The Instigator
merciless
Con (against)
Losing
50 Points
The Contender
larztheloser
Pro (for)
Winning
65 Points

Resolved: NATO presence improves the lives of Afghan citizens.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+8
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/1/2010 Category: Society
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 24,799 times Debate No: 12883
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (24)
Votes (20)

 

merciless

Con

This debate is to be in public forum format. Round 2 will be speech 1, round 3 will be crossfire 1, round 4 will be speech 2, round 5 will be crossfire 2. If my opponent has any questions, he may ask them in round 1.
larztheloser

Pro

I thank my opponent for this debate. I'm not entirely familiar with this format but wikipedia seems to explain it well enough. One question however - in the second "crossfire" round, you will be asking questions in your post, while my post will be answering/asking. However, you will have no opportunity to answer my questions, correct? Because then the debate will have finished?

Aside from that I look forward to a great debate! I wish my opponent luck.
Debate Round No. 1
merciless

Con

For this debate, I will answer my opponent's crossfire 2 in the comments section.

The date for withdrawal is fast approaching. Despite public opposition, Canada's prime minister wants to postpone that date. Now is the time to ask ourselves, does NATO's presence really improve the lives of Afghan civilians? I believe that the answer is no. NATO's presence does nothing to improve the lives of Afghan civilians. It actually does harm to Afghans.

Contention 1: NATO's forces threaten and shorten the lives of Afghans
NATO hunts down insurgents with unmanned aircraft. This is fine as long as no civilians are hurt, but the reality is that civilians are hurt by these aircraft. According to the NY Times, "The American military on Saturday released a scathing report on the deaths of 23 Afghan civilians." There's no doubt that there has been other cases of unmanned aircraft killing Afghans. The Centre for Research on Globalization says that there were 15,219 Afghans killed in combat. At least 3994 of them were civilians. In addition, according to rawa.org, Afghans staged a demonstration to protest civilian deaths caused by NATO. This wouldn't happen if NATO killed civilians only a couple times. It is therefore plausible to assume that NATO has killed Afghan civilians many times, and thus that NATO presence threatens and shortens the lives of Afghan civilians.
NATO presence also threatens nearby civilians by being a target for the Taliban. The Taliban's main weapons of choice are the IED and the suicide bomber. Both these weapons indiscriminately kill NATO troops and civilians alike. Since these weapons are aimed at NATO and the corrupt Afghan government, NATO acts as a magnet for disaster for the local population. This unquestionably threatens and shortens the lives of Afghan civilians.

Contention 2: NATO supports a corrupt government that isn't concerned about human rights
According to the Centre for Research of Globalization, Hamid Karzai, the US backed Afghan President, is "a representative of the wealthy and corrupt elite in Afghanistan". "Landowners, businessmen, and noted war criminals and their cronies" make up the majority of the Afghan Parliament. "Since 2004, the Afghan parliament has reenacted most of the anti-women policies that existed under the pre-2001 Taliban-led government. Some go beyond anything in place in that earlier time. Instances of sexual abuse and assault against Afghan women are as high as ever, with the perpetrators of such acts going unpunished."
This is not the Taliban. This is a recognized government, backed by NATO. If NATO presence was to improve the lives of Afghan civilians, why is the government they lead and support so corrupt? Why are rates of suicide by "self-immolation at an all-time high"?
The Centre for Research on Globalization also reports, "A July 31 New York Times article by Alissa Rubin reports that 'girls' schools are closing; working women are threatened; advocates are attacked; and terrified families are increasingly confining their daughters to home.'"
If NATO wasn't there, Karzai's government would have been removed by now. NATO's presence allows Karzai's government to exist. Is this what is called improving citizen lives?

Because NATO's forces threaten and shorten the lives of Afghans, and because NATO supports a corrupt government that isn't concerned about human rights, I urge you to give a Con ballet.

Thank you.
larztheloser

Pro

I thank my opponent for opening this debate. I will open with two
short points of clarification regarding my opponent's contentions,
because I believe he has heavily misconstrued what actually happens on
the ground to give voters a false impression.

Clarifications

1) Afghanistan is not like the US. Nato and Taliban forces are not
concentrated in civilian centers. Most Afghanis live in rural
districts, there are no NATO bases in any cities that the Taliban will
strike at, and the few civilians killed during fighting with the
Taliban were probably Taliban supporters because otherwise they would
have run away (not very hard in the rocky Afghani countryside).
Taliban prefer to hide away from civilian centers for strategic
reasons. ~400 civilians per year is actually a really low figure, and
includes civilians not killed in combat by NATO troops, for instance,
by the United States Army. Compare that figure to the thousands of
civilians who die every year in the conflict of Palestine and Israel.

2) The Afghani government is corrupt because it is not controlled
centrally from Kabul. Votes need to pass through multiple warlords who
ultimately hold control over all government affairs. Some have used
this for their own personal gain or to commit crimes. The Kabul
government is too weak to deal with this problem of corruption
themselves. Even with the NATO troops the situation is really poor.
Without the NATO troops the problem would only get worse. My opponent
fails to recognise what the real problem here is. The problem is that
nobody can do anything about the corruption, until the war on terror
is won and attention can turn to stabilising the country.

Contentions:

1) NATO troops come not just from the United States but many other
countries. They help pacify the large population who dislike the
United States because of Taliban propoganda. They help the not just
the country but the people transition from the mindset of those living
under a theocracy, where many more human rights were infringed upon by
the way (ie what rights did women have under the Taliban rule), to a
more just and equal state. Removing them would not remove the large
United States army presence, indeed the United States would send MORE
troops to make up for the lost NATO troops. This would cause the
tensions to boil up again because the effects of Taliban propoganda
are not completely undone.

2) The United States cannot fight the war on terror by itself. They
need the support of strong allies. Terrorism through Afghanistan is
not a problem unique to the states (think of the London train
bombings) thus all Western states have a stake in finishing the
war off. It is not fair to make the United States do all the work.
Besides, it vindicates the "World Police" view of the United States.

For all the aforementioned reasons, I in turn urge you to vote PRO now.
Debate Round No. 2
merciless

Con

For crossfire, I will be asking my opponent some questions.

1. You say that the Afghans that are killed during fighting are probably Taliban supporters because otherwise the would run away. I would like to see your evidence for this conclusion. In addition, I would like to ask you how anyone could run away from IED's and suicide bombers, which are the Taliban's main weapon, or nearly invisible unmanned aircraft, which is NATO's main weapon.

2. 400 civilians killed per year is a really low number? What if that happened in your country?

3. What is the difference between Afghans killed by NATO and Afghans killed by the US Army? Legally, they are one and the same, since the United States commands NATO.

4. You say that corruption in the Afghan government is caused by warlords. Where's your source for that?

5. As I've mentioned before, NATO carries out a lot of air strikes on the Afghan people. You say that NATO is there to pacify a large population. How do we pacify a large population by bombing them?

6. How does NATO help people move towards equal rights if warlords and lawlessness is coming back, as my opponent points out in his argument about corruption?

7. If Taliban propaganda was not supported by reality, would it influence anyone?

8. What does your second contention (US can't fight war on terror alone) have anything to do with the resolution (NATO improving Afghan lives)?

I will be awaiting my opponent's response.
larztheloser

Pro

First I would like to answer my opponent's questions. Second, I will pose a few of my own.

Qn 1 ("How could the people run away?")
I have two responses.First, Taliban and NATO are not concentrated in cities. I've already told you this. You ask for evidence, so here is a map of the locations of the NATO bases: http://en.wikipedia.org.... The Taliban also do not fight from cities. This is intuitive because there is much more cover available on the rocky plains and amongst the caves of southern Afghanistan. See https://www.cia.gov... for your evidence. Because neither force fights from cities, there are no dense civilian clusters to reasonably attack. Therefore any civilians who are with the Taliban or NATO are not civilians. I hope this clears my argument up somewhat.
Second, the Taliban does not suicide-bomb people because of the NATO presence. They suicide-bomb to strike fear in the general military population. Replacing a portion of the military population with another portion is not going to resolve this issue - indeed, the Taliban would probably (just my thinking, but hey!) see this as a provocative move. In no event would this cause them to back off.

Qn 2 ("Do I want 400 to die here?")
If the biggest war in the world was being waged in my country, I'd be very happy for only 0.0014% of the population to be killed each year in attacks. Relative to the population, that would be like 55 people dying yearly - more people die from road accidents during just the summer holidays!

Qn 3 ("Doesn't the US command NATO?")
No, it doesn't. Since 2006, NATO has controlled all military operations in the south of Afghanistan, including the US operations. The north has already been conquered so it doesn't really matter who commands who there. See http://en.wikipedia.org...

Qn 4 ("Sources for warlord corruption")
Al Quaeda, Interview with Dr Ayman Al-Zawahiri, 2005
Washinton Post, Interview with Barack Obama, 2009

Qn 5 ("How do we pacify by bombing")
Three responses. First, NATO does not bomb civilian centers (see my earlier analysis). Second, my opponent ignores the widespread humanitarian assistance, infastructure rebuilding and development programs that only NATO engages in (see http://www.nato.int...). Third, removing NATO would not remove air strikes. It would mean nations like France are no longer committing those air strikes but nations like the USA are. Frankly, the Afghan people don't care.

Qn 6 ("How does NATO help rights when there are warlords?")
By removing said warlords from office, and in areas not controlled by warlords, by enabling the police force to enforce these rights.

Qn 7 ("Why does Taliban propoganda work?")
Because it is very well-grounded in the Islamic belief system. Religious beliefs are never grounded in observable reality, yet people hold them. Al Quaeda have used this to their advantage.

Qn 8 ("How would finishing the war in Afghanistan faster improve Afghan lives?")
Three reasons. First, no war. Therefore no killing, no fear, people able to get on with lives. Second, foreign troops would leave the country, so there can be no fear from foreign nations either. Third, no restrictive strict interpretations of Sharia law entrenched in constitution. Therefore better rights, therefore better standard of living.

My questions:
1 - Name one war (which had actual conflict) with less civilian casulties per capita than the war in Afghanistan.
2 - Why should the USA have to bear the burden of conflict, rather than the European nations who also suffered so many losses helping out?
3 - Can you give me any analysis as to why it is the NATO forces as opposed to the US Army forces who attract suicide bombers?
4 - Which had worse human rights abuses - Karzai's government or the Taliban government?
5 - Is Karzai's government exclusivly backed by NATO troops, or does the US Army back him too?
6 - Since Karzai has come to power, have not all economic indicators (GDP etc) been indicating overall standard of living has increased?
7 - The Afghan people voted for Karzai in free and fair elections. Is it democratic to therefore strip him of his office?
8 - Which force is best placed to reforming the Afghani governmental system, if I were to admit that there are deep-seated problems (which I don't)?
9 - Given that Taliban propoganda targets the US, which force do you think the Afghani people are more likely to co-operate with - NATO or the US Army.
10 - Do you accept my claim that removing NATO forces would encourage the US to send more? If not, why not?
11 - What effect do you believe the removal of NATO troops would have on the morale of both sides of the conflict? Don't you think the Taliban will simply step up their "inhumane" attacks?
12 - Do you accept my claim that the removal of NATO troops encourages a world police view of the United States? If so, do you think this is a good thing?
13 - Who do you imagine will train the Afghani security forces after NATO leaves?
14 - Given this outcome, who do you imagine will conduct counter-narcotics operations after NATO leaves?

Once again, vote PRO.
Debate Round No. 3
merciless

Con

I will answer my opponent's questions, then move on to my second speech.

1. This question supports my point that NATO presence does not improve Afghan lives.
2. Why should anyone have to bear the burden of conflict in Afghanistan? Al Qaeda is in Pakistan, that is where we should be fighting.
3. They both attract suicide bombers like flies to honey. NATO is legally the US Army because NATO countries are the US's allies and NATO is under US control.
4. My sources say that Karzai now has worse human rights abuses.
5. Legally, NATO and the US Army are one and the same, as I've mentioned before.
6. Economics is not the only indicator of standard of living. This is shown by the increasing number of opium smokers under Karzai.
7. With supposed democratic elections, we need to know who got to vote. Whether only wealthy landowners or the general public got to vote makes a major difference. Where's your source that says that the general public got to vote?
8. Of course the Afghan civilians. They know what they want.
9. Taliban propaganda targets the US directly and NATO indirectly. Neither NATO or the US is in a position to seek cooperation from the Afghans.
10. If all of NATO besides the US retreated, then maybe the US would send more troops, but maybe the US would consider retreating.
11. The first question has an obvious answer. I don't think the Taliban will step up their inhumane attacks. There would be no enemies to attack.
12. No, it leaves the US with an "I stand alone" feeling.
13. How is this relevant to the topic?
14. The Taliban. They have before, they will do it again.

I will no move on to my 2nd speech.

My opponent mentions in his first speech that the problem was that nobody can do anything about corruption. I disagree. When the Taliban ruled, they cracked down on corruption. Corruption wasn't as much of a problem then as now. The problem with corruption is that no one is doing anything about it. There is corruption in the West as well as Afghanistan, so Afghanistan probably got its corruption from NATO. NATO is also not doing anything to solve the problem. That leaves Karzai to solve the problem, and he's not going to shape up as long as NATO backs him.
My opponent's 2 contentions also have nothing to do with the resolution. He talks about the effects of Taliban propaganda and the US fighting the war by itself. This is not a debate about whether NATO should fight. This is a debate on whether NATO helps improve Afghan lives.
My opponent also says that NATO bases are not concentrated in cities. He fails to mention that a large cluster of NATO bases surround Kabul. That is where Karzai and his corrupt government are. That is where the Taliban want to attack. Kabul is a city with a sizable population. There, not only does NATO act as a disaster magnet, Karzai does too.
My opponent sees the Taliban as terrorists. They are not terrorists, they are insurgents. They suicide-bomb to fight a foreign invasion, a.k.a. NATO.
M opponent says that he would be very happy for only .0014% of the population in his country to be killed in war. I'd like to point out that more than 15,000 Afghans have died in this war. That is almost comparable to US soldier deaths in Vietnam. Is it moral to allow civilians to keep dying?
If the US doesn't command NATO, then NATO is responsible for all deaths caused by unmanned aircraft. NATO may not bomb civilian centers, but it does bomb civilians. NATO may help rebuild the country, but if there was no war and no foreign invasion, this would be unneeded. The absence of NATO, as I see it, means that the US is gone as well. My opponent keeps saying that the absence of NATO would mean that the US would send more forces. NATO and the US are legally one and the same.
My opponent never mentioned anything about finishing the war quicker in his second contention. Therefore, his response to question 8 is invalid.
larztheloser

Pro

I'd like to thank my opponent for dodging all my questions. I have 23 points, all of which are rebuttal.

On his responses to my questions, and why they are inadequate:
1. My opponent agrees with my first question, and therefore drops all of his analysis about the apparent huge civilian death toll. Quite a waste of an argument.
2. My opponent then denies that Al Qaeda are in Afghanistan. He flies in the face of all the expert analysis we have available. It's true that Al Qaeda exist in Pakistan, and that that's where their main supply lines are. But their bases are located in Afghanistan.[1]
3. My opponent ignores my point that the US Army DOES NOT control NATO. I advise him to read my argument again, carefully this time.
4. I laughed at this answer. Which sources deluded you into thinking that Karzai's police have murdered but one single woman for showing a minuscule portion of her flesh without trial?
5. Please stop ignoring my points. See my response to question three above.
6. My opponent lists no source for his claim. But even if I were to concede an increase in opium smokers is measured by the statistic, how can this be reliably measured? Of course, the Taliban have every reason to understate this figure, and the Karzai government have every reason to state it truthfully. Based on this, I wonder what my opponent expects the statistics to show? I'd also like to question my opponent's disbelief in the science of economics.
7. We do know. The UN watched it. They reported it was "free and fair". Besides, at least women got to vote - and 28% of the Afghan parliament is now female, a huge step up from 0%![2] I'd like to see YOUR source saying they were unfair!
8. Afghanis have the willingness but not the ability to change the electoral system. The local warlord would shoot their heads off at the very suggestion. That's why only an intimidating force would work. Not a whole bunch of rabble.
9. I've already told you, Taliban propaganda does not target NATO. That's why Osama Bin Laden always refers to "the crusader state" [the US] as opposed to "the crusader states" [US+allies]. Sometimes he does mention "the crusader state and it's allies", but from the context it is clear he is always talking about international Zionism.
10. You suggest an alternative future with no reason behind it. Why would the US retreat?
11. Apparently the removal of NATO leaves no enemies for the Taliban to attack. So by your logic the United States are not the enemies of the Taliban. Something seems a bit wrong here...
12. Yes, that's the effect on US citizens - more patriotism. But what about the rest of the world. Let me give you some analysis - if the US fights the war on terror on its own, Argentina is going to collectively think about how the US gets away with imposing sanctions others clearly do not condone (or else why did they retreat?) on fringe minority groups (the Taliban). That's sending the wrong message and it's bad for the US Army.
13. If there are no police in Afghanistan, the people suffer. By training police, the NATO forces improve the lives of Afghan people.
14. In this point my opponent believes the US and the Taliban will just randomly stop fighting so that the Taliban can quickly carry out some anti-narcotics operations. I was almost going to rebut that point, but honestly, this point totally fails on any standard of plausibility. If my opponent is going to bring such outrageous claims he should be prepared to provide some evidence to back up his assertions.

On his substantive contentions:
1. My opponent thinks the problem of corruption can only be solved by the Taliban. I'd like to ask my opponent why. I've already told you that the reason NATO is not busy solving the problem of corruption is because Al Qaeda are hampering their efforts. Therefore they must first destroy Al Qaeda, then the warlords. Who's to say that the most powerful military force in the world cannot deal with a few scattered warlords causing this devastating corruption?
2. My opponent does not fathom my first speech's major contentions and their relevance to the moot. Let me make this abundantly clear to you - by destroying Al Qaeda, you improve Afghan lives. Al Qaeda, with the Taliban, were in command of one of the most notorious regimes in the world in terms of human rights abuses. We're talking women with no rights, public flogging/execution and the mass execution of Shia Muslims.[3]
3. My opponent believes the Taliban have the capability to strike Kabul. Not in the last few years! Name one strike within the past year or so on the Afghani capital in order to prove this point. I also argue that previous strikes were not aimed at harming local military installations but causing widespread fear, however that is another argument for when my opponent has actually substantiated his claim!
4. My opponent says that insurgents are not terrorists. Again, he lacks any evidence. Thesaurus.com says otherwise.[4]
5. My opponent says that no war is moral, no matter how low the casualties. But what if the war were ended. How many more would be killed then. I would not be surprised if 100% are because they "collaborated with Karzai, Bush and other infidels". Al Qaeda has made it clear on numerous occasions that collaborators with infidels are to be killed along with the infidels.
6. "NATO may not bomb civilian centers, but it does bomb civilians." - how? Not like your average Afghani family is going to have a picnic among the rocks where the Taliban trenches so happen to be!
7. In response to the whole "what if there were no invasion" thing - the moot is in the present tense. Right now, NATO ARE IMPROVING LIVES. The question is not whether they destroyed them in the past (which by the way, they didn't).
8. "NATO and the US are legally one and the same." How can you say this, given all the analysis I have given that they are not! The German army would be offended!
9. On my response to question number 8. I'm not familiar with this debating style, but since my opponent asked for a given piece of information, how does me providing that information using existing details to formulate a really obvious pre-hinted-at argument constitute an invalid response? If that's the case then every single one of my opponent's responses is invalid too!

How does one improve quality of life? I've proved that the GDP has risen. I've proved that the Afghani people have more rights. I've proved that, thanks to NATO, they actually stand a chance of not being caught up in a war in the future. I've proved that, thanks to NATO, the Afghani civilians are the most protected war-zone civilians in history. I've proved that NATO alone is able to do something about corruption, and that they are the last source of hope for the Afghani people by virtue of this fact. I've given cogent analysis as to why NATO's pacification of the people of Afghanistan is a good thing. My opponent has neither rebutted any of this nor made a case of his own. He dodges the issues and fails to provide any good sources to back up the vast majority of his assertions. This is why his case fails. This is why the moot stands. This is why I'm proud to propose. Vote pro for a brighter Afghani future!

Extra Sources
1 - http://www.globalsecurity.org...
2 - http://en.wikipedia.org...
3 - http://en.wikipedia.org...
4 - http://thesaurus.com...
Debate Round No. 4
merciless

Con

This round is the second crossfire, I will answer my opponent's crossfire in the comments section.

1. I apparently misread my opponent's first question, but that doesn't matter unless my opponent can answer this question: how can NATO presence be beneficial to the Afghans if the US Army kills more Afghan civilians directly than the insurgents?
2. According to the Economist Magazine, there are less than 300 al Qaeda members in Afghanistan. Why are we in Afghanistan if the majority of al Qaeda is in Pakistan? Also, wouldn't it make sense to destroy the supply lines before you attacked an enemy base?
3. NATO is in Afghanistan because the US is in Afghanistan. NATO is a group of countries that agreed to treat one member country's enemy as their common enemy. If the US had the ability to turn the other cheek on 9/11, NATO would not be in Afghanistan. Therefore, how can one say that the US doesn't control NATO if the US's presence is the only reason for NATO's presence?
4. What sources deluded you into thinking that Karzai's police have murdered only that single woman?
5. What obliges the Taliban or the Karzai government to state anything about opium? Please explain.
6. An intimidating force to change the electoral system? What force do you mean? NATO hasn't dealt with warlords for 9 years, and apparently you don't support the Taliban.
7. Isn't Osama part of al Qaeda instead of the Taliban? Prove that Taliban propaganda even exists.
8. If NATO leaves and the US get the message why wouldn't they retreat?
9. Please clarify what you mean in your 12th point last round.
10. What gave you the idea that Taliban police were any less competent than NATO police?
11. NATO includes the United States. Don't you agree?
12. When have I ever stated that corruption can only be solved by the Taliban?
13. When do you expect NATO to finish off al Qaeda? In another 9 years? In another hundred years? When are they going to start dealing with the warlords? Who's to say they won't just leave once al Qaeda's destroyed?
14. How does your first contention have anything to do with what you said about the Taliban regime? Propaganda and regime are 2 different things.
15. How do the Taliban not have the ability to strike Kabul? They attacked it on the 18th of January (1).
16. How are insurgents and terrorists in any sense the same thing? Dictionary.com, essentially the same website you used, says they are different.
17. You say that Al Qaeda makes it clear that collaborators would be killed. How does al Qaeda's promise have anything to do with the Taliban, and how do you know that the collaborators include everyone, or even the majority of Afghans?
18. The debate is about whether Afghans are better off with NATO in their country. Don't you agree?
19. How do your contentions imply anything at all? Please explain.
20. How have you proved anything you said in the last round? Your contentions were that NATO neutralizes Taliban propaganda and that the US can't fight terror by itself.

I will be awaiting my opponent's response. I believe that I've proven that NATO is the bane of Afghanistan instead of the blessing. Vote CON.

Sources for entire debate:
1. http://abcnews.go.com...
2. http://dictionary.reference.com...
3. http://dictionary.reference.com...
larztheloser

Pro

Responses to my opponent's questions:

Qn 1 ("Doesn't the US Army kill more civilians than insurgents?")
None of my opponent's sources indicate this. In any event, that is not what this debate is about. We're not talking about how poor life has become because of the US presence. We're talking about whether NATO makes this better or worse.

Qn 2 ("Are there not more AL Q members in Pakistan?")
The Economist is acting on the basis of an estimate. NATO don't believe the estimates of that particular periodical. But on an unrelated aside to this entire debate, if the entire war was waged from the one front, the supply line would come from the other. Recent major offensives have been taking place in Pakistan, and a war has been ongoing since about 2004 (http://en.wikipedia.org...)

Qn 3 ("Are there any reasons for the NATO presence other than the US presence?")
Yes. As I told you way back in my first speech, it's not like the US is the only country with a stake in finishing the war on terror. London, Spain and so forth have all been terrorist targets themselves. Were it not for 9/11, Afghanistan would have been invaded anyway. Other countries such as Canada are fighting now to avoid being a target themselves in the future.

Qn 4 ("Do you imagine that only one woman has faced injustice?")
I now appreciate my response on this earlier has been misread, for this I apologize. The word "but" in my earlier response is in the archaic sense of the word, being synonymous with "even", yet my opponent read it in the modern sense of "all except." No woman has faced any more injustice than any man under Taliban society. Taliban rulers had punishments that were far more grievous. Karzai runs a fair judicial system, so far as is possible. My opponent has not been able to substantiate his claim of worse punishments under Karzai with a source, unlike me (see my last round).

Qn 5 ("What obliges the Taliban or the Karzai government to state anything about opium?")
The UN obliges the Karzai government because they're in the country, could check for themselves if they wanted to, and want to discredit Karzai in favor of a more moderate leader. The Taliban are also obliged by the UN, but they want to give the world the message their Islamic state is perfect, and nobody is able to check on them directly.

Qn 6 ("How can NATO be both forceful and yet not be dealing with the warlords?")
NATO is not forceful towards warlords because they are busy fighting Al Qaeda. Their plan is to first destroy Al Qaeda, second disarm the warlords, and third stabilize the country so that if there is a common problem with the electoral system (which I deny there is) they can work it out, in collaboration with the people of Afghanistan. My case is that this is the most fair way of going about it, rather than having the Taliban come back in using force.

Qn 7 ("Prove Taliban propaganda exists")
See http://www.time.com...

Qn 8 ("If NATO leaves why wouldn't the US retreat?")
Out of concern for the Afghani people who would die under the new Taliban government AND out of concern for the safety of their citizens (we all know that they're capable of!)

Qn 9 ("Clarify pt 12 rnd 4")
The effect on US citizens is patriotism. But the effect on US observers and foreign states is the encouragement of a world police view. It doesn't get much clearer than that!

Qn 10 ("Taliban police are better than NATO police")
Yes, they are better at torturing and murdering people. But as for protecting people, NATO police seem to be doing the job just as well. The difference is that Afghanis need no longer live in fear.

Qn 11 ("Nato includes the United States")
Agreed. But they are not the United States, nor are they legally the same, nor are they exclusively the United States. I do not understand how this bit of information helps your contention.

Qn 12 ("When have I ever stated that corruption can only be solved by the Taliban?")
When you asked question #6

Qn 13 ("When do you expect NATO to finish off al Qaeda?")
So long as NATO does not withdraw, the war can be won quite soon. At the present rate of taking land, the war should be over within 5 years, no longer than 15. Regardless of when they do it, in doing so they are still helping the civilians.

Qn 14 ("Is your first contention about the regime or propaganda?")
It's about the regime. I've never mentioned propaganda in the context of my first contention.

Qn 15 ("How do the Taliban not have the ability to strike Kabul?")
Even if your source is accurate, the point is that they were not striking there to harm the installations (they did not attack a NATO base but rather Karzai's house). It is because they were trying to spread fear.

Qn 16 ("What about the definition on dictionary.com?")
Doesn't really matter what the wording of the definitions is if they're synonymous.

Qn 17 ("How are Al Qaeda connected to the Taliban?")
Closely. They are fighting on the same side of the war on terror right now. Once they ruled Afghanistan together. (source: http://en.wikipedia.org...)

Qn 18 ("Is the moot the moot?")
Yes.

Qn 19 ("Could you please waste your word count by restating and explaining all your arguments?")
No.

Qn 20 ("Did I prove anything in round 4?")
Yes. I proved my opponent's arguments were fallacious. If you'd like to see some of my contentions, please scroll back to rounds 2 and 3.

My 15 questions:
1) If the war on terror was a given, don't you agree that the best thing NATO can do is to minimize the harm to civilians and finish the war soon? If so, please counter my analysis that this is exactly what they have been doing.
2) Would you rather have Muhammed Omar (Taliban leader) or Hamid Karzai as your president? Why?
3) If Afghanis wanted Muhammed Omar, why do you suppose so few voted for him?
4) Why do you think NATO forces are there in the first place? Have any of these reasons changed?
5) How do you, objectively, measure progress in a country? On this scale, how has Karzai been faring?
6) What, specifically, is wrong with me using GDP to make said estimate of standard of living and progress?
7) Why do people commit terrorism - is it to inspire terror or destroy NATO bases?
8) If the US had turned the other cheek on 9/11, don't you think that Al Qaeda would simply have slapped the other one too?
9) Earlier you said my response to qn 8, crossfire 1 was invalid. Could you please explain that logic?
10) I ask again, if NATO leaves, what reasons would the US have for retreating?
11) If Karzai does have ulterior motives as you suppose, how will NATO retreating help the general Afghani population?
12) More than 30,000 insurgents have been killed in combat (earlier wikipedia source) - what source tells you more than this number have died in civilians? If you have no such source, don't you agree your question #1 is misleading?
13) Without NATO, don't you agree that the war on terror would be harder to win?
14) Please tell us whether you still think NATO do not pacify the general population of Afghanistan?
15) Why are you not voting pro right now? Please do.
Debate Round No. 5
24 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Cbarber 6 years ago
Cbarber
I would really like to debate this topic again.
Would anybody like to have a debate with me over this topic?

First off, Afghanistan citizens build up 90% of the Taliban. So killing Taliban is against the resolved.
Unmanned aircraft? Drones are in Pakistan buddy.

Also, should you be wishing to know, NATO was actually founded in 1949 to prevent nuclear war with Russia, and also, NATO = North Atlantic Treaty Organization. It's not relevant if the US controls it or not.
Posted by Xenith967 6 years ago
Xenith967
Wether your facts were 100% correct or not this was still one of the best pf debates that i have seen in a while. but i voted pro because he made slightly more persuasive points.
Posted by Rainman715 6 years ago
Rainman715
I do belive you are thinking of CX (cross examination) debate.
Posted by larztheloser 6 years ago
larztheloser
OK, I guess I assumed "policy debate" is another buzzword name for another American format (and I was sort-of right) - so I guess policy is the American term for what we'd call a model? But once again I'm pretty sure I didn't say he would be right if he said something else. I said that NATO does not improve the lives of Afghanis. So I don't see how I'm "bargaining".
Posted by ahariton 6 years ago
ahariton
See, that would be another form of debate. Seeing as much as you love Wikipedia, notice the following from the Public forum debate page: "Similar to policy debate, the debate in public forum debate is conducted by teams of two people alternating speeches for their side, either affirming or negating their topic."

You do not offer an alternative, you say "I am right, and he is wrong for the following reasons." Not, "I am right, he is wrong, BUT he could be correct if he said this." You are not bargaining, you are proving your point in the best possible way, not going against your topic.
Posted by larztheloser 6 years ago
larztheloser
But in a value-assessment context, surely you cannot argue a value without suggesting the opposite of that value? In all other circumstances I'm pretty sure I didn't propose a counter-model.
Posted by ahariton 6 years ago
ahariton
Well, generally, you are not meant to offer alternatives to the options. Say, if I were to say, raise taxes by 20 percent, you wouldn't say "No, by 10." Instead, you should say, "We should not raise taxes by 20 percent because...." and then you state your case.
Posted by larztheloser 6 years ago
larztheloser
For every criticism of wikipedia there is a legitimate answer. I'd say news services get it wrong all the time, governments get it wrong all the time, universities get it wrong all the time - so why shouldn't wikipedia be allowed? I might do a debate challenge on this some day.

Could you explain where you thought the debate went off topic?
Posted by ahariton 6 years ago
ahariton
Just stay on topic. That was my main comment. Wikipedia is unreliable(period). It is has been intensely critized. Everything there that you want to use, lead back to where they take it from. I am personally unfamiliar with GlobalSecurity so I cannot vouch for that.
Posted by larztheloser 6 years ago
larztheloser
Plus I don't think NATO, CIA, GlobalSecruity, Wikipedia and TIME, put together, are more unreliable than my opponent, who only had ONE source (ABC news)
20 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by SimonN 6 years ago
SimonN
mercilesslarztheloserTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Vote Placed by katelyn 6 years ago
katelyn
mercilesslarztheloserTied
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:16 
Vote Placed by shadow835 6 years ago
shadow835
mercilesslarztheloserTied
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 dprieto2 6 years ago
dprieto2
mercilesslarztheloserTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:50 
Vote Placed by Flipper94 6 years ago
Flipper94
mercilesslarztheloserTied
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 wiseovvl 6 years ago
wiseovvl
mercilesslarztheloserTied
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:34 
Vote Placed by Xenith967 6 years ago
Xenith967
mercilesslarztheloserTied
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 CaoRichard164 6 years ago
CaoRichard164
mercilesslarztheloserTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:05 
Vote Placed by mm95 6 years ago
mm95
mercilesslarztheloserTied
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 suelee98 6 years ago
suelee98
mercilesslarztheloserTied
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