It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


JT Round 1. Rising Against vs abe froman: Kill 'em All

page: 1

log in


posted on Nov, 15 2010 @ 02:57 AM
The topic for this debate is ""The Powers That Be" are conspiring to eliminate the majority of Earth's human population.”

Rising Against will be arguing the "Pro" position and begin the debate.
abe froman will be arguing the "Con" position.

The Debate Forum Bill of Rights shall govern any objection to the assigned topic. If such objection exists, please U2U the moderator who posted this thread. Time limits shall be suspended pending a ruling on any such objection.

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- this includes all characters including punctuation and spaces, as counted when copied from their display in the thread (where BB code is hidden and thus does not count).

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

Editing of posts is strictly forbidden. For reasons of time, mod edits should not be expected except in critical situations. Requests for critical edits (affecting visibility of post or function of links for example) should be U2U'd to the moderator who posted this debate thread.

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:
Opening statements shall not be forfeit as a result of time limits. If an opening statement is not posted within 24 hours, a minimum of 24 additional hours will be allowed and a reasonable effort will be made to contact the late poster and make arrangements before any substitution of competitors is undertaken.

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 for a 24 hour extension 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.

If a participant misses 2 posts in a debate, it will be then declared a forfeiture. In the event where the debate continues, once a debate forum staff member is able to respond, the debate will be closed and awarded to the winning participant.

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 Terms and Conditions Apply at all times in all debate formats.
edit on Mon 15 Nov 2010 by The Vagabond because: Change of participants.

posted on Nov, 15 2010 @ 01:33 PM
Out of turn post removed. Please read the debate instructions. The "Pro" position always opens the debate.
edit on Mon 15 Nov 2010 by The Vagabond because: (no reason given)

posted on Nov, 16 2010 @ 01:16 PM
Well, If I may, I just want to quickly say thank you to The Vagabond for setting up these series of debates and also of course thank you to the judges as well for taking on the monumentous task of managing both the senior and the junior debate tournaments at the same time. Also, good luck to my opponent, abe froman. I'm hoping we can both create a fun, fascinating, well thought out and of course enlightening debate for all. I thank you and good luck.

Now, the chosen topic of debate today is ""The Powers That Be" are conspiring to eliminate the majority of Earth's human population.” A statement which in my mind is without a doubt correct and without a doubt occurring in today's world, although that being so it's something I shall most definitely come to (hopefully) prove to you all soon enough, firstly though, let's examine exactly what our topic means to myself and my opponent in this debate in the hope of fully understanding our chosen topic on the whole a bit better and so we can avoid any kind of confusion in the future.

What I'm referring to in particular here is of course the subjective nature of the phrase, "The Powers that be" (from now on in this debate, it will be referred to by me as TPTB) and what it could/does mean. Well, please let me enlighten, TPTB: The powers that be (phrase) refers to any one group that holds an element of power over a certain entity. Hence the name, The Powers.. That Be.

Yes, but I hear some ask, "well, what does THAT mean??" Well, TPTB, upon the definition above of holding power over a certain entity could strictly refer to anyone who holds X amount of power in such a way. Commonly used however by Conspiracy Theorists (myself included) to refer to any one government, or a power even higher than that perhaps. (as they are the ones in power over the rest of the populace in regards to said government..)

This is not what we're here to debate though, the fact that de-population on any scale IS occurring (which it most certainly is), I'm here to prove (and for my opponent to dispute) that the majority of persons on earth today are being prepared to be "eliminated" thanks to some sort of higher power source such as the NWO, one whom has more power than simply controlling one governing body effecting a small scale of citizens in the whole grand scheme of things. Reason being, they are the ones who can affect the majority rather than the few as they are those in said higher position, not a simple head/leader of a state. So to summarise, the higher the power figure, the more influence they can hold, the more they can affect the population in anyway deemed necessary...Not the fact that de-population can and does occur

So, now to fully adhere to our chosen debate of ""The Powers That Be" are conspiring to eliminate the majority of Earth's human population.” , I ask myself, my opponent and all those reading now, who is this "power" that's supposedly in charge of this world and why would they want to de-popularise earth?

Well, before continuing, let's take a look at the situation of earth today in somewhat of a logical manner shall we, and please do excuse me for perhaps sounding rather grim here, but, sure one can look at the world with a view of undying love, a view that everything is fine and a view that everyone is absolutely equal for example, and those of us who could even think of suggesting de-population are those who have no place in society and are to be frowned upon. etc. etc.

Well that's very much so wrong and I certainly do disagree; I'm not simply going to pretend everything is indeed fine as it most certainly is not. The world we live in in its current state quite frankly is ridiculous. and sure, some may cry murder when the question "do we need de-population?" arises but is it such a far out there question? I mean, is it more humane to keep someone alive when they are suffering from endless tremendous pain, or is the humane thing to do ridding them of their pain? The first is clearly the obvious answer. Now, Is it humane to let things carry on the way they are and watch as the citizens of earth literally breed themselves into oblivion? Personally, I think not and to think otherwise means you're living in ignorance.

I say to those who oppose de-population, take emotion or personal beliefs and preferences out of the equation and what do you have? I'll tell you, you have one simple answer, an answer which comes about because it's the only logical explanation to a problem with one issue. The issue is Overpopulation and the answer is de-population. It's that simple.

Now, I ask, the many reading this debate, what is the current population?

Well, once again, please do let me enlighten here. The answer is (unfortunately) approximately (at this exact moment of writing) around 6,884,722,500 citizens. Today alone we have around a net growth of approximately 170,000. We're even said to hit around 10 and a half billion by 2050! Now, can you, my opponent, really tell me, the readers and the judges that this is a good thing? Can you really tell us all that nothing about this should be done?

Bearing the current population in mind, let's have a look at around how many people we have suffering from a lack of food and water, and please also bear in mind this is a statistic coming from a world that's going to be by far better off now, than in a mere 40 years time. The answer is approximately 1,029,472,500 malnourished individuals alone, not forgetting we also have around 1,446,205,000 citizens with no access to safe drinking water. So, again my opponent, can you really tell the readers that the world in its current state, with so many people suffering, is indeed a good thing? Surely the solution would be to cut shorter the population meaning more food and water for everyone? after all, As of right now we're waaay too over stretched and the situation is only going to get much worse as facts show.

We're even running on a system right where we have around 121,923,800 births this year so far and only 53,276,300 deaths. Scary statistics I think you'll agree. Unfortunately for my opponents position though, that sadly is not all.

Take a look at our current needs..Currently we have around 15,000 plus days till the complete demise of oil! (roughly translated to mean Approximately 41 years) and we have around 60,000 plus days till the end of gas (roughly translated to mean approximately 164 years) and finally we have around 151,000 plus days till the end of coal. (roughly translated to mean around 413 years[/url]. Again very scary statistics indeed, especially since these statistics are catered for a massively small world compared to where we will be in the future if things remain the same. A world where less energy must be shared through more hands.


So it's very VERY safe to say that as of right now, the world here we live is needs a a massive overhaul. I mean look at all those poor individuals starving, thirsty or living without a home. The world simply isn't big enough for the masses and again, it must be stressed, we're getting much bigger, all the time. Some sort of action SHOULD be done to ensure that we have the fairest world for all individuals, not just those fortunate enough to live/be born in some of the most rich or advanced locations on earth.

Sure, De-population isn't and may never be a wanted or favoured idea, especially by the many, but that doesn't mean it's not the best or fairest one. It simply guarantees a safer and fairer world for all, but because emotion sets in, we simply give into our own demise. Well, that's what most individuals do today, but, not those ruling the world it would seem. I propose that de-population is indeed occurring and it's all around us for you to see.

In fact, speaking of such a thing, It's actually blatantly obvious when anyone looks into it. Those very people who are said to be in charge even seemingly admit it themselves! Take a look at this link for example: (*2*) Please click here..

“In order to stabilize world population, we must eliminate 350,000 people per day. It is a horrible thing to say, but it is just as bad not to say it.”

or this..

“A total population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal”

You see, it's painstakingly obvious for all to see.

I say to those in power, namely the New World Order, that de-popularising the earth isn't simply something that IS being done, it's something that MUST be done to ensure a world that's capable of supporting an advanced species such as our own. That being so, In this debate, I plan to fully show why the act of de-popularising the world is indeed occurring, how it's occurring and I shall also show where it's occurring from the source of the very own Powers That Be.

I thank you...

Socratic Questions..

Q.1) Do you think the world right now is overpopulated?


Q.2) What would you suggest be done to tackle the future problems we're facing such as energy, food and water crisis’s caused by the rise of population?


Q.3) Do you care about those who are without food or clean water?


Q.4) Do you personally believe in the existence of the New World Order?


Q.5) "The Powers that be": Who do you personally believe is that power in the grand scheme of things?


I eagerly await your OP.

posted on Nov, 16 2010 @ 05:14 PM
Project Endgame as it is known would seek to reduce and maintain a world population of 500,000. This would entail not only the mass muder of over 6 billion people just to get started, but also mass sterilizations and forced abortions to maintain that level. Some say this plan would would create a safer and fairer world, for who? What kind of person does a person become after worldwide geonocide, terror ,and control so pervasive that it exteneds even to their own fertility? A person very easy to control, in other words a slave. Tptb would have you believe this is necessary due to space and resource limitatins when in fact it's just another means of control.Total control. Project Endgame is nothing less than genocide and the total enslavement of what's left of mankind in the aftermath. Who decides who lives and dies in this safe new world? There are enough resources to maintain not only the current population but billions more. Literally tons of food are THROWN AWAY daily by resturants in each state alone, if such resources were distributed properly everyone would be well fed worldwide, surely a much simpler solution than murdering 99% of the world population. Answers 1. Area wise at least the world is nowhere near overpopulated. With proper resource management the entire world population could live comfortably inside a land area about the size of Texas with enormous space to spare. Whan we cram into cities it can be made to appear that we are running out of space when in reality the vast empty spaces exist between the cities and dwarf them. 2. The energy, food, and water shortages are a lie. We throw enough food away in this country alone to feed the world. Using alternative energy sources must be made a priority, as well as desalinization of water which covers 75% of the Earth's surface.3. Yes I care about people suffering, as much as I care about their mass murder and enslavement. 4. I believe there is strong evidence to support huge unknown power strustures in the world that answer to no one and have nefarious intentions, as well as Fema concentration camps and the accquisition of coffins for mass burials and gullitiones. The new world order was also publicly proclaimed by George Bush during his precidency, the date? Sep. 11th 5. No one knows who the real puppet masters are. That helps them to maintain power, but they control world leaders and through them agencies such as Fema. Questions to you 1. Are you willing to sacrifice your family, yourself and your children in support of Project Endgame? 2. Are you willing to sterilize youself and your children, without their consent in support of Project Endgame? 3. Do you believe TPTB are telling you the truth about food and energy crisis or using the threat of them to control you?4. Who in your opinion is qualified to make the decision which people should live or die or be allowed to breed? 5. Do you see the corrolation between Adolph Hitler's actions in concentration camps and genocide and the methods and tactics of Project Endgame?

posted on Nov, 17 2010 @ 01:48 PM
Now, as I explained in my opening post, de-population isn’t just something that is happening, it's something that should happen to ensure man's length of time on earth increases. I also explained the world as of right now is very much so overpopulated, something I asked my opponent about also in my Socratic questions, my opponent then bizarrely goes on to claim however, that not only are we NOT over populated as of right now (not forgetting how we will be in 40 years time) but he also goes onto claim that the entire world population today could live in an area the size of Texas!

Now, with this bold claim and with my opponent not backing it up in any way what so ever, I'm officially challenging him right now to do so. Reason being, I have the utmost confidence that he can in no way prove to me that the entire population of earth (a population hitting just shy of 7 billion!) today can easily live in, with room to spare, an area the size of Texas.

I ask my opponent now, how could we feed all those individuals with no room for crops or industry?

I ask my opponent now, how could we maintain their health with no room for hospitals?

I ask my opponent now, how is shelter for all those individuals possible?

The answer to all these questions, simply put, it's not possible, not even in the slightest. Just looking at the list of the 10 most overpopulated countries on earth today for example and we can see it’s not possible in any which way as it's how you keep those citizens in a living environment which is what's truly important..

(Circled area as that is primarily where the debate lies)

Research newly published lists the most overpopulated countries. When we talk about "overpopulation" (as opposed to population size), we are referring to the link between the human population and its environment. Therefore, it's not just the size or density of the population that matters, but how that population relates to sustainable resources.

The Overpopulation Index is thought to be the first to rank countries by these criteria

Just looking at these statistics, can you, my opponent, seriously tell me and the readers that the world is not over populated as of right now? Sure, this may just the top 10 after all, but on a worldwide scale we're at the very least overpopulated by around 2 billion people in regards to ONLY looking at the population by geographical and practicality measures which is the sole reason for the idea for de-population in the first place is it not? After all, you can have a trillion people living on earth as long as you can feed; cloth and maintain advanced living spaces for all them then right?

My opponent then bizarrely even goes onto further claim that and I quote:

The energy, food, and water shortages are a lie.

Maybe a certain level of clarification is needed on his part as it distinctively sounds like my opponent is trying to tell you, the readers, that all people today have access to clean water, food and energy resources and those who are claiming otherwise are spreading lies.

Maybe going to an underdeveloped country will enlighten him perhaps?

According to the statistics I provided for him in my opening post though, over 1 billion persons on earth today are suffering just from a lack of food and clean drinkable water. In regards to energy, I'm confident the statistics make for even more depressing reading. Claiming otherwise is a bold claim especially with no source present.

And to my opponent, I also direct you to my source above also as both of them debunk both of these 2 claims given by you completely.

The Powers that...Be?


I believe there is strong evidence to support huge unknown power strustures in the world that answer to no one and have nefarious intentions, as well as Fema concentration camps and the accquisition of coffins for mass burials and gullitiones. The new world order was also publicly proclaimed by George Bush during his precidency, the date? Sep. 11th

My opponent was being particularly evasive with this answer to my question of "Do you personally believe in the existence of the New World Order?" as he didn't actually answer my question at all as he failed to provide a simple yes or no. But I shall continue anyway...

Now, despite the elusiveness, we he did eventually come to the conclusion that there is a power source in the known world still. This being so, I have to ask, who could this world power be? Who is showing capability of being this power?

Well, firstly, it's no word of a lie that adopting such a system where we have a one world power source or a one world government for example ultimately controlling things would be a good idea. The world after all would be a much easier and safer place to live as wars would no longer be fought over land and resources can be spread equally and fairly without the influence of one government having more than another simply because they are wealthier. Not to forget, everyone in all corners of the earth following the same simple rules etc.

Such a power source is indeed present today though; The UN being such an example, not to forget the many other worldwide organisations such as the World Health Organisation (WHO).

Something which surely is the first steps in obtaining a world under 1 single government is it not? I mean, look around, the world is coming together, and it is a better world for it. For those who believe the new world order isn't coming into play however, I suggest they inspect these examples much closer.

Anyway, as I showed and as my opponent seemingly now agrees, there is such a power source in the world, but, is there any evidence to support my theory though which states this power source could be responsible for de-population? Well considering I have just mentioned the WHO as an example, it only seems fair to cite them as a further example in the cause for de-population also, especially as they are a perfect example of such a thing..

To do such a thing, one really doesn't have to look very far at all, just take one of the most recent obvious cases of de-population attempts, the recent swine flu (and I use this next word loosely) epidemic.

Now, I pose to all that the whole point of the swine flu epidemic was so forced vaccinations could be implemented for the majority of the populous resulting in the deaths of millions. Now, if you, my opponent, disagree with this then I pose my second challenge to you, which is to completely disprove this claim by me.

The reason I do this a second time is because I have such confidence this was the true reason for it. I mean, upon closer inspections, it's so unbelievably blatantly obvious for all to see!

Take this newspaper article from last month as an example of the true reasons of the vaccine: (*2*) Swine flu jab linked to rare nerve disease

Not forgetting this much earlier claim also: (*3*) Swine flu jab link to killer nerve disease: Leaked letter reveals concern of neurologists over 25 deaths in America

More people died from the vaccination than from swine flu.

This isn't even the first claim of this type of effect coming from the vaccination as well, it seems the same kind of outbreak occurred in the 70's where a vaccine was used, but was then completely scrapped merely 3 months afterwards because it became known the vaccine was doing more harm to humans than the actual cause for the vaccine in the first place.(*4*)

Then we find out that with this new most recent outbreak, and might I say at this point, don't you find it the slightest bit suspect, that it wasn't ever once tested on humans? Ever! Don't you agree that may be at the very least, a slight cause for concern since they was attempting to make out as though this flu was going to wipe out the majority of the populace and everyone needed to be vaccinated?

And don't you also find it the least bit suspect also that even if the swine flu was to incredibly harm you if not kill you, the ones giving it out were granted immunity from prosecution? This small fact alone is enough reason to warrant suspicion since the drug companies have no reason not to make harmful money making products anymore. They can do as they please as they now have zero liability for their products. (*5*)

I shall discuss this further in my ensuing post.


In reply to my opponents chosen Socratic questions. (My opponents questions are numbered)


As I stated in my opening post, using emotion in such things is completely moot. What it does it change ones judgement, make them no longer see reason for what's truly in mans best interests and natural survival instincts. That being so, since you have indeed decided to bring emotion into the equation, My answer to you if of course, No.


2 points: 1.) No, I've not had kids yet, so I wouldn't want to be sterilized for obvious reasons.

2.) No, why would I be the one to sterilize anyone? That doesn't appear to make sense.


The food and water crisis’s for example are known facts. If you don't believe me, please do feel free to go to an underdeveloped country and see for yourself. In regards to energy, yes I do believe they are telling the truth about them.


Those who can take emotion out of the equation and concentrate on putting mans survival ahead of all else. That's who.




My Socratic Questions

Since you agree there is a power source in the world, again I ask, who do you personally believe is this power source?

Do you believe Swine-Flu was manmade or a natural event?

Do you believe at all that diseases can be made in any way, then spread (Citing Aids as a possible example here)?

Do you believe in any example, someone should be sterilized (citing a mass murdered or paedophile as an example)?


The floor is yours...

posted on Nov, 18 2010 @ 01:58 PM
Well, sadly, as my opponent has failed to post within the given time limit, or given me any prior warning that he would not be able to make his post in time (as I would’ve been more than happy to hold off my post If it was greatly needed), I shall now continue with the debate in my pursuit of proving to you all that de-population is indeed occurring as a result of the powers that be and I shall do this without my opponents input or replies to my Socratic questions if indeed I must.

I sincerely hope he can return as soon as possible though so as we can complete this debate. But since he hasn't posted, I shall give him some points to ponder over upon his arrival.

De-population, is it really happening?


Continuation into the theory of de-population in health issues...

So, in my previous post, I began to touch upon the different theories of how de-population is occurring, for the time being, solely in the health issue. I began by discussing swine flu as this was a prime example of the obvious nature of the said topic as it was, to me and many others I'm sure, blatantly obvious that it was nothing more than a plot simply to harm the population and decrease numbers.

Although in the long run, and as I showed in my opening post, the latter is indeed a good thing for mankind despite being somewhat of an unpopular idea. This is no longer the point I need to make though, instead, pointing out and proving this occurred shall be my primary goal.

Now, I only managed to touch lightly upon the topic on swine flu unfortunately as character limits allow, so if I may, I wish to continue my analysis into the "pandemic" further and establish exactly how the blatantly obvious is so obvious.

Before doing this however, at this point in time, i must make it clear that despite the huge hype surrounding the swine flu scare I ask my opponent and the readers also, where is swine flu today? Where is the vaccine? Where is the hype? Why has it suddenly disappeared??

You see, the matter of the fact is, the WHO admittedly completely failed in its goal of selling it to the public. Pure and simple. I challenge my opponent to dispute this also as it's in my opinion that the vaccine was extremely harmful and would've undoubtedly caused short term as well as long term difficulties for many. If you don't believe me then I re-direct you to the 1976 swine flu scare where the vaccine was heavily criticized and then scrapped because of this. Not forgetting public interest seemingly went down as more people began to realize the dangers of taking the vaccine.

But, bearing it's failings in mind, let's look at facts shall we? All in all it simply wasn't appropriately tested (which are further fears for GB Syndrome occurring - one which effected the population as just mentioned above in 1976) as it was rushed in by far too quickly and irresponsibly, something of a media circus surrounding the swine flu epidemic was also used to induce fear and cause the masses to run out and purchase the vaccine (which on the whole ended up failing as people became aware), and we now know the possibility of it actually causing harm (as well as what was used in its place for a short while – Tamiflu) and it most definitely does have potential to do such a thing also. I direct those to the end of my previous post.

And that's in no way forgetting that Pharmaceutical companies have been granted immunity from prosecution meaning they can't be held responsible for any and all side-effects that may come about upon use of the vaccine.

My opponent, once again I find myself asking you, don't you find this the least bit suspect? If not, feel free to enlighten me on why they would do such a thing if there was no motive.

Here's why I personally think they did such a thing however:

If PACE is putting forward the theory that the swine flu hysteria was engineered by pharmaceutical companies to generate revenue, then Ukraine is a perfect example.

The first revelations of the flu epidemic in Ukraine back in October 2009 caused panic across the country. News of the pandemic dominated the agenda of most of the Ukrainian mass media.

Public reaction was so strong that all anti-flu products flew off the shelves of pharmacies and drug stores across the country.

In the first several weeks of the flu rush it was almost impossible to find any medication against it in the pharmacies due to panic buying. Of course, pharmaceutical companies in Ukraine profited from the hysteria. This continued until the late stages of November 2009.

So they gained massively from this and they proved people would indeed buy the product, so I ask you my opponent, what in the world would stop them from putting something harmful in the vaccine if they was granted immunity from prosecution, would (and proved they would) gain massively and of course if it depopulated the Earth meaning more resources all round?

I personally can't see any reason why they wouldn't do such a thing.

And what is your opinions of this also?: (*2*) Joseph Moshe - Arrested in LA by FBI for Going Public about Vaccine

Maybe even this as the TBTP are being directly challe nged here!: (*3*) Len Horowitz files pandemic charges against Rockefeller

If you can refute my claims that Swine flu, and this is just one mere example, is a tool used by the elite to control the population then please do so. Personally, I don't see how anyone could given the vast amount of evidence for such a thing but please do so. After all, if they can do it here, why wouldn't they do it elsewhere?

And if you also refuse to believe they are even using fear against us in the aim of making us use any vaccine they want, I ask, why would the 2 examples below blown so out of proportion like they were for seemingly nothing at all??...

The WHO installed a private public partnership with pharmaceutical companies that started some eight years ago, and it seems that the pharmaceutical industry has very successfully influenced it because they had a lot profit with two false alarms of the WHO,” exclaimed Wodarg. “First, it was a bird’s flu alarm which never happened. Bird’s flu did not exist as a disease spread from one human being to another. And the second was the swine flu alarm, which was just a normal flu we experience every year, and even milder than most of the years.”

The expenses that followed the marketing used on scientists to impress governments to make contracts have already totalled billions of dollars, said Dr Wolfgang Wodarg.

My opponent, I ask once more, if TPTB could have done this, like it's oh, so clearly shown, what in the world would stop them from doing it again and again and again? Please do enlighten me...


Now, I feel as though this is all I need to say on the matter as I have the utmost confidence my opponent cannot rebut these claims in anyway hat so ever so I shall end this post here but on a final note, this is just one example, swine flu is the most perfect example to use though as it's clear for all to see and it can be backed up, which is crucial as it proving my side of the argument completely. My opponent on the other hand has provided no evidence to suggest any different or to back up any clam he has made.

In regards to Socratic questioning, I would assume that since all previous Socratic questions weren't answered, they still count and must be answered in any future posts if those future posts do indeed come about. This being so, I still feel as though I have more questions to ask my opponent.

Socratic Questions

Since the WHO have clearly been trying to influence the population through hyping up diseases and viruses, do you believe the WFP could also have been trying to influence us in such a way?

Do you believe de-population has occurred in any time in history by "TBTB"?

Since I have already shown the world is in dire need of depopulation and also we have a very clear case of such a thing occurring during the recent health scares, do you now believe de-population is necessary for mans presence on earth to increase? If not, why not?


Thank you..

posted on Nov, 18 2010 @ 11:14 PM
abe froman has informed me that he will use his 24 hour extension.

posted on Nov, 19 2010 @ 02:10 AM
Population Research Institute
Steven W. Mosher
Reproduced with permission

The whole world's population could fit in the state of Texas. Amazing as it may seem, the entire population of the world can be housed in the U.S. state of Texas, and very comfortably indeed, with each person enjoying a living far in excess of that now available to all but the most wealthy.

Consider these facts: The land area of Texas is some 262,000 square miles* and current UN estimates of the world's population (for 12 October 1999) are about 6 billion.** By converting square miles to square feet? remember to multiply by 5,280 feet per mile twice? and dividing by the world's population, one readily finds that there are more than 1,217 square feet per capita.

A family of 5 would thus occupy more than 6,085 square feet of living space. Even in Texas, that's a mansion.

These numbers apply to just one-story, ranch house-type dwellings. With a housing mix of multi-story buildings, including town houses, apartment buildings and high rises, appreciably greater living space could be provided. Such an arrangement would allow ample land for yards and all the necessary streets and roads.

Meanwhile, the rest of the world would be completely empty, available for all of mankind's agricultural, manufacturing, educational, and recreational activities!

As far as the food and water shortages, consider, if a Mcdonald's throws away 5 hamburgers while a man is hungry this is not a food shortage, it is simply a distribution problem. With people living closer together instead of spread out over the planet, distribution becomes a much simpler thing. As I stated before the food shortage is a lie ,in actuality it's tied to fuel. From the article "There Is No Food Shortage" from Grist :The campaign against climate change could be set back by the global food crisis, as foreign populations turn against measures to use foodstuffs as substitutes for fossil fuels.

With prices for rice, wheat, and corn soaring, food-related unrest has broken out in places such as Haiti, Indonesia, and Afghanistan. Several countries have blocked the export of grain. There is even talk that governments could fall if they cannot bring food costs down.

"I don't think anybody knows precisely how much ethanol contributes to the run-up in food prices, but the contribution is clearly substantial," a professor of applied economics and law at the University of Minnesota, C. Ford Runge, said. A study by a Washington think tank, the International Food Policy Research Institute, indicated that between a quarter and a third of the recent hike in commodities prices is attributable to biofuels.


"It takes around 400 pounds of corn to make 25 gallons of ethanol," Mr. Senauer, also an applied economics professor at Minnesota, said. "It's not going to be a very good diet but that's roughly enough to keep an adult person alive for a year."In fact, there is plenty of agricultural productivity to feed everyone, and in principle a considerable amount left over for biofuels.

What's going on? It isn't that there isn't enough food. It's that the ability to fill up a gas tank with gasoline is, in the "wisdom" of the marketplace, the highest value use of the food crop
In my humble opinion, every one living together would drasticaly reduce the amount of oil needed as well, killing 2 birds with 1 stone. I also do not believe my opponents contention that swine flu is a depopulation tool, it appears that swine flu actually only killed a tiny fraction of the people that regular flu killed making it a poor de-population tool indeed. from :Regular flu has killed thousands since January
April 28, 2009|By Doug Gross CNN
There had been no confirmed deaths in the United States related to swine flu as of Tuesday afternoon. But another virus had killed thousands of people since January and is expected to keep killing hundreds of people every week for the rest of the year.

You see? It's all lies and manipulation as a means of control. No food shortage, no water shortage, no space shortage, except what was created. Yes there is a New World Order and it's here to kill off those who will not be slaves.
1. Yes there is a world power source and it's tenticles reach through the U.N. and FEMA and other agencies to conceal the true source. 2. You ask if I believe diseases can be made and spread and cited AIDS. Sure, diseases could be made and certainly a diseaese can spread, but it has not been used to cull the population as you claim, any real pandemic of that magnitude would have already prompted martial law under Executive Order 12656. 3. Do I believe that anyone should ever be sterilzed? Certainly there are such cases to merit that, such as pedophiles as you suggested, but that in no way implies that it should be used against hundreds of thousands of innocents as a means of control.Power corrupts and that is too much power to invest in anyone.4. Do I believe the WFP is a manipulating the food shortages? Part and parcel of the same power structures as I have already said agencies like this are arms of the beast and the food shortage is a lie.5. Of course TPTB have used have used de-population programs in the past and they are never subtle. Pol Pot for example. Adolph Hitler. Smallpox in Indian blankets. and these are the kind of people you're asking me to trust with the lives of the world ? 6. You also ask me if I believe de-population is neccesary, the shortages are a lie so,no it is not, they really want you to believe that though, so you will applaud them as they round up your friends and neighbors and pack them off to concentration camps they call "residential centers" to await the final shearing. and you won't even realize that you're next. So my esteemed opponet I must ask you, 1. Do you believe the power to choose the 1% of the world's population to survive can honestly be trusted to anyone knowing that power corrupts and a person would choose who they want not who they should? 2. Do you believe that a life lived under the oppressive boot of the NWO in the aftermath of Project Endgame would be worth the murder of over 6 billion people? 3. Would you rather die quietly as a victim of Project Endgame or take up arms to fight against it? 4. As I believe our government is a tool of the NWO,the architects of Project Endgame, do you feel our government can be trusted? If we can't trust them with truth can we trust them with our lives? 5.Would you personally be able to implement Project Endgame if it was in your power?

posted on Nov, 19 2010 @ 12:50 PM
Gah! I just started a new job and I have very VERY limited time right now to make a post.. or even be online for that matter.

Because of this, I'm now using my 24 hour extention..

posted on Nov, 23 2010 @ 01:56 PM
Well first off, my most sincerest apologies for keeping anyone waiting here. Real life issues really are making it difficult to complete a post but it’s now up and I’m happy to be allowed (as well as find the time) to continue the debate with my opponent Ade Froman. Thank you.


Now, in the beginning of this post, I quickly would like to address a few points my opponent made which I found particularly interesting, and I shall continue making my ultimate point of showing how de-population has occurred in a moment.

This is the point in question which I found particularly interesting:

5. Of course TPTB have used have used de-population programs in the past and they are never subtle. Pol Pot for example. Adolph Hitler. Smallpox in Indian blankets. and these are the kind of people you're asking me to trust with the lives of the world ?

Of course this was in reply to my question of: "Do you believe de-population has occurred in any time in history by "TBTB"? "

Now, I'm a little confused admittedly. I'm not quite sure why you first of all admitted, and might I add now gave your position away, that depopulation occurs as the way you worded this seems to show.

Surely you can agree that if something has happened before, which you now admit, it can most certainly happen again? And since you’ve admitted it's never subtle as well as the fact it has indeed happened, I have to say, after looking at the world around you, how can you say it isn't or can't happen today..Or in the future for that matter?

Just look at the reasons I have brought up concerning health issues and swine flu or the fact we're in dire need of such a thing, or even the reason I brought up further on in this post (keep reading.

So, right now, I say to the readers and the judges, we have ultimately now established that de-population has indeed been occurring as both fighters now agree.

Secondly, I do have to say, please do find the exact spot in this thread where I actually directly said to you or anyone else to trust the likes of Adolf Hitler and or Pol Pot like you have just said.

Now, the reason why you won't be able to find this information is quite simply because I've actually never mentioned anything similar to this, instead all I ask of you is to understand that the population as of right now is too much (by far) and to realize that it needs to be brought down. It's an un-popular idea and one people will call evil but it's for the better hood of mankind as I showed previously.

and current UN estimates of the world's population (for 12 October 1999) are about 6 billion.

Ok, so you admit using an out of date source (out of date so much so, it's not even from this century
) to back up a extremely wild claim indeed. (or what's what it seems like is happening anyway)

Hmmm interesting, please take a look at my previous posts for the answer to the world’s population and the crisis we're in. Thanks..

And while you now believe that population was at around 6 million and then just shy of 7 billions 10 years later, out of curiosity, how in the world can you not agree that the population is overgrown? I mean, using this source seriously has hindered you I feel as it most definitely shows the population is growing an extraordinary rate.

Yes there is a New World Order and it's here to kill off those who will not be slaves.

Finally we're getting somewhere. You now agree we have a NWO and it is indeed killing off individuals. I thank you for once more very much so agreeing with my side of the debate.

I also do not believe my opponents contention that swine flu is a depopulation tool, it appears that swine flu actually only killed a tiny fraction of the people that regular flu killed making it a poor de-population tool indeed.

Now, finally, my opponent, you have completely missed the point of my previous post and the true intentions of the swine flu epidemic. I have explained it previously but let me do it in it's most simplest terms...

You see, swine flu never has been and never will be the de-population tool I'm discussing here. Never. The de-population tool was in fact the vaccine they tried to implement, not the actual flu itself. Just look at the 1976 outbreak as I cited in sources previously for evidence of this.

That's why we constantly heard of Swine flu being dangerous when statistics show it was no such thing (in other words, milder than regular flu), that's why, here in the UK anyway, we broadcast every single death caused by swine flu as well as make it headline/breaking news and that's also why we constantly saw advertisements promoting the vaccine.

The vaccine was the depopulation tool, not the swine flu itself.


Ok, Now that I have addressed these important points where we seem to be making quite some headway, I shall continue discussing population decreases in the various different areas ultimately leading to the ultimate goal of getting the population down.

In this part of the debate I feel I should address such a huge area of clear and obvious depopulation! GM foods..

First off, let me cite a fairly recent but incredibly important article indeed: (*1*) This Supermarket "Health Food" Killed These Baby Rats in Three Weeks

Biologist Arpad Pusztai had more than 300 articles and 12 books to his credit and was the world's top expert in his field.

But when he accidentally discovered that genetically modified (GM) foods are dangerous, he became the biotech industry's bad-boy poster child, setting an example for other scientists thinking about blowing the whistle.

Please see these 2 videos on his work:

Let me explain: Ok, within a mere 10 days of this work on rats, the work that were supposed to become the required testing protocols for all of Europe, Pusztai accidentally came across a conspiracy of epic proportions. How he did this, well, they, the rats he was testing on, started to develop pre-cancerous cell growths, smaller brains, partially atrophied livers, and damaged immune systems after such a short period.

Not proof of anything you say, well, It was concluded this was indeed an effect of GM foods which were supposed health foods. It was also concluded the same effects could do the same to humans and if you look around the world today and see the amount of cancer effects and just in general health sufferers, it's difficult to not see the connection between the two as it's staring you in the face!

Believe it or not, Pusztai was then fired, threatened with lawsuits and his entire team was dismantled just 2 days after. His inspiring career became a broken career.

Please do see the above link to read further about this enlightening story on GM foods.

You see the reason this occurred was because he came across the truth! The truth about GM foods. The inconvenient truth which shows GM food is indeed harmful to us and is a tool to de-popularise the earth. And the clincher: he was willing to publish it and tell the world which he most certainly tried to do (please see the above video).

Fortunately though, he isn't the only one and again, I ask my opponent and the readers to see the important above link once more.

GM foods more than contribute to de-population, they cause tremendous damage to humans and they cause us to develop horrible diseases causing the declining life on earth. These are becoming facts. If you, my opponent still refuse to believe the damage, I ask you to follow this source also: (*2*) (link here)

Also this thread proving McDonalds foods as an example contain incredibly damaging materials: (*3*) Why McDonald's Happy Meal Hamburgers Won't Decompose ~ The Real Story Behind The Story

With meats, the primary reason why they don't decompose is their high sodium content. Salt is a great preservative, as early humans have known for thousands of years. McDonald's meat patties are absolutely loaded with sodium - so much so that they qualify as "preserved" meat, not even counting the chemicals you might find in the meat.

(*4*) I ask all those looking into this more to see this very informative link also again backing up my position in this debate and proving once and for all GM foods contribute nothing but harm to humans which in turn results in the deaths of many which is the ultimate goal - the goal of de-population.


I also have to question my opponents tactics thus far as he continues to focus on a completely unrelated point in his previous post (unrelated to his position in this debate and a point pointing towards getting the population into Texas) and a position I have already shown to be untrue all the while I have shown depopulation occurring in different areas.

Anyway, In reply to my opponents Socratic questions.


Yes, I do. Reason being: They have been in power for a long time as far as I believe.


I don't believe there will be any "oppressive regime" to start off with.


Huh, Why would anyone fight against something that's absolutely necessary to ones survival?


I do indeed believe they can be trusted.


I'm not sure why you are asking if I personally would want to implement depopulation of any kind as I have already said to you previously I would not.

It is a position for an individual whom does not put emotion first.

Socratic Questions

1.) After reading this post do you now agree that food sources may have been altered and or tampered with in any way? If not, how can you deny such evidence?

2.) Why do you think we need/have GM foods?

3.) Since you have admitted Depopulation has occurred before, why don't you think it'd occur today?


I look forward your reply.

posted on Nov, 24 2010 @ 09:42 PM
thanksgiving. will post tommorrow night hopefully, between kids, work, and holidays...

posted on Nov, 29 2010 @ 04:12 PM
abe froman has missed a second post and thus forfeits the debate. Rising Against will advance to Round 2.

new topics

top topics


log in