The Instigator
graynet2013
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Kenneth_Stokes
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Our troops can fight the war on terror at home.

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/4/2013 Category: Society
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 881 times Debate No: 33281
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (5)
Votes (0)

 

graynet2013

Pro

[I reserve the right to clarify and substantiate my remarks in rounds 2 through 5: graynet2013, the following are suppositions, premises, and challenges to any opponent]

Our troops are fighting a war abroad against a virulent group of fanatics that have been bent on terror for hundreds of years. Only recently have we been initiated into the conflict of terror politics. Since the Arab jihadists have no prejudices for those that get in the way of their political aims and sovereignty, they have proven their crass disregard for the sovereignty and civility of others as well. Does it justify the billions and billions of dollars spent in American tax dollars to fight only half a war that has run its course already?

There are several forms of terror in the world. And we Americans at home are facing a war on two fronts! We have lost our liberties, our livelihoods to extreme domestic measures as our security agencies wrestle domestic terrorism born out of the Islamic extremism that has infected the rest of the world. But the average American also wrestles a different form of domestic terrorism: that raised by the drug cartels of China, South America, and Mexico. Not only are we fighting for our rights and the rights of criminals. But we are fighting for our right not to take drugs.

Everyday Americans are exposed to gang violence and anarchy. The fear they inspire serves them. It's a game of coercion and extortion to the drug lords in our neighboring countries. They create the fear through the domestic terrorism of gang violence and atrocity. This atrocity inspires the innocent to escape using the very drugs that are the foundation of this domestic terror crisis! Our brave troops should be fighting this war with us now. Because we are losing. We should stop instituting hatred abroad. We should be fighting for those that are suffering from addiction and corruption in our own neighborhoods.

Our enemies are living right here among us: both foreign and domestic. So many of us, with our rotted minds, and misguided principles are getting trampled by the drug cartels that are getting rich off our enemies and our citizens. We should be challenging the jihadist extremists to come and try again to defile our nation once again. With our brave soldiers and patriots at our sides, God be with the enemy of peace. Because they would not survive our resolve and integrity.
Kenneth_Stokes

Con

I will be arguing against the claim that American soldiers can fight the war on terror domestically as efficiently or more efficiently than continued direct foreign intervention. Meaning that no American troops are physically in foreign land. Also I am assuming that you believe that, "We should be challenging the Jihadist extremists to come and try again to defile our nation once again.", meaning that you find it morally necessary for the Jihadist to not only attack American citizens first but for the American society to provoke terrorist action through intimidation or in your words a "challenge".

I don't think I or even you fully understand your arguments. 1.) if we are facing a war on two fronts, then how would leaving the foregin front benefit the cause of finishing or neutralizing the war on terror? 2.) if you dislike the fact that we are losing our "liberties" due to the foreign war on terror, how would focusing and increasing the war on terror strictly on domestic issues relieve such a burden; it would increase it. Using military to impose law is even more deliberating.

"But the average American also wrestles a different form of domestic terrorism: that raised by the drug cartels of China, South America, and Mexico. Not only are we fighting for our rights and the rights of criminals. But we are fighting for our right not to take drugs."

Yet the "average American" advocates and is solely responsible for the wanting and circulation of drug trade--blaming foreigners is only 1/4 of the problem. If the American population were truly against drug cartels, then, well... there would be no such cartels as no money would be made.

"Everyday Americans are exposed to gang violence and anarchy."

I believe the sentence should be, "everyday Americans cause gang violence and anarchy." Such accusations are easily seen in the mass media via music and individualistic attitudes. Once again, although neighboring countries may be a major factor in the exporting of illegal substances, they aren't necessarily forcing the American people to consume them. It's basic business ethics. The drug lords know that the Americans will willingly buy their product, therefore investing in the American population is financially wise and is based upon the consumption of the American. The removal of the drugs will either a.) causing violence and crime due to withdrawal from addiction or b.) the withdrawal from drugs will have to dealt with by rehabilitation which would cost the tax-payers millions, if not billions of dollars. Once more: "we" aren't losing as "we"--collectively;over 50% either don't care or want the drugs.

Really? Challenging? No diplomacy or continuing the war on terror on foreign land? Defenses are already on the alert after 9/11, how would not attacking the enemy directly benefit us? Would it not harm us? The terrorist aren't a country, meaning they will attack, as you said, domestically. Such domestic prevention will be hindered without direct foreign intel.
Debate Round No. 1
graynet2013

Pro

graynet2013 forfeited this round.
Kenneth_Stokes

Con

Too bad I won't officially win this debate because no one seems to vote anymore...
Debate Round No. 2
graynet2013

Pro

graynet2013 forfeited this round.
Kenneth_Stokes

Con

Vote Con.
Debate Round No. 3
graynet2013

Pro

graynet2013 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
graynet2013

Pro

graynet2013 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by Kenneth_Stokes 4 years ago
Kenneth_Stokes
I'm quite upset about your 3,000 word limit. I wrote a well written response in Microsoft Word only to have 70% of it cut-off due to the limit. May I ask why you chose such a low setting? It's very impractical for both you and I.
Posted by graynet2013 4 years ago
graynet2013
You must be a little late for the show. Haven't are civil liberties been compromised because we are already knee deep in a variety of threats? Where are our resources being utilized? Our domestic agencies don't seem to be cutting the mustard. Wouldn't our troops be better deployed protecting our domestic interests, i.e. our country's citizens?

You know? I am asking quite a few questions to persuade perhaps someone like yourself to take a chance in debating the topic. But it appears that you would rather try to instigate castigating comments that will discredit me. I'm sorry. I'm not interested in an any ad hominem ruses for any one's personal enjoyment.

A debate has not really been coordinated. I will appreciate comments that will inspire someone to approach and test the veracity of a topic. Perhaps comments like those that have been previously offered will suit your entertainment needs. If so, I'm sure you can find your ilk more satisfying elsewhere.
Posted by Dann 4 years ago
Dann
You mean inviting people to come and commit terrorist atrocities again?
Posted by graynet2013 4 years ago
graynet2013
[response Dann:] premises, suppositions, and claims made are offered to support the argument -> We should be challenging the jihadist extremists to come and try again to defile our nation once again.
Posted by Dann 4 years ago
Dann
So what was your argument?
No votes have been placed for this debate.