The Instigator
fhsdebatenovice
Pro (for)
Losing
3 Points
The Contender
MaddieJBudnyRKHS
Con (against)
Winning
7 Points

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

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  
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: 1/5/2010 Category: News
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,323 times Debate No: 10704
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (4)
Votes (2)

 

fhsdebatenovice

Pro

I want to debate this case again.
MaddieJBudnyRKHS

Con

I do not believe that Obama's increase of troops in Afghanistan is in the USA's best interest.
I believe this because the military approach has not solved the problem. The structure of the terrorist cells makes this so. I think that the government should look into other means of solving the "war" on terror. It doesn't have to be a war.
Historically, peaceful and diplomatic efforts have gained more long term effects and war has gained more short term. Short term results may be good, but what's the point if they don't last?
I do not have an exact answer for this alternate means of handling the problem, but I refuse to believe that more troops is the only way.
Also, bringing troops home was part of Obama's campaign that helped him win the presidency. If we can't trust that our president will do what he said he would, the country as a whole will not be strong.
Debate Round No. 1
fhsdebatenovice

Pro

General McChrystal said to reporters that the 30,000 extra US reinforcements would "provide us the ability to reverse insurgent momentum and deny the Taliban the access to the population they require to survive". Obama's plan is to send 30,000 into Afghanistan to deny Al Qaeda, The Taliban and other radical Islamic groups a safe haven and to give power to the local government after they beat the militants. My partner and I affirm today's resolution: President Obama's plan for increasing troops in Afghanistan is in the United States' best interest. I'd like to offer the following definition for clarity during this debate: President Obama's Plan: To send another 30,000 troops to Afghanistan who will be pulled out after 18 months .Power will also be given to the local governments. Best: Excelling all others
Contention #1 President Obama's plan will prevent terrorism
Since 2001, Coalition forces have been fighting Al Qaeda, The Taliban and other radical Islamic groups who are trying to gain a foothold in Afghanistan. Yet during Bush's administration, there was no major troop increase to Afghanistan. Since then, 866 American forces have died and the number of casualties has doubled in the past year. That is part of the reason this war has been dragging on for so many years taking more lives each year. Sending more troops will end this conflict and save more lives as it has in the past. In 2007, Former President George W. Bush sent an extra 20,000 troops to Iraq. Since then, the number of deaths in Iraq has decreased tremendously. In December of 2009, 0 troops have died in combat died in Iraq. Therefore, troop surges have empirically worked in stopping violence. Not only will ousting the Taliban and Al Qaeda save American troops but it will also save innocent Afghani civilians who died from the many human right violations which the Taliban committed during their rule.
Contention #2 Afghanistan security is vital to Pakistan security
In 2001, a US led invasion kicked the Taliban out of Kabul and forced them and Al Qaeda to move to remote rocky hideouts on the border of Pakistan and Afghanistan. After that we moved our attention to Iraq and during that time, the Taliban and Al Qaeda again got power and had been operating in both Pakistan and Afghanistan. If we do not send more troops to Afghanistan, these radical Islamic groups will take over Afghanistan and will threaten Pakistan. Al Qaeda and the Taliban have been fighting so hard and for so long since they want to get a strategic foothold in Afghanistan. After establishing this foothold, they will be able to threaten Pakistan and its weak government for its nuclear weapons which will threaten the US. By sending more troops we do not allow them to take over, get the nuclear weapons, threaten the USA and therefore is in best interest of the USA.
Contention #3 It will help stop the drug trafficking and undercut the Taliban's main source of income, drugs.
According to the World Bank, as much as 1/3 of Afghanistan's exports are opium, a dangerous drug which can be made into heroin. According to the United Nations 92% of the worlds heroin comes from the impoverished fields in Afghanistan. Obviously, drugs are very important to Afghanistan's economy, but we must be careful to who the money is going to. The Taliban and other anti-government forces are making massive amounts of money from the drug business. In Afghanistan, authorities impose a charge on economic activity, traditionally set at 10% of income. Opium farming may have generated $50-$70 million of such income in 2008. Furthermore, levies imposed on opium processing and trafficking may have raised an additional $200-$400 million. "With so much drug-related revenue, it is not surprising that the insurgents' war machine has proven so resilient, despite the heavy pounding by Afghan and allied forces", said the Executive Director of UNODC ( United Nations on Drugs and Crime), Antonio Maria Costa. A vital part of Obama's plan is counter narcotics. With the extra amount of troops we will be able to destroy these opium crops taking away a major source of income for the Taliban. This itself will be able to weaken it and allow the US to attack.
Sending more troops is in USA's best interest because lives will be saved not only because the war will end faster but also because the drugs from Afghanistan will be eliminated. We also ensure Afghanistan's security which is vital for Pakistan security, the country with the nuclear weapons. I urge a pro ballot in today's debate.
MaddieJBudnyRKHS

Con

First of all, the word of one General should not be enough to sway a vote.
Contention #1: The evidence of Iraq should not be a basis, because obviously Iraq is a different country with a different structure. How can we know the results will be the same?
And terrorists are fully capable to work around security measures. The evidence can be seen on our own soil with the attempted terrorist attack on Christmas Day. They will be able to work even more effectively in a country they are familiar with and a country that's presently much much weaker than our own.
Therefore contention #2 is irrelevant. A pro-ballot vote does not solve for this contention as shown by my argument on contention #1.
And contention #3 is not significant enough to sway a vote. A troop surge puts more people at risk without significant results in this case. Stopping some drug trafficking is not worth the lives. It also should be a back burner issue to the issue of terrorism, which the affirmative has yet to solve for.
Debate Round No. 2
fhsdebatenovice

Pro

fhsdebatenovice forfeited this round.
MaddieJBudnyRKHS

Con

Thank you for the debate.
Debate Round No. 3
fhsdebatenovice

Pro

fhsdebatenovice forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
fhsdebatenovice

Pro

fhsdebatenovice forfeited this round.
MaddieJBudnyRKHS

Con

And we're done.
Debate Round No. 5
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by Itsallovernow 6 years ago
Itsallovernow
I recognize this debate from James.ticknor.
Posted by ilovedebate 6 years ago
ilovedebate
foothill high school?
Posted by bambiii 6 years ago
bambiii
best interest.
Posted by Zetsubou 6 years ago
Zetsubou
Best what?

Best for increasing troops in Afghanistan?
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Demauscian 6 years ago
Demauscian
fhsdebatenoviceMaddieJBudnyRKHSTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 rougeagent21 6 years ago
rougeagent21
fhsdebatenoviceMaddieJBudnyRKHSTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03