Is The War on Terror Effective?
Debate Rounds (4)
Round One: Acceptance Only, No Arguments
Round Two: Opening Arguments, No Rebuttals
Round Three: Second Arguments, Rebuttals
Round Four: No New Arguments, Rebuttals, Closing Remarks
If you wish to accept, I would like a serious debate, please no trolling, no offensive language/name calling. Keep it professional.
If you accept this debate you are agreeing to the above terms and format, and I look forward to exploring this topic with you.
I would like to start off my debate by stating when the War on Terror began, so the voters can have some length of time we have been engaged in this conflict. I'm sure as many of you know, 9/11 and the attacks on the World Trade Centers and the Pentagon started America's insight into global terrorism. That very same night at 11:00 pm, the Bush administration launch the "War on Terrorism".  Ever since this, American troops have been stationed in various nations in the Middle East including Iraq, Iran and Syria. This "War on Terror" is used as an attempt to stop extreme terrorism, but ever since its launch, it has had little to no impact on actual terrorism.
In fact, since the "War on Terror" began, terrorist attacks across the globe have quadrupled.  This number is ridiculous, and clearly shows that this "War on Terror" is meaningless and pointless. Source number 3 shows just a few of the terrorist attacks on American soil since the "War on Terror" began.  Both of these stats, whether you agree with the "War on Terror" or not, you cannot deny the fact that it does not work.
The "War on Terror" isn't just a broken system, it is a philosophy that drains the pockets of the nation. In fact, the country as a whole spends 400,000,000 dollars on the "War on Terror" per year, which as we can all agree, is a ridiculous amount . Not only does this cost millions of dollars on a broken system, but it also violates many different civil liberties and rights. Many of you know about the Patriot Act, which allows for the NSA to "spy" on American citizens without their knowledge. But there are also a few other basic freedoms that have been forfeited at the cost of this philosophy. In fact, personal security, imprisonment without charges, assassination of abroad Americans without trial, and secret laws are all now allowed due to the "War on Terror" 
The "War on Terror" is not only a broken system, but it is also a drain on the common taxpayer, and the average American. It is time to stop sponsoring something that will not work. It is time to finally realize when a system needs revised, and now is that time.
First to refute my opponent's arguments, I would like to point out that there really weren't any arguments to be had. Yes my opponent did point out the attacks on Sept. 11, 2001. Those facts are irrefutable. But my opponent then goes on to explain that these people "will not stop attacking us". Yet there are no sources to back that claim up. He simply debates purely on a fear factor.
While I do agree that both attacks mentioned in my opponents argument are tragedies, he kind of dogs himself a grave by mentioning Paris. As my source in my first article states, the "War on Terror" began the same evening that 9/11 took place. Within that time I have mentioned that the main objective- to end terrorism- has been counter active. Not only have we not ended terrorism, but terrorist attacks have increased. So if my opponent is doing anything by mentioning Paris and two horrible events that took place there, he is simply backing up my arguments and furthering my evidence.
I have no new arguments for this round, as it is late and this is a last minute argument and I have not had the time to gather sources, but again I thank my opponent for his contributions to this debate and look forward to the next round.
Before I begin, I again thank my opponent for a very interesting debate, and have truly enjoyed my time talking over this topic with him.
My opponent states that if we, as America refuse to combat the terrorists, then they will simply just continue to "grow in strength". However, I do not find it America's job to deal with foreign terrorism. There are far more capable countries who could deal with it instead of us. Especially when the war on terror has been shown not to work. In fact, Vladimir Putin, "President" of Russia, stated "We are going to pursue terrorists everywhere. If they are in the airport, we will pursue them in the airport. And if we capture them in the toilet, then we will waste them in the outhouse. " The issue has been resolved once and for all."  Now this makes much more sense. If you are having a dispute, would you rather have to go across town to solve the issue, or right next door? Russia is just as capable if not more so to deal with terrorist threats than America is. Especially for the fact that Russia does not hold back, where some are saying "Putin has embarrassed us all in Syria. Welcome to the age of Russian power."  So my opponent stating that we as America must remain in conflict with terrorists to prevent their growth is clearly false. They still manage to recruit more members and gain more land (as seen with ISIL), and there are also much more effective ways to deal with the terrorist threat than relying on American military support. Simply put, Russia is dealing with the terrorist threat in a much greater and more efficient way than we are.
With all of the information you have read in this debate, I think the decision is clear. The War on Terror is not effective, and has lost virtually all support on the home front. There is no need to continue this endless conflict, which is why I hope the voters vote on the negative side for this debate.
I would once again like to thank my opponent for an interesting debate, and would also like to apologize. It is midterm week at my college, so I did not gather as much information for this debate as I would have liked. Thank you.
And so I begin my closing argument, As said by my opponent "Russia is just as capable if not more so to deal with terrorist threats than America is." However my source states "there is increasing evidence that Moscow may be helping to facilitate Islamic extremism in the Middle East." So Russia would not be very helpful in this war they may even increase the risk!
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.