Round 1: AllSeeingI vs stereovoyaged - "John Paul I"

page: 1
11

log in

join

posted on Nov, 23 2009 @ 08:36 AM
link   
The topic for this debate is "“Pope John Paul I's Death Was No Natural Death.”"

"AllSeeingI" will be arguing the "Pro" position and begin the debate.
"stereovoyaged" will be arguing 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 is a 10,000 character limit per post.

Any character count in excess of 10,000 will be deleted prior to the judging process.

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. Video and audio files are NOT allowed.

Excluding both the opening and closing statements, only two images and no more than 5 references can be included for each post. Each individual post may contain up to 10 sentences of external source material, totaled from all external sources. Be cognizant of what you quote as excess sentences will be removed prior to judging.

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 preceded by a direct answer.

This Is The Time Limit Policy:

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 extension of 24 hours. The request should be posted in this thread and is automatically granted- the 24 hour extension begins at the expiration of the previous deadline, not at the time of the extension 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.

In the Tournament, winners will be awarded 2 points for each debate they win.

All AboveTopSecret.com Terms and Conditions Apply at all times in all debate formats.




posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 04:26 AM
link   
My thanks to all those making this debate tourney possible. Good luck to my challengers and all the competitors.

The topic for this debate is "“Pope John Paul I's Death Was No Natural Death.”"
"AllSeeingI" will be arguing the "Pro" position and begin the debate. POPE JOHN PAUL 1

-OPENING-

I am arguing in favor of the title statement: "“Pope John Paul I's Death Was No Natural Death.”"

What I must attempt is to convince the judgment of our debate that the Death of Pope John Paul the 1st CANNOT be classified as a natural death.

Over the next few days and posts I will show that by definition the death of Pope John Paul the 1st is impossible to classify as a natural death and therefore: proving my position.


The first point of solid ground I would like to establish is the definition of natural and unnatural death…

R v Price interpreted `unnatural' as `a reasonable suspicion that there may have been something peculiar about the death; that it may have been due to other causes than common illness' [164]. A commentator described it as a death which was `wholly or in part caused, or accelerated, by any act, intervention or omission other than a properly executed measure intended to prolong life.' [165]

www.bristol-inquiry.org.uk...


In support of my position I will show that there was ample ‘reasonable suspicion’ with which to force us to classify the death as unnatural OR at the very least, is in a category impossible to definitively classify as ‘natural’.

BECAUSE…
There were plenty of motives.
There were numerous suspicious acts surrounding the death.
There was plenty of opportunity for those with motives to strike.
The official story has had discrepancies and at times contradicts itself.


Finally, The fact that no official Vatican proof has been brought forth to refute the suspicions of the official story also constrict the ability to lay this matter to rest once and for all because the Vatican is unable to prove its own official story... THE OFFICIAL STORY…

The Cardinal Secretary of State went at once to the Pope's room where he testified that the Pope was dead. Meanwhile the doctors in attendance attributed death to a coronary thrombosis.

www.ewtn.com...

This assumption could ONLY have been made based on visual inspection and handling of the corpse alone. No autopsy was ever undertaken. Without an autopsy a heart-attack cannot be proven as his sole natural cause of death.

The common misidentification of the cause-of-death PRIOR to autopsy is about 33%.

A large meta-analysis suggested that approximately one third of death certificates are incorrect and that half of the autopsies performed produced findings that were not suspected before the person died.

en.wikipedia.org...

Given that no autopsy was undertaken, it was never possible to inspect the heart and arteries and conduct other tests to determine for a fact that it was a natural, non-drug or poison-induced heart-attack which ended Pope John Paul the 1st life.



SOCRATIC QUESTIONS…
Question #1: How can anyone conclusively determine death as being caused by “acute coronary thrombosis” (heart-attack) by only visual and external handling of the corpse?

Question #2: Given the sudden circumstances and relative good health of the Pope, would it not have been prudent to allow for tests to be conducted on the blood at least if not have a full autopsy to determine cause of death of such a beloved and powerful person?

Question #3: How can Pope John Paul the 1st death be ruled as a natural death with no proof other than a collective group-think opinion?


In closing I feel I have outlined my debate points and made my position regarding the definition of an "unnatural death" very clear. I have also shown the other factors which support this belief and I will further expand on this position in the posts to come.

Looking forward to your next post…



posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 11:09 AM
link   
i am not sure if I have 24 hours from thread being posted or from opening remarks from my opponent, but this is my formal request for an extension, either that or tell GE employees to stop electing medical for the day!!! If work dies down i'll try and get remarks done asap, but working OT as it is
, thanks guys



posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 11:44 AM
link   
Just got a very helpful U2U saying that its from 24 hours of my opponents opening remarks, so I think I should be fine, I retract my extension for now lol



posted on Nov, 25 2009 @ 09:50 AM
link   
Ok, for real, here is my extension request, I have tomm off for the holiday and will def get my opening remarks done



posted on Nov, 26 2009 @ 05:37 PM
link   
In the spirit of moving this debate forward, and having allowed for my opponent's time extension to have more than expired...

I will go ahead and make my initial rebuttal, or in this case, follow-up post.

I contend that this debate, given the wording of the topic, is unwinnable from the con side. The best outcome the con side could hope for is a draw.

This not a besmirchment upon my opponent's abilities, but more is a remark on the unfortunate "pro-leaning" nature this particular topic's wording.

I consider myself very lucky in terms of getting the 'pro' side of this debate which, in my opinion, is slanted heavily in favor of the 'pro' side because of the wording of the topic of debate: "“Pope John Paul I's Death Was No Natural Death.”"

It is simply impossible to prove that it was 'natural' and I sincerely (after the debate is closed) ask all serious ATS 'fighters' to attempt to defy that logic which I have just put forth to you and post your opinions.

The Pope is long dead and buried. No definitive post-mortem or autopsy evidence has been made public or exists which proves that a 'natural' heart attack or any other 'natural ' cause was the sole cause of the Pope's death. Without an autopsy this cannot be proven... therefore the best outcome the con side could possibly achieve is a draw in such a case where we become deadlocked and essentially neither of us can definitively prove that is was unnatural or natural.

But my job as the 'pro' side is NOT to prove that the Pope's death was unnatural. My job is to simply prove that the Pope's death cannot be classified as 'natural'. this post...


Socratic Questions...

#1. Can you refute my statement that it is impossible to prove that the Pope's Death was 'natural?

#2. If the above answer is 'yes', then what evidence proves otherwise?

I will use my remaining 3 slots to 're-ask' my opening statement post's Socratic questions in order to have them be required answers in my opponent's rebuttal as per the rules of this tournament.

Question #3: How can anyone conclusively determine death as being caused by “acute coronary thrombosis” (heart-attack) by only visual and external handling of the corpse?

Question #4: Given the sudden circumstances and relative good health of the Pope, would it not have been prudent to allow for tests to be conducted on the blood at least if not have a full autopsy to determine cause of death of such a beloved and powerful person?

Question #5: How can Pope John Paul the 1st death be ruled as a natural death with no proof other than a collective group-think opinion?



posted on Nov, 27 2009 @ 09:30 AM
link   
My sincerest apologies to my opponent due to my lack of response, due to work commitments I have not been able to up to this point purpose a fair and accurate response. With that being said, as it refers to Pope John Paul I and his death there is nothing aside from conspiracy theories and rumors (of a prominent religious figure) to fuel the story of an “un-natural” death.


There is only a need to try and prove foul play due to an underlying subconscious sensationalized Hollywood mentality. I will address your questions proposed;

#1. Can you refute my statement that it is impossible to prove that the Pope's Death was 'natural? With no autopsy performed, you would have to go on the expert report given by the medical professional who examined (even if external only) the body. If that individual said it was a heart attack you would have no reason to refute it.

I will use the following to address all other questions you provided.

As it is against Vatican law for a Pope to be autopsied it is a moot point to say it was un-natural circumstances that led to his death. There were no signs of struggle or foul play and all reports and examinations prior to embalming led towards the given report of acute coronary thrombosis. Pope John Paul I was indeed in relative good health but heart attacks are not out of place, uncommon or unconceivable in such circumstances. People of good health, even those who diet, exercise regularly and live a healthy lifestyle die from heart attacks all the time, the head of the Catholic church is in no way exempt from this.

So I ask you to address the following:

1. What would lead you to believe that he died from un-natural causes other than lack of autopsy? (Which is not allowed by Vatican law)
2. Can you not agree that this story has been sensationalized and Hollywoodized to the point where the conspiracy has taken over as a bigger thing than the pope’s death. (Sorta like Elvis, Biggie, 2Pac and now MJ) The want for a conspiracy and foul play blinds peoples judgment.
3. What was there to benefit from this pope being killed, he was just replaced by another with the same values/beliefs and demeanor?



posted on Nov, 28 2009 @ 04:01 AM
link   
First of all I will directly answer each of your questions individually…


Your questions to me:

1. What would lead you to believe that he died from un-natural causes other than lack of autopsy? (Which is not allowed by Vatican law)

A: There are many suspicious events which surrounded his sudden death. There were many with motive and opportunity to have him killed. But all of those suspicious acts and conspiracy theories are meaningless to this debate. By definition of the title of our debate: "“Pope John Paul I's Death Was No Natural Death.”" All you and I are arguing is whether or not the Pope’s death can be proven as natural. I stand with my earlier statements that his death cannot be proven natural without some proof. The doctors who came to the dead Pope and gave their OPINION about what his death could have been were doing just that, rendering an opinion. But as I showed in prior posts the misidentification of cause of death prior to autopsy is 33%. Given the suspicious nature of this powerful man’s sudden death, like all sudden deaths of powerful people, must be examined more closely due to the nature of assassinations of powerful people who are disruptors of the ‘status quo’.

I stand by my earlier statements which states that no one, not even doctors, can PROVE that a death is caused by heart attack without autopsy. Therefore because there was no autopsy, proof of a natural death is impossible to obtain and therefore making the ‘con’ side of this argument unwinnable.


2. Can you not agree that this story has been sensationalized and Hollywoodized to the point where the conspiracy has taken over as a bigger thing than the pope’s death. (Sorta like Elvis, Biggie, 2Pac and now MJ) The want for a conspiracy and foul play blinds peoples judgment.

A: The words sensationalized and Hollywoodized are both words which would require you and I to come to an agreement on a definition and I doubt we would be able to find one in the time allotted. Both words would vary by definition from person to person. Also at what point does something become Hollywoodized or sensationalized? The gauge of the level at which a certain thing attains such monikers would vary from person to person and again would require us to come to an agreement on definition.

I believe you are alluding to the movie Godfather 3 in which a good man becomes pope and “shakes things up” in the Vatican causing trouble for the corrupt operators of the Vatican Bank with mob ties. He dies suddenly in his sleep a short time after attaining office. As far as I know no other movie has been made involving such a similar event. Would one movie make this an over Hollywoodized event? I disagree. I also disagree that the fame and sensationalism are causes of false suspicions about his death. Quite oppositely I believe that because a movie took note of it and it is sensational because of the suspicious nature of the event.


3. What was there to benefit from this pope being killed, he was just replaced by another with the same values/beliefs and demeanor?

A: You assume Pope John Paul II’s values, beliefs, and demeanor were the same as Pope John Paul I’s. We would need to see a proof of this/source. Also those are qualities which would be very hard to define and quantify.

Again I could list many reasons of suspicion about this death and those who would benefit, but it would be a waste of time. We are not here to argue who could benefit, how it was done, who had opportunity, or whether 66 year old healthy men sometimes naturally die from sudden heart attack. As all you and I need to argue is whether the Pope’s death can be proven natural.


Suspicions persist to this day, particularly given the sweeping changes to Vatican personnel this Pope had already penned, along with the Mafia-riddled Italy of the time, and the number of subsequent murders of officials investigating the Vatican Bank along with its associates.

en.wikipedia.org...



Next I would like to address some of the statements you made in responding to my questions and in the body of your post…


You said “With no autopsy performed, you would have to go on the expert report given by the medical professional who examined (even if external only) the body. If that individual said it was a heart attack you would have no reason to refute it.”
-True a group of doctors rendered an opinion of cause of death, however this is not proof. Misidentification of cause of death without autopsy is documented at 33% as shown in a prior post.

You said: “As it is against Vatican law for a Pope to be autopsied it is a moot point to say it was un-natural circumstances that led to his death.”
-You are suggesting that because autopsies are against the law that un-natural circumstances never lead to death. This is an obvious false choice.

You said: “There were no signs of struggle or foul play and all reports and examinations prior to embalming led towards the given report of acute coronary thrombosis.”
-Official and unofficial reports of the condition of the body, its location, and by whom it was found vary.


However, a degree of uncertainty accompanies this diagnosis since an autopsy was not performed. This uncertainty, coupled with inconsistent statements made following the Pope's death, has led to a number of conspiracy theories concerning his death. These statements concern who found the Pope's body, at what time he was found, and what papers the Pope had in his hand.

en.wikipedia.org...


As I understand it, your position seems to be that the cause of death found by external observation of the corpse by doctors is proof that his death was natural.

This position is based on a number of assumptions...
-You assume the doctors are above moral reproach or influence which could cause them to render a false judgment. Even if the doctor or doctors who rendered the opinion were making their most honest answer, it has been shown that this is incorrect 33% of the time. Based on these factors it is impossible to use doctor’s opinion as proof of a natural death.
-You also assume that doctor’s have the ability to identify a heart attack by simply viewing a corpse. It has never been shown that a technique exists for making 100% sure a death was caused by natural heart attack by external handling of the corpse. If you can show how this is done… please do.


QUESTIONS:

#1 How can a person identify with certainty the cause of death being a natural heart attack without autopsy?

#2 How can you prove the doctors who rendered the cause of death opinion to be above ethical and moral reproach and influence (unlike the many corrupt members of the Vatican and Vatican Bank and her affiliates with mob ties) which would cause them to be part of a conspiracy?

#3 Would you agree that a person being found in bed as if by heart attack could possibly have been poisoned and without blood tests or autopsy it would be impossible to prove otherwise?

#4 Would you agree that, given the title of this debate: "“Pope John Paul I's Death Was No Natural Death”" that the ‘pro’ side must argue that this death cannot be proven as natural?

#5 What proof do you have that this was a natural death?


I politely ask that you give me the courtesy of numbering and responding to all my questions fully and to the best of your ability directly and individually as I have done above within this post which and which seems to be the preferred method for similar ATS debates.



posted on Nov, 30 2009 @ 12:40 AM
link   
It has been over 20 hours since the deadline for my opponent's post to have been posted.

It has become apparent that my opponent has been unable to make the deadlines as set by the rules of this tourney. Unfortunately we are missing the opportunity at a lively debate and a worthy topic. I was looking forward to cutting my teeth at my first debate and having a balanced 'back and forth' set of arguments.

I respectfully ask that we move this tournament forward in the best way I know how.... by finishing my posts.


I believe that this debate, as it is worded, cannot be won by the 'con' side of the debate because proof does not exist which can prove the Pope's death as natural.

I re-ask my prior questions:

#1 How can a person identify with certainty the cause of death being a natural heart attack without autopsy?

#2 How can you prove the doctors who rendered the cause of death opinion to be above ethical and moral reproach and influence (unlike the many corrupt members of the Vatican and Vatican Bank and her affiliates with mob ties) which would cause them to be part of a conspiracy?

#3 Would you agree that a person being found in bed as if by heart attack could possibly have been poisoned and without blood tests or autopsy it would be impossible to prove otherwise?

#4 Would you agree that, given the title of this debate: "“Pope John Paul I's Death Was No Natural Death”" that the ‘pro’ side must argue that this death cannot be proven as natural?

#5 What proof do you have that this was a natural death?



posted on Nov, 30 2009 @ 05:51 PM
link   
stereovoyaged has missed two posts in this debate and forfeits.

AllSeeingI moves to the 2nd round.





new topics
 
11

log in

join