The Instigator
Theomega
Con (against)
Losing
9 Points
The Contender
JTSmith
Pro (for)
Winning
33 Points

An open debate.

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  
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: 4/30/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,122 times Debate No: 3851
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (10)

 

Theomega

Con

View my profile and see something we disagree on and lets debate it. had to choose though, so ill be con.
JTSmith

Pro

My Friend, I have chosen the War on Terror as my choice of debate.

Now since I am am making the opening argument, I know little of the details regarding your stance so I will simply state mine.

First I want to distinguish between the War in Iraq and the War on Terror.

There is a huge and often ignored difference between the War in Iraq and the War on Terror. The War in Iraq involves supposed WMDs and conflicts between Bush and Hussein. The War on Terror began as a result of 9/11 and is fought to prevent the growth of terrorist organizations. Both were started at different times, for different reasons, and have different goals and tasks. Both are very seperate wars. The reason I make this clarification is because I am and against the Iraq War, but pro War on Terror.

It is my belief that the War on Terror is a righteous war, fought for good reason. Its objectives are noble, and its purpose is unimaginably important to our future generations.

To begin I would like to give some statistics.

Between the years of 1996 and 2001, the number of international incidents created at the hands of terrorists jumped from a 250 a year to and incredible 2,800. Over that five year period the number of international incidents increased eleven times over.

Beteen those same five years, the number of casualties sustained annually grew from approx. 250 a year, to an incredible 4,500 terrorist related deaths. The number of casualties increased by 18 times!!!

After the onset of the War on Terror, however, the number of international incidents dropped from 2,800 a year, back down to 250. The number of casualties dropped from 4,500, down to around 265.

(statistics found at http://www.johnstonsarchive.net...)

Behold the successes of the War on Terror. The War on terror is a successful war. Unlike the War in Iraq, we are, in fact, slowly achieving victory.
If we were to end the War in Iraq, and focus more on the War on Terror, we could have Bin Laden. We could finally finish Al Qaeda.

Destroying terrorist organizations is a noble cause. This is a war that DOES need to be fought I for one am going to support it 110%.
Debate Round No. 1
Theomega

Con

Thank you so much for accepting. Again, sorry for the rounds.

"There is a huge and often ignored difference between the War in Iraq and the War on Terror. The War in Iraq involves supposed WMDs and conflicts between Bush and Hussein. The War on Terror began as a result of 9/11 and is fought to prevent the growth of terrorist organizations. Both were started at different times, for different reasons, and have different goals and tasks. Both are very seperate wars. The reason I make this clarification is because I am and against the Iraq War, but pro War on Terror."

the United States is determined to prosecute the war on terrorism and Iraq's ongoing support for international terrorist groups combined with its development of weapons of mass destruction in direct violation of its obligations under the 1991 cease-fire and other United Nations Security Council resolutions make clear that it is in the national security interests of the United States and in furtherance of the war on terrorism that all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions be enforced, including through the use of force if necessary;

Whereas Congress has taken steps to pursue vigorously the war on terrorism through the provision of authorities and funding requested by the President to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001 or harbored such persons or organizations;

Whereas the President and Congress are determined to continue to take all appropriate actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;
http://www.whitehouse.gov...

There is a clear connection between the war in iraq and the war on terrorism. The war on terrorism is defined as ,according to the government, the objectives to counter terrorist threats, prevent terrorist acts and curb the influence of terrorist organizations such as al-Qaeda.

All definitions from dictionary.com

terrorism-1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes.
2. the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.
3. a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.

terrorist-1. a person, usually a member of a group, who uses or advocates terrorism.
2. a person who terrorizes or frightens others.

So why oppose this war?

1. It is vauge and overbroad.
With the war on terrorism, anyone who acts or even advocates acts against America is a potential target. Our nation, with all of its freedoms, has no right to terrorize any person who dosent like our way of living. There will always be people who dont like our way of life. So this war, with the way it is set up now, will have no end. This war gives the president to much power and if he abuses it then our nation will crumble.

2. We are supporting terrorism.
Terrorists attack us for our way of living and thinking so we attack them for their way of living and thinking. Hypocritical right? I enjoy our freedoms, and I like ensuring them from attack, but sometimes there is nothing you can do about it. You cant put limits on what is limitless. Ensuring its minimal is great but the war on terorism is flawed currently and needs reform.

3. The war is hurting our economy and aiding in a depression.
As shown above, Iraq is involved in the war on terror.
http://www.nationalpriorities.org...
This is just Iraq, imagine every else these terrorists are.The economic formula
c+i+g+(x-m) g is the government. There spending is so great now that there forcing us into a depression. we have to worry about ourselves here and now then terrorists speaking their mind.

"It is my belief that the War on Terror is a righteous war, fought for good reason. Its objectives are noble, and its purpose is unimaginably important to our future generations."

I will not argue that the war on terror inst with good intent. However, the future generatins will face the same problem because thier will always be terrorists. They will face the problms we are in now.

"Between the years of 1996 and 2001, the number of international incidents created at the hands of terrorists jumped from a 250 a year to and incredible 2,800. Over that five year period the number of international incidents increased eleven times over.

Beteen those same five years, the number of casualties sustained annually grew from approx. 250 a year, to an incredible 4,500 terrorist related deaths. The number of casualties increased by 18 times!!!

After the onset of the War on Terror, however, the number of international incidents dropped from 2,800 a year, back down to 250. The number of casualties dropped from 4,500, down to around 265."

Very interesting. But at what costs? Our nations deficit and the deaths of many civillians and members of our armies. does the pros outways the cons? I say no.

"Behold the successes of the War on Terror. The War on terror is a successful war. Unlike the War in Iraq, we are, in fact, slowly achieving victory."
we cant win. If it stays the way it is it will go on forever.

LIve your life to the fullest, you might die tomorrow from a brain anuerism or a terrorist attack, either way there, both out of your control.
JTSmith

Pro

1.My Opponent Feels that in this War, the Definition of a "Terrorist" is too undefined and can, therefore, be used as an excuse to go to war with other enemies of the US. I assert that no such situation occurs. My opponent himself defined terrorist.

terrorism-1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes.
2. the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.
3. a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.

terrorist-1. a person, usually a member of a group, who uses or advocates terrorism.
2. a person who terrorizes or frightens others.

These definitions seem familiar. I would think that most people have seen them. The Truth is that everyone knows what a terrorist is. One who practices terrorism. There is a clear defined line. In order to be considered a terrorist, you must be attacking "using violence to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes."

The American People would not be fooled by the governments Red Scare: Terrorist Edition. We know what terrorists are. We weren't fooled in Iraq, and we won't be fooled anywhere else.

2.My Opponent asserts that we are hypocritical in attacking the Terrorists and that the War on Terror is good in ensuring minimal violence within our borders, but is flawed and needs reform.

First, my opponent said in his previous argument
"Terrorists attack us for our way of living and thinking so we attack them for their way of living and thinking. Hypocritical right?"

Absolutely not! There way of thinking involves mindless killing of innocent individuals. Their way of life is violently coercing people to believe what they believe. The United States is only defending itself. What you are calling a way of life and thinking is actually crime at its most atrocious level. This is not war between two nations. This is not even a war between two cultures. This is a war on a criminal organization that has and would continue to kill innocent Americans, even within our borders, if they get the chance.

Secondly, I agree that the war is flawed. I believe that it is mostly flawed in its partnership with the War in Iraq. I agree that it needs reform. So give it reform! As long as we are waging war, and preventing mindless terrorist attacks on our homeland, then I am pleased. Just because its broken doesn't mean we need to throw it away. It simply means we need to fix it.

3.My Opponent asserts that the War on Terror is aiding in a depression because of excessive spending.

A link is provided, showing the total amount of spending in simply Iraq. The cost of all he conflicts in the middle-east until 2008 was approximately 636 billion dollars.
http://www.fas.org...
The cost of operations in Afghanistan and the War on Terror was only 127 billion.
http://www.afghanconflictmonitor.org...
The War on Terror is a mere 20% of the amount of spending on War. Clearly Afghanistan is not much of the problem. If we were to end the war in Iraq, like I myself support, then the costs of war for the next seven years drops approx. 80% or 500 billion dollars. That's 500 billion dollars that can be thrown back into the economy. The War on Terror is a perfectly fundable and wageable war without the burden of the cost of Iraq. That is to say, that the War on Terror is not over-costing us. The War in IRAQ is over-costing us (dramatically I might add). The War on Terror is hardly aiding in depression.

4.Lastly, my opponent states that the War on Terror is an unwinnable War that will drag on forever. I myself agree that it is an impossible task to eradicate terrorism completely. Such a goal can never be accomplished, but that is hardly the point of the war. If we do not wage war, then they will bring it to us. They will blow up our buildings and our subways. They will bomb our churches and other places of worship. They will attack our schools and universities. We must keep them from getting too powerful, by pressing forward in our offensive. We need to fight them on their own soil, not ours.

I liken it to cancer. Cancer has no cure just like Terrorism, but cancer can still kill. So we treat it. We fight it the best that we can and hope it goes away. We fight with everything we have, even though we know we don't have a real cure, to protect our lives and the lives of others. The War on Terror is the same way. We fight anyway. Not because we have a cure, but because we need to, to survive. We fight because its all we can do to protect ourselves and our way of life.

If we don't fight them they will fight us. Lets not forget who struck the first blow.
Debate Round No. 2
Theomega

Con

Theomega forfeited this round.
JTSmith

Pro

Seeing as my opponent did not respond to the last round I really have very little to say.
I will simply restate my points.

The War on Terror is not a money vaccuum like the War in Iraq.

The War on Terror is a necessary to ensure the security of our nation

The War on Terror is noble in its cause

The War on Terror is a successful war

To read my supporting details see my previous two rounds
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by Theomega 9 years ago
Theomega
Sorry for missing my round, school is about to get out and ive been studying and doing non stop ap tests for college. good debate though and thanks for accepting.
Posted by Theomega 9 years ago
Theomega
Yeah so sorry about the rounds, i could have swore i changed it to four.
Posted by repete21 9 years ago
repete21
If your gonna do this make four rounds... you can hardly debate with only 2 rounds, which is what you have done, also you give pro an extra round to debate...
10 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by ANSmith 8 years ago
ANSmith
TheomegaJTSmithTied
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 advidiun 8 years ago
advidiun
TheomegaJTSmithTied
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 JTSmith 8 years ago
JTSmith
TheomegaJTSmithTied
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 cloppbeast 8 years ago
cloppbeast
TheomegaJTSmithTied
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 CP 9 years ago
CP
TheomegaJTSmithTied
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 Cooperman88 9 years ago
Cooperman88
TheomegaJTSmithTied
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 Theomega 9 years ago
Theomega
TheomegaJTSmithTied
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 ecstatica 9 years ago
ecstatica
TheomegaJTSmithTied
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 JonathanSpence 9 years ago
JonathanSpence
TheomegaJTSmithTied
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 Korezaan 9 years ago
Korezaan
TheomegaJTSmithTied
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