Instigator / Pro
0
1557
rating
35
debates
52.86%
won
Topic
#1837

Chemical Contrails

Status
Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
0
0
Better sources
0
0
Better legibility
0
0
Better conduct
0
0

After not so many votes...

It's a tie!
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
5
Time for argument
Two weeks
Max argument characters
30,000
Voting period
One month
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
0
1490
rating
7
debates
42.86%
won
Description

I am going to posit that the charge placed upon conspiracy theorists that believe in the Chemtrail conspiracy, of being delusional tin-foil hat wearers is both unhelpful, and unwarranted, aswell as slightly misguided.

Equally, i am going to argue that the counter charge, put on contrailers, by conspiracy theorists, of being sheeple, or shills, that believe everything their government tells them, is the opposite side of same coin.

Ultimately, i am going to present an argument to show that the middle ground, is the correct ground, and that the rational truth, is a little more in between.

So a little bit about what Contrails, and chemtrails are.

The chemtrail conspiracy theory posits the erroneous belief that long-lasting condensation trails are "chemtrails" consisting of chemical or biological agents left in the sky by high-flying aircraft, sprayed for nefarious purposes undisclosed to the general public. Believers in this conspiracy theory say that while normal contrails dissipate relatively quickly, contrails that linger must contain additional substances. Those who subscribe to the theory speculate that the purpose of the chemical release may be solar radiation management, weather modification, psychological manipulation, human population control, or biological or chemical warfare, and that the trails are causing respiratory illnesses and other health problems.

The claim has been dismissed by the scientific community. There is no evidence that purported chemtrails differ from normal water-based contrails routinely left by high-flying aircraft under certain atmospheric conditions. Although proponents have tried to prove that chemical spraying occurs, their analyses have been flawed or based on misconceptions.Because of the persistence of the conspiracy theory and questions about government involvement, scientists and government agencies around the world have repeatedly explained that the supposed chemtrails are in fact normal contrails.

The term chemtrail is a portmanteau of the words chemical and trail, just as contrail is a portmanteau of condensation and trail.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemtrail_conspiracy_theory

Contrails are line-shaped clouds produced by aircraft engine exhaust or changes in air pressure, typically at aircraft cruising altitudes several miles above the Earth's surface. Contrails are composed primarily of water, in the form of ice crystals. The combination of water vapor in aircraft engine exhaust and the low ambient temperatures that exist at high altitudes allows the formation of the trails. Impurities in the engine exhaust from the fuel, including sulfur compounds (0.05% by weight in jet fuel) provide some of the particles that can serve as sites for water droplet growth in the exhaust and, if water droplets form, they might freeze to form ice particles that compose a contrail. Their formation can also be triggered by changes in air pressure in wingtip vortices or in the air over the entire wing surface. Contrails, and other clouds directly resulting from human activity, are collectively named homogenitus.

Depending on the temperature and humidity at the altitude the contrails form, they may be visible for only a few seconds or minutes, or may persist for hours and spread to be several miles wide, eventually resembling natural cirrus or altocumulus clouds. Persistent contrails are of particular interest to scientists because they increase the cloudiness of the atmosphere. The resulting cloud forms are formally described as homomutatus, and may resemble cirrus, cirrocumulus, or cirrostratus, and are sometimes called cirrus aviaticus. Persistent spreading contrails are suspected to have an effect on global climate.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contrail

One day remains.

Yes, I am bumping stuff in greater need of attention.

Only two days remain for any voters.

-->
@DrSpy

Ok, if you are going to argue against Chemtrail conspiracy. I will not be opposing the view as such, as i will be establishing that your argument is as born as much out of ignorance, as that of a Chemtrail believer. I will be arguing that your belief is just the opposite side of same ignorant coin, more than me taking the side of the conspiracy theorist. (Yes, i am well aware i have the unique ability of upsetting both factions)
And please do not take that literally. Stating that i will be debating that your belief on this occasion is born out of ignorance, is not the same as calling you ignorant. I do not think you are. Purely the belief you have chosen to assume for this debate, is a belief born out of ignorance.

So If I take the side saying chemtrails are an unfounded conspiracy, you will take the opposing view?

-->
@DrSpy

I am doing no such thing Dr as using Chemtrails as an unoffensive topic.
It is a topic. I will be discussing it philosophically and in good nature with the best of luck to my opponent.
If my opponent wishes to be emotional about the subject, or be offended, then that is their perogative.
And i am making no such arguments about free speech. Whether or not i believe free speech should be protected regardless of how extreme that speech is, could only be concluded after a debate on that specific subject, and i am not sure whether i would be the Pro for that debate. I will likely be the Con.
But what i am actually arguing, is that if one is a chemtrailer, i will be able to oppose their argument.
And if one is of the anti-chemtrail debunking group, then i will be able to challenge that too.
Though those are just advisories.
My opponent can make any argument they wish.

Why does the debunker have to be so extreme? It looks like you are trying to argue that no matter how extreme you are, free speech should be protected, You are using chemstrails as an "unoffensive" topic.

-->
@oromagi

In order for the contender to win. The contender would need to be either left wing or right wing.
right wing being that they believe Satan/Illuminati or some other Lex Lutherian figure is quite literally sitting on the back of contrails and intentionally harming humans for nefarious purposes. And this type of right winger likely believes that anyone that does not realise that our governments are puppets for this evil ringleader, must be sheeple, or shills..The left winger to win, would obviously also require to prove this to the voters.

The flip side of the coin, that i also accept as a challenger, are the contemporary contrailers.
The left winger.
However they would need to be a of the mindset of the "debunker", or "skeptic". A person that actively "opposes" conspiracy theories. A debunker is likely 100% opposed to the chemtrail conspiracy theory, to the extent, those that posit the erroneous claims are uneducated tin foil hat wearing junkies, that do not understand contemporary science to the degree those that debunk such claims do.

And just like a conspiracy theorists likely believes his mission is so important, and he needs to save mankind by waking them up to the dangers of chemtrails, a debunker likely also believes that the disinformation spread by chemtrail believers is so dangerous, that it could lead to radicalisation, and acts of extremity, those people should be censored with free speech removed.

But you are right oromagi. This debate is quite narrow in scope.
It could only be conducted by one of the two descriptions i have described.
While there are plenty chemtrail believers out there. And also many debunkers and active skeptics. I am not sure if there are any here. In which case, the debate would be best just falling in to the abyss

ps
Apologies if you do not agree with who is left wing and who is right wing.
I did not give it much thought. So is not really important.

I love a good conspiracy theory but there's not much room for the challenger if the instigator plans to argue both sides of the issue. What sort of counter argument are you envisioning?