The Instigator
EHS_Debate
Con (against)
Winning
7 Points
The Contender
James.ticknor
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points

Resolution to long. Posted in Round 1.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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...
EHS_Debate
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/18/2009 Category: Politics
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,898 times Debate No: 10471
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (34)
Votes (1)

 

EHS_Debate

Con

Resolved: President Obama's plan for increasing troops in Afghanistan is in the United States' best interest.

Debating will begin in Round 1 with AFF. This is for my partner and I's public forum tournament at James Logan Highschool in January. I would like to ask my opponent that we debate in Public Forum style. Provide 2-4 contentions. Then refute mine. Thank you very much for whoever accepts. This debate will essentially help me, so I don't mind if I win or lose.
James.ticknor

Pro

I would like to thank my oppenent for what I'm sure is going to be a well-fought, and interesting debate.

The president of the United States is an honorable position, but what the president does, however, may be less than honorable. Allow me to trail back to President Wilson, our president during WWI. His entire campaign was "No More War!" just like Obama's pretty much was. However, his actions resulted in the sinking of the Luscitania, killing 100+ American troops. General Willam's even warned him about being in a sub zone. This also resulted in the Zimmerman Note, a telegram to Mexico to request housing for German troops for a preperatory attack on the US.

His stated intentions won him office, but his actions belied him. Therefore, we were thrust into WWI. The purpose of this story was to open up the possibilty of dishonesty in politics. I do believe we have all heard some story or another of some politicion's scandle, so this isn't a concept that is "far-fetched." Now, let's review Obama, since this would pertain to him.

His plan is to send many, many troops to Afghanistan to secure it and supress insurgency. A part of his plan is also to have them back within 18 months. HOWEVER: The number of tropps have (over) doubled since his position in office back in January!

Most of the nation doesn't want to be in war right now anyways. Since this nation was "by the people, for the people" you would think that he would take some heed to the public's opinon. Surprisingly, he hasn't. He claimed he would start pulling troops out, but he hasn't. He's actually sent more! This is a major contention of mine that I would like to stress, and it is irrefutable.

Even our military is against it. How many attacks have been conducted on America since 9/11? None. We were over there to caputer Osama bin Laden, but it quickly shifted to securing oil refineraries and searching for signs of Weapons of Mass Destruction (haven't found any). Now, we are trying to fix their nation. Here's where I'd like you, please, to pay undivided attention:

This war will ultimatly help them. It may help us, indirectly, but not without hurting us more by losing TRILLIONS of dollars and thousands of lives when we are already in a depression. It will hurt us more than help us! This war has had, in my opinon, no positive effects except uniting the people. However, it is bad when we staned united....against our own government!!!!
Debate Round No. 1
EHS_Debate

Con

I will now post my case. I would like to nite that I am CON to this resolution, meaning I do not agree with the resolution.

In an article about Obama's approach on Afghanistan Rebecca Griffin on March 27 2009 said that

President Obama was mistaken when he stated in his speech, "the United States of America did not choose to fight a war in Afghanistan." The United States did have to respond to the terrorist attacks on 9/11. There were, however, more effective alternatives to military force, but the debate was clouded in the heated response to the attack. Terrorists are criminals of the worst kind, but they are not warriors. Terrorist networks are not the same as armies at war with the United States, and they need to be dealt with differently. The RAND Corporation has demonstrated that military force is almost never effective against terrorist groups, and that policing and intelligence work does work. It would be impossible and unwise to occupy every country where terrorists may be plotting.

It is not too late for the US to switch to proven, effective, nonmilitary counterterrorism tools such as policing and intelligence.

My partner and I stand in firm negation that President Obama's plan for increasing troops in Afghanistan is in the United States' best interest.

I would now like to provide a few key definitions within this debate.
Obama's plan for increasing troops in Afghanistan- Earlier this year at West Point New York, President Barack Obama ordered an additional 30,000 U.S. troops into the long war in Afghanistan, nearly tripling the force he inherited as commander in chief.
United States- can also be referred to as the people of the United States as a whole. Not just the government.

Best interest- producing the greatest satisfaction

Now for our arguments. My partner and I have created 3 contentions that indefinitely support the negation.
1) The war in Afghanistan is clearly unconstitutional.
2) The addition of 30,000 troops does not make sense.
3) We should be retreating out of Afghanistan like the Soviets did in the 1980's.

Contention One- The war in Afghanistan is clearly unconstitutional.

Under the constitution, Article 1 Section 10, "No State shall…engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay."

We need to remember that the attack on the United States on September 11, 2001 was, according to the 9/11 Commission Report, largely planned in the United States by terrorists who were in our country legally. A draft of the war in Afghanistan has never been drafted, therefore, it is unconstitutional to go to war with Afghan.

In his speech on November 18 of last year, Ron Paul states that, "Under the constitution, your supposed to declare the war, know who your enemy is, and know when you can declare victory, and bring the troops home."

We did that up until World War II, but since then we must have forgotten.

Contention Two- The addition of 30,000 troops does not make sense.

The president's National Security Advisor, Gen. James Jones, said in a recent interview that less than 100 al-Qaeda remain in Afghanistan and that the chance they would reconstitute a significant presence there was slim.

Are we to believe that 30,000 more troops are needed to defeat 100 al-Qaeda fighters? Remember that this debate focuses soley on the 30,000 troops being sent to Afghan.

Contention III- We should be retreating out of Afghanistan like the Soviets did in the 1980's.

This 30,000 "surge" will bring US troop levels to approximately those of the Soviets when they occupied Afghanistan with disastrous result back in the 1980s. I fear the US military occupation of Afghanistan may end up similarly unsuccessful.

In late 1986 Soviet armed forces commander, Marshal Sergei Akhromeev, told then-Soviet General Secretary Mikhail Gorbachev, "Military actions in Afghanistan will soon be seven years old. There is no single piece of land in this country which has not been occupied by a Soviet soldier. Nonetheless, the majority of the territory remains in the hands of rebels." Soon Gorbachev began the Soviet withdrawal from its Afghan misadventure. Thousands were dead on both sides, yet the occupation failed to produce a stable national Afghan government.

The United States government should take heed of the past and make the right decision.

CONCLUSION:
For these reasons my partner and I stand in negation of the resolution.
James.ticknor

Pro

Heh, whoops. Guess I didn't help my case too much there, did I? Well, I would like the audience to please disreguard that miscommunication (on my part, and I do apologize) however, I still think I can come up with a debate that will really matter, despite my scruple.

To build my case:

Contention 1- Establishing democracy in an allied country is for the best interest in this country.

Enough of informalcy, let's start talking in layman's terms, for I do not think that such mild pleasentries are what truely connect with the audience. From hereon out, I will speak directly and to the point. I do believe that this is really the only contention I need, because it is solid, irrefutable, and directly asserts the truth of the stated resolution.

Establishing democracy in an allied country is in the best interest in the country, because they need the assitance of our goverment because they are so unstable. The instability of this country is caused by an insurgency. Due to the overwhelming power of this insurgency, their current government cannot handle this. With the incorporation of a new government, this country will be happier, and will be more sustainable than ever before. Since ALL insurgencies are cause by disatisfation towards some entity, quelling the insurgency and establishing a stronger government sounds like the best way to go, right?

There has been great casualities in Afganistan. Nearly 4,000 troops have been killed. With the dire sound to this, let it be noted that it is only considered an unessicary feat if there is no progress made. Compared to our 4,000, over 30,000 insurgents have been slain. This leaves the country "purified" so to speak, and leaves only like minded individuals. This resluts in unity, which is required for a strong, stable country.

Also, this will reduce gas and oil, since this country is a great source for it. I do not mean great in the traditonal term, but as a recognizable source, which is also irrefutable. This, in turn, is better for our economy, resulting in not only a better government for them, but for us as well.

To rebutt my opponent:

1)((Eventually, RAND expanded its intellectual reserves to offer insight into other areas, such as business, education, health, law, and science.)) that is taken from their own website. I ask my opponent, "Do you see a specilization in military affairs?" I do not.
2)((Terrorists are criminals of the worst kind, but they are not warriors. Terrorist networks are not the same as armies at war with the United States, and they need to be dealt with differently.)) Google defines warriors as "Someone engaged in, or experienced in warfare". So, yes, they are warriors my friend. Also, let it be known that they are an organized, terrorist group of warriors, and should be delt with as they are the most dangerous things in the world. On a side note, what IS more dangerous than a bunch of lunatics running around with guns in their hands with nothing to lose but their lives??
3)(( Terrorist networks are not the same as armies at war with the United States, and they need to be dealt with differently.)) No army is the same as the other, and the only way to show these guys we mean business is to shoot them up! Their like brick walls, strong, united, and impossible to talk to. The only way to get past a brick wall is to knock it down. BOOM!
4)((The RAND Corporation has demonstrated that military force is almost never effective against terrorist groups, and that policing and intelligence work does work. It would be impossible and unwise to occupy every country where terrorists may be plotting.)) Yes, it would be impossible to occupy every country where terrorist may be plotting, but we aren't doing that, therefore it is void. My opponent does not give a reason why military force is never effective, so I don't understand what he means, because it doesn't have to be effective when there are none because you killed them all. In a sense, we are policing the country and we do have intelligence. However, without action, NO progress would be made.
5)((It is not too late for the US to switch to proven, effective, nonmilitary counterterrorism tools such as policing and intelligence.)) It's never too late, but I would be an insult to the memory of those who died. I'm not foolhardy and suggesting that we should be headstrong, but the military measures are working, and I would like you to try to prove me otherwise.
6) "Obama's Plan" I would like to assert that this is only part of it. The objective of the plan is to win, which we are doing.
7) "Best interest"- that's a noun, not a verb, so it can't 'produce' anything. Please present another and/or your source.
8) I didn't see that in Section 10. Here's my source http://en.wikipedia.org...

(Since I'm running out of characters, I will post further in the Commentaries. Don't forget to look!)
Debate Round No. 2
EHS_Debate

Con

I will begin by refuting my opponent's contention and building up my own case.

My opponent provides one contention, thus one area for me to attack: Establishing democracy in an allied country is for the best interest in this country.

His first paragraph supposedly regarding the aforementioned tagline is irrelevant.

It must be remembered that this debate focuses on Obama's plan for Afghanistan, which centers around the 30,000 troops expected to be sent there. The United States themselves, already have sent more than 70,000 troops to Afghan, approx. 71,000. Allied forces have sent much, much less, around 10,000. Why then, should the United States be expected to carry this burden and send another 30,000 troops? Why hasn't Obama requested a greater amount of support from countries such as France and Britain, for they have only sent a miniscule amount compared to us.

Why then, is it in the United States best interest to send 30,000 more troops. The hard truth is, it's not. So regarding my opponent's contention, "Establishing democracy in an allied country is for the best interest in this country." I would have to agree that yes, establishing a democracy in an allied country is for the best interest in this country, but sending more and more troops is NOT in the United States best interest.

I will now move on to my opponent's problems with my case, as characters are running short.

1) I never said that specialized in military affairs. Therefore your first point is irrelevant.

2) ((Terrorists are criminals of the worst kind, but they are not warriors. Terrorist networks are not the same as armies at war with the United States, and they need to be dealt with differently.)) I do not see how you can argue with this. It is well-known that terrorists operate very differently than stable armies. It is reasonable to suggest, that you can't just send troops into a village against enemies that have to morals.

3) (( Terrorist networks are not the same as armies at war with the United States, and they need to be dealt with differently.)) Again, this is common-knowledge. Terrorists cannot be handled in the same way. It has already been proven. Our wars in the Middle East are becoming some of the longest in our history. That is because we are going about it wrong.

4) I would just like to mention now, that my opponent spends points 1-5 arguing against my intro. My intro isn't as relevant as my actual contentions. I urge the voters to keep this in mind.

5) Once again, not extremely relevant.

6) Obama's plan, is to send 30,000 more troops to Afghan. My opponent tries to refute this by saying that his plan is also to win. I never made the notion that Obama's plan isn't to win.

7) Greatest benefit
http://www.merriam-webster.com...

8) I would advise that you don't use wikipedia as it is not always the most credible source.
http://www.usconstitution.net...

9) I guess you skipped this one.

10) Only thing regarding my contention TWO:
The man you spoke of has no way of proving there are only 100 Al-Quida. Even so, what of the other terroists?
The president's National Security Advisor, Gen. James Jones. Who else would know the number of Al-Quida in Afghanistan. Through intelligence reports and other government means. What of the other terrorists?? They have all retreated to Pakistan, and the United States has already deployed combat drones to that area.

11) Only thing regarding my contention THREE:
Since this is a policy form, and is not a fact, I will disreguard it.
Disregard it? This is a crucial contention that my opponent has failed to recognize. This has shown what has happened in the past. What Obama is doing now is exactly what the Soviets did, and they failed. This supports my position that it is not in the United States best interests to send an additional 30,000 troops.

Now to build up my own case.

1) The war in Afghanistan is clearly unconstitutional.

My opponent has not sufficiently refuted this contention. Instead, he pastes a wikipedia link, which is hardly credible when compared to the source I provided.

2) The addition of 30,000 troops does not make sense.

As I have shown, there is an extremely small amount of Al-Quida in Afghanistan that does not constitute a deployment of 30,000 American soldiers.

3) We should be retreating out of Afghanistan like the Soviets did in the 1980's.

This contention has not been refuted, and adds to my position. The same events occured then that led to the retreat of the Soviets in Afghanistan.

Characters are running low.

=== Sources ===

http://www.campaignforliberty.com...

http://www.campaignforliberty.com...

http://www.merriam-webster.com...

http://www.usconstitution.net...

http://www.capecodonline.com...

====
I thank my opponent
James.ticknor

Pro

"I would have to agree that yes, establishing a democracy in an allied country is for the best interest in this country"

In this single quotation, I have won my case. Here's why:

He said: "Obama's plan, is to send 30,000 more troops to Afghan. My opponent tries to refute this by saying that his plan is also to win. I never made the notion that Obama's plan isn't to win."

This insinuates that he believes Obama's plan is, indeed, to win. The objective of this plan is to establish democracy in Afganistan's country, as it were. Which, he just said: "I would have to agree that yes, establishing a democracy in an allied country is for the best interest in this country."

This alone, nullifies all of his other points. Please, do not be offended if I do not argue the next round, which I probably will. However, with this alone, I will not need to.

VOTE AFF!

*Merry Christmas!
Debate Round No. 3
EHS_Debate

Con

I would like to begin by noting that my opponent has dropped my whole case and solely persists on one issue of the debate.

My contentions still stand.
1) The war in Afghanistan is clearly unconstitutional.
2) The addition of 30,000 troops does not make sense.
3) We should be retreating out of Afghanistan like the Soviets did in the 1980's.

I would now like to DRAW A LINE between the confusion of my opponent and the resolution.

The RESOLUTION states that

"President Obama's plan for increasing troops in Afghanistan is in the United States' best interest."

My whole case has proven effective against this, whereas my opponent provides insufficient evidence against this.
Then, in Round 3 my opponent drops my whole case to support is SINGLE contention.

"Establishing democracy in an allied country is for the best interest in this country."

My opponent contends that he has essentially won at this point. He must have forgotten the resolution however. Wether or not democracy in an allied country is in the best interest of the United States is not the point of this particular debate. The fact of the matter is that "President Obama's PLAN for INCREASING TROOPS in Afghanistan" has not been argued against by my opponent.

THIS DEBATE revolves around wether or not the 30,000 troops that will be sent to Afghanistan is NECESSARY. My opponent has disregarded this WHOLE aspect. My whole case negates this resolution, whereas my opponent does not specify why 30,000 troops are needed.

The United States already houses 70,000 + men and women in Afghanistan. Allied forces sum up to around 20,000. What Obama needs to do now, is request more troops from our allied forces, not be sending more of our own men in.

I honestly don't appreciate my opponent's smugness. I would also like to mention that my opponent only provides one wikipedia site as a source. As a side note I would like to request a source for Aghanistan being an allied country to the United States.

Thank-you for your time.
James.ticknor

Pro

In contrary to what my oppent believes, I will persist that I have won this debate through that single quotation of his. What has been said so far and what this debate is about, holds absolutely no meaning if my oppenent agrees with me, which he did.

(Off the record of this debate:
My opponent is correct in the sense that I have been a smug little @$$hole. I do implore the audience and my opponentto believe that this is not my style. I am experimenting with what my dirty debate teacher taught me, and here is my explanation {I couldn't tell you that I'm not a jerk at first, because that would ruin the point of the experiment}. My teacher states that debate is quiet the opposite of arguing. While trying to maintain your emotions in a debate, meeting someone who has a tinge of rudeness unsettles the person. Thus, they are prone to mistakes because the inate anger of the action of the opponent results in narrow-mindedness, constricting the opponents ability to rationalize and think of rebuttals and points. This whole thing is purely experimental, but I trust him, for he was a psychiatrist before he took up teaching and holding our debate team after school. I'm truely sorry if I offended you.

The next thing is, and this is good, that you pointed out I had no evidence to support my claims. This is very good. However, in a spoken debate, they will not list claims. You must ask for them in a debate, but they must be to build your point against them, or else you run out of time in Cross X. There is one thing about this debate though. I did not mention, first, that Afghanistan is an allied country, you did. Therefore, I do not have to present proof, because you contradict yourself. However, if I had to think on the moment, I would say: "Government is defined as, in this sense, an entity that rules over a country. However, in a state of anarchy, civil war, and turmoil, their government cannot maintain it's own country, which is why we are assisting the government. The government itself wants us there. Though it cannot maintain adequate control, it is still recognized as the power of the country, but it IS STILL IN CONTROL. Since the power of this country wants us there to help it, we must be their ally.

Good luck, friend, in your debate.
Debate Round No. 4
34 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by m93samman 7 years ago
m93samman
lol i didn't log on... sorry i didn't vote :/
Posted by EHS_Debate 7 years ago
EHS_Debate
I didn't vote for myself btw.
Posted by CupcakeAlmighty 7 years ago
CupcakeAlmighty
AIE!! THAT"S BOGUS!!!

Congratulations, though.
Posted by EHS_Debate 7 years ago
EHS_Debate
My rebuttals were short because of character limit. And I agreed with the democracy thing for a reason.
Posted by James.ticknor 7 years ago
James.ticknor
Thanks, man. I almost let it slide, but I caught it. Heh, guess I was just a little full of egg nog. I almost continued the debate for the benifet of this person, but it would be wisest for him to learn to NEVER AGREE WITH YOUR OPPONENT! Although, Neg can conditionally agree, it just didn't work for you. I'd just stay away from it period. Thanks guys, it was fun!
Posted by m93samman 7 years ago
m93samman
man... I could tell just by reading this that EHS_Debate is first year. You make a lot of pretty weak arguments, moreover some of your statements in your rebuttal actually hurt you. I have some comments on the round though... but the main thing is this. Regarding the affirmative- your round three rebuttal makes a solid argument, and if you look to technicalities you do in fact win this debate. Once in the voting period I will probably vote for you provided negative doesn't make a strong response. But*** if you actually do PF, NEVER make your rebuttal that short. Manage your time so that it is the last thing you say, and that way it will be more effective in convincing the judges. Haha I noticed the exact same thing when he made the confession about the whole establishing a democracy idea... I was hoping that you would take advantage of it and YOU DID! Great job lol, but like I said, try to put more into your rebuttal.

Con- I still don't really understand your style of debate; I may give you some critiques later on if time permits. But I really don't have a full picture of you... try to impress in 4th round and I might change my decision =)
Posted by EHS_Debate 7 years ago
EHS_Debate
On points ten and eleven there should be a space in between what my opponent stated and my reply to it. Sorry if it confuses anyone.
Posted by James.ticknor 7 years ago
James.ticknor
10) Contention Two- The addition of 30,000 troops does not make sense.
The man you spoke of has no way of proving there are only 100 Al-Quida. Even so, what of the other terroists?

11)Contention III- We should be retreating out of Afghanistan like the Soviets did in the 1980's.
Since this is a policy form, and is not a fact, I will disreguard it.

VOTE AFF/PRO YO!!!
Posted by EHS_Debate 7 years ago
EHS_Debate
Thats cool.
Posted by Sniperjake1994 7 years ago
Sniperjake1994
Epic Fail...
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by ricky78 7 years ago
ricky78
EHS_DebateJames.ticknorTied
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