The Instigator
Pro (for)
1 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
3 Points

9/11 re-shaped America

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/5/2014 Category: Society
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 515 times Debate No: 54094
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (6)
Votes (1)




Round one is acceptance
Round two is arguments
Round three is rebuttal

I am saying 9/11 re-shaped America


Thanks for the debate Pro, I accept. I look forward to seeing how 9/11 reshaped America in any way.
Debate Round No. 1


9/11 changed America in several ways. For one, the department of homeland security was established because of it ( For another, the TSA was established ( 9/11 also pushed America to join the war on terrorism ("


Re-shaped: verb. to give a new form or shape to (Merriam-Webster Dictionary).

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.
Debate Round No. 2


You do realize reshaped can also be used as
change, revise, fine tune, and make different, right?



Ladies and Gentlemen viewing this debate, I do not think it is necessary to remind you what must be considered when voting on a debate. However, just for save measure I will briefly summarize a few things that we must take into consideration.

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.
Debate Round No. 3
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by Shadowhuntress 2 years ago
I can't find which part of the editing it's under
Posted by aburk903 2 years ago
Your profile doesn't say...Can't expect me to know, friend.
Posted by Shadowhuntress 2 years ago
I'm a girl not a guy
Posted by ArcTImes 2 years ago
Well, the BOP is no Pro so Con doesn't need arguments, only rebuttals.
And what Shadowhuntress is correct, if someone disagrees, then the debate should be fine.
Posted by Shadowhuntress 2 years ago
Actually, on polls, you would be suprised on how many people say no.
Posted by Blade-of-Truth 2 years ago
Be prepared for a troll debate, because there is no way you can have a serious Con argument. There is too much evidence on Pro's side. Trolls could have fun with this though lol.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Romanii 2 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:13 
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.