, such as voltage, current, or electric field strength, whose variations represent coded information.
4. The sound, image, or message transmitted or received in telegraphy, telephony, radio, television, or radar."

www.answers.com...

I chose the answers.com version because it actually offered more choices than some of the others. Please read the other choices provided, and decide for yourself if those fit better when combined with "radio." If still in doubt, search the word further, there is nothing to hide, I certainly encourage it on the part of either my opponent or the reader. Please. Do. I think it is quite clear, that a "signal" is not something separate and entirely isolated from a "message" as my opponent insists. And insists. A "message" is inherent in the concept of "signal" itself.

My opponent says;

"This is my point: If we were debating the plausibility of covert radio MESSAGES and their influence on civilian populations in democratic nations, then my my opponent would be right on track to having a really great debate.

In fact - if that is what this debate is about - then I admit full and total defeat - because I think that it is safe to assume - that covert MESSAGES are dispatched on a daily - if not hourly basis to attempt to shape the minds and behaviors of people around them."

Thank you, for that concession.

My much maligned first example was chosen carefully to hit all of the points I felt were required by the question. It is not an exotic or exciting demonstration, I admit that. I know there is much more glamour in "turning an unwitting and unwilling person into a radio controlled zombie." However, that is not what the question required. It required that the radio signal be "used to exert influence on the emotional state and behaviour of a civilian population." Period. If zombies are required, they need to be stated. They could be stated, and in my opinion, if the moderator "intended that," he would have stated that. My opponent seems to feel that we must agree. I say we do not. My interpretation of the question is my own. It is based in reading it, knowing what the individual words mean, and then considering them in context. Not some special psychic link to the Moderators mind, which my opponent seems to claim to have access to. At any time, my opponent could have begun building a case based upon their own understanding, rather than trying to nag me into accepting theirs.

My opponent claims I failed my own requirements for my interpretation of the question, and so in closing I summarize. I intended to show;

1) That the radio signal be covert. They are all covert, in the sense that the average person can only receive the radio signals sent over channels their specific receiver is tuned to receive. Your cell phone, for instance, is very unlikely to receive calls intended for me if they are properly dialed. In my example, the signals were sent covertly over police channels. My first example also included the message remaining covert after decoding. To be on the safe side.

2) That the technology be plausible. In my first example the technology I chose was deliberately low-tech. A walkie talkie. It is quite plausible.

3) That the population be civilian and democratic. I chose protesters at a peace rally. In America, if that were not clear, let me elaborate that point now.

4) That the technology be plausible in the present. A walkie talkie is presently available and workable.

5) That the radio signal be "used to" exert influence over the emotional state and behaviour of a civilian population. In my initial example, the covert radio signal carried a covert command to fire rubber bullets into a crowd. If you need more people to satisfy yourself it is a population, make it a tear gas canister affecting more people. If even more people are required then scrap the whole scenario and use the order to bomb Baghdad. If you personally do not think rubber bullets, or tear gas, or bombing a city affect peoples emotional states and behaviours, I really dont know what to say.

I suppose I can provide a link to some graphic scenes which you may or may not watch, at your own discretion. The piece itself is relevant to the topic that it shows willingness to use whatever technology we happen to have available on civilians. It primarly deals with "directed energy weapons" many of them "laser" weapons but it does describes some microwave weapons relevant to the topic, (as microwaves are part of the radio spectrum) that you may find personally interesting.

www.informationclearinghouse.info...

I chose my original example to cover all the bases in one plausible, and demonstrable scenario. I also provided information regarding more novel or "exciting" means, and methods of using covert radio signals to exert influence. Which my opponent has ignored or dismissed based upon their understanding of radio signals and whether or not messages could be involved. I will not bore you, or myself, by reproducing them all. They are in the first post, and again in the my last rebuttal.

My opponents case has, from first post to last, been an insistence we need to agree. I would argue that this is a fundamental misunderstanding about debate itself. It is designed in such a way that we disagree. We are issued opposing positions on a topic, and if you do not accept your opponents interpretation you refute theirs, while building a case for your own. My opponent has done neither. Not liking my case, and complaining about my case, and my interpretation are not refuting it. Nor should it be construed as building a case for their position. My opponents argument is, and has been from the beginning, as stated in closing their last post;

"My argument stands that this topic was misunderstood by Illusionsaregrander from the beginning and this debate has turned into argument about who understood the topic. I urge all of the readers of this debate to go back through the posts of my opponent and I believe you will see this misunderstanding to be true."

My argument has indeed required that I spend a fair amount of time explaining what influence is, and what radio signals are, and what "used to" means. That is part of debate, not outside of debate. If your opponent makes a claim, if you disagree, you bring in evidence to refute it. Much like my opponents entire last post, devoted to the claim that "radio signals" have nothing to do with "messages." Had my opponent ever once in the course of the debate taken the time to look up "radio signals" or "signals" we could have all been spared that. My opponent never questioned their own interpretation, and so chose not to look themselves to see if they were correct. I did look. I did research. I did present a case based on my findings, and the question. My opponent did not.

What my opponent has done is contradict themself at every turn. One time saying that;

"I even felt slighted a bit because I felt that it was unfair that all my opponent had to do was prove that radio waves could effect the human mind, which we know that they can because of experiments and the introduction of recent "non lethal" weapons.

And then later denying that this was entirely impossible;

"I was illustrating there is no way to influence one person or an entire population. Thought that was pretty clear."

I will not show every example, they are peppered throughout the argument in both of our posts, as I have already pointed many of them out by quoting them.

My opponent has directed quite a bit of charm towards the reader. And been quite passionate, and colorful in their use of text and such. While it does make for pleasant and amusing reading at times, I think it would have been more in line with the concept of debate in general if some facts, logic, and structured argument were also thrown into that mix. With that, I conclude MY argument.

To close, I would like to thank my opponent, the moderator, and the reader.

I suppose that if the goal of this debate was to misrepresent your opponents statements at every turn - then you would be victor.

I think , however, my opponent has done my work for me.

I notice that my opponent specifically showed the definition of "signal". That is great. But the debate says "RADIO signal". How great it would be for my opponent if the debate had only said signal. Here is the definition of "RADIO signal" from my opponents same source.

radio signal

The transmission of electromagnetic energy.

A little different from my opponent's definition of plain ol' signal. I did my research too, and came to the logical conclusion that "messages" had nothing to with this debate.

I could see why my opponent wouldn't want this pesky definition to come up - because it illustrates my point.

I realize I keep harping on this - but it is the very crux of my my opponents fundamental lack of understanding about what this debate was supposed to be about.

My opponent then accuses me of feeling like we have to agree on the subject.

WRONG. Of course we don't. If I wanted to be agreed with, I sure as hell wouldn't be in a debate forum.

What I do feel is necessary, as misrepresented as my point has been made, is that two debaters must AT LEAST be able to agree on what it is they are debating.

Let us say the debated argument is 'Abortion is good because in controls the population". One person argues the pro, one the con. Do the two debaters need to agree on the topic? NO. Do they need to fundamentally understand what the argument is saying so that the 2 debaters can represent their respective positions accurately? ABSOLUTELY.

In this case - if the person arguing the pro side started his argument by talking about the car industry, and then used that argument until the closing, one could speculate that it is clear the debater did not understand what the debate was about.

This is the case here.

I will keep this post short as I feel that I have made my case.

The facts are simple. My opponent used a bad example, didn't understand the argument and has been back peddling ever since.

Since my opponent did not answer my direct socratic question with a direct answer - I can only assume he has no answer.

I guess he comes close to answering by saying:

However, that is not what the question required. It required that the radio signal be "used to exert influence on the emotional state and behaviour of a civilian population." Period. If zombies are required, they need to be stated. They could be stated, and in my opinion, if the moderator "intended that," he would have stated that.

And I guess if your whole argument relies on the "messages" being carried by the radio waves, then the author should have said "messages". But he didn't. So thank you for proving my point.

I can see how this debate has become rather blurry. I ask those reading to examine the topic closely and then revisit the posts. I think you will find my argument to stand up.

I would like to thank The Vagabond yet again for an outstanding tournament. Most importantly, even as brutal as this has been, I would like to thank my opponent. It has truly been a blast.

Thank you everyone for reading.

Truthwithin has won the debate and will advance to round 3.

Illusionsaregrander seemed to hesitate to get too close to the intended topic. Perhaps he doubted the open-mindedness of the audience. The example of a signal ordering the use of rubber bullets was weak at best.

It was also noteworthy that most of the information on what exactly electromagnetic fields can do to people came from the con side rather than the pro. I never really got a sense from the pro side of how electromagnetic signals could be used for covert influence, and that allowed TruthWithin's point that incapacitation is not influence to stand when it probably could have been challenged. That proved decisive and gave TruthWithin the win.

All in all the debate bogged down a bit in semantics rather than attacking the heart of the issue, and was a slight disappointment in that respect, but I do have to give both fighters the nod for sticking to their guns and going through the topic very quickly.

Congratulations TruthWithin. Good luck in your next round.

Edit: In regard to the judge(s) comment, about why I might have avoided the topic "as intended," I avoided providing "evidence" of how this technology might work because there isnt any. Not only is there nothing I would call credible evidence at all for this technology, "as the topic was intended" as both my opponent and the judge/moderator pointed out, there is actually pretty overwhelming evidence that though it has been eagerly sought, it is NOT a workable technology. And trust me, I did research. Unlike the "space travel" argument, which allowed the "future technology" I was charged with making an impossible nonexistent technology presently plausible, I felt I had no choice but to try to skew the definition. I suppose I could have just tried outrageous bold faced lying about the technology, but I did not see my opponent in the first round of competition, and had no way to gauge if they would research or not. So, my apologies to my opponent, I absolutely did understand the argument as stated, I just felt it was a total "give away" to the con position, and so I decided to put up some sort of a fight. Even though it was not the one intended, I felt it was more sporting than simply handing it to you as a concession.

[edit on 12-3-2008 by Illusionsaregrander]

Thank you, Illusionsaregrander. I hope to see you in the debate room again. I would love to go another round with you.

Best of luck, and thank you again for your kind words.