The Instigator
Con (against)
0 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
9 Points

Iraq War

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 3 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/27/2012 Category: Politics
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,571 times Debate No: 28670
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (2)
Votes (3)




The first round is acceptance followed by one round of case building no rebutting the opponents argument. I will be arguing to end the Iraq war while the opponent must give reason to stay in the Iraq war.

Good luck


I accept and look forward to this challenge.

I realize that this first round is solely for acceptance, however I would like to make a statement to the voters before the debate begins. As there will only be one round of actual debate, and my opponent has made clear that clash is not meant to happen, I encourage voters to consider this debate on a standard of comparative advantage.

This means you should weight the advantages and disadvantages provided by both sides, and at the end vote on for whoever provides the better world.

I look forward to con's opening remarks.
Debate Round No. 1


I agree with my opponent that this is a one round, give it all kind of a debate, and the voters should read both cases and come to a conclusion on the winner.

Time for me to open my argument. The war on Iraq has not ended unlike what some people suggest. The United States is still occupying and in doing so controlling Iraq. This is an extremely dangerous situation for the National Security of the United States, the relations the United States will have with other nations, and future military involvement in the Middle East.

History is about to prove itself again on American soil if the United States keeps on staying in Iraq. What will happen on American soil will shake the sensitive nerve of 9/11. In the 1990's sanctions were put on Iraq that severely crippled the nation and killed half of a million children and around million Iraqis. Because of this action that the United States implemented the terrorist group Al Qaeda attacked the United States and this attack has been named after the date, 9/11. Osama bin Laden, the leader of the group Al Qaeda, made the United States sanctions a political point for his reasoning in the planned 9/11 attacks, while this is not the only reason why terrorists attacked the United States it is a very strong point because if there is one thing that Americans must learn from 9/11 is that a group of 19 armed with box cutters can make a day that no one will ever forget. This group can do greater damage than any government, so why give them a reason to attack, because no one can solve terrorism by terror.

What has happened in Iraq and continues to happen will cause relations with other countries to be in severe question in the future. First, it brings to question the governmental stability of the United States, the war in Iraq is against the very thing that makes America special compared to other nations and it is the Untied States Constitution. In the constitution it states that no war can be declared only by Congress not my a President's interest and other countries can see this and see a fault in the government. Second, it brings the debt into question the United States is in a 16 trillion dollar debt and one of the main countries that America owes debt to is China, how is China and the other countries supposed to feel when they see that the United States spent 3 trillion in Iraq that could have gone to them. Can these countries trust the United States when it comes to paying debt. Lastly, it brings into question the morals of the United States 110,000- 121,000 innocent civilians have died because of the violence the United States caused in Iraq with war, and for those who think that the deaths are over and mistaken because 229 people have died this December 2012. How can a country fell when they see a country that doesn't follow its constitution, doesn't care about debt owed, or even how many people that will die for there cause.

After all this the United States looks like they are going to attack Iran under the same idea. The idea that they are a danger to United States with a weapon of mass destruction that the CIA has even said isn't proved yet. It is time to get out of Iraq and the Middle East and let the wounds heal.



One day on a windy spring afternoon, a young man was getting ready for his future to be changed forever. It was the day of his eighteenth birthday and has going with his father to an army recruitment center to register for the armed forces. He had come from a long line of military men and he was eager to make his family proud as he served his country.

"Dad?" the young man asked

"What is it?" the father answered.

"Is there any advice you have for me about all of this?"

"Just be careful" the father responded. "It's war you're about to be apart of, and once you're in it you can't go back."

"What do you mean by that?" the young man inquired.

"Let it like this, when I was in Vietnam a buddy of mine when running off into the forest one afternoon once we were off of patrol."


"In the forest he came across some enemy territory and ended up stepping on a landmine."

"Well what happened to him?"

"What do you think happened to him? He blew off his legs and damn near died."

"So you're telling me to watch out for landmines?"

"I'm telling you to watch yourself. There are going to be times you have to make tough decisions, decisions that are a matter of life and death. And once you've made those decisions you're stuck with the consequences."


I stand in firm negation of the resolved, that "the United States should end the Iraq War". The war was started for poor reasons, and we should never have gone into Iraq in the first place; but now that we're there we're standing on a landmine that will certainly blow up beneath us if we leave before we're finished.
I do not intend to justify the Iraq war, but instead I stand show that if we leave this war before we're finished establishing a firm democratic government that everything we've done up until this point is going to blow up and leave us is a state possibly beyond repair.

The first argument to be considered is that democracy is beginning to take root in Iraq, and slowly spreading throughout the Middle East, and it's something that the Arab people want[1]. From Dr. Zubaida, professor of politics and sociology at Birbeck College,

"I am now confronted by casual remarks from many sources to the effect that: "what Iraq needs now is another Saddam". The implication is that such a divided and fissiparous society is impossible to govern without violent authoritarianism. "Saddam kept the lid on" is another refrain. Iraq, in this view, is the extreme example of a middle-eastern society which cannot govern itself, characterised by tribal, religious and factional conflicts, to which notions of democracy are inappropriate and where any attempt at democratisation is sheer folly.
My response is that the situation today is not somehow a "natural" tendency of Iraqi or middle-eastern society: it is the product of a particular history. Regimes such as that of the Ba"athists and Nasserists, rather than being a remedy to a natural anarchy, played a crucial role in producing these effects. I will expand on this theme, with reference to the arguments advanced in some other contributions to the "

We understand that the Arab People, for the most part, want democracy and if the American people pull out now, it will not only hinder that progressive march towards democracy and a democratic society.

Furthermore American solders are still serving a very important role of protecting and establishing human rights[2], particularly that of women who are now beginning to attain human rights otherwise denied from them in prior years. From the United Nations,
"[2]In Kirkuk on 24 November representatives of 20 NGOs gathered to make a statement on violence against women, demanding, inter alia, legislation on domestic violence and honour killing, greater representation of women in local councils, an end to harassment and abuse of women by police during investigations, and an end to the practice of religious leaders granting marriage and divorce outside the legal framework."

This work is far from being finished, and work is still needed to make sure that this goal of human rights work does not fail. Pulling out now before the work is finished will undeniable result in a terrible backlash, the bomb we've stepped on will blow up.
"The team sought out Iraqi technocrats to identify projects the city urgently needed for essential services. By mid-May RTI had hired about two dozen Iraqis and was working with the local council to implement emergency water and electricity projects. The Basra office was the first of what would become 22 offices that RTI opened across Iraq during the spring and summer of 2003.15 ... Clarifying roles, responsibilities, and working relationships among the military, the CPA, and USAID and its contractors proved a major challenge. The military perceived USAID and its contractors as "relief in place" and "expected to rapidly hand over [to them] public services restoration, infrastructure reconstruction planning and coordination, and managing relationships with newly formed local councils throughout Iraq." But neither USAID nor its contractors had sufficient resources to sustain this mission"

In conclusion, we've gotten ourselves into a mess, there is no doubt -- but if we leave this mess before we're finished cleaning it there will dire consequences we will have to face up to.

Vote Con, don't let us lift our feet until the job is finished.
Debate Round No. 2
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by bladerunner060 5 years ago
I don't think anyone would take the debate that the Iraq war should be "neverending", so can you clarify what you are asking for--is it that your opponent must take the position that the war must be continued until "won", and if so, by what criteria would "won" be established (since the US toppled the original government in place prior to invasion)? Is your contention that of immediate withdrawal, or the measured/timetable withdrawal presently being implemented by the government?
Posted by DudeWithoutTheE 5 years ago
I think pretty much everyone believes the Iraq war ended when the last American troops left a year ago? Can you clarify what you mean?
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by 1Devilsadvocate 5 years ago
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: Debate was too short. Con didn't have much of a chance because he couldn't respond. Con provided reasons that we should not have gone in, but Pro simply agreed with that but differentiated between going in & not leaving. Cons inability to respond, really made it impossible to win.
Vote Placed by imabench 5 years ago
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: Cons arguments contained some noticeable errors (our occupation of iraq is not why Al-Qaeda attacked for one thing) and Con instead seemed to debate over whether or not the US was justified in invading Iraq in the first place. Pro though pointed out that we are already there, and provided sources and arguments for why we should stay there not forever, but for a little bit longer, and seeing as how this was just a 2 round debate, con didnt get the chance to respond to pro's arguments. I give arguments to the pro even though i would have loved to see con's counter arguments to pro's claims, sources, grammar, and conduct were all even though. Decent debate, would have loved to seen more though
Vote Placed by Chicken 5 years ago
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: Unfortunately a 2 round debate isn't hard to judge, and I say unfortunately because con never had any time to actually debate. While both sides agreed to a comparative standard, Pro was able to simply outweigh con in the end, without giving con another round to try and reiterate points and ideas. Pro ultimately outweighed, by proving ending the war would be both detrimental to Democracy and to society, as there Pro states quote "This work is far from being finished". The debate boils down to comparative advantages, and judges vote through who's impacts outweigh. No real weighing mechanism was given for me to compare, are we talking about saving lives or saving money? Saving an idea or saving a country? Pro is the only side that gives me some sort of weighing Mechanism, which is bent towards Democracy.