Instigator / Pro
Nevets's avatar
0
Nevets
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!
Tags
Science
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
DrSpy's avatar
0
DrSpy
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

Round 1
Nevets's avatar
Nevets
Pro
#1
I will begin this debate by copy and pasting from the comment section a conversation i had with my opponent before he accepted, just so we are all aware of what i have agreed to, and it needs to be mentioned, it is a complicated one, in that i am putting "Chemtrail debunkers" in to similar category of ignorance, as "Chemtrail believers".

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

Nevets wrote...
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.

Ok, so i am going to begin this debate by suggesting that there are certain things in life were humans will, against their better judgement, become complicit in lies. One may exonerate themselves by telling themselves that their complicity is honourable, patriotic, a sign of loyalty, or just for the betterment of society in general. The greater good.

A good example is "Substitutionary atonement". Which is described below.

Substitutionary atonement, also called vicarious atonement, is the idea that Jesus died "for us," as propagated by the classic and objective paradigms of atonement in Christianity, which regard Jesus as dying as a substitute for others, 'instead of' them.
How many people genuinely believe that Jesus died for us? Or that they "know" Jesus personally? How many? So that is an example of how humans can become ignorant and even knowingly become complicit because they think there is some moral or ethical reward to be had from keeping up a guise or pretence.

If this does not convince you. Then let us take a look at another guy below

Santa Claus

Now we all know that Santa Claus is really St Nicholas, as it states below.

The modern Santa Claus grew out of traditions surrounding the historical Saint Nicholas 
Though some may mentain that Santa Claus actually has many elements of Paganism at it's roots. As shown beneath

Some maintain Santa Claus also absorbed elements of the Germanic god Wodan, who was associated with the pagan midwinter event of Yule and led the Wild Hunt, a ghostly procession through the sky.
And i do agree, given the nature of Yule, and the procession through the sky, it seems quite likely, and for this reason, many Christians actively oppose Christmas. As revealed beneath

Condemnation of Christmas was prevalent among the 17th-century English Puritans and Dutch Calvinists who banned the holiday as either pagan or Roman Catholic.
Some might even believe Santa, to be depicting this guy below

Satan, also known as the Devil, is an entity in the Abrahamic religions that seduces humans into sin or falsehood.
Now i have not conducted a research study, so i do not know the exact percentage. But i do not think it is unreasonable to suggest that there is a vast amount of human-beings on this planet, that would categorize anyone that believes there is an actual Satan or Illuminati entity seducing humans in to sin, or falsehood, "for real" and not just for pretence for 30 minutes at Sunday mass, in to the category of delusional and irrational tin-foil hat wearer.

But given what i have described above, is this a rational accusation to throw at someone that may believe in a Satanic organised Illuminati construct? The difference between the person that believes in the illuminati, and the person that taught everyone about Satanic constructs, is that the conspiracy theorist genuinely believes it. Where-as those that taught the conspiracy theorist this lie, knew they were just passing down an accepted fable. Most likely, simply to appear intelligent. Or to "appear" to have knowledge.


Now, this brings me to another lie, we universally accept as fact. We do all know it. But we ignore it. And we probably ignore it to such an extent, that we mock and ridicule those "tin foil hat wearers", and completely forget the truth of what we "know". And you "do" know it. It is concerning your little icey crystal sky kingdom, Beneath

Contrails are composed primarily of water, in the form of ice crystals.
But this is actually a "lie".
We all have been partaking in this lie, to protect our need for luxury holidays, and our air travel, and we fear having to give this up.

Condensation trails are actually "exhaust fumes". As shown beneath

 vapour trails are line-shaped clouds produced by aircraft engine exhaust 
And persistent hanging condensation trails are thought to be bad for the global climate, as below.

Persistent spreading contrails are suspected to have an effect on global climate.
Now one of the main allegations posited by conspiracy theorists, is that long-lasting condensation trails consisting of chemical or biological agents left in the sky by high-flying aircraft, are being sprayed for nefarious purposes undisclosed to the general public. As shown below.

consisting of chemical or biological agents left in the sky by high-flying aircraft, sprayed for nefarious purposes undisclosed to the general public.
So let us take a look at what exhaust fume consists of. Below. And yes, it is made up of many chemical products, including "soot". Below

Engine exhaust is made up of many different chemical byproducts of incomplete hydrocarbon fuel combustion, including volatile organic compounds, inorganic gases, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, oxygenated organics, alcohols, ozone and particles of soot and micron-sized metallic particles resulting from engine wear.
Now let us take a look at another of the Chemtrail claims, and find out if it is as unwarranted as we would initially imagine. Below

Those who subscribe to the theory speculate that the purpose of the chemical release may be solar radiation management,
But then, solar radiation management "is" a genuine scientific proposal for climate engineering, as shown below

 (SRM) proposals are a type of climate engineering which would seek to reflect sunlight and thus reduce global warming. 
And scientific studies have genuinely found that contrails are effecting the Earth's radiation balance, shown below

Contrails, by affecting the Earth's radiation balance, act as a radiative forcing.
Another chemtrail claim is, weather modification, as shown below

And weather modification is "real", as shown below.

weather modification is the act of intentionally manipulating or altering the weather. The most common form of weather modification is cloud seeding, 
And it can also be used for nefarious and military purposes, such as with Operation popeye, which was a military operation consucted by the US military in an attempt to increase the monsoon season in vietnam. As shown below.

or of provoking damaging weather against the enemy, as a tactic of military or economic warfare like Operation Popeye, where clouds were seeded to prolong the monsoon in Vietnam. 
And Scientists do genuinely believe that Contrails cause temperatures to fluctuate. As shown below.

A 2015 study found that artificial cloudiness caused by contrail "outbreaks" reduces the difference between daytime and nighttime temperatures. 
Now let us take a look at another claim, as below

Well, what do you call strawman sockpuppetry, if not psychological manipulation? Below

A strawman sockpuppet is a false flag pseudonym created to make a particular point of view look foolish or unwholesome in order to generate negative sentiment against it. Strawman sockpuppets typically behave in an unintelligent, uninformed, or bigoted manner and advance "straw man" arguments that their puppeteers can easily refute. The intended effect is to discredit more rational arguments made for the same position
And that is "exactly" what "we" do with chemtrail theorists. We point out the most ridiculous allegations, exagerate it ten-fold, dramatise it, in order to make even legitimate concerns look foolish.

So on to next example, below

Hey, there is such a thing as chemical warfare, and also those cloud seeding programmes come with a NFPA 704 health hazard rating of 2, and can cause incapacitation, as shown below

With an NFPA 704 health hazard rating of 2, silver iodide can cause temporary incapacitation or possible residual injury to humans and other mammals with intense or chronic exposure. 
So, on to the next one, below

biological or chemical warfare
Of course, there has been incidents of both biological and chemical attacks. I do not think it even requires a source.

Now i am going to argue that this next passage, simply makes one wonder if Scientists at times are perhaps looking at miniscule objects through their microscope so much that they forget to draw back and look at the bigger picture, and see just how the Scientific study they conducted in contrails and global warming, connects to chemtrails. Below

The claim has been dismissed by the scientific community.
But what claims have been dismissed by the scientific community? 
The fact Satan or the illuminati are behind it? How did they do this? Quantum mechanics is unable to prove or disprove this side of nature.

Or did scientists prove that there was no government involvement? Below

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.
But how did they do this? This is not a scientific investigation. Concluding whether or not there is government involvement would be for Police investigators to investigate and conclude.

The only thing science can conclude, is that chemtrailers have got their list of chemical compounds that make up a contrail, wrong. Little much else.

Now. Here is what Scientists are "truelly" saying about contrails.

Once everyone has finished having a good laugh about Chemtrailers and their paranoia about how Chemtrails might make people ill. Turn over to the next page and read about the end of the world doomsday warnings from scientists, regarding how our air travel could be contributing to the demise of the human race, below

Aviation’s dirty secret: Airplane contrails are a surprisingly potent cause of global warming
So, take away Satan. Take away chemtrails being a deliberate act. And give conspiracy theorists a quick lesson on the real chemical components involved, and what are you left with? You are left with a global warming scenario that is twice as urgent as that espoused by conspiracy theorists.
Chemtrail believers do not necessarily believe chemtrails to be the end of the world.
But some scientists genuinely believe global warming could be the end of the world.
Some people think that is a little mass hysterical however.

Now finally. Are exhaust fumes good for you? And the planet? Let us take a look at the ULEZ in London. Beneath

The Ultra Low Emission Zone is a fee charged to the most polluting vehicles in Central London. Plans were laid out under Boris Johnson and introduced by Sadiq Khan in April 2019. It led to the number of the worst polluting vehicles dropping from 35,600 to 23,000 and a 20% reduction in emissions in Central London. The zone will be expanded to cover the North and South Circular from October 2021.
The global warming crisis has reached such levels of panic, that councils are using this to bring in lots of money for good causes, to help combat pollution, and they want to keep expanding this, such is the panic and urgency. Beneath

Plans for an ultra–low emissions zone were under consideration since 2014 under Mayor Boris Johnson. In February 2017, Mayor Sadiq Khan announced plans to expand the Ultra Low Emission Zone (ULEZ) in April 2019 beyond Central London, one year ahead of schedule. Drivers do not pay both the ULEZ and the previous £10 T-charge, but they are still subject to the London Congestion Charge.The money raised from the ULEZ is invested in the transport network and improving air quality in London.
Now whilst this does not mean conspiracy theorists are correct.
It hardly warrants the accusation of conspiracy theorists being delusion mass hysterical tin foil hat wearers.

And contrails not being bad for the atmosphere, is not a belief shared by scientists.
DrSpy's avatar
DrSpy
Con
#2
My opponent states that they will prove my belief of chemtrails are: 

"Purely the belief you have chosen to assume for this debate, is a belief born out of ignorance."

Therefore the essence of the debate is that my belief is born of ignorance.

Mirriam Websters Dictionary defines ignorance as (HERE)

: the state or fact of being ignorant : lack of knowledge, education, or awareness
The burden of proof is on the instigator to prove their position.

In advance of their proof, I demonstrate why my position is not based on ignorance.  This happens to be a topic I am well versed in for the following reasons

1.  I have read a substantial amount of material on the subject, including original sources and references, on both sides of the issue
2.  I have watched numerous documentaries, by people like Michael Murphy, about chemtrails.
3.  I have read up extensively on geoengineering, a term I would expect someone educated on the matter to understand.  My opponent did not reference this term, but did reference Satan and Santa. Perplexing.
4.  I have studied the physics of jet combustion and propulsion,
5.  I have analyzed FlightAware and https://www.flightradar24.com/  historical data (at personal expense) as it relates to significant meteorological events, looking for correlations between flight patterns, and storms, often a claim by chemtrail advocates.
6. I have studied the claimed chemical components as part of the chemtrail conspiracy theory, including Aluminum, Barium,  and their presentation and purpose in jet fuel, along with other additives.
7.  I researched claims of toxic rain from chemtrails.
8.  I have studied the meteorology of cloud formation at various heights, pressures, and temperatures.   
9.  I have examined the science and principals of cloud seeding, which are not chemtrails.  The most notable difference is the altitude of dispersion.  http://www.thetruthdenied.com/news/2011/11/24/cloud-seeding-is-not-chemtrails/

So after my research, I am left with the following questions.

1.  Are chemtrails a conspiracy to control people, populations and or the environment?    

Answer.  While possible, there is more evidence supporting they are not for that purpose, then are.  Further, there is no evidence of a broad conspiracy.

2.  Did the world elite manipulate jet fuel ingredients to hide their overall objective of releasing chemicals into the atmosphere?

Answer.  While possible, the science behind the jet fuel recipe appears to be well justified for better reliability.   https://www.uhmreactiondynamics.org/ONR.html
There is no evidence to support that position and the counter position appears to be well justified.

3.  Is there any proof, either through whistleblowers to attest to a broad conspiracy as claimed by "chemtailers"?

Answer:  While there are a few people who claim to be whistleblowers. (Kristen Meghan, Tedd Gunderson, "Jens", and "Locke")
  http://globalskywatch.com/whistleblowers/#.XoPZLdNKh-V.  There is no unified position that the trails in the sky are caused by additional chemicals.  

5.  Is there anything valid at all about the chemtrail theory? 

Answer: Yes.  I believe most conspiracies are founded on a basis of truth.  Geoengineering is a thing, and the compounds used to describe it and its potential effects included aluminum and barium. (https://www.geoengineeringwatch.org/is-chemtrail-barium-contained-in-secret-stadis-450-fuel-additive/).   The trails that come out of the back of a jet, are exhaust, and that includes horrendous quantities of pollutants.    Extensive cloud or internal reflective surfaces in the atmosphere can contribute to variations in climate.  And scientists have studied how to modify the atmosphere for things like global warming, ozone layer protection, and cloud seeding for decades.  

6.  So what is invalid about the chemtrail theory?

Answer:  The accepted theory is that all contrails are chemtrails. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemtrail_conspiracy_theory. There is no evidence to support this.  Even if that was the case, by my opponent's own definition, the use of chemtrails is for nefarious purposes.  There is no proof of a nefarious purpose.


After extensive research on the subject, I do not believe the chemtrail theory as advocated and presented. My opinions are well informed and do not demonstrate the ignorance my opponent claims.




Round 2
Nevets's avatar
Nevets
Pro
#3
DrSpy wrote...
The burden of proof is on the instigator to prove their position.

In advance of their proof, I demonstrate why my position is not based on ignorance.  This happens to be a topic I am well versed in for the following reasons

It is not really my mission to prove my opponents ignorance. But since he has challenged me with the statement "the burden of proof is on me to prove", then let us look at his very next statement.

DrSpy wrote....
3.  I have read up extensively on geoengineering, a term I would expect someone educated on the matter to understand.  My opponent did not reference this term, but did reference Satan and Santa. Perplexing.
But what my opponent is failing to recognise, is that i did not have to mention the "peacock term" geo-engineering, as i mentioned "solar radiation management" on my list of chemtrail conspiracy theories. And i will go back to my previous post where i mentioned this, retrieve it, and post it beneath.

Nevets wrote round 1...
Those who subscribe to the theory speculate that the purpose of the chemical release may be solar radiation management,
And solar radiation management "is" a sub-category of "geo-engineering", as shown on this geo-engineering article, beneath

geoengineering, is the deliberate and large-scale intervention in the Earth's climate system, usually with the aim of mitigating the adverse effects of global warming. The most prominent subcategory of climate engineering is solar radiation management. 
Now on to one of my opponents other claims, on the list of things he has done. Below

DrSpy wrote...
5.  I have analyzed FlightAware and https://www.flightradar24.com/  historical data (at personal expense) as it relates to significant meteorological events, looking for correlations between flight patterns, and storms, often a claim by chemtrail advocates.
Now i would like to ask my opponent if he has studied any flightradar footage from Saudi Arabia recently? Reason below.

Saudi Arabia has been cloud seeding since the 2000s and aims to increase rainfall by 15-30% per year. The material used is: potassium chloride, sodium chloride, magnesium, and other materials.
Now on to number 6 of my opponents list of things

DrSpy wrote...
6. I have studied the claimed chemical components as part of the chemtrail conspiracy theory, including Aluminum, Barium,  and their presentation and purpose in jet fuel, along with other additives.
But why is my opponent studying the effects of Aluminum, Barium? This is exactly what Chemtrailers do.
Should my opponent not be studying the effects of  volatile organic compounds, inorganic gases, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, oxygenated organics, alcohols, ozone and particles of soot and micron-sized metallic particles resulting from engine wear.? As those are the components in contrails, not Aluminium and Barium.
My opponent is distracted by fictional arguments. Same as Chemtrailers.

Oh, and also, my opponent should also be studying the effects of silver iodide. As it is silver iodide that is used in those weather manipulating cloud seeding programmes, as stated below.

The U.S. National Library of Medicine notes that the silver iodide has no known “ill effects” on people, although people’s “hands may have remained yellowed for weeks” after being exposed to it.
And hands stained yellow for weeks. Does not sound good.

Now my opponents next point.

DrSpy Wrote...
1.  Are chemtrails a conspiracy to control people, populations and or the environment?    

Answer.  While possible, there is more evidence supporting they are not for that purpose, then are.  Further, there is no evidence of a broad conspiracy.
Well i would not say it is a conspiracy as such, but i think there is definitely too much attention on the non dangers of chemtrails, and not enough attention on the real and legitimate concerns regarding contrails.

DrSpy wrote...
2.  Did the world elite manipulate jet fuel ingredients to hide their overall objective of releasing chemicals into the atmosphere?

Answer.  While possible, the science behind the jet fuel recipe appears to be well justified for better reliability. 

And this is where religious belief comes in to it.
Chemtrail believers tend to believe in the Satanic illuminati. So they believe it is done on purpose.
But one should not make the mistake, of thinking, just because there are religious people all things must have a deliberate cause, does not mean that contrails are not just as bad as Chemtrails.

My opponents next argument

DrSpy wrote...
.3.  Is there any proof, either through whistleblowers to attest to a broad conspiracy as claimed by "chemtailers"?

Answer:  While there are a few people who claim to be whistleblowers. (Kristen Meghan, Tedd Gunderson, "Jens", and "Locke").
I very much doubt any of those "whistleblowers" have any credibility whatsoever.
It is the dangers of contrails they should be looking in to. Not chemtrails.

Next argument.

DrSpy wrote...
5.  Is there anything valid at all about the chemtrail theory? 
Answer: Yes.  I believe most conspiracies are founded on a basis of truth.  Geoengineering is a thing, and the compounds used to describe it and its potential effects included aluminum and barium. (https://www.geoengineeringwatch.org/is-chemtrail-barium-contained-in-secret-stadis-450-fuel-additive/).   The trails that come out of the back of a jet, are exhaust, and that includes horrendous quantities of pollutants.    Extensive cloud or internal reflective surfaces in the atmosphere can contribute to variations in climate.  And scientists have studied how to modify the atmosphere for things like global warming, ozone layer protection, and cloud seeding for decades.  

Yes. There is the Bavarian Illuminati. Below

The Illuminati is a name given to several groups, both real and fictitious. Historically, the name usually refers to the Bavarian Illuminati, an Enlightenment-era secret society founded on 1 May 1776 

And there is Satan. Below

Satan
Add to that bad science.

But take away those three things, and pretty much all you are left with, is contrails and pollution.

Opponents next argument, below

Dr Spy wrote.....
.6.  So what is invalid about the chemtrail theory?

Answer:  The accepted theory is that all contrails are chemtrails. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemtrail_conspiracy_theory. There is no evidence to support this.  Even if that was the case, by my opponent's own definition, the use of chemtrails is for nefarious purposes.  There is no proof of a nefarious purpose.

If i believed in the contemporary Satan, then i would believe contrails are being spread intentionally by a highly deviant and intelligent manipulator.
And whilst there are varying degrees of belief in "everything", i am of the opinion that there is absolutely no proof whatsoever that a Satan controlled illuminati is conspiring nefariously against humanity.

But having said that. 
Invisible entities are not something that can be proven nor disproven, and Satans lack of existence makes Contrails no less bad for the environment.
DrSpy's avatar
DrSpy
Con
#4
The debate statement was that my opinion was based on ignorance.  Ignorance has not been established or even postulated in response.  

1.  The relevance of Cloud Seeding has nothing to do with the principle of if my opinion is based on ignorance.  I addition I established that Cloud Seeding is very different from contrail conspiracy.

2.  To clarify the point 6.   When I stated in point

4.  I have studied the physics of jet combustion and propulsion,
It should have stated the physics and chemistry of jet combustion and propulsion.

Other than that my opponent has not established that my source of belief is based on ignorance.

For clarity:

After extensive research on the subject, I do not believe the chemtrail theory as advocated and presented. My opinions are well informed and do not demonstrate the ignorance my opponent claims.
Round 3
Nevets's avatar
Nevets
Pro
#5
DrSpy wrote.....
The debate statement was that my opinion was based on ignorance.  Ignorance has not been established or even postulated in response.  
Let is take a look back at what i said.

Nevets wrote...
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.
Nowhere did i say "my opponent" is ignorant.
I was referring to the group my opponent is debating on behalf of. 
But my opponent appears to not be interested in debating on behalf of Skeptics and Debunkers, and only himself.

My opponent may well be an open minded individual, and extremely intelligent. But it is not my opponents intelligence i am questioning. I am questioning the belief of debunkers and skeptics that "oppose" chemtrailers in general.
They display a great amount of ignorance.

I will attempt to provide some reasoning beneath.

I will begin with perhaps the worlds most famous chemtrail debunker, Mick West. Below

Mick West is a science writer, skeptical investigator, and retired video game programmer. He is the creator of the websites Contrail Science and Metabunk, for which he investigates and debunks pseudoscientific claims such as chemtrails, UFOs, and conspiracy theories, and has appeared in various media as an expert analyst and science communicator.

Now Mick West has keen interests in the aviation industry, as stated below

West became interested in the chemtrail conspiracy theory while studying aviation weather for his pilot’s license.
Now, in 2016 Mick West, along with his colleagues Ken Caldeira and Steven J Davis conducted a peer review study, the first Scientific study of our time of this nature, and Its conclusion reported that “76 out of 77 (98.7%) scientists that took part in this study said there was no evidence of a SLAP, as stated below

In August 2016, West co-authored a paper with climate scientists Ken Caldeira, Christine Shearer, and Steven J. Davis published in the journal Environmental Research Letters titled Quantifying expert consensus against the existence of a secret, large-scale atmospheric spraying program (SLAP). The objective of the paper was to produce a peer-reviewed expert response to the chemtrail theory. The authors surveyed experts on atmospheric chemistry and deposition to scientifically evaluate the claims of chemtrail conspiracy theorists. Upon publication, it was recognized as the first study by a major science organization on the topic. Its conclusion reported that “76 out of 77 (98.7%) scientists that took part in this study said there was no evidence of a SLAP, 
Now i am a huge supporter of Mick West and his work, and especially his work on 9/11, as stated below

The discussion on the “Contrail Science” website eventually expanded to include other conspiracy theories, including that of 9/11. 
But despite this i have huge concerns about his strategy.
For a start he will not allow any debate regards to legitimate concerns regarding US foreign policy in the build up to 9/11. Though you can take or leave this claim, as it is purely my own experience and i am my own source.
However i can provide suggestion that he is also onesided, and biased beyond doubt, concerning the Chemtrail issue, and i will continue to attempt to show why.

Let us take a look at Mick's (slap) colleague Ken Caldeira  Below

Kenneth Caldeira is an atmospheric scientist who works at the Carnegie Institution for Science's Department of Global Ecology. He researches ocean acidification, climate effects of trees, intentional climate modification, and interactions in the global carbon cycle/climate system. He also acted as an inventor for Intellectual Ventures, a Seattle-based invention and patent company headed up by Nathan Myhrvold.
So Ken Caldeira is not a nobody, he is very much connected to cororate tycoons with their cororate interests.

I mean, he is a hero scientist, apparently. Below

He was named a "Hero Scientist of 2008" by New Scientist magazine
And even Bill Gates, referred to Ken Caldeira as "his amazing teacher".

 Bill Gates, in his 2016 end-of-year blog post, referred to Ken Caldeira as "my amazing teacher".
Now just as an aside. It is also worth mentioning that Mick's other colleague, Steven J Davis, was given an award, for what i can only describe as, verifying the atrocity propaganda of removing the US of all blame regards to pollution, and placing all blame on China, for pollution in USA. As stated below

In 2015, Davis and his co-authors were awarded the Cozzarelli Prize by the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences for a paper they published on the role of China's international trade and air pollution in the United States.
But now on to Bill Gates. Is Bill Gates considered a humanitarian, or a self interested business tycoon?

Let us look below, and see that Bill Gates has many court rulings against him.

During the late 1990s, Gates had been criticized for his business tactics, which have been considered anti-competitive. This opinion has been upheld by numerous court rulings.
Now, regards to the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, below

The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation  is an American private foundation founded by Bill and Melinda Gates. Based in Seattle, Washington, it was launched in 2000 and is reported to be the largest private foundation in the world, holding $46.8 billion in assets. The primary goals of the foundation are, globally, to enhance healthcare and reduce extreme poverty,
And philathropic as all that sounds. Is this foundation truelly operating as a charity, or for maximum profits? The answer is for maximum returns, below.

The foundation trust invests undistributed assets, with the exclusive goal of maximizing the return on investment.
On top of this it has been claimed that their corporate policies actually sometimes have the opposite effects on poverty, than the effect which one would desire, as below

As a result, its investments include companies that have been criticized for worsening poverty in the same developing countries where the foundation is attempting to relieve poverty.
The company then decided to review it's policies, based upon this scandal, as shown below

In response to press criticism, the foundation announced in 2007 a review of its investments to assess social responsibility.
 But stood by its (robotic corporate) policy of investing for maximum return, as shown below

Other criticisms against the Gates foundation is there trying to finance out of school children by constantly trying to manipulate the education system in to purchasing from microsoft, as shown below

Critics say that Gates-backed reforms such as increasing the use of technology in education may financially benefit Microsoft and the Gates family.
Then there was the Modi award they presented to a known human rights violator, as shown below

 The decision to award Modi was widely criticized by academics, Nobel Prize laureates, and human rights activists from all over the world. A petition signed by over 100,000 people also demanded that the Gates Foundation rescind the award. Critics insisted that Modi, a Hindu nationalist prime minister with an alleged long record of human rights abuse, should not be celebrated by an organization whose mission states that 'every life has equal value and all people deserve healthy lives.'
Now i would like to go to the website of Bill Gates, teachers, colleague, and just take a look at the website of probably the world number one chemtrail debunker, below...and look at it

That website is completely disproportionate to reality. Whilst it does do a good job "debunking" chemtrails, It offers no education to Chemtrailers at-all. It does not teach them what Contrails actually are. Infact, it gives the impression that it actually is trying to suggest that contrails are perfectly safe. He never once mentions the "real" issues surrounding Contrails. And this is dangerous imo. It actually projects ignorance.

Now a fairer unbiased and more educational approach would be, to highlight the inaccuracies revolving around chemtrails, but to also highlight the genuine concerns of Contrails.

Do airplane contrails add to climate change? Yes, and the problem is about to get worse.
Aviation’s dirty secret: Airplane contrails are a surprisingly potent cause of global warming
Turns Out We Might Need to Worry About Airplane Contrails - But Not For Those Reasons
It turns out planes are even worse for the climate than we thought
Airplane Contrails Are Making Climate Change Worse
Plane Contrails Have a Surprising Effect on Global Warming
Global warming is only going to get worse. One reason: Those cloud trails airplanes leave behind in the sky
Study: Airplane Contrails Add to Climate Change and They’re Getting Worse

Now i think given the overwhelming evidence i have provided, it would be naive to think that the good humanitarian fight can be conducted by those in the corporate world where self interests and maximum profits for investors are the corporations main objectives.

I do not believe those corporate policies to be the driving factor behind most genuine humanitarians.

I think it is quite obvious there is a lot of "self interest" involved with the arguments coming from the current elite "debunkers". And actually, they could be doing more damage than good, as i explain below


The danger is genuine scientists trying to warn people of the real global warming effects of contrails, now run the risk of being laughed offf as chemtrail tin-foil hat wearers, by those that mix up the chemtrail conspiracy theory with the real bad effects of contrails.

Like this reporter below states

The real issue – global warming caused by aircraft emissions – calls on us to act. But focusing on ‘chemtrails’ absolves people of the responsibility to do so




DrSpy's avatar
DrSpy
Con
#6
  1. My opponent appears to be changing the definition of the original debate.
  2. My opponent appears to be broadening the definition of Chemtrail Conspiracy
  3. My opponent is drawing in extensive amounts of information that has no substantive relevance

Changing the Definition:

My opponent clearly stated:

i will be establishing that your argument is as born as much out of ignorance, as that of a Chemtrail believer.
The statement says "your argument".  Not "the argument of the group you represent".  The aforementioned direct quoted statement is the premise for which I took the debate.   I leave it to the judges to determine if they agree with my position.

In the event the judges agree with the instigator's premise of what the subject of the debate is, I argue I cannot speak for a group, that I do not know.  I do not know if all, or some, or none of the members of that group draw beliefs or conclusions based on ignorance, or faulty/incomplete information.  I do not know the architecture of the group, as I do not know the members.

While I do not know the groups, I can say I am a member of someone who does not agree with the conventional Chemtrail Conspiracy (as defined by the instigators Wikipedia reference in the description.  I have clearly demonstrated, through my personal example, people may build opinions based on a significant amount of information. My opponent has repeatedly claimed that they have not stated I am ignorant.  Therefore calling all members of the group ignorant is erroneous.

Broadening Definition of Chemtrail Conspiracy

I submit my opponent established the baseline of the theory as that set forth in the Wikipedia article mentioned above.,  In Round 2 my opponent tried to expand the definition to include Cloud Seeding, which I had already differentiated from.

In this round, my opponent is expanding the definition to include environmental, including global warming concerns about the contrail.    That does not work because my opponent has not established the "nefarious" purpose.   Nor have they demonstrated that any part of the chemtrail conspiracy is actually a global warming or environmental concern.    

Distracted from the Debate

While the information presented about Mick West, Bill Gates et. al. is fascinating, I do not agree with the relevance.  I am sure the judges will agree that 9/11 has nothing to do with this debate.   If my opponent is trying to articulate that there are many sides to a story, and sometimes there are lesser-known influencing factors, that is a contention that I agree with and I did not consider was up for debate.

If my opponent is saying that a failure to know all of those claims or theories renders an opinion as ill-informed and ignorant, I steadfastly disagree.

I disagree, like others, with the conventional Chemtrail Conspiracy theory.
I, like others,  have done extensive research and demonstrated my opinion is not based on misinformation or ignorance.
It is not an implied requirement to know, include or weigh every possible piece of information related to a subject for an opinion to be informed, as defined below.  Not the definition does not require ALL information.  

(Informed - Mirriam Websters Dictionary = "based on sound reasoning or information". https://www.merriam-webster.com/thesaurus/informed

My opponent has not demonstrated anything to support the contrary.

Round 4
Nevets's avatar
Nevets
Pro
#7
DrSpy wrote....The statement says "your argument".  Not "the argument of the group you represent".  The aforementioned direct quoted statement is the premise for which I took the debate.   I leave it to the judges to determine if they agree with my position.

In the event the judges agree with the instigator's premise of what the subject of the debate is, I argue I cannot speak for a group, that I do not know.  I do not know if all, or some, or none of the members of that group draw beliefs or conclusions based on ignorance, or faulty/incomplete information.  I do not know the architecture of the group, as I do not know the members.

While I do not know the groups, I can say I am a member of someone who does not agree with the conventional Chemtrail Conspiracy (as defined by the instigators Wikipedia reference in the description.  I have clearly demonstrated, through my personal example, people may build opinions based on a significant amount of information. My opponent has repeatedly claimed that they have not stated I am ignorant.  Therefore calling all members of the group ignorant is erroneous.
It appears my opponent is attempting a diversion tactic, by seemingly attempting to place some relevance on the word "ignorance", and that this is somehow the central argument.

However the title of the thread is

This would suggest that the debate has something mostly to do with "Chemical Contrails".

Now in my description i said 

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.
That is quite clear that the debate would be revolving around the Chemtrail conspiracy.
Now i also said in the description

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.
This would suggest i am saying that contrailers and chemtrailers are both opposite sides of same coin.

I then went on to say

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 from above, it should be perfectly clear what the debate is about.
The debate is not suitible for someone that is of the middle ground, which my opponent appears to be. Because that is "my" stance.

Now DrSpy then contacted me in the comments section, asking this

DrSpy wrote
So If I take the side saying chemtrails are an unfounded conspiracy, you will take the opposing view?
And i replied

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 read my own quote correctly, i clearly repeat what i have already said in the description "I will not be opposing the view as such".
I then go on to realise i may have mistakenly told my opponent i will be trying to prove his ignorence, so i clearly stated "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 i clearly state "Purely the belief you have chosen to assume for this debate, is a belief born out of ignorance."

So let me clarify. "the belief". not my opponent. 

It is crystal clear.

But my opponent appears to be suggesting that this debate has something to do with "ignorance".
Or that a debate over the definition of "ignorance" should somehow become the defining factor in his inability to provide an argument against my own.

But this is not the case.
This debate is "not" about "ignorance".
It is not in the title. It is not in the description.
This debate is about Chemtrails and contrails, and that is what he should be focusing on.

This debate should have never took this turn of direction.
He should be providing information based upon the title of the debate, and he should be debating in a direction towards concluding that the middle ground is not the best ground.
Proving anything else, other than that, is naughty, a detour, and irrelevant.


DrSpy
I submit my opponent established the baseline of the theory as that set forth in the Wikipedia article mentioned above.,  In Round 2 my opponent tried to expand the definition to include Cloud Seeding, which I had already differentiated from.

In this round, my opponent is expanding the definition to include environmental, including global warming concerns about the contrail.    That does not work because my opponent has not established the "nefarious" purpose.   Nor have they demonstrated that any part of the chemtrail conspiracy is actually a global warming or environmental concern.    
My opponent "claims", which I had already differentiated from.

But i do not see what saying this is supposed to achieve. Am i supposed to argue with him over this? What has been said in the previous round, has been said, and does not require arguing about. What has been said is there for all to see.
It is only Round 4 and my opponent is simply making subjective pleas to the audience, by trying to narrate to them what they should think. 

Also my opponent is asking me to establish the neferious purpose.
I have already discussed the neferious purpose aspect in previous rounds. My opinion on this matter should already be established.
It is quite clear i am not a chemtrail theorist, and nor am i a contemporary anti-chemtrail debunker either.
My opponent should not have taken this on if he did not understand the framework of the debate, and i made it quite clear, it is open to either chemtrail conspiracy theorists, or, chemtrail debunkers.
So it is unlikely that i was ever going to be arguing for the government spraying the sky's. Certainly not for nefarious purposes.

DrSpy wrote...
While the information presented about Mick West, Bill Gates et. al. is fascinating, I do not agree with the relevance.  I am sure the judges will agree that 9/11 has nothing to do with this debate.   If my opponent is trying to articulate that there are many sides to a story, and sometimes there are lesser-known influencing factors, that is a contention that I agree with and I did not consider was up for debate.

If my opponent is saying that a failure to know all of those claims or theories renders an opinion as ill-informed and ignorant, I steadfastly disagree.

I disagree, like others, with the conventional Chemtrail Conspiracy theory.
I, like others,  have done extensive research and demonstrated my opinion is not based on misinformation or ignorance.
It is not an implied requirement to know, include or weigh every possible piece of information related to a subject for an opinion to be informed, as defined below.  Not the definition does not require ALL information.  

(Informed - Mirriam Websters Dictionary = "based on sound reasoning or information"
My opponent does not agree with the relevance. 
Yet the relevance is quite clear. It is explained as the post goes.

The post reaches the conclusion of

nevets wrote....
Now i think given the overwhelming evidence i have provided, it would be naive to think that the good humanitarian fight can be conducted by those in the corporate world where self interests and maximum profits for investors are the corporations main objectives.

I do not believe those corporate policies to be the driving factor behind most genuine humanitarians.

I think it is quite obvious there is a lot of "self interest" involved with the arguments coming from the current elite "debunkers". And actually, they could be doing more damage than good, as i explain below


The danger is genuine scientists trying to warn people of the real global warming effects of contrails, now run the risk of being laughed off as chemtrail tin-foil hat wearers, by those that mix up the chemtrail conspiracy theory with the real bad effects of contrails.

However this post would have made little sense had i not explained what brought me to this conclusion.
And if the world number one chemtrail debunker has no relevance on a thread regarding chemtrails, then i do not know what does.

And my point is quite clear. Chemtrail debunkers display ignorance when they ridicule chemtrails so much, yet look at the hysteria over contrails.
The hysteria over contrails does not warrant so much ridicule of the chemtrail theory.

My opponent continues in his post to take the middle ground. But the middle ground was my ground.

However this debate has been reduced to rhetoric and conjecture with pleas being made to try and deviate from the topic, and base opinions and votes on other issues below that of the topic matter, which is "chemtrails and contrails".

This is not my idea of an honest debate.

I also want to correct a couple of errors from previous round.

It seems my keyboard stuck on the letter P.
When i said cororate, "twice" i can confirm i "do" know cororate is actually spelled "corporate".
I gave "p" a good punch there.

And also this should have read

 But stood by its (robotic corporate) policy of investing for maximum return, as shown below

 It subsequently canceled the review and stood by its policy of investing for maximum return,

I would also like to point out, should my last few sentences not be deemed 100% relevant to the subject, that should not be used as an excuse to overlook the copious amounts of information that "is" part of the subject, and in no way should my last few sentences be considered the central point, or really any relevance upon decision making whatsoever.

I am actually disappointed the debate went in this direction

It is to my regret that i am unable to debate a good chemtrail theorist that believes whole heartedly in Chemtrails or a good chemtrail debunker that believes whole heartedly in debunking chemtrails with good solid arguments on the subject matter. 

I could continue to produce more facts as to why i believe chemtrail debunkers are as extreme as chemtrail believers. But to what avail? to be told it is irrelevant on a topic about ignorance apparently.

But one last thing before i close this round

ignorance
Whether or not the belief is born out of ignorance, would have, and should have, been a established at the end of the debate about "chemtrails and contrails".

There was no legitimate place in this debate for a discussion on "ignorance" itself.
DrSpy's avatar
DrSpy
Con
#8
A significant amount has been typed by my opponent, but not much has been said.

This debate was about conspiracy and the position of conspiracy with respect to chemtrails.
Pre-debate comments my opponent made what appeared to be a clear position to me.

I have argued in this debate based on that position and will let judges decide if I am correct or not.

My opponent is trying to obfuscate their original position in a cloud of irrelevant hyperbole,  

My opponent stated that ignorance is not the subject of the debate, yet they made 7 references to ignorant/ignorance in the description and first-round prior to my response.   Additionally, in Round 4 my opponent says

Chemtrail debunkers display ignorance when they ridicule chemtrails so much, yet look at the hysteria over contrails.

How am I supposed to defend against that position if the term ignorance is not a point of interest?

I said I am a chemtrail debunker.  Show me how my approach is ignorant.  Not all debunkers are ignorant.



Round 5
Nevets's avatar
Nevets
Pro
#9
DrSpy wrote....
A significant amount has been typed by my opponent, but not much has been said.

This debate was about conspiracy and the position of conspiracy with respect to chemtrails.
Pre-debate comments my opponent made what appeared to be a clear position to me.

I have argued in this debate based on that position and will let judges decide if I am correct or not.

My opponent is trying to obfuscate their original position in a cloud of irrelevant hyperbole,  

My opponent stated that ignorance is not the subject of the debate, yet they made 7 references to ignorant/ignorance in the description and first-round prior to my response.   Additionally, in Round 4 my opponent says

Chemtrail debunkers display ignorance when they ridicule chemtrails so much, yet look at the hysteria over contrails.

How am I supposed to defend against that position if the term ignorance is not a point of interest?

I said I am a chemtrail debunker.  Show me how my approach is ignorant.  Not all debunkers are ignorant.
I would actually not usually respond to an argument such as this.
However i have realised that not responding to this type of argument, can be misconstrued as me admitting defeat.

DrSpy wrote...
My opponent is trying to obfuscate their original position in a cloud of irrelevant hyperbole, 
Am i? In what way have i deviated from my original position? My original position being that Chemtrail believers and Chemtrail debunkers, are both born from same ignorance.
My view on this has not changed one bit.

My opponent will not accept, nor admit, where i said in the comment section, 

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.
"i do not think you are".

He will not accept, nor admit, to where i said

 Chemtrail debunkers display ignorance when they ridicule chemtrails so much, yet look at the hysteria over contrails.
He even quoted it himself, whilst continuing to imply that this is a reference to my opponent, and not chemtrail "debunkers".

DrSpy wrote....
Chemtrail debunkers display ignorance when they ridicule chemtrails so much, yet look at the hysteria over contrails.
It is clear what i said. "Chemtrail debunkers".

It appears my opponent is attempting to bully a victory.

However he is in fact displaying the ignorance of a Chemtrail debunker, or even a chemtrail conspiracy theorist.
He used "two" rounds to try and prove that "ignorance" is the central argument of this debate.

Yet in round 3 i produced several links at the end pointing to the genuine concerns of scietists regarding the real dangers of contrails.

I even ended it with a link from a reported from the Guardian newspaper.

This should have been what my opponent used round 4 for. To discuss and debate, "the real" issues. Or at least mention them.

Instead he dismissed them as "irrelevant". Which i felt was a tad arrogant.

I mean, "irrelevant". Barely, if any, explanation as to why it is irrelevant. Just "irrelevant".

Instead he used two rounds to discuss "ignorance".

So let me go back to the "real issue" that my opponent completely failed to even acknowledge. Instead dusting it off as "irrelevant"

The real issue – global warming caused by aircraft emissions – calls on us to act. But focusing on ‘chemtrails’ absolves people of the responsibility to do so
This was from the end of my post in round 3.

My opponent made no contention to this. Did not make any suggestions as to the validity of this claim. Nor anything.

It would be a little disingenuous for him to do so now in round 5.

The real issue – global warming caused by aircraft emissions – calls on us to act. But focusing on ‘chemtrails’ absolves people of the responsibility to do so
And if my reporter is correct. 
That would mean those that focus on Chemtrails, be that a Chemtrail theorist, or a Chemtrail debunker, are displaying "ignorance".

DrSpy's avatar
DrSpy
Con
#10
I thank my opponent for a quick response.


My opponent asked 

 In what way have i deviated from my original position? 

My answer.

The deviation is by conflating anything contrail related as part of the overall chemtrail conspiracy, for example, global warming.  Global warming risks associate with contrails are not part of the Chemtrail Conspiracy, referenced above by my opponent.  This is about the conspiracy and the ignorance foundation of belief.

Example:

genuine concerns of scietists regarding the real dangers of contrails.
and

The real issue – global warming caused by aircraft emissions – calls on us to act. But focusing on ‘chemtrails’ absolves people of the responsibility to do so
My opponent said again

My original position being that Chemtrail believers and Chemtrail debunkers, are both born from same ignorance.

I am a Chemtrail Conspiracy disbeliever.  My opponent has not demonstrated how that belief was born from ignorance.

I have admitted that some groups will have people who form opinions without extensive knowledge or foundation.  My opponent is painting a generalist picture, stating opinions are based on ignorance and ignoring when I demonstrate that opinions can very much be based on extensive research and knowledge.


In Summary:

  • Chemtrail Conspiracy disbelievers do not necessarily base their opinions on ignorance, as I have demonstrated.
  • My opponent has not demonstrated that I am ignorant
  • Not everything contrail related is chemtrail conspiracy related. Combining them is an apparent bait and switch game,