The Instigator
username03
Pro (for)
Losing
7 Points
The Contender
Curtis12
Con (against)
Winning
14 Points

President Obama's plan for increasing troops in Afghanistan is in the US's best interest

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 3 votes the winner is...
Curtis12
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/22/2009 Category: Politics
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,716 times Debate No: 10546
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (3)
Votes (3)

 

username03

Pro

Please accept :)
I'd like to start off by saying I'm not going to go into too deep of detail, I'd like the debate to be based on logic as well as evidence.

Basically, the troop increase in Afghanistan is in the United States best interest because it is essential to the protection of our country, and history has shown us it will work.

My first contention is that the troop increase is in the United States' best interest because it will not only give us an advantage in the Afghanistan conflict, but it will eventually, help the country become stable. For Afghanistan to become stabilized, It is imperative that the United States call for more troops. Essentially, more troops equates to victory, and if this crucial piece of the puzzle continues to remain unaddressed, our soldiers will stay on their merry-round of driving insurgents out, only to lose the area again because of the inadequate number of troops.

Secondly, the troop surge will help our foreign policy as more than 30 countries including Canada,Britain, Australia, Greece, Sweden, the Netherlands, Estonia, Macedonia, Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, Ireland, Portugal, Romania, Spain, Italy, India, Germany, Poland, Japan, France, and China all support Obama's plan. NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen stated, "There is a broad consensus in the alliance we must stand together and we will support the United States. It is an alliance mission."

Our third contention is that the troop buildup will provide business opportunities throughout the United States, which will in turn, stimulate our economy, just look at the historical evidence behind this, especially World War II. In addition to this, the Chicago Tribune reported business opportunities will be abundant in areas like Phoenix.

Our fourth contention is that all other options are illogical. To completely pull out means we have both surrendered and wasted our money, to keep adding troops in insignificant amounts has not been working, and any other plans are irrelevant to the debate.
Curtis12

Con

Well, for one to believe that a victory in Afghanistan is still possible for the U.S is irrational in and of itself. The proposed withdrawal date of July 2011 is only the beginning and not the end of a U.S withdrawal. The U.S, will remain in the country for years to come. "We have strategic interests in South Asia that should not be measured in terms of finite times," said Gen. James L. Jones, the president's national security adviser, speaking on CNN's "State of the Union." "We're going to be in the region for a long time." http://www.nytimes.com...

For Afghanistan to become stable, the U.S must adequately train the Afghan forces and they could accomplish that with the troops that are already present in the country. At this point, there is more or less 75,000 troops on the ground. With this number, the U.S could adequately train the Afghan forces and subsequently transfer responsibility to them.

"Our third contention is that the troop buildup will provide business opportunities throughout the United States, which will in turn, stimulate our economy, just look at the historical evidence behind this, especially World War II. In addition to this, the Chicago Tribune reported business opportunities will be abundant in areas like Phoenix."

Well, the major banks have or will be paying back the Treasury Department early next year, this stimulating the economy. Do we really need more bloodshed (whether American or Afghan) to stimulate "places like Phoenix." The only business opportunities that are being provided because of this war is defense. Defense to make missiles to kill both Americans and Afghans. So are we really helping ourselves or our allies?

"Our fourth contention is that all other options are illogical." I assume that's your opinion, as you haven't referenced any source. Throughout your entire argument, you have made these statements like "In addition to this, the Chicago Tribune reported business opportunities will be abundant in areas like Phoenix;" "My first contention is that the troop increase is in the United States' best interest because it will not only give us an advantage in the Afghanistan conflict, but it will eventually, help the country become stable. For Afghanistan to become stabilized, It is imperative that the United States call for more troops."

My opponents argument is full of holes because it is full of opinion. He states how its in the U.S' best interest because "not only does it give us an advantage but it will help the country become stable." This is opinion because he hasn't referenced ANYTHING and therefore his entire argument is flawed and has been discredited by me.
Debate Round No. 1
username03

Pro

username03 forfeited this round.
Curtis12

Con

To reiterate, the war in Afghanistan is and will be for some time, a never ending war. The addition of more troops won't secure a "victory" nor will it secure "stability." It will however secure segregation among the various ethnic groups (Pashtun, Tajik, Hazara and so on). And it will secure bloodshed, both for American and Afghan soldiers.

Like I said in my previous argument, my opponent's argument is full of holes as it only includes opinion. If my opponent were to source some of her claims, it would make her argument more credible. However, since she has not, her argument isn't credible and therefore irrelevant.
Debate Round No. 2
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by username03 7 years ago
username03
Oh I forgot to say this before..I completely agree with the negative, I have since before I posted the debate.
Posted by username03 7 years ago
username03
Sorry I missed the deadline, I wasn't home. It would've been a lot more interesting if I got to defend my case. :)
Posted by KeithKroeger91 7 years ago
KeithKroeger91
To completely pull out means we have both surrendered and wasted our money,"

You sound like my Grandpa when he is losing money gambling and not wanting to leave till he's all out of money.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by username03 7 years ago
username03
username03Curtis12Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by KeithKroeger91 7 years ago
KeithKroeger91
username03Curtis12Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Curtis12 7 years ago
Curtis12
username03Curtis12Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07