The Instigator
TheSquadBoss
Pro (for)
Losing
12 Points
The Contender
bluesteel
Con (against)
Winning
28 Points

Can the United States achieve a military victory in Afghanistan?

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 7 votes the winner is...
bluesteel
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/17/2010 Category: Politics
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,671 times Debate No: 13401
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (18)
Votes (7)

 

TheSquadBoss

Pro

Hello and thank you to whom ever excepts this debate, best of luck!

Before I begin I would like to offer some terms so that this debate may function in a smoother more convenient manner.

Definitions:

Achieve- to bring to a successful end; carry through; accomplish

Military- of, for, or pertaining to war

Victory- a success or triumph over an enemy in battle or war.

Sources: Dictionary.com

In addition to my definitions I would like to provide a criteria in which the Con must meet in order to win. The Con must prove not that the war in Afghanistan is immoral or a mere waste of resources but must prove that the United States cannot win the war.

Point 1- The United State's Technological Advantages:

Militia in Afghanistan typically carry automatic weaponry. The most common of all the infamous AK-47. The AK-47 was designed in 1946 back then one might have been able to make the argument that this was a superior weapon but in comparison to the modern M-16 which is the US military standard issue. Granted the AK-47 has a larger caliber round, however; the AK-47 is only capable of 600 rounds a minute while the M-16 can fire 700-950 rounds per minute depending on the model. In addition to this the AK-47 has an effective range of about 1,320 feet the M-16 has an effective range of 1,800 feet. In a war being fought in a desert range is an important factor. Besides the fact that we carry superior weaponry our soldiers wear Kevlar vests capable of stopping bullets, what do our enemies have? Robes of cloth.

Point 2-Our economy vs. theirs

The united states has an established economy. Despite the economic recession our economy far trump's theirs we as we have more resources were as we could outlast them in any type of material stand down.

Point 3-We have strategy what do they have

All of our US. generals have been through military training. All of our generals have been to colleges that taught military strategy and procedure. What have their leaders done when it comes to combat strategy? At the very most perhaps a bomb making seminar in some sort of town hall.

Once again thank you to whom ever excepts this debate and I encourage all voters to vote pro on this debate.
bluesteel

Con

I thank my opponent for crafting an interesting topic.

Definitions:

My opponent defines victory as "triumph over an enemy in war." I accept this definition, but further expand on it by pointing out that a triumph in war is brought about either by a) killing every single enemy soldier (has never happened before in history) or b) by enemy surrender.

To win, I merely need to prove that the Taliban will not surrender before the U.S. leaves.

My case:

1. Insurgencies

Insurgencies are different from classic warfare. In classic warfare, large rival armies meet on the battlefield and fight until one side is defeated. In classic warfare, my opponent's arguments matter (technological advantages, relative economic size, superior strategy).

In insurgencies, one side uses guerilla tactics – hit and run. The problem is that the enemy insurgent will not stand and fight, like in classic warfare. The insurgent only ambushes when he knows he is likely to win. When he is likely to lose, he disappears into the countryside. If we can't find the enemy, we can't kill him.

If technological advantages, a larger economy, and better strategists mattered in an insurgency, the United States should have been able to defeat the Viet Cong. However, most people acknowledge Vietnam as a U.S. military failure.

2. We're leaving within 3 years

In a conference in Kabul, the U.S. and all our allies in Afghanistan agreed that we will be fully out of the country by 2014. [1] If we couldn't win the war in the past 9 years, why would the Taliban suddenly surrender within the next 3 years?

3. Taliban won't surrender

Firstly, the Taliban can wait us out forever right across the Afghan border in Pakistan. The lawless Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) in Pakistan (right along the border with Afghanistan) are a perfect hiding place for the Taliban since Pakistan has never had any control over this region. In addition, the Pashtun tribes in this region are extremely hostile to outsiders, which works well for the largely Pashtun Taliban, who can move freely among their tribesmen.

Secondly, the number of Taliban is growing not decreasing. "Taliban numbers swelled from 7,000 in 2006 to roughly 25,000 people in 2009, according to an October 2009 U.S. intelligence assessment." [2]

Lastly, the Taliban leader, Mullah Omar, recently announced that a Taliban victory was immanent. In September 2010, "Mullah Muhammad Omar said of the inevitable victory over the invaders in Afghanistan, and calls the fiasco the military campaign being waged in this country under the command of NATO and the US. In a statement timed to coincide with the end of the holy month of Ramadan, he called Barack Obama to withdraw troops from Afghanistan ‘without any conditions, and as soon as possible' reports BBC. ‘The victory of our Islamic nation over the invading infidels is now imminent.'" [3]

The Kavkaz Center concludes, "many analysts believe that a military company of NATO and the United States suffered a defeat in Afghanistan and now, Western leaders are looking for the most painless way to withdraw from Afghanistan." [4]

Refuting my opponent's case:

Point 1
You can't kill the enemy if you can't find him. The Taliban hide from our troops until the opportunity to ambush Coalition forces presents itself. Technological advantages don't matter.

In addition, Wired reports in 2009 that the Taliban are switching from AK-47's to the AK-74, which "has better penetration than the Russian 7.62�39mm round it replaced, as well as improved accuracy . . . it also penetrates better than a 5.56mm from an M16." [5] Therefore, they actually have better weapons than our soldiers.

My opponent has no evidence that the Taliban have no body armor, "just robes."

Point 2

Economy doesn't matter. The Taliban get most of their funding from the prolific heroin trade in Afghanistan. They could survive a war of attrition with the U.S. for the rest of human history.

Point 3

My opponent says, "we have college trained strategists, what do they have?" To answer his question: over 30 years of real battle experience (against the Soviets and then during the Afghan Civil War). Their troops and commanders are far more battle hardened than ours. In addition, they have home court advantage (they know the territory, terrain, and the language), making it easier to hide and ambush our troops.

Since there is no reason to believe that the Taliban will give up within the next 3 years, a U.S. "military victory" in Afghanistan is not going to happen.

[1] http://www.msnbc.msn.com...
[2] http://www.alertnet.org...
[3] http://www.kavkazcenter.com...
[4] Ibid
[5] http://www.wired.com...
Debate Round No. 1
TheSquadBoss

Pro

My opponent responded to all of my opening points by saying that "they didn't matter" I will respond to that in this manner:

1. He said that technology didn't matter because it was guerrilla warfare. So, according to my opponent if the Afghan's had swords and and we had guns, planes, tanks , and artillery this technological advance would not matter merely because it was guerrilla warfare. Clearly my opponent is wrong on this. Regardless of the "style" of war that is being fought technology is always a nice thing to have in your favor.

2. Although my opponent said technology "didn't matter" he proceeded to say that some terrorists have upgraded from the AK-47 to the AK-74. Not only did he not state how many had converted (meaning we could say only 2 terrorists had made the switch, due to his lack of specificity) but also said that this gun was superior to the US standard issue the M-16. The AK-74 only has 650 rounds per minute while like I stated earlier the M-16 has 750-900 rounds per minute. In addition to this the M-16 has a higher velocity.

3. My opponent challenged my saying of: "We have Kevlar they have robes of cloth." I think the better question is do you have proof that they wear something else during combat. You attacked my statement but you burdened to point out anything about it that was wrong or incorrect and in addition to that you didn't give any evidence of your own saying that they don't wear "robes of cloth."

4. My opponent also said that their leaders have had 30 years of combat training in fighting the soviets. This is true;however, at the colleges our generals have attended teach the history and strategy of warfare that occurred from the times of the ancient Romans up until know so if you think about it in a way our generals have had the best training from the past 100's of years of warfare.

5. My opponent also stated that because our enemies fight a "hit and run" type of war we have no way of identifying them our confronting them. Well in response to this i say the following: It's hard to miss a person in a crowd carrying bombs or a large automatic weapon, even in they are concealed.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Now that I have responded to my opponents statements I will now ask a few questions of my own.

1. How could we be "loosing" this war when w have already apprehended and killed some of the most prestigious Taliban/terrorist leaders? (i.e. Sadam, Zarqawi)

2. America has "learned" to fight in many different styles over the years. We once fought in this guerrilla way against the Brittani, don't you agree we will adapt to fight these people?

Once again a quick thank you to Bluesteel and I strongly urge a Pro/Aff ballot!
bluesteel

Con

I thank my opponent for his timely response.

Going in his numbering order:

1. Obviously it matters if your enemy has swords and you have a gun. However, the element of surprise and having higher ground (and other advantages) are much more important than being able to fire more rounds per minute. Guerilla tactics often give the Taliban both the element of surprise and the better battlefield position.

2. My opponent complains of my lack of specificity for proving how many of the Taliban have AK-74's. Firstly, I already proved that they have enough money from the heroin trade to buy as many AK-74's as they want. And remember, the AK-74's rounds are better at piercing body armor than the M16's. Secondly, my opponent should turn the same criticism on himself: he asserts, without evidence, that all the Taliban only have AK-47's and that all our forces have M16's. The Taliban have many American made weapons, such as Stinger missiles, provided to them by the CIA during the mujahideen's ("freedom fighters") fight against the Soviets. We gave them a lot of our own weaponry.

The Taliban also buy U.S. weapons from the corrupt Afghan National Police. [1]

In addition, Fox News reports that our soldiers are outgunned in Afghanistan because our army uses the M4, for the most part, not the M16. [2]

In addition, superior technology can often be foiled by inferior technology. The Taliban used satellite dishes and a $26 computer program to hack into our drone airplane feeds. [3]

3. My opponent asks for proof that the Taliban have Kevlar. According to U.S. Army reports in 2009, the Taliban have body armor and Kevlar helmets. [4]

4. Nothing replaces battle experience, since the battlefield is a completely different environment, where you have to make quick life or death decisions under massive amounts of stress. Leading an army unit for 10 years is vastly superior to studying the way the Romans fought at an army school. In fact, the Roman's tactics, having enormous legions clash on the battlefield, is a tactic that is no longer used in modern warfare. And none of these fighting tactics is a good way to deal with hit-and-run guerilla warfare. Taliban commanders are superior to ours in terms of battle experience and knowing the layout of the land, using higher ground to ambush our troops and using hidden paths and tunnel systems to escape detection.

To give you one example of how battle experience and knowledge of the local terrain are an advantage, Yossef Bodansky writes that in Afghanistan, 3 Chechens (battle hardened from years of fighting the Russians) were able to kill 18 of our elite Navy Seals all by themselves. [5]

5. One way the Taliban hide in a village is that they unstrap their body armor, so that they look just like all the local villagers. Our troops have no way of telling the difference and the locals are too loyal to the Pashtuns or too frightened of the Taliban to tell us which of these men, hiding out in the open, are Taliban. Carrying a gun in Afghanistan does not make you part of the Taliban. As in Iraq, most local tribes do not trust the corrupt police force, so they arm their own fighters with weapons.

This is shown by ABC in the following quote: "Guns displayed in public in this part of the world are not usually reason for a second glance. They're everywhere. ‘Many people feel obliged to keep guns for their personal safety,' says the Afghan Deputy Minister of Culture, ‘because of a lack of security.'" [6]

Responding to my opponent's questions:

1. First, Saddam was not a Taliban leader; he was a dictator in Iraq. Zarqawi was a member of Al Qaeda in Iraq. The Taliban, in contrast, are in Afghanistan (and Pakistan) and are insurgents, not terrorists (there is a difference). Secondly, we have not succeeded in killing Mullah Omar, the Taliban's spiritual leader, or any of his inner circle. Third, when we kill a Taliban commander, another immediately rises to fill his place. Fourth, killing a three-star general in the U.S. Army would not result in a U.S. surrender; killing one Taliban commander would not have a similar effect. And lastly, if we're "winning," why have Taliban numbers swelled from 7,000 to 25,000 in the last 3 years? General troop numbers are more indicative of strength than nitpicking about which lieutenants we have killed.

2. When the American Patriots fought the British in the American Revolution, we were the insurgents. We easily slaughtered the Red Coats with our hit and run tactics. This just proves how effective guerilla tactics are and how difficult they are to defeat.

Lastly, moving back to the drops on my case:

Extend my analysis that the most analogous war to Afghanistan is Vietnam, which we lost. Insurgencies cannot be "defeated" in the classic sense of the word.

Extend my argument that the U.S. and our allies agreed to leave within 3 years, so we only have 3 more years for the Taliban to surrender. Since they know this, the Taliban will just wait us out in Pakistan, and strike at us using hit-and-run tactics, until we leave. If we didn't win the war in 9 years, there's no reason to believe the last 3 years will change anything.

Also, extend the evidence that Mullah Omar, the Taliban leader, recently declared a Taliban victory in Afghanistan. This shows that he has no desire to surrender and legitimately believes that he is winning this war. The recent surge in Taliban strength bolsters Omar's claims.

My opponent drops all three of these arguments, meaning he concedes to their veracity.

I believe I have proven that the Taliban will not surrender within the next 3 years.

I thank my opponent for such an intriguing debate and strongly urge a Con vote.

[1] http://www.stripes.com...
[2] http://www.foxnews.com...
[3] http://online.wsj.com...
[4] http://www.armytimes.com...
[5] Chechen Jihad
[6] http://blogs.abcnews.com...
Debate Round No. 2
TheSquadBoss

Pro

In this round I will respond to my opponents statements and discuss my own case.

1. I large portion of this debate as spent discussing the "technology" that the two force had and which was superior. It occurred to me,however; that in these discussions we only debated over primary weapons. I would like to briefly discuss the other tools that the United States military has working in it's favor:

Grenades
-----------
Frag- The frag grenade is a grenade in which releases shrapnel on explosion.

Semtex- In layman's terms a Semtex is a "sticky grenade."

Stun- The stun grenade is a grenade in which, upon explosion emits a high frequency noise capable of temporarily stunning the foe allowing a tactical advantage on the user's side.

Air Support
-------------

The F 18 and F 16 are both fighter jets capable of providing an "eye in the sky" as well as taking out large groups of enemies using heat sinking missles.

Tanks/Other Armoured Vehicles
-------------------------------------
The united states uses a tank called he M1 Abrams. Not only does this tank have superior armor but can hit a tank record speed of 75 miles per hour this tank also fires explosive rounds.

Specialists
------------

In addition to our leaders being college trained (and have real life combat exp. I will add) we have teams of researches providing intelligence on terrorist were a bouts/ and activity.

I ask my esteemed opponent to please answer me the following questions in the last half of this debate:

1.What intelligence officials/air support/armoued vehicles/tactical grenades do the taliban have?

Medical Care
---------------

When a US soldier is hurt a Black Hawk helicopter s flown in immediately and the injured soldier is brought to the nearest place where he can receive medical aid. In addition to that, our soldiers have minor first aid training and can do small things to treat wounds until professional assistance is available.

2. What does the Taliban do when their fighters are injured?
3 What first aid training do their fighters have that they can daminister on the spot?

Clearly their fighters do not "last" as long as ours.

Another point I would like to make is the fact that we have allies fighting with us. Although it would seem as though all terrorists fight on the same side they don't. The different sets of Muslims are just as busy trying to kill themselves as they are trying to fight us. We also have Israel and Great Brittan (although Great Brittan has few soldiers there are still quite a few there!!) assisting us in the campaign.

4. How can we loose this war when our enemies are killing themselves AND we have several allies with comparable technology to us.

You also made the assumption that: "The Afghan's have the money to purchase the AK-74 due to the heroin trade."
This may be in fact true however you still failed to give evidence on how much of that money was spent on the AK-74. Due to the fact that you did not give adequate evidence like I stated earlier in this debate, we can assume that only to terrorists have converted from the AK-47 to the AK-74 due to you lack of evidence and specificity.

So I repeat my arguments:

1. We have a clear technological advantage. Yes, they may have the home field" advantage but that is nothing our air support can't see and easily convey to our ground units.

2. They care more about killing Muslims from other sets then they do about killing us.

3. We have allies fighting with us.

I thank my opponent for providing a truly good and though provoking debate. I would also like to thank those who choose to judge, and to those who choose to judge I strongly urge you to vote PRO on this debate.

-thank you
bluesteel

Con

I thank my opponent for his timely response.

Going in his order again:

1. I'm glad it occurred to my opponent that we have technology other than guns; I said as much when I talked about drone aircraft in the previous round. Superior technology (tanks, aircraft) did not help us win in Vietnam – it will not help us here either. Both wars have two things in common: in both, the U.S. had a technological and numerical advantage and in both wars the U.S. failed to defeat a resilient insurgency.

My opponent drops all my arguments that we are actually outgunned with AK-74's superior body armor penetration versus our weak M4's. The Fox News article I already cited says we're completely outgunned by the Taliban.

Grenades

The U.S. Army report I cited to prove that the Taliban have body armor and Kevlar helmets also said they have advanced grenade technology.

Remember my analysis that any small arms/munitions that we have, they have. Either the CIA gave it to them during the war against the Soviets or they bought U.S. weapons from the completely corrupt Afghan National Police (who we supply).

Air support

General McChrystal banned the use of close air support because he was afraid of civilian casualties and it interfered with his "hearts and minds" campaign. [1] We no longer use airplanes to engage the Taliban when we're in a firefight.

We sometimes use drones to seek out lone groups of Taliban and attack them. However, remember the Wall Street Journal article that the Taliban foiled our drones with a cheap TV satellite and a $26 computer program, that they used to hack into the drone feeds.

Tanks

The Taliban have some tanks. Pictured: the Taliban on a tank. http://asiabreakingnews.com...

In addition, remember that insurgents do not need to attack if they don't want to. If they see a tank unit and don't have the weaponry to take out the tanks, they will simply avoid attacking and hide out until they see unaccompanied infantry units to ambush.

Specialists

Remember the Yossef Bodansky evidence that 3 battle-hardened Chechens, all by themselves, killed 18 of our most elite Navy Seals. Afghanistan is called the "Graveyard of Empires" for a reason: their history is so marked by war that nearly every Afghan male should be considered a veteran fighter. Veteran fighters are far more effective than non-battle tested soldiers. In the documentary portion of Band of Brothers (an HBO special), for example, WWII vets said they hated becoming friends with the new recruits because they died too quickly, from lack of experience.

Intelligence

The Taliban recently used a double agent to blow up one of our main CIA bases on the border of Pakistan. [2] Intelligence, in this case, relies on getting locals to talk to you. If the locals don't trust you, or refuse to break their Pashtun loyalty to the Taliban, then Taliban fighters can hide out in the open without us knowing who is Taliban and who is not, perfectly exemplified by the Sydney Morning Herald:

"A striking story emerged last week. A US military officer addressed a crowd of villagers outside the city of Kandahar recently. Speaking through an interpreter, the American urged the locals to tell the authorities immediately if they spotted any Taliban coming into town. "Nodding in agreement amid the group were three men in beards, turbans and sandals who looked, dressed and talked like the other villagers," the Los Angeles Times reported on October 5. ‘They were Taliban.'" [3]

Medical care

The Taliban use trucks to transport their wounded back across the border to Pakistan. Superior medical care doesn't win wars (Vietnam).

Allies

We've had more allied support in years past. Some allies, like the Netherlands, have already withdrawn. Why didn't allied support win the war in the past 9 years?

Also, we and our allies agreed to leave within 3 years. My opponent has yet to prove that the Taliban will surrender by then.

The Taliban "kill themselves"

The Taliban, for the most part, do not use suicide bombing as a tactic. We should not expect to win the war by hoping that 25,000 Taliban fighters all spontaneously decide to blow themselves up.

Moving to my opponent's three voting issues:

1. He agrees that the Taliban have home field advantage. His only argument is that we have air support, except General McChrystal banned the use of air support to limit civilian casualties.
2. His argument is: "they care more about killing Muslims." However, for the most part, the Taliban are an insurgency aimed at defeating American Coalition forces and regaining control of the government of Afghanistan. They are not out there randomly killing fellow Muslims.
3. His argument is: "we have allies." So did Germany during both WWI and WWII. This is no guarantee of success.

Lastly, moving back to the drops on my case:

Extend my analysis that the most analogous war to Afghanistan is Vietnam, which we lost. Insurgencies cannot be "defeated" in the classic sense of the word.

Extend my argument that the U.S. and our allies agreed to leave within 3 years, so we only have 3 more years for the Taliban to surrender. Since they know this, the Taliban will just wait us out in Pakistan, and strike at us using hit-and-run tactics, until we leave. If we didn't win the war in 9 years, there's no reason to believe the last 3 years will change anything.

Also, extend the evidence that Mullah Omar, the Taliban leader, recently declared a Taliban victory in Afghanistan. This shows that he has no desire to surrender and legitimately believes that he is winning this war. The recent surge in Taliban strength from 7,000 fighters to 25,000 fighters bolsters Omar's claims.

My opponent drops all three of these arguments, meaning he concedes to their veracity.

I believe I have proven that the Taliban will not surrender within the next 3 years.

I thank my opponent for such an intriguing debate and strongly urge a Con vote.

[1] http://www.defense.gov...
[2] http://online.wsj.com...
[3] http://www.smh.com.au...
Debate Round No. 3
18 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by TheSquadBoss 6 years ago
TheSquadBoss
yeah its did initially i made up a random age and then went back and changed it, in regards to your comments you need not worry i am not offended.
Posted by bluesteel 6 years ago
bluesteel
lol, didn't your profile originally say you were 25
Posted by bluesteel 6 years ago
bluesteel
@SquadBoss

Please don't take my comments as an attack on you - I'm just trying to understand Roy's decision.

You've done exceptionally well debating someone who is almost twice your age.
Posted by TheSquadBoss 6 years ago
TheSquadBoss
in my defense i believe the Pro was far harder to argue and in addition I'm only 13
Posted by bluesteel 6 years ago
bluesteel
Oh and I also realized: he never cited that army report Roy (I'm assuming you're referencing General McChrystal's assessment pre-troop surge).

If he had, I would have refuted it extensively.

For example: McChrystal said, "Resources will not win this war, but under-resourcing could lose it." http://www.armybase.us...

Also, McChrystal said that failure to send 40,000 more troops would result in "mission failure," not that those troops guaranteed victory. http://www.washingtonpost.com...

Seriously - read the Washington Post article; look at how bleak the assessment was. McChrystal said without more troops, the Taliban would win within 12 months.
Posted by bluesteel 6 years ago
bluesteel
Roy: "I'll admit it is difficult to judge a debate when neither side takes pains to define the resolution"

One of the first things I said: "To win, I merely need to prove that the Taliban will not surrender before the U.S. leaves."

I dunno what more you wanted on defining the topic.

Roy, can you at least clarify why you gave him the reliable sources point, since he didn't cite anything...

Sidenote: "The military clearly believes the US can win, so overcoming that requires substantial evidence."
Logical fallacies: 1) appeal to authority (and one that has reason to be biased in its analysis, at that)
2) demanding negative proof
Posted by RoyLatham 6 years ago
RoyLatham
I pointed out facts and arguments not made in order to show that the debate was thinly argued, not that the arguments should be used in judging the debate. A thinly argued debate is difficut to judge, because neither side get much traction.
Posted by RoyLatham 6 years ago
RoyLatham
I'll admit it is difficult to judge a debate when neither side takes pains to define the resolution, and neither side seems to have much understanding of the situation. My point with the "can win" analysis was to point out the difficulty of overcoming the affirmative position. If the resolution is interpreted as "can win with current troop strength and strategy" then there is still a problem proving the US cannot win. "Cannot" is an extreme position, requiring substantial proof of the impossibility. Con never came close to establishing that level of proof. The military clearly believes the US can win, so overcoming that requires substantial evidence.
Posted by bluesteel 6 years ago
bluesteel
@Roy

After having some more time to mull over your comment, I realized that I understand your decision more: you judged me on a different resolution than the one I believed I was accepting.

I believed I was accepting a resolution where I could argue that the current military campaign will not defeat the Taliban; you seem to have judged me on the resolution: "the U.S. could win if we poured all our resources into the war, implemented a draft, and transitioned to a war-time economy, WWII style." I would not have accepted if I thought that this, or something like it, was the resolution.

I also don't remember my opponent ever clarifying that this was the actual topic. I can't believe you'd base all that analysis off the word "can."

Not to be too informal, but: you bait and switched me, man.

If the resolution were: "can bluesteel buy a yacht," I think saying that under current conditions, I cannot afford one is a reasonable argument to make. Saying, "well he could theoretically sell his kidney and start dealing drugs" is a silly interpretation of that particular question, especially if those arguments are never made and the downsides of those options cannot be pointed out. Your assertion of a WWII style invasion is equally unlikely to occur and would have major undiscussed downsides.

Lastly, your resolutional analysis is somewhat faulty. Can - present tense, likely to denote current conditions. Could - subjunctive tense, more likely to denote alternative conditions/worlds than the current one.
Posted by J.Kenyon 6 years ago
J.Kenyon
Conduct: Tied; no violations on either side.
S/G: Con; I normally don't deduct S/G points, but Pro had many rather egregious and clearly noticeable errors.
Sources: Con; obviously, since Pro didn't actually provide any except to define his terms.
Arguments: Con. I'm not sure what Roy was talking about; Con never made any of those arguments. Con should have established right off the bat that Pro had BoP, but regardless, he did very little the negate Con's arguments, so Con wins either way.

Con should have stressed the points that battle experience and procedural knowledge always trump propositional knowledge, that tanks and airstrikes don't do any good when your enemy is either (a) hiding in plain sight dressed as a civilian or (b) in a damn cave, Pro didn't really respond to those claims anyway.

As a sidenote, the rate of fire doesn't make much of a difference. M16s are rarely used on the automatic setting anyway since it depletes the magazine in less than 5 seconds (see video). And the AK-47 has PLENTY of advantages over the m16.

I think there were things Con could have done much better, but at the end of the day this wasn't close by any stretch of the imagination.
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 6 years ago
RoyLatham
TheSquadBossbluesteelTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Vote Placed by Zilla2112 6 years ago
Zilla2112
TheSquadBossbluesteelTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by J.Kenyon 6 years ago
J.Kenyon
TheSquadBossbluesteelTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:06 
Vote Placed by bluesteel 6 years ago
bluesteel
TheSquadBossbluesteelTied
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 KodyHarris 6 years ago
KodyHarris
TheSquadBossbluesteelTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Vote Placed by TheSquadBoss 6 years ago
TheSquadBoss
TheSquadBossbluesteelTied
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 LaissezFaire 6 years ago
LaissezFaire
TheSquadBossbluesteelTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:06