The Instigator
Ironhead56
Con (against)
Losing
19 Points
The Contender
Corycogley77479
Pro (for)
Winning
38 Points

America should go to war with Iran

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/24/2008 Category: Society
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,431 times Debate No: 4787
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (7)
Votes (15)

 

Ironhead56

Con

America is in 2 wars already one we are currently in the 7th year at least, if not eighth. Afganistan and Iraq both are proving to be handffuls as is, but if we invade Iran, a country twice as large as either of the previous 2? Next to impossible.
Corycogley77479

Pro

Contention 1) A deceive military strategy in Iran will save the world and bring American troops home.

War arouses from the natural outburst of violence and anger that comes from humans. (and all organisms) The desire to defend one's territory, take vengeance for a wrong, or simply control others is a common trait that every human society has either been consumed by or had to deal with. The idea of a human society without war is impossible. However, we can make the possibility and size of future conflicts smaller by establishing and maintaining a force to force stabilization across the globe. The United States has filled this role but with many rising superpowers, the US must remain the sole military force in the world or the conflicts between large military forces and the US will destroy our economy, our environment, and our lives.

Military policy with regard to humanitarian/local concerns is slow and hardly beneficial as if the goal of the world is to be "free" governments should be free to do as they choose as long as they do not endanger other countries. War is a way in which a country can endanger another. America should only go to war with Iran over their potential of nuclear proliferation and an inevitable war with Israel.

Iran's nuclear facilities have been under great question by the international community – in particular the key military leader of the world, The United States. Iran has failed to meet UN security terms mandated for the use of nuclear material. This is an opportunity for the US to stand against the ability for a country to proliferate, and express it's will against military power by forcing a surrender by Iran. If Iran and other countries are aloud to proliferate and obtain nuclear weapons, it exponentially increases the odds of a nuclear war of occurring: a nuclear war would be nearly impossible to contain.

Israel sees Iran as a threat to their national security. With Iran wanting to wipe Israel of the face of the earth, the Israel government is prepared to defend itself. This means Israel will attack Iran even before Iran initiate attacks. The allies gained (those for and against Israel) would create the setting for another world war. The involvement of countries against countries can only lead to much larger wars. An Israel-Iran conflict would be drastically more complicated then a simple US invasion because it would not be purely offense: Israel would have to be defended plus any countries against Israel could have to be attacked too.

Victory can be achieved quickly: we were able to succeed quickly in Iraq by defeating Saddam Hussein. With the size and strength of our military, Iran will quickly have to agree to the US and UN regulations and restrictions on its nuclear program along with agreeing to not attack Israel. (Likewise Israel would not be able to attack Iran, but would have no encouragement to do so without a threat)

With a victory in the Middle East withdrawals from other wars will be easier. With the taste of victory, and the understanding that military strength should be used to protect the world; not force freedom, US military conflicts will be limited to only stopping potential dangers from emerging. The only way to control war is to implement fear, or use the threat of force. With this being restored – especially if America is not engaged in other conflicts – the world will be able to be a much more peaceful place. Few will challenge American dominance if there challenge will end quickly. Few will hate America as it is the keeper of the peace: the global actor that keeps people in line. With limited conflicts comes an age of (almost)-peace that can only benefit the world.

Framework: What makes something a good idea? Our perception and how we see the world. Everyone will see an idea in a different light because everything is good and evil at the same time: all depending on the perception. If what is a good idea is relative then shouldn't the implementation of the idea be based of our perception also? As debaters we can only be concern with the theoretical implementations of the resolution, not the actual implementations. The beginning of a good idea is something we "should" do – not what will actually happen. As theoretical realities of the future are the bases of debate – not the real world – real world barriers and policies cannot conflict with a case. There forth: Pro only has to provide a case that makes going to war with Iran a reasonable course of action. The resolution supports this when it vaguely states "American" instead of an actual actor, leaving no policies to conflict with the simple theory.
Debate Round No. 1
Ironhead56

Con

A decisive victory in Iran will NOT bring our troops home. We took over in Afghanistan in a few weeks i believe, but we have had to maintain troops there for the following 7 years, same with Iraq, just for a few years less. We might take over the lagal government, but we will have to keep troops there to maintain the peace ensure there will be no military coup or rebellion that will instantly turn Iran back into an enemy.
Corycogley77479

Pro

C-1) A decisive military strategy in Iran will bring our troops home, prevent future conflicts, ensure global stability, and keep a sole military power in the world which is necessary to prevent future conflicts.

1. Extend my argument that war is a natural part of human nature. There will always be war and fighting and oppression in the world no matter what happens. Iran is bound to be involved in a war sooner or latter – it would be best to have America fight Iran to ensure it will think very, very hard before confronting another country.

2. Extend the US is a stabilizing force that demands peace. As long as the US continues to show its military presence around the world, the global community will respect/fear America's ability to express it's will on other nations. Iran – and other countries that do not want to conform to international law or that are a threat to global stability – will be taught a lesson to not mess with someone bigger then it. This fear is good way to even keep enemies at peace. Lets take Iraq for example. Before the US invaded, Saddam Hussein keep the three different religious sects at bay by the fear of force. Once this force was removed, however, the sects starting fighting and uncontrollable violence increased.

3. Extend countries should have the freedom to do as they choose as long as they do not present a threat to global peace. Invading Iran will redefine the responsibility of the global military leader (America). America will no longer be concerned with the laws and social structures of the nations/countries it attacks because we are only focusing on their ability to cause chaos in the world. This is the way a global military leader must think or America will end up invading the entire world in an attempt to "save them from themselves." There is nothing wrong with living in a different way – and if America wants to try to "free" the world the only way to do that is to allow people to live the way they want. Invading Iran is the way to take this stance because proving a new approach to the world will keep in check exactly what the world needs to control: the spread of war.

4. Extend Iran has not cooperated with international law on its nuclear programs. Allowing Iran to develop nuclear weapons is very dangerous because a nation with that much fire power doesn't have to listen to the international community. They will have the ability to threaten the world into doing whatever they want.

5. Extend an Iranian threat and the inevitability of war makes an Israel-Iran inevitable. This conflict will be nearly impossible to control and could be the starting grounds for WW3.

6. Extend victory can be achieved quickly with the size and strength of our military. My opponent supports this point when he states "we took over in Afghanistan in a few weeks"-"same with Iran" With this evidence of how the military works it is logical a victory in Iran will be obtained in a short period of time. This also takes out any reason why America cannot fight in a "third" war (which my opponent doesn't extend because his new arguments contradict his previous claims) because we both agree our military is big, strong, and capable of taking expressing our opinion very quickly and in many regions of the globe at the same time. Iraq was invaded while we still had(have) troops in Afghanistan.

7. Extend invading Iran will bring the troops home because American military policy will be focused on only preventing future (mainly international) conflicts from occurring. America will become the keeper of the peace and the fear of messing with that keeper will be strong enough to keep any conflict small enough to not force US involvement. This will make US involvement only necessary to reconfirm its position to those that might forget – the current engagements are to protect the people and will not meet this requirement. My opponent's main argument is against this point – so I will include my attacks on his points with it.

AT: Take over quickly but remain a long time for stability
A) Agree that US military can invade countries quickly and efficiently
B) Maintaining follow up troops in a regions is a problem – destroys freedom (cross apply my 3rd point)
C) The people of Iraq don't want America "stabilizing" it's internal politics – the forced presence of the US military creates anti-Americanism which will only lead to more terrorism (cross-apply my 7th point)
D) The US will be seen as weak for being unable to "succeed" in Afghanistan or Iraq. Iran will offer the victory need to change global discourse.
E) My framework states my opponent must prove my case wrong in context to the case and the theory behind it. My argument is founded in the concept of decisive victories and minimal interference – he only offers a policy barrier that stops my argument from being conceded which my framework claims is illegit.

AT: We might take over the legal government
A) The US has not taken over the legal government in Iraq or Afghanistan – only changed the power to a different form/hands.
B) America needs not to even overthrow the current form of government – only force them to comply with international law, and precautionary measures imposed by the US. (Cross-apply my 6th point)

AT: Have to keep troops to maintain the peace
A) My opponent presents no reason why Iran will become unstable
B) Iraq is becoming more unstable because of US military presence. People want to solve their own problems in their own countries their own way – which is fine as long as it does not interfere with national peace/stability.
C) Cross-apply my 7th point
D) No reason why rebellions will occur if the US only forces Iran to comply with less military focused policies.
E) If Iran can turn back into an enemy – of global stability I will assume – then they must be an enemy to stability now.
F) Internal strife does not threaten global stability if kept on a small level – if there is no proof it will escalate then there is no reason the US will get involved
G) At the point where my opponent concedes that invading Iran will make America the global military leader, it doesn't matter if troops must stay to stabilize (Cross-apply my 2nd and 7th points)
H) At the point where my opponent concedes a decisive strategy will eliminate all current threats in Iran, there is no reason to predict more problems will occur ( Cross-apply my 6th point)
I) I have present a reasonable course of action America can take to invade Iran. The current policies of trying to maintain the peace cannot conflict with my case because we are only debating in theoretical terms – what we should do and how the world should be.

Framework: Extend my framework that: Pro only has to provide a case that makes going to war with Iran a reasonable course of action. My opponent concedes this argument meaning that he must debate within my interpretation of the debate – which is cool since obviously we both agree it's the best. My framework is based on the concept the debate only deals with the theory of what might/can happen – and there forth we must be open to all ideas present. This means we cannot say an idea is bad simple because it clashes with the current way of doing things: such as an argument saying that people shouldn't live in houses. Each side of the debate must defend their case but also attack their opponents – such as an argument simply saying that everyone likes living in houses wouldn't take out the argument that we shouldn't. This means as long as I have proven in the context of the debate that invading Iran would be a logical/reasonable/correct choice for America to make, then I have won the debate.
Debate Round No. 2
Ironhead56

Con

Sigh, im not going to taqke the time to cpunter everything, but when it comes to the goverment, how do we not take it over to ensure the safe exchange from one party to another? and what if they do not follow internatinal laws?, but to sum it up, we cant take care of the current two SMALL countries, i do see how we can handle one even larger.
Corycogley77479

Pro

C-1) A decisive victory in Iran will stabilize the world making America have to deal with less conflicts

As pretty much all of my sub-points go un-attacked I'll just summarize my argument/extend it together:

War is inevitable. No hope or faith or protest can change the fact that as long as there are humans on the earth we will be violent against one another – this problem is especially problematic as technology increases and war weapons become capable of destroying more and more of the earth. The only way to stabilize the world and allow for a state of almost-peace is to have a strong leader that uses military force and threat of military force to ensure that no country/nation will fight another. America is more capable of filling the role but is doing so incorrectly in the case of Iraq and Afghanistan: they are trying to force freedom on people. If we really want freedom in the world, then countries should be free to be structured in anyway they want – just because America has the best military doesn't give it the right to try to change that. This makes the military leader of the world responsibility to STOP and prevent future conflicts not enforce ethical or cultural principles. Iran has present itself as one of these treats – not only has my opponent agree they are an "enemy" but they have violated international law regarding their uranium facilities and they remain a huge threat to attack Israel. The invasion and thus victory can be achieved quickly – like in Iraq and Afghanistan. As long as the US does not stay to restructure their foreign policy, then America will increase its global image because what we do will make sense. We will also be encouraging countries to work on policies that reflect peace – making the world as stable as possible.

AT: Exchange of Parties
There is no reason that parties have to change hands for policies to change hands. The countries only have t change their actions so that they will be peaceful. It's like if you hire someone to do a job and they are doing it incorrectly, you could fire them and find a replacement that could have different problems or you could tell them what they need to change, give them an incentive to do so, and they will correct their error. I never claim that the parties will have to change, only that the policies that threaten global security need to be changed.

Extend A) [The US has not taken over the legal government in Iraq or Afghanistan – only changed the power to a different form/hands. We don't "conquer" the country to change parties – we're not taking over the government]

Extend B) [America needs not to even overthrow the current form of government – only force them to comply with international law, and precautionary measures imposed by the US. (Cross-apply my 6th point – victory can be achieved easily)]

AT: If they don't follow international law
Bomb them until they do. If we keep blowing up their buildings, boycotting their economic export routes and annihilating their military bases logic would say they would surrender. America must be willing to use military force to send a message that you either mess with us or you will be blown out of the water. Besides – a country that is unwilling to keep peace in this world is a danger to the entire world. Also, if America makes international peace the only mandated priority then it will only matter if a country violates international law in a way that threatens global security. Internal issues will be left up to the government for which ever way they choose.

AT: Can't invade a larger country
Extend my 6th point: [My opponent supports this point when he states "we took over in Afghanistan in a few weeks"-"same with Iran" With this evidence of how the military works it is logical a victory in Iran will be obtained in a short period of time. This also takes out any reason why America cannot fight in a "third" war (which my opponent doesn't extend because his new arguments contradict his previous claims) because we both agree our military is big, strong, and capable of expressing our opinion very quickly and in many regions of the globe at the same time. Iraq was invaded while we still had(have) troops in Afghanistan.] He basically turns himself with this argument – our military is large enough to successfully invade two countries, there is no reason we can't take a third.
Also, with the mindset that we don't need to be in Iraq and Afghanistan we can take troops from those countries to help with the attack.
Also, size isn't as important because we will only have to attack strategic points to make them listen to our demands, and our aircrafts can definitely cover that amount of land pretty quickly. Besides – if the US military can't invade Iran then no one can and they will cause wars: we might as well try, especially because there is no reason why our military can't take Iran.

Framework: Extend my framework that: Pro only has to provide a case that makes going to war with Iran a reasonable course of action. [My opponent concedes this argument meaning that he must debate within my interpretation of the debate. My framework is based on the concept that debate only deals with the theory of what might/can happen – and there forth we must be open to all ideas present. This means we cannot say an idea is bad simple because it clashes with the current way of doing things: such as an argument saying that people shouldn't live in houses. Each side of the debate must defend their case but also attack their opponents – such as an argument simply saying that everyone likes living in houses wouldn't take out the argument that we shouldn't. This means as long as I have proven in the context of the debate that invading Iran would be a logical/reasonable/correct choice for America to make, then I have won the debate.]

I know some of my extensions are repetitive because I just copied and pasted but I got tired and didn't want to rephrase my arguments again. (Which I know is bad because we should practice like we play but… it's summer?) Thanks for reading/listening to the debate though, hope you enjoyed it. And if "I never get to see/talk to you again have a good life."
Debate Round No. 3
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by Zero 8 years ago
Zero
"You can never let one point stand uncontested or he SHOULD win. "

Not really. If the point hardly impacts the round (example: the effects of global warming being brought up in a debate over whether or not coffee is healthy), then leaving it uncontested shouldn't be any real problem. Not to suggest that I don't know of a judge that would vote a debater down over such a trivial issue.
Posted by Xera 8 years ago
Xera
I agree willact, I have to vote pro because con did not adequately refute any of his points.

CON: are you new to the process of debate? it is absolutely vital that you make a point of addressing every one of your opponents points. I usually go sentence by sentence to do this, but I have seen it done effectively paragraph by paragraph. You can never let one point stand uncontested or he SHOULD win. This site sometimes does not work that way though.
Posted by Logical-Master 8 years ago
Logical-Master
A kataang fan? Yuck. Zutara is way better IMO.
Posted by willact723 8 years ago
willact723
Oh goodness. I would have loved to debate this! Cory took the time to actually debate this topic, while the con choose not to. Ugh...I totally disagree with war with Iran, but how can one NOT vote for the Pro, the Con didn't negate ONE of their claims. Shame.
Posted by Derek.Gunn 8 years ago
Derek.Gunn
Why on Earth should the US go to war with Iran anyway??
Because they broke a nuclear weapons treaty? This is a good enough reason for you?
Posted by Corycogley77479 8 years ago
Corycogley77479
I'm just having so much fun writing arguements: and I'm really bored, of course I have a short attention span when I'm writing the arguements so by the end I don't care anymore. Did I mention I'm rather bored and tend to write alot? Also, it would be helpful (especially on a debate like this were you have plenty of time) to try to counter as much as you can. Pratice is the only way you'll get better (and every debate needs to get better - "the more you learn the more you realize you don't know") But that's my little lecture on that - besides I'm rather bored... although the arena bowl was awesome! Good job Soul, very good job!
Posted by Ironhead56 8 years ago
Ironhead56
sigh..u couldn't go easy on me cory?
15 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Shestakov 6 years ago
Shestakov
Ironhead56Corycogley77479Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Crazy4Steelers07 7 years ago
Crazy4Steelers07
Ironhead56Corycogley77479Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Ironhead56 8 years ago
Ironhead56
Ironhead56Corycogley77479Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by B2BCHAOS 8 years ago
B2BCHAOS
Ironhead56Corycogley77479Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:30 
Vote Placed by matthewleebrown14 8 years ago
matthewleebrown14
Ironhead56Corycogley77479Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:03 
Vote Placed by DPerrone99 8 years ago
DPerrone99
Ironhead56Corycogley77479Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:03 
Vote Placed by PoeJoe 8 years ago
PoeJoe
Ironhead56Corycogley77479Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:03 
Vote Placed by zjack3 8 years ago
zjack3
Ironhead56Corycogley77479Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:30 
Vote Placed by Xera 8 years ago
Xera
Ironhead56Corycogley77479Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:03 
Vote Placed by astrosfan 8 years ago
astrosfan
Ironhead56Corycogley77479Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:03