The Instigator
Shunshine
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
emospongebob527
Con (against)
Winning
4 Points

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 1 vote the winner is...
emospongebob527
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/5/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 329 times Debate No: 48456
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (1)
Votes (1)

 

Shunshine

Pro

Iraq was a justified war. We had every reason to believe Saddam had WMD's by his own admission along with 'intel' by the CIA, MI-5, and Russia. Saddam claimed to have WMD's, probably to bolster strength for his imploding state. He refused to comply to inspections as it would show his weakness, he thought nobody would call his bluff, we did.
emospongebob527

Con

Since the Affirmative failed to provide any definitions in his opening round, I will proceed to do so.


Definitions-

Iraq War- an armed conflict in Iraq that consisted of two phases. The first was an invasion of Iraq starting on 20 March 2003 by an invasion force led by the United States. It was followed by a longer phase of fighting, in which an insurgency emerged to oppose the occupying forces and the newly formed Iraqi government. (1)


justified- demonstrated or proven to be just, right, or valid. (2)


Affirmative Syllogism-


Based of off my opponent's arguments it is safe to say that he is saying that if Saddam Hussein had WMD's, then the Iraq War was justified.

So, we can put this into a syllogism.


P1: If Saddam Hussein had WMD's, then the Iraq War was justified.

The affirmative makes no attempt to make a connection between his claim that Saddam Hussein's past possession of WMD's and his claim that the Iraq War was justified. Until he does this, we have no reason to accept the first premise.


P2: Saddam Hussein had WMD's.

The affirmative attempts to support this dubious claim by saying that, "We had every reason to believe Saddam had WMD's by his own admission along with 'intel' by the CIA, MI-5, and Russia. Saddam claimed to have WMD's, probably to bolster strength for his imploding state." From this we can take it that the affirmative is saying that Hussein's own admission concerning WMD's and intel gathered by various agencies and countries confirms that Saddam Hussein had WMD's. However, since the affirmative fails to provide any justification for either or source to support these claims, we have no reason to accept that either are true.


C: Therefore, The Iraq War was justified.


Both of the affirmative's premises have insufficient evidence and dubious logical justification so his conclusion falls flat on it's face.


Conclusion-

All of the affirmative's arguments went unsupported in the opening round. So, I will allow him to offer support for his first round claims in the following round.


Thank you.


Sources-

1. http://en.wikipedia.org...

2. http://www.thefreedictionary.com...





Debate Round No. 1
Shunshine

Pro

Shunshine forfeited this round.
emospongebob527

Con

emospongebob527 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
Shunshine

Pro

Shunshine forfeited this round.
emospongebob527

Con

emospongebob527 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
Shunshine

Pro

Shunshine forfeited this round.
emospongebob527

Con

emospongebob527 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
Shunshine

Pro

Shunshine forfeited this round.
emospongebob527

Con

emospongebob527 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Finalfan 2 years ago
Finalfan
I'm divided on this subject! It all was a little fishy, but who am I to say what my government does! They can keep treating us like children .. because most of us are!
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Zarroette 2 years ago
Zarroette
Shunshineemospongebob527Tied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Con's counter-arguments went entirely uncontested. Conduct to Con for Pro's forfeits.