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

Is the War on Terror justifiable and effective?

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...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/23/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 10 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 584 times Debate No: 82962
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (3)
Votes (1)




This debate is open to the first person who accepts it, ELO required is set at mine and higher in order to avoid any trolls, sorry of this is of any inconvenience to others.

- I will be arguing that the War on Terror is justifiable and effective, whereas Con will be arguing against.


First round is acceptance only.

2) No rebuts can be made during the opening arguments. Likewise, no new arguments can be made in the final round.

3) The Burden of Proof is shared between Pro and Con during this debate.

4) No forfeiture is allowed during any point in the debate.

**Violation of any of these rules counts as an automatic loss**

Each debater has 72 hours to post their argument due to time constraints I have with other activities.
There are no definitions that need to be provided now, instead, it will be posted by me during the opening arguments in order to help construct the flow of the debate.

Best of luck to the contender that accepts. Meow.



I would like to quickly rephrase the resolution into a traditional arguable form: " On balance, the War on Terror is justifiable and effective" (I will be taking con against this)

Also, I accept the presented rules, and as such, I await your opening argument.

Best of luck

Debate Round No. 1


I thank Bronto for accepting this argument, best of luck and I hope we have a good debate. Just to quickly respond Bronto's challenge to the current resolution, I'd like to say that we needn't need to adopt the new one as the current resolution has been argued very frequently in the past, and either way there is no true difference with adopting the current as we will be arguing on very similar terms to your proposed one, so that there is no confusion.
I will now present my case, I shall put forward my facts to justify the War on Terror and I will then move for examples later on to prove it's effectiveness in the past. Now, I shall present my case.

The War on Terror has a long history that can be dated back in the 20th century, but first officially began with the September 11 attacks on the World Trade Center in the United States, and since then, multiple campaigns have been launched in retaliation, the war in Afghanistan being the most prominent, and I will explain very clearly why these were advocated actions, both justified, which is defined as "to prove or show (something) to be just, right, or reasonable", and effective, clearly defined as "producing a decided, decisive, or desired effect" in two main brackets. [A]

Justification - State Security

The 9/11 attacks claimed the lives of nearly 3000 people in total, many families were left shattered and the security of the United States was breached on an unparalleled scale by 19 perpetrators that were directly supported from Al-qaeda, an internationally recognized terrorist organization. [B] [C] These attacks caused the US to exercise it's provocative, but rightfully so. These are war crimes at some of their worst, firstly, these attacks were targeted on sites with high amounts of civilians, the perpetrators took hostages that played the role of a 'human shield', and they had no regard for collateral damage.
And this is where state security comes into play, under these circumstances it is only just that the government should take measures as a result, they have an obligation to protect their citizens and their state from hostile powers that so threaten it. Direct attacks on a nation should be met with force, because not only because of this, but because administering direct action for the war against terror would help safeguard their citizens in the future from further attacks, the US led invasion of Afghanistan not only seeked justice to the lives lost, but also prevented any more attacks on this scale from occurring on US soil since 2001, which also led to increased border security that would help combat this situation in the future. [D] [E]

Justification - Global Security/United Nations

It has long been the interests of many countries to counter terrorism all across the world, and many have come together to form to bring forward a unified attempt against terrorism for the interests of world-wide security, under the United Nations Charter which was founded after the end of the Second World War in 1945, it clearly dictates that,

"To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace" [F]

This charter clearly details that it is the objective of the United Nations to combat any and all threats to the security of any nation, and that the United Nations will support any nation in dire need during times of facing the attacks of radical extremists or even the attack of a foreign state as it is so commanded to follow. The United Nations has brought together the nations of the world closer than ever, and it is in the interest of every government present during the conferences to advocate their stance on their actions taken against a hostile power, which under the United Nations Charter, they should by all means have the right to do so. This, more than anything else, proves my point and supports my position that is clear that these are justified reasons to combat the War on Terror.
Taking one example to support this was the very recent November 2015 Paris Attacks, that were conducted by Islamic extremists from the Islamic State. The impact of over 120 deaths from coordinated attacks on the french capital of Paris. This was followed by international outrage, but rightfully so. Because the impact of the attacks from the Islamic State were very deep, it affected many policies regarding the current ongoing refugee crisis in Europe, the national security policies of France and many other countries, and became the deadliest attack on France since the Second World War. And all this is due to the mere fact that these extremists are not met with enough brute force, the impact of allowing the spread of the Islamic State had only caused more crisis, and the efforts under the United Nations to resolve this, along with a bilateral attempt from the Russian and French governments launched a devastating attack on ISIS controlled territories in Syria, damaging massive oil lines along with ammunition caches which further strained the terrorist state. But I will analyze further of the effectiveness of the War on Terror in my next paragraph. [G]

The effectiveness of the War on Terror

Naturally, it is my stance to also prove that the War on Terror is met with effective outcomes, moving aside from the still ongoing conflicts in Syria,Afghanistan and France that I have already covered before which I will hope to cover further in later rounds, I wish to take another prominent example of where the War on Terror has brought a complete victory in the eyes of the citizens of the country of Sri Lanka.

Sri Lanka is a country that was locked in a 30 year long civil war against the LTTE, which was an internationally recognized Tamil terrorist organization that launched multiple attacks on the State in order to secede from the nation, which was finally brought to an end in 2009 through a joined effort from the Sri lankan military and foreign financial aid which brought forward an era of peace. [H] This organization was listed as one of the most dangerous in the world at the time, which is one of the reasons I wish to bring forward this example, who through a long struggle, ultimately suceeded which easily shows the effectiveness of overwhelming odds against terrorism for those that advocate it.

Such attempts can be replicated elsewhere in the world, notably in the Middle East, where millions of people face oppression under the rule of extremists, where they are are victim to people who freely commit crimes against humanity and we as a globally connected union should rise up and face this threat, not only for the reasons that I have stated earlier regarding the economic and international polices against terrorism, but also for the humanitarian side of things, which I hope to touch on in later arguments to further reinforcing the already obvious facts that terrorism must be dealt with, for the safety of our people, now, and in the future.

I leave it now to Con to present their case, and I wish him good luck in the next round.

Sources -

[A] -

[B] -

[C] -

[D] -

[E] -

[F] -

[G] -

[H] -



BrontosaurusHeadcleaver forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2


All points extended


BrontosaurusHeadcleaver forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3


BrontosaurusHeadcleaver forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by fire_wings 11 months ago
This was the debate.
Posted by EverlastingMoment 11 months ago
That's unfortunate. >.> Oh well, meow.
Posted by Al-Andalusi 11 months ago
Actually, I wanted to accept the challenge, but an error appeared saying that I don't match the instigator's age or criteria or etc... Whatever... Lol
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Blade-of-Truth 10 months ago
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct - Pro. Con forfeited multiple rounds in this debate, which is rarely acceptable conduct in any debate setting. S&G - Tie. Both had adequate spelling and grammar in this debate. Arguments - Pro. Pro presented a case affirming the resolution revolving around 3 main arguments. Unfortunately, Con left all 3 arguments standing unchallenged for the remainder of the debate. Due to Pro being unchallenged, and thus upholding his BOP, Pro wins arguments. Sources - Pro. Con failed to utilize sources within this debate whereas Pro did. This is a clear win for Pro.