9/11 re-shaped America
Debate Rounds (3)
Round two is arguments
Round three is rebuttal
I am saying 9/11 re-shaped America
http://www.dhs.gov...). For another, the TSA was established (http://www.tsa.gov...). 9/11 also pushed America to join the war on terrorism (http://m.washingtontimes.com...)."
If you wish to legitimately argue that the attacks on 9/11/2001 changed the shape of this nation in any way, I will be happy to produce maps from before and after the attacks during my final round. America remains geographically unaltered, and in fact possesses no new territory from any linked proceeding conflict.
Also, I am compelled to point out that American did not "join the war on terrorism" as you state. America joined WWII after Pearl Harbor was attacked. No preexisting war with the Middle East was being fought on a global scale, thus it cannot be argued that America joined any type of war. Rather, America instigated a war on an international level against a radical political group.
None of your sources show how America's form changed, and as such I dismiss them as inconsequential to this debate.
change, revise, fine tune, and make different, right?
1.We cannot consider our personal opinion or presuppositions upon reading the premise and where the Pro and Con side. We must consider only what is presented in the debate itself
2.We must take the debate at face value. Voters (like the debaters) bear no burden of assumption and must not try to follow the debate to where it may logically conclude. As stated before, we must consider only what is stated plainly in the debate.
That being said, I point out that my opponent has given us no substantial reason to vote for him at all. In his third and final round when he clearly had the opportunity to refute, deny or alter my proposed definition of reshaped (which I defined via the Merriam-Webster dictionary) he instead only replied with an open ended question, citing a thesaurus.
It is obviously not my duty to interpret my opponent"s meaning when viewing his premise. It is his duty to define that during the course of the debate, which he clearly failed to do. If my opponent wished to argue that 9/11 changed America, he simply should have chosen a less ambiguous term when presenting his premise. Instead, however, he did not and proceeded to not even directly counter my definition. He only asked if I was aware of different interpretations of what he may or may not have meant.
My opponent has presented no compelling arguments, while I (taking his premise literally and defining it as one would expect) defended my case with fact. America has not been reshaped and my definition has not been countered.
You must vote Con today.
Thanks for the debate Pro, best of luck on your future endeavors.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Romanii 2 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||1||3|
Reasons for voting decision: As usual, when someone wins via semantics, I give the loser the conduct point, since I personally would hate to have that happen to me. However, Con did win this, using a viable dictionary definition of "re-shape" to make his case that 9/11 did not actually re-shape America. Pro could have brought the debate back on track in Round 3 had he made a strong enough case that the context of the resolution and his opening argument made it obvious which definition was actually being used, but he didn't, so naturally the win goes to Con.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.