The Instigator
RagoNemesisDie
Con (against)
Tied
3 Points
The Contender
SJM
Pro (for)
Tied
3 Points

Did 9/11 justify the Iraq war?

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 2 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/17/2016 Category: Politics
Updated: 8 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 411 times Debate No: 92840
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (8)
Votes (2)

 

RagoNemesisDie

Con

9/11 - 3,000 dead. Iraq war - 1,450,000 dead (mostly innocent).
SJM

Pro

A war is not the justified based on the amount of deaths, for example WW2 was justifiable, but killed were around 60,000,000. What justified the war was us eliminating potential threats, because as far as we know they may be innocent, but logically we don't know. Also, we need to protect the people here at home first.
Debate Round No. 1
RagoNemesisDie

Con

The deaths of the innocent cannot be justified in any way. There was no evidence for potential threat, and the people there voted almost unanimously that American troops getting involved made it worse.
SJM

Pro

So what my opponent is essentially saying is that anything involving death is unjustifiable, so if Hitler came back with a nuke to kill more jews and the only way to stop him was to kill him, that's unjustifiable. My opponent also decides to ignore the fact that Iraq is filled with criminals and to say that for example if one person was in a neighborhood where everyone except him was convicted of being a criminal, that he doesn't have the potential of being a criminal is absurd. Lastly, no matter how many vote that it was unjustifiable doesn't matter since it doesn't change the nature of the act at all, and is the appeal to population fallacy.
Debate Round No. 2
RagoNemesisDie

Con

I am not saying this. I literally said "The deaths of the innocent cannot be justified in any way." "The INNOCENT" and Adolf Hitler has 17 million deaths under his name? Innocent? No. The Iraqis? Most of them, no deaths under their names. And they didn't come to Iraq to kill criminals, they killed innocent people defending themselves.
SJM

Pro

Ok but I made that argument to make you admit that some lifes are more valuable than others, so now that we established that, you conceded amount of deaths dont matter by letting my argument pass through, and also that some lives are more valuable than others, my opponent has still not proven why the iraq victims are more valuable than the 9/11 victims. Thus, he has not made a successful argument and has let my argument that we need to protect the people here at home first, pass. Because the people that are more valuable are those who we have a stronger positive connection with.
Debate Round No. 3
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by Theunkown 8 months ago
Theunkown
For some reason, the secular nation of Iraq was invaded to counter Islamic terrorism...ok.
Posted by SJM 8 months ago
SJM
except*
Posted by SJM 8 months ago
SJM
Lol expect for the fact that you assume that thinking someone's life is worth more than someone elses is a sin, and that this is my only sin and that you are sinless. But of course we have other sins and only way you can say your life is more valuable is if you knew every sin i and you and committed, and their degrees of sin. But you don't, so your point is meaningless, and lastly you assume that I only weigh someone's life value on morale. Morale is a factor but not the whole. C for effort ;)
Posted by TheGrumpyPotato 8 months ago
TheGrumpyPotato
Technically you have agreed that my life is worth more than yours then. Since claiming that 10 rapists are worth more than your mom you seem to have a ranking system for sins. My morales are better than your's so technically that places you in a position where I and everyone who agrees that all lives are equal, now have a life that is worth more than yours. Of course I believe that all lives are equal so I don't really care about how my life compares to others.
Posted by SJM 8 months ago
SJM
And I would even go to say that my mom's life is more valuable than 10 rapists.
Posted by SJM 8 months ago
SJM
And even if I do agree no life is more valuable than the other, if my opponent conceded that why wouldn't I use that to my advantage?
Posted by SJM 8 months ago
SJM
You seem to be very naive thinking that debates happen for the purpose of searching for truth, lol debating is for winning.
Posted by TheGrumpyPotato 8 months ago
TheGrumpyPotato
SJM you seem to be a very naive American. 2996 people died in the terrorist attack of 9/11. Then America barged into Iraq and killed 165, 000 civilians in war related violence. Are you really saying that the death of 2996 people is more valuable than 165, 000 lives. Thats about 55 people per one person that died in 9/11. Sure, the war was to get rid of the terrorists but a least you could admit that those 2996 deaths were not more valuable than 165,000 deaths. No life is worth more than another.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by BackCommander 5 months ago
BackCommander
RagoNemesisDieSJMTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: This is not a debate about whether or not the Irag war was justified, as Pro seems to be assuming. It is about whether 9/11 justified this war. Con points out that 3000 died during 9/11, and that 1,450,000 died in the Iraq War. Though Pro does come back with the fact that 60,000,000 died in WW2 and states that it was justified, that's a poor comparison as that doesn't help his argument of 9/11 specifically being what justifies the Iraq War. Con pointed out in round two that there was no potential threat and that the people of Iraq voted that American troops getting involved made the situation worse. Pro remains distracted by the number of dead and how killing is justifiable, never making an argument for why 9/11, specifically, justified the Iraq War. As it stands Con makes the more convincing argument as they were better able to keep their arguments relating to 9/11.
Vote Placed by TheWorldIsComplicated 8 months ago
TheWorldIsComplicated
RagoNemesisDieSJMTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Close debate. Pro explained why using deaths wasn't accurate, with his WW 2 example. Con did have a point though, 1.4 million people is a lot of people. Pro's argument about Hitler coming back was a great rebuttal. The con went off more about the Iraq war than why 9/11 doesn't justify the Iraq war.m