The Instigator
angel-of-death
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Grape
Con (against)
Winning
20 Points

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

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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
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: 1/24/2010 Category: Politics
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,584 times Debate No: 10938
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (5)
Votes (3)

 

angel-of-death

Pro

The Success of President Obama's Afghanistan Strategy depends on our ability to increase the standard of living." this was said by Michael Honda, a U.S congress man of California. he later went on to say that "The security of the American people, a priority made clear by Barrack Obama, is paramount. But it will only be made possible through a commitment to fix the conditions of insecurity in these regions." and I agree with congressman Honda because in order to over conquer the issue of terrorism, we have to hit it at the source, and that source is Afghanistan

this is why I stand in firm affirmation of this topic.

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

the instability of Afghanistan is the main reason as to why terrorism by Muslim extremist, al Qaeda and many others has been able to flourish.

which brings me to my first contention that: Afghanistan is a nation with an increasing level of active terrorist.

According to a list of terrorist organizations formed by the world trade center association, terror groups that reside in Afghanistan not only include Al Qaeda and the Taliban but also include 15 other groups. and the combined numbers in these groups are known to be from several hundred to several thousand. and to add on to that, according to an article Published in the Washington post on October 19, 2009, "the flow of terrorist recruits is increasing." so I stand here and say that obviously Afghanistan does have a terrorist problem that many people tend to over look, however, Obama's plan has brought this problem from the dark to the light, and we must act now.

Contention 2
Increasing the level of stability in Afghanistan, we would ultimately be putting ourselves in a better position in the war against terrorism.

According to an article published in late march 2009, by the guardians new and media, "Afghanistan only spends 2% of its GDP in education resulting in less than 25% secondary education enrollment, and less than 5% university enrollments and high literacy rates. with an uneducated population and many unoccupied male citizens, terrorism recruitment is as easy as possible. and even more unfortunately, on January 10, 2009, VP said that an unstable Afghanistan is a threat to us all. Obama;s plan stresses going into Afghanistan and stabilizing it as a nation. with education, a properly government, and nation control, Afghanistan will no longer be a target for terrorist recruiters, resulting in a shrink on terrorism, and ultimately ending in less of a threat to the U.S.

Contention 3
a Majority of America is in support of this plan.

According to an article published in politics daily on December 4, 2009, Americans backed up Obama's plan 62% to 36%. as we all know it is indeed America's job to tell our president how we feel, and the actions we believe should be taken in leading this country, and America has spoken. we have proved that we are ready to take action, ready to defeat the war in terrorism. and as I said before, it all begins with hitting it to the source. so evidently, with these reasons and more I hope that you can see that Barrack Obama's plan to increase troop in Afghanistan is in the United States best interest.

and I hope for a vote in Affirmation of this resolution. THANK YOU!!!!!
Grape

Con

I thank my opponent for offering this challenge. I think I will be able to demonstrate that while it would be desirable to increase stability in Afghanistan and reduce global terror, the strategy that is being proposed by the Obama administration will not achieve these ends.

C1: That the instability in Afghanistan is one of the reasons why al Qaeda and other Islamic extremists have been able to flourish in this area. There are two main flaws in this argument. One is that stability is necessarily harmful to the efforts of terrorist organizations. Stability or instability is not intrinsically correlated with the success or failure of terrorist organizations. The term stability is frequently used by the First World media with a connotation of Western control, but this is hardly what stability really means. Afghanistan was quite stable under the rule of the Taliban despite the fact that this was extremely undesirable for both the United States and the majority of the population of Afghanistan. This stability was highly conducive to conducting terrorism. Thus, it is not just stability that must be achieved but a form of stability that is detrimental to terrorism. As it stands the domestic Afghan government is extremely corrupt and can hardly be expected to prevent terror without external supervision.

The second problem here is the assumption that the Obama strategy will make Afghanistan more stable. Deploying additional troops to Afghanistan can hardly be expected to reduce the amount of violence or the tension of the situation. The amount of violence that has occurred as a result of the war can only be expected to ultimately reduce the long term stability of the region. Furthermore, by creating an environment of violence and tension, the US encourages terrorism because that is exactly the sort of environment in which terrorism thrives. The troops that are deployed to Afghanistan will only cause more instability and violence which can be blamed on the US and ultimately used as propaganda by al Qaeda. Any short term stability achieved through brute force will not outweigh this.

C2: That increasing stability in Afghanistan would put us (by this I assume you mean the United States) in a better position to counter terrorism. I will again state that by stability you mean control by Western powers since not all forms of stability are favorable. Technically speaking, I agree with this contention. Increasing stability (control) in Afghanistan would reduce terror. However, this is based on the assumption that the Obama strategy will actually achieve this, which is very unlikely. US forces cannot remain in Afghanistan indefinitely and the withdrawal schedule proposed by the Obama administration would certainly not allow for all the existed problems to be solved. The Afghan government, as I stated before, is corrupt and inept. The Afghan army is pathetic in comparison to the US forces that are currently being used for security and it shows so signs of improving in the near future.

C3: That majority of the American population is in support of this plan. The assumption here is that because US public opinion favors something, it is therefore in the best interest of the US. It is a complete logical irrationality that just because a large number of people think something, it must be a good idea. Disregarding that, US public opinion on issues like this tends to fluctuate a lot. Prior to the invasion of Iraq, a large number of Americans supported it. If you asked those same people today I doubt they would view the war as favorably. The fact that the Obama administration has been actively supporting this strategy skews public opinion even further.

Conclusion:

Though the end goal of reducing terrorism may be desirable, the strategy supported by my opponent will not achieve this. Furthermore, the points he offers in support of it will do not withstand scrutiny. They assume that because the goals of the plan are desirable, the plan itself is desirable. However, if the plan will not work in a practical sense than the desirability of its goals is not relevant.

Sources:

http://en.wikipedia.org... - This Wikipedia article demonstrates how US public opinion on an issue such as war can drastically change.

http://en.wikipedia.org...(2001%E2%80%93present) - This discusses the overall War in Afghanistan, including general details of Barack Obama's current strategy.
Debate Round No. 1
angel-of-death

Pro

Obama's plan Encourages Afghan RESPONSIBILITY by letting them know that we wont give up on them and that they themselves can do this.

PRESIDENT Barrack Obama's plan for disengaging from Afghanistan is both a unigue solution for the immediate problem in that graveyard of empires and a needed recasting of the nations foucs in its struggle againstIslamic jihadists. as such, we reluctantly endorse Obama'splan to commit 30000 more U.S. troops to afghanistan as a good-faith effort to make the best of a bad situation notof his making. underpending the idea of surging to disengage is a refreshingly candid and well-considered assessment of the limits of american power and financial means. we have too many othe rconcerns to overcommit ourselves to an Asian occupation. the genuis of Obama's reformulation of the U.S. commitment to Afghanistan is this-- Failure, if it comes, will follow a major surge of U.S. forces for about as long as it took to tame the insurgencyin Iraq.

also i would just like to say this many in america and around the world have wondered about MR.Obama's personal dedication to winning the war. the presidents speech offered a qualifed answer. He said he must "weigh all of the challenges that our nation faces," and argued against a more expansive commitment to afghanistan "because the nation I am most interest in building is our own. " But he also described powerfully the threat posed by "violent extermism" and said, "it will be an enduring test of our free society and our leadership in the world." with obvious reluctance but with clearheadedness, Mr. Obama has taken a major step toward meeting that test

also my oppoent has not given any evidence to discredit my third contention against how many people want Obama's plan to be put in action
i would also like to say that this website here "wikipedia" can be edited so it is there for discredited since anyone can change it so that it works in there favor i hope the voters take that into effect before voting.

also again my oppoent has not show anything saying that sending more troops over to Afghanistan is not in the united states best interest. so i hope that all who vote take that into effect as well.

so i do only see a aff vote in this deabt and THANK YOU!!!!!
Grape

Con

I thank my opponent for his response, but I fail to see how it has substantiated his claims. I have found it a bit difficult to understand but I will attempt to address it to the best of my ability.

C1: I do not understand the overall point that is being made in the first paragraph, but I will attempt to address it. How does deploying 30,000 troops to Afghanistan help achieve the goals of the United States? I have already given my reasons for why it does not. I fail to see how surging to disengage, as you put it, is a viable strategy. You stated that, "The genius of Obama's reformulation of the U.S. commitment to Afghanistan is this-- Failure, if it comes, will follow a major surge of U.S. forces for about as long as it took to tame the insurgency in Iraq." Supposing the operation does end in failure, as I have proposed it will, in what way does the fact that said failure follows a major surge of troops make this an ingenious idea? This strategy will not function the same way it did in Iraq because the political climate in Afghanistan is much different. The US exerts considerable influence over the Afghan government, but it does not control it in the manner it does in Iraq. That makes this short-term support strategy far less viable.

C2: Barack Obama's personal commitment to winning the war has nothing to do with the viability of his strategy. I'm sure he is very strongly committed to achieving his goals but that does not in any way mean that his plan for increasing troops is in the best interest of the American people. This fact does not support your resolution.

C3: I actually did give evidence to discredit the claim about the number of people that want Barack Obama's plan to be put in to action. I do not dispute that a large number of Americans may support it. However, just because a large number of people think something does not mean it is true. I don't think I need to got into that.

C4: Wikipedia has been used as a source on this site consistently, including by the site administration itself. It is exceptionally well run by the standard of wiki's. If you dispute any specific fact I have brought up and can offer a better source, than I will in turn look to a better source in my favor. However, simply citing information from Wikipedia does not in any way discredit my argument.

C5: I did in fact show evidence that sending more troops to Afghanistan is not in US interests because it will be used as propaganda by al Qaeda and will create a climate of violence and tension that can be blamed on the US by its enemies. However, I will admit I focused on dismissing the benefits of the plan rather than discussing the consequences. Deploying troops is an extremely expensive endeavor and the nation is already in an economic recession with a massive federal deficit. It will also be putting these troops in danger and will certain increase the number of US casualties.

Conclusion: My opponent previously concluded by stating, "also again my oppoent has not show anything saying that sending more troops over to Afghanistan is not in the united states best interest. so i hope that all who vote take that into effect as well." Though I have in fact given many reasons why this is not in the US interest, I don't believe that was even necessary. To paraphrase Noam Chomsky, the burden of proof in matters of war is always on the attacker. The burden of proof is never on the pacifist to show why going to war is a bad idea since the costs of war are universally acknowledged. As I have dismissed all the possible benefits of this offensive strategy, it cannot be in the US' best interest simply by virtue of being an act of war.
Debate Round No. 2
angel-of-death

Pro

since this is my last thing to say anything all i would like to say is that we are going over there to restablize the government so that in the future we can count on thier help to find terroristist and where they may be hiding. so that we can take them out as soon as possible. thats all we are trying to o so that they can defend them selfs.

And as one General said "an UNSTABLE AFGHANISTAN is a threat to us all."

And hope u vote with the PRO side of this debate and thank you
Grape

Con

I would like to thank for opponent for a good debate. Unfortunately he has once again neglected to state why the plan proposed by the Obama administration is in the US' best interest, instead simply stating the goals of the plan.

C1: One error my opponent made was that he said "we are going over there to restablize the government..." As I stated before, prior to 2001 the government was only unstable from a western perspective. In reality it was quite stable, but that stability resulted in an environment that was unfavorable. The invasion in 2001 was what made Afghanistan caused the instability you are referring to in the first place. What my opponent perhaps means to say is the current strategy as of 2009 is one to promote stability.

C2: Again, I do not believe that the Obama strategy is going to result in a stable Afghan government that will be useful for fighting terrorism and I have given reasons why. I have repeated this ad nauseum, just because you say the plan has goals that are favorable does not mean it's a good idea if you can't prove the plan will work. Is may be an argument ad adsurdum, but If I propose to feed the human race by harvesting cheese from the moon, it is not a good idea just because my goal is favorable. The idea must be practical and possible. My opponent has failed to prove that the idea he supports is practical and possible while I have provided ample evidence that it is not.

C3: I have no idea what general my opponent is quoting, but it is not necessary to discuss whether or not the quote is true. The fact that an unstable Afghanistan is a threat to America does not automatically make any plan to stabilize Afghanistan a good idea.

Conclusion:

While he has restated the purposes of the Obama plan numerous times, my opponent has done nothing to defend the argument that it is in the US' best interests. I would also like to note that while he criticized my use of sources, my opponent did not cite any of his own except for one which I proved not to be relevant to the debate. I have provided many reasons why this strategy is a bad idea. However, I do not even feel that this was necessary considering the fact that in the case of an act of war, the burden of proof should be on those supporting the attacker. In this case, no claims were made to explain why the Obama strategy would result in the mentioned goals being successful achieved.
Debate Round No. 3
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by m93samman 6 years ago
m93samman
this is an INCREDIBLY sad debate. I don't even know which way to vote... i will decide by the end of this comment

Neg, you didn't even provide a case. that validates pro's argument that you never show why its not in our best interest, so you lose substantial ground there.
Pro, do you even know how to debate? you never refute ANYTHING that the con says, but rather, you prefer to rant on aimlessly about a completely worthless idea that basically restates Obama's plan. I propose you look at other debates and maybe watch a few live ones before you yourself debate.
Both had grammar errors, but Pro was ridiculous...
Negative you really did a good job in summing up the debate, but again nothing was really presented as a "con" argument, it was all really "anti-pro"; i.e. you negated insofar as you attacked pro's arguments, but you never legitimately made an argument off of which you gained ground. Moreover i didn't really buy into your arguments against pro because they were so weak and superficial... anyways i decided

RFD: con wins because pro never really debated, but rather devoured this debate in the pro world into a vortex of endless monologue. nowhere does pro debate the resolution in this round. although con lacked persuasive argumentation, pro lacked argumentation. good luck in the future guys
Posted by Cherymenthol 6 years ago
Cherymenthol
RFD:

Conduct: Tie

Grammar: I noticed a few punctuation, capitalization issues with the PRO's "final focus", so CON.

Arguments: CON, Final focuses some up the round.

Sources: CON, "a general" was one of the more humorous on the PRO...
Posted by angel-of-death 6 years ago
angel-of-death
quote*****
Posted by angel-of-death 6 years ago
angel-of-death
lol ok

in my last speech on the last uote us=all friends
Posted by philosphical 6 years ago
philosphical
haha Obama saying that he would take troops out of the of afghanastan was BS. He only said that to get people to vote for him. It was congressman like him and Clinton who proposed it when Bush was in office as well. Oh well I guess I can't complain, because I do think the action is the right won. I just thinks it's funny how some people will say and do anything to get into office, even if it means lying to the world.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by jetbey 6 years ago
jetbey
angel-of-deathGrapeTied
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 m93samman 6 years ago
m93samman
angel-of-deathGrapeTied
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 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 Cherymenthol 6 years ago
Cherymenthol
angel-of-deathGrapeTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:06