The Instigator
WeaponE
Con (against)
Losing
33 Points
The Contender
Sherlock_HolmesXXI
Pro (for)
Winning
43 Points

Iraq War, should it continue?

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: 4/23/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,792 times Debate No: 3764
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (12)
Votes (20)

 

WeaponE

Con

The Iraq war has no true meaning. Why then did we enter it in the first place? Because the Bush administration scared us like a herd of sheep. Iraq has been increadibly destabalized, and we're losing lives of Patriots in this war. American blood has been spilled, this can't be changed, but we must stop the meaningless loss of life. As an American it would serve our country best to end the war as soon as possible.
Sherlock_HolmesXXI

Pro

Sherlock_HolmesXXI forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 1
WeaponE

Con

Seeing how my opponent has not posted an argument, it stands to reason that I shall win. Unless he decides to post something that is.
Sherlock_HolmesXXI

Pro

I posted this argument in the comments section because the system cut off my time early and stated that i forfeited, but here is my argument again, for convenience sake.

I'm not going to be a jerk by saying my opponent failed to extend his arguments and therfore failed to meet his burden of proof, but i hope others would return the favor by accepting this argument that was posted "late" though it technically wasn't. Thank you.

As an LD debater, I shall begin by attempting to transform this topic into the format of a resolution, and hope that my opponent will accept it:
"It is just for the United States of America to continue its role in the Iraq War."

In affirmation of this proposed resolution, I provide the following definitions from Merriam Webster's Online Dictionary in order to clarify the debate:

Just: having a basis in or conforming to fact or reason
Continue: to remain in existence

Iraq War: a.k.a. Operation Iraqi Freedom; an ongoing conflict which began on March 20, 2003 with the United States-led invasion of Iraq by a multinational coalition composed of U.S. and UKGB troops supported by smaller contingents from Australia, Denmark, Poland, and other nations.

Observation1: Conforming to reason is the definition I use for "just" due to the fact that my opponent argues that the Iraq war is meaningless and therefore I interpret this argument as "The Iraq War is unreasonable."

Observation 2: The definition is not obtained from Merriam Webster's Online Dictionary, but from Wikipedia, and is used in order to prevent confusion. For instance, the War in Iraq ought not to be confused with the War on Terror. If my opponent would like to provide a clarification from a more viable source, I would, of course, reconsider.

Observation 3: Continue is defined as "to remain in existence", and therefore I would like to point out that the role of the USA may strengthen, lessen, or stay the same, as long as it is present.

Contention 1: Ending the war in Iraq would likely result in the removal of US troops within Iraq. Removing U.S. troops from Iraq would potentially result in more American blood being shed because the conflict may cease or lessen in Iraq, but may increase within the US due to those in Iraq who hate America having the ability to perform acts of terrorism and crime within America, simply by going on the offense "here" instead of being busy defending "over there".

Contention 2: The loss of the lives of American soldiers is not meaningless.
The US soldiers stationed in Iraq are people who are fighting because it is their job. They signed up for it knowing completely well that they had a chance of dying, just as if it were any other occupation. Their deaths are not meaningless because they are fighting for a cause; they are fighting because, as Americans, they value human rights such as freedom; they are fighting for the establishment of these rights among the Iraqi people.

Contention 3: My opponent states that Iraq has been destabilized. This is in fact a reason for why America should remain in Iraq. If stabilization includes a small amount of conflict within a society, consider this: Saddam Hussein was a dictator who kept order within the jurisdiction of his country, but the actions with which he kept the citizens under control was horrendous. Those who refused his rule were removed from their homes, tortured, and killed. Often, their family members would accompany them to their deaths. With his removal, conflict arose between the various cultural groups that he once controlled by instilling fear and death. America removed Saddam, America created the destabilization, and America ought to remain until the problem it has created has been fixed.

Contention 4: The Bush Administration, as the executive branch of our government, did what it had to do as proposed by the Social Contract of Philosopher John Locke. It recognized the fact that the rights of people, specifically in Iraq, and the people themselves, were being threatened, and because it is its duty to protect the rights of the people, it allowed for the invasion to take place.

Contention 5: It would serve more than just our country best to continue the war. Serving only our country seems to be a bit on the selfish side, and by continuing to promote a greater influence of American values upon the Iraqi society, one day, they may perform greater attempts to set aside differences in culture, and work together for the betterment of society, as, just as an instance, many Americans and Europeans have.

To all those that read this: please read the comments section occasionally, for there is often something of value posted within it.
Debate Round No. 2
WeaponE

Con

You say that if we leave they will attack us "here instead of there". Though our presence in Iraq is doing nothing but fuel hatred towards America in the Middle East thus putting America in more danger over here. You say that the loss of American soldiers lives in Iraq aren't pointless because they signed up for it! Their so called cause is to bring human rights to the people of Iraq. Though by invading Iraq we have replaced their bad government with an even worse anarchy.
The very small progress we've made is so fragile that if something happens that is just a bit surprising, all of our work will be for nothing. In invading Iraq we have indangered the most precious liberty, that to life. You say that we should stay in Iraq because we caused the problem. To quote McCain, "I don't care if we have to stay in there a hundred years..." Even though this will do nothing but hurt america and make slow aganzing progess in Iraq that will force them to rely on us the entire time.
You quote John Locke saying that it was our job to protect the human rights on the Iraq citizens. Though the way we did so severly threatened their other freedoms and saftey. You state that you it would serve America best to stay. Though the facts point out that we have spent $517 billion on the war and counting. Not to mention the fact that we are generating anti-american feelings in all of the Middle East.

I eagerly await you response.
Sherlock_HolmesXXI

Pro

My opponent had no objections to the use of the proposed resolution or my definitions, so I shall assume that their use is accepted and allowed.

My opponent claims that our presence in Iraq is ONLY fueling hatred. However, I refute by quoting the Washington Post, "The Program on International Policy Attitudes poll, which was conducted over the first three days of September for WorldPublicOpinion.org, found that support among Sunni Muslims for a withdrawal of all U.S.-led forces within six months dropped to 57 percent in September from 83 percent in January."

My opponent simply claims that the loss of American lives is pointless; however he fails to refute my argument whatsoever, and merely states what I said in a previous round.

As a clarification, anarchy is not what has been set up in Iraq by the U.S. The United States has replaced the completely corrupt, yet stable, dictatorship with a democracy that is slightly unstable because of different religious beliefs of the people. The longer we stay in Iraq, the more likely the country's citizens would be to accept the fact that they can work together without killing or harming each other, much like how Americans have done.
Anarchy, as defined by Thomas Paine is "the absence of a governmental authority", yet one can clearly see that political leaders exist in Iraq, and therefore, it cannot be an anarchy.

My opponent accepts the fact that progress has been made, but provides no reasoning as to why the progress can easily be undone. The progress we have made is not fragile, and is in fact resulting in success. By removing the dictatorship that once existed, we have not threatened the freedoms and safety of the Iraqis, but instead given them rights that many of them have never had before. Under the rule of Saddam, the civilians had no freedom of speech, they had no freedom of assembly, and they virtually had no right to "Life, Liberty, or Property(aka Pursuit of Happiness)". By removing him, we have given them these rights, and although we have endangered the lives of a few, we have saved and elevated the quality of life of many.

My opponent argues that it would not serve America best to stay because it is economically degrading; however, I believe that the rights of humans and the quality of peoples lives ought to be a more paramount value than money.

My opponent fails to provide his claims with substantial evidence(empirical or pragmatic) on the majority of the arguments, while I have given logical reasoning and statistics to prove my points. For the reasons stated above, I urge an affirmative vote. Thank you.
Debate Round No. 3
12 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by SportsGuru 9 years ago
SportsGuru
It would be interesting to see the justifications for the votes in this debate.
Posted by shwayze 9 years ago
shwayze
why would we surrender? forget whether it was justified or not, that is a moot point, the bottom line is that were kicking Al-Qaeda a**. Did you not see the #2 leader of al-qaeda blasting the Muslim population for not supporting their cause? I wonder why....
Posted by Tomorokoshi 9 years ago
Tomorokoshi
*votes for WeaponE* With love from 'OpalescentUnicorn' ;D
Posted by polka-dots323 9 years ago
polka-dots323
Or WeaponE . :) Either one, or both! :)
Posted by polka-dots323 9 years ago
polka-dots323
Hey, I would love to debate this same issue with you perfectionist48. You can challenge me if you would like. Thanks!
Posted by Sherlock_HolmesXXI 9 years ago
Sherlock_HolmesXXI
I hope my opponent and voters accept this argument. I apologize for the inconvenience.

As an LD debater, I shall begin by attempting to transform this topic into the format of a resolution, and hope that my opponent will accept it:
"It is just for the United States of America to continue its role in the Iraq War."

In affirmation of this proposed resolution, I provide the following definitions from Merriam Webster's Online Dictionary in order to clarify the debate:

Just: having a basis in or conforming to fact or reason
Continue: to remain in existence

Iraq War: a.k.a. Operation Iraqi Freedom; an ongoing conflict which began on March 20, 2003 with the United States-led invasion of Iraq by a multinational coalition composed of U.S. and UKGB troops supported by smaller contingents from Australia, Denmark, Poland, and other nations.

Observation1: Conforming to reason is the definition I use for "just" due to the fact that my opponent argues that the Iraq war is meaningless and therefore I interpret this argument as "The Iraq War is unreasonable."
Posted by Sherlock_HolmesXXI 9 years ago
Sherlock_HolmesXXI
Observation 2: The definition is not obtained from Merriam Webster's Online Dictionary, but from Wikipedia, and is used in order to prevent confusion. For instance, the War in Iraq ought not to be confused with the War on Terror. If my opponent would like to provide a clarification from a more viable source, I would, of course, reconsider.

Observation 3: Continue is defined as "to remain in existence", and therefore I would like to point out that the role of the USA may strengthen, lessen, or stay the same, as long as it is present.

Contention 1: Ending the war in Iraq would likely result in the removal of US troops within Iraq. Removing U.S. troops from Iraq would potentially result in more American blood being shed because the conflict may cease or lessen in Iraq, but may increase within the US due to those in Iraq who hate America having the ability to perform acts of terrorism and crime within America, simply by going on the offense "here" instead of being busy defending "over there".

Contention 2: The loss of the lives of American soldiers is not meaningless.
The US soldiers stationed in Iraq are people who are fighting because it is their job. They signed up for it knowing completely well that they had a chance of dying, just as if it were any other occupation. Their deaths are not meaningless because they are fighting for a cause; they are fighting because, as Americans, they value human rights such as freedom; they are fighting for the establishment of these rights among the Iraqi people.
Posted by Sherlock_HolmesXXI 9 years ago
Sherlock_HolmesXXI
Contention 3: My opponent states that Iraq has been destabilized. This is in fact a reason for why America should remain in Iraq. If stabilization includes a small amount of conflict within a society, consider this: Saddam Hussein was a dictator who kept order within the jurisdiction of his country, but the actions with which he kept the citizens under control was horrendous. Those who refused his rule were removed from their homes, tortured, and killed. Often, their family members would accompany them to their deaths. With his removal, conflict arose between the various cultural groups that he once controlled by instilling fear and death. America removed Saddam, America created the destabilization, and America ought to remain until the problem it has created has been fixed.

Contention 4: The Bush Administration, as the executive branch of our government, did what it had to do as proposed by the Social Contract of Philosopher John Locke. It recognized the fact that the rights of people, specifically in Iraq, and the people themselves, were being threatened, and because it is its duty to protect the rights of the people, it allowed for the invasion to take place.

Contention 5: It would serve more than just our country best to continue the war. Serving only our country seems to be a bit on the selfish side, and by continuing to promote a greater influence of American values upon the Iraqi society, one day, they may perform greater attempts to set aside differences in culture, and work together for the betterment of society, as, just as an instance, many Americans and Europeans have.
Posted by SportsGuru 9 years ago
SportsGuru
If need be, I can vouch for mr. sherlock. (And no, i do not own the same both this account and sherlock's. this happened to me also in an earlier debate).
Posted by Sherlock_HolmesXXI 9 years ago
Sherlock_HolmesXXI
I'm afraid my time has been cut short. The system states that I forfeited even though i had bout 10-15 minutes remaining, I shall post my argument here, in he comments section, and hope that it shall be read.
20 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Sherlock_HolmesXXI 8 years ago
Sherlock_HolmesXXI
WeaponESherlock_HolmesXXITied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 cto09 8 years ago
cto09
WeaponESherlock_HolmesXXITied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by SportsGuru 8 years ago
SportsGuru
WeaponESherlock_HolmesXXITied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Corycogley77479 8 years ago
Corycogley77479
WeaponESherlock_HolmesXXITied
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 Rboy159 8 years ago
Rboy159
WeaponESherlock_HolmesXXITied
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 freedom9 9 years ago
freedom9
WeaponESherlock_HolmesXXITied
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 LedLegend 9 years ago
LedLegend
WeaponESherlock_HolmesXXITied
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 turtlecool2 9 years ago
turtlecool2
WeaponESherlock_HolmesXXITied
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 kmb708 9 years ago
kmb708
WeaponESherlock_HolmesXXITied
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 XLdrpepper 9 years ago
XLdrpepper
WeaponESherlock_HolmesXXITied
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