The Instigator
Deathbeforedishonour
Pro (for)
Losing
9 Points
The Contender
PartamRuhem
Con (against)
Winning
11 Points

Resolved: The U.S. should not invade Iran

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 4 votes the winner is...
PartamRuhem
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/12/2011 Category: Politics
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,055 times Debate No: 19248
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (11)
Votes (4)

 

Deathbeforedishonour

Pro

I would like to debate the topic above. I'll be pro, and my opponent will be con. The first round will be for acceptance only. I wish whoever accepts this debate luck.
PartamRuhem

Con

I accept.
Debate Round No. 1
Deathbeforedishonour

Pro


Greetings, I will be affirming the resolution that the United States should not go to war with Iran. My hopes are that after this debate that most people that see this will consider that a descision to go to war with Iran would be a foolish descision that would result in needless American casualties and the deaths of countless innocent civilians. I would like to wish luck to my opponent because he is surely going to need it. Now on with the debate!



C1: Too many American troops would die.


In the last ten years the U.S. has gone war in the Middle-East in two different countries. In both of these we have lost tens of thousands of valuable service men and women. The people they fight are of the same ideology as Iran, they are not armed with seffisticated weapons as we are, and yet we have suffered heavy casualties. Now there are people who say we should go to war with Iran, a more organized and heavier equipped army that is well prepared for a invasion. The people of Iran would rally to the defense of their country, and we would lose many men because of it. Iran would become another Veitnam, therefore we should not invade Iran, there would be too mant casualties.



C2: World Opinion


World opinion is against going to war with Iran. Iran has close connections to Russia and China, and other countries that would easily back them up. Are economy is dependant on trade with countries like China and Pakistan. In the case of a war with one of their allies we would seen as in the wrong by many nations, and this would pave the way for many problems with us and our current friends. We would become the new Nazi Germany in the eyes of the world, which would hurt us a lot.



C3: No cash no troops.


War is a expensive thing to do. We have already been in to in the last decade, and we have suffered greatly in our economy for it. We have lost tens of thousands of troops from troops and farmers that were not even trained. If we go to war with Iran we there would be a huge chance of a economic crash, and heavy casualties from troops who are well trained and fanatical about defending their country from foreign invaders.


I will await my opponent's rebuttals and arguments.


Vote Pro!

PartamRuhem

Con

I thank my opponent for instigating this debate. It should be interesting and entertaining.

I will be arguing that the U.S. should indeed invade Iran. This round will contain my opening argument, the next round I will refute my opponents points.

In the comments section of this debate, my opponent has agreed that I can use an Iran in the future (not too far in the future) as the Iran I debate about. This will play a role in one of my contentions. The argument I will present will be in three segments. Past, Present, and Future

Definitions
Should- must; ought (used to indicate duty, propriety, or expediency) [1]

National security- "The security of the United States, its citizens, and U.S. allies and partners;
A strong, innovative, and growing U.S. economy in an open international economic system that promotes opportunity and prosperity;
Respect for universal values at home and around the world; and
An international order advanced by U.S. leadership that promotes peace, security, and opportunity through stronger cooperation to meet global challenges" [2]

1. Iran has committed acts of war against us.

PAST
Iran, as a government, is unfriendly with our people. This is more than a mere quarrel, however. They have attacked our personnel and killed our citizens, something that cannot be overlooked, nor excused. Multiple instances show Iran to be behind those who pulled the trigger against our people. They are as follows:

A. Attack on U.S. Embassy in Beirut, 1983- Killed 63, 11 of which were Americans. A suicide bomber drove a vehicle packed with explosives into the embassy. This was considered a religious based attack by the group Islamic Jihad. The group was backed by Hezbollah and Iran. [3]

B. Attack on U.S. Barracks in Beirut, 1984- Killed 241 Americans. The most deadly terrorist attack prior to 9/11, this attack was backed by Hezbollah. The Iranian Ismalal Ascari drove the truck that entered the compound and blew it up, resulting in what was "the largest non-nuclear explosion that had ever been detonated on the face of the Earth" [4].

"Court rulings later pointed to Iran and the Iranian-backed Shiite militia Hezbollah as having a role in the embassy and barracks attacks." [3] We see Iran to be behind these unprovoked attacks. This is an atrocity to our people, the biggest terrorist attack before 9/11, as I stated. Something of this magnitude warrants action. If Iran can't handle it's own problems (Hezbollah), then we need to handle them. We do this by invading into Iran, and neutralizing the threats.

In accordance with my definition of should, it's the duty of the American government to uphold national security, meaning that they "should" uphold national security. To uphold national security, a country's people must be protected. If we see reoccurring attacks on our people, its then justifiable to say that we should intervene and end said attacks. In this case, it was in relation to Hezbollah and Iran.

PRESENT

I will now discuss the issues presented by the modern day Iran, and why we should invade Iran because of it.

A. Iran threatened to block the Straight of Hormuz.
Iran, through the means of their navy, threatened to block the Persian Gulf (straight of Hormuz) if the UN was to put sanctions on it's nuclear program in 2010. This is threatening to the whole world economy, as 40% of the world's oil comes out of that gulf [5]. The Iranian navy also searched a French and Italian ship, and stated they would search any other warship or cargo ship that were to pass through this area.

The Iranian's even boast as to have the gulf under their command. "Iran's Navy Commander Rear Admiral Habibollah Sayyari said the war games aimed to demonstrate that Iran has full control over shipping activities in the Gulf area."[5]

B. Iran detained 3 American citizens for the course of 2 years. [6]

It's no surprise that Iran would arrest three hikers that got too close to their borders; Iran is likely hiding something. For such an aggravated, unjust arrest, there needs to be a driving cause. The cause for the Iranians is instability and secrecy.

These actions, along with the ones in the past, show Iran to be unstable and dangerous. Evidence of Iran helping train, fund, and harbor terrorist groups are plentiful. "A set of classified documents leaked by the website WikiLeaks.org in July 2010 reports extensive collaboration between Iran and the Taliban, Afghan warlords, and al-Qaeda." And according to declassified intelligence reports released by the Combating Terrorism Center at West Point in October 2008, Iranian support to militants in Iraq has included "paramilitary training, weapons, and equipment". [7]

With such unpredictable behavior, and the precedent they have set of harboring and helping terrorists, they are a threat to our national security. As such, they should be invaded by the U.S. and the government toppled.

FUTURE

I will now discuss a future Iran as previously stated.

It's no secret that Iran is developing nuclear capabilities. Just this year, they state that they will develop enriched uranium to 20%. This is no longer peaceful purposes on the part of the Iranians. Let me simplify what this means. There are only a couple uses of 20% uranium on the civilian level. But none of the civilian nuclear power stations that Iran claims to be developing can this 20% be used in. "Predominantly it is used as fuel for research reactors, producing among other things isotopes for medical use" [8] Iran doesn't answer well to these facts either. The International Atomic Energy Agency tries to make sure these nuclear capabilities are indeed being put to civilian use, but to no avail. "Iran has a persistent record of evasion and obfuscation with the IAEA. It has failed to provide the IAEA with access to relevant locations, equipment, persons or documents. It has not replied to questions from the IAEA on its procurement of nuclear-related items and aspects of its work that could be useful only for developing a nuclear weapon" [8]

At this point, we see Iran to be developing nuclear capabilities.

Now, in the future, Iran will have these capabilities and their track record shows that they are not afraid to deliberately harm others. At this point, they would have defied the sanctions of the UN, lied to the IAEA and the rest of the world, and be in possession of the most destructive weapon that this world has seen. We mustn't be naive; thinking they would be peaceful is ignorant to the facts, and to the past. Who knows who their targets would be, or if they would sell these weapons to the highest bidder. There is no good scenario there though. Invasion and destruction of Iranian nuclear plants and silos would be necessary, in order for the United States to be performing it's duty to protect national security.

|Conclusion|
Iran has performed inexcusable atrocities against us on multiple occasions. They fund the very terrorists that kill our soldiers, kill our civilians. Invasion of Iran is necessary to stop a future nuclear Iran from either detonating a nuclear bomb on us or our allies, or handing the bomb to a group such as Al-Quaeda, the Taliban, or Hezbollah. Multiple logical connections between Iran and an infringement of our national security exist; they must be dealt with.

Thank You.

Sources
1. http://dictionary.reference.com...
2. http://en.wikipedia.org...
3. http://articles.latimes.com...
4. http://www.cbsnews.com...
5. http://www.israelnationalnews.com...
6. http://www.democracynow.org...
7. http://www.cfr.org...
8. http://www.guardian.co.uk...
Debate Round No. 2
Deathbeforedishonour

Pro

I thank my opponent for his response.


R1: Past & Present

All of these attacks were provoked by the United States. My opponent states that U.S. troops were attacked in Beirut, but to this I ask a question; What was U.S. troops doing over in that country? The answer is quite easy since you can find it all over the news and news papers, and magazines. The U.S. has been aggressing the the Middle-East. Our imperialism has has given them their reason and it has swelled their ranks. Their are U.S. bases in almost all of the arab countries, and we have even made war on their people.

One good example would be the Gulf War and Operation 'Iraqi Freedom'. When Iraq invaded Kuwait, we went right over there to back them up, and did not stop until the the Iraqi army left Kuwait. After this Iraq made peace and did not start another war [1]. Six years later after 9/11 occurred, the Bush administration sent troops to invade Iraq without probable cause, and evenually one after thousands of Iraqi's were killed [2].

And lets not forget the civilian casualties of these wars, and the innocent people killed in the conflicts fought by the U.S. against the arab nations. In afganistan it is estimated that ruffly 66,215 civilians have been killed so far [3], in the Iraq war it is estimated that 113,125 civilians have been killed [4], in Lybia it is confirmed that there are 5,608 civilian casualties [5]. With these and many more civilian deaths caused by U.S. and NATO forces not including the amount of soldiers that have lost there lives in fight against the U.S. imperialist expansion, How can you possibly state that the U.S. was provoked? How can you blame Iran for defending their neighbors and themselves? We would not be attacked by these people if we woulf only just leave them alone.


R2: Future

While it is true that Iran will have nuclear capablilties, we and our allies are perfectly prepared for that day. We have ABMs that can shoot any nuclear missles out of the sky before they reach their targets [6]. We have them ready to shoot down ICBMs from North Korea [7]. So, in the case that Iran becomes a nuclear state they wont be able to use their nuclear capabilities for anyting but power, which is completely harmless and most likely would harm the U.S. or it's allies in any way.
I will now await my opponent's response.
Vote Pro! :)
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org...(2001%E2%80%93present)
PartamRuhem

Con

I will address my opponent's arguments, then I will go on to defend my own points. I would like to point out to the reader's that more than half of my opponent's sources are from wikipedia...

C1: Too many American troops would die.

My opponent has not listed ANY source for the amount of American casualties, the arms the terrorist's we are fighting are equipped with, nor anything that strengthens his statement that Iran is ready for an invasion. This whole contention should be discarded, for it is irrelevant. However, it should still be addressed. American deaths are a sad thing, but necessary to prevent a future catastrophe that Iran is certainly capable, and willing, to create. Our army is a volunteer one, so our well prepared soldiers know what they are getting into. Letting something like death hold us back would have changed the history of this world. Think of WWII, and if none of our soldiers gave their lives to defend this world. The loss of life isn't something you can skip if you want to be safe in this world. At the Bombing and landing of Okinawa, 7,272 American marines and navy personal lost their lives [1]. That was one battle. In Iraq and Afghanistan COMBINED, we have lost a total of 6,320 [2]. This is against terrorist groups who use unorthodox tactics as well, something Iran would not implement, seeing as they are an actual army with an actual government.

C2. World Opinion.

Since when was it completely relevant to go off the status quo of other countries? What are we, dogs that act on command? We need to invade Iran to preserve our own safety. Again, my opponent doesn't back up his sources that China and Russia would back Iran. On top of this, it's funny he should say we would seem like Nazi Germany in the eyes of the world. It's actual quite the opposite. Most countries in the UN are pulling for higher levels of sanctions against Iran, specifically nuclear development. Members of the EU also have imposed sanctions, as have Canada, Australia, South Korea, Israel, India, Japan, and others [3]. My opponents second point falls.

C3. No cash no troops

This contention is a very unsubstantiated one, and is invalid, for my opponent hasn't provided any proof behind his opinions. On top of this, note that I am not arguing for a full blown war with Iran, but simply an invasion, which is what the resolution states.

I will now defend my case.

R1: Their are multiple things wrong with my opponent' response. He state's that we were "aggressing" the middle east, but this is not the case. An embassy, which is placed through mutual understanding, cannot be considered an aggression on the middle east. Beirut is located in Lebanon, east of Iran. Way east. If Iran were to back the attack on the Lebanese-American peaceful embassy and strategically located barracks, then we can consider them mentally unstable, seeing as these American's were not imposing anything on the Iranians. In fact, the Iranians could have lived every day the same without having attacked that embassy. There are ambassadors and embassys located within the United States....we don't freak out and drive trucks full of explosives into them because the are "aggressive". The thought is asinine.

Further more, we have not made war with the people of a certain country. We have declared war on terrorist groups, such as Al-Qada and the Taliban, groups responsible for causing thousands of innocent lives to end. To answer the Kuwait example....I'm not sure how this exactly relates to the resolution....if Pro is trying to give an example of unjustifiable attacks in the U.S. history, he picked a horrible invasion. The Gulf War was very justified; Hussein was attempting to control Kuwait's oil supply, something that would have given him the power and wealth to control all the middle east, which would give him more than 80% of the oil in the world. There, we have another Hitler. What we did was squash him before he bloomed into a wold wide threat.

My opponent then goes on to talk about the civilian casualties, a completely irrelevant tirade on how many civilians have been killed. This has nothing to do with an invasion on Iran based on their nuclear capabilities. Notice how my opponent doesn't say how many civilians were killed by "their own people". The majority of civilian deaths are caused by the terrorist groups we are at war with.

R2: Let me get this straight. My opponent concedes that Iran has nuclear capabilities, and I have shown that Iran isn't afraid to fire these nukes, yet my opponent advocates for letting this happen?? What would the reader rather have? An air invasion of Iraq that involves their nuclear reactors and missile silos to be destroyed, or an Iranian nuclear launch on American soil, which we hopefully will shoot down. From my opponent's own source, ""It might take more than one shot to hit the missile -- and the United States has a very small number of GBIs." [4] Also from that same source, "In two of those tests, in December 2004 and on Feb. 14, 2005, the GBIs never launched at all." We see my opponent's plan to be shoddy at best. Even if this were to be the plan of action, this is considered an invasion, for striking another countries missiles out of the air "...could be interpreted as an act of war." [4]

He then tries to say they would only be able to use their nuclear capabilities for power. As I have already stated, Iran has developed it's nuclear capabilities past civilian power use. Further U.N. reports show Iran to be hiding nuclear capabilities. The report, from this month, found the following:

� Documents suggesting that Iran "was working on a project to secure a source of uranium suitable for use in an undisclosed enrichment program" to make bomb fuel.

� Evidence that Iran "had been provided with nuclear explosive design information."

� Information that it worked on experiments with conventional explosives to compress metal into an incredibly dense mass suitable to start a chain reaction.

� Documentation of "at least 14 progressive design iterations" for a missile warhead to deliver an atomic warhead to a distant target.

This is all cited as my fifth source.

|Conclusion|

My opponent has dropped my arguments that Iran has attacked us unjustifiably in the past, making it lawful grounds for an invasion. These attacks also show that Iran has set a precedent of unwarranted attacks on the United States. We cannot rule out the possibility that they will fire nukes at us if they obtain them. In fact, we should embrace that as likely. Through my opponent's stance on the resolution, we would have to wait for them to launch the missiles and attempt to shoot them down with rarely tested faulty equipment, which is still considered an invasion. He concedes that Iran has nukes, he concedes that they might use them, yet advocates for NO preemptive strike, but to wait.

Basically, Pro wants to get nuked.

Vote Con

Sources

1. http://www.history.navy.mil...
2. http://www.usatoday.com...
3. http://en.wikipedia.org...
4. http://www.spacewar.com...
5. http://www.nytimes.com...
Debate Round No. 3
Deathbeforedishonour

Pro

I would like to thank my opponent for his response, and I would also like to like to point out that there is nothing wrong with wikipedia and that all of the info in the site can be matched to a normal encyclopedia in book form. The points that I backed up with wikipedia are that of wars that we all hear about on the news and read in are school books. This source is no different then anyother source on the internet.


Defense


D1: Our armed forces may be voluntary and while it is true that the terrorists are using weapons that are given to them by Iran, what I am trying to say in this intire debate is that the lives of our fighting men are precious and they have signed up to protect this country, but a all out invasion is not always the solution to a problem. America has been intangled in middle-eastern affairs for fare to long and the wars that we have caused (as stated in my first rebuttel of my opponents contentions) has justly angered the middle eastern people this would include Iran and it's allies. The proper thing to do is to save American lives and further casualties by withdrawing out troops from their countries and leaving them be. If Iran insists on destroying America we can easily shoot down any and all missles whether they be nuclear or conventional. Their are many more ways of preserving the peace and defending our nation then just spilling blood in a war that would bring the intire middle-east and africa against the United States.


D2: In 2004 China signed a 25 year oil trading deal with Iran to import 110 million tons of liquified natural gass and 150,000 barrels of crude oil a day to China. It is estimated that the deal is worth billions of dollars. Now, I would like to note that a invasion of Iran would destroy any chances of this deal being carried out, which would really put a dent in China's economy. The only chance China would have would be too back up Iran and this would severly cripple chances of America winning the war and would even most-likely lead to a third world war. Russia and China have already supplied Iran with advanced missiles and missile technology since the mid-1980s. In addition to anti-ship missiles like the Silkworm, China has sold Iran surface-to-surface cruise missiles and, along with Russia, assisted in the development of Iran's long-range ballistic missiles. This assistance included the development of Iran's Shihab-3 and Shihab-4 missiles, with a range of about 2,000 kilometers. Iran is also reportedly developing missiles with ranges approaching 3,000 kilometers. It would be good to note that the three of the these countries hate America, because of our imperialism. If we stay out of middle-eastern affairs and stop waging war against their governments, they will have no more reason to attack us and their terrorism against us will stop, but to derectly invade Iran would be America's downfall [1].

As for my claim that America is starting to look like a second Nazi Germany, I will admit that it isn't true. I will however point out that the countries that my opponent has listed has pushed for sanctions, not war. The world wants peace that is why they send sactions, not tanks. I have shown that China and Russia has sufficient cause and has even deminstrated their support for Iran. Therefore, I have shown that a invasion of Iran would be suicide. My second contention still stands.


D3: My opponent appears to be right in this part, however it would be good to point out that invading a country is in fact a act of full scale war.
R1: My opponent does not give any evedence to his claim that Iran had to do with thos bombingsings in the embassy. Furthermore may I also add that we have bases all over the middle east and now the middle eastern people want us out, because of our violent history in the middle east such as Afganastan, Quatar, Iraq, Yemen, and Pakastan. etc [2]. It is time that we withdraw our countries to preserve the peace and so that Iran wont continue to seek military action against us.
Also, the amount of troops is irrelevant since we should of not been in those countries to begin with.
R2: My opponent is wrong in this case. It only takes one shot to shoot down a nuke [3]. Which would people rather have the fourth war in the last decade, and thousands of casualties on both sides and a war with China and Russia or peace in the middle-east? It is clear that war is not the best option.
Conclusion
We have the ability to persue peace in the middle-east, without war. A war would cause a third world war, and would result in uneeded deaths.
Vote Pro!
PartamRuhem

Con

Thank you DeathbeforeDishonor for a nice challenge. IT has been an enjoyable debate.

This debate has mainly been revolving around the nuclear capabilities of Iran in the future, which my opponent agreed to in the comments.

The readers must know that there are a number of contentions that my opponent dropped and conceded. This alone gives me the win. Also, my opponent has brought in sources to his last round. This grants me the permission to do the same. There is also a confusion of words. The resolution states "The U.S. should not invade Iran", yet my opponent talks of war. I do not advocate for a war with Iran, simply an invasion. This invalidates his points on war, and how we will be engaged in war if we invade Iran.

My opponent's cash point has been dropped after I refuted it. This was one third his case. He conceded this in R4

My opponent has also dropped his refutation that we can shoot down Iranian nukes. Saying that it only takes one is not a defense. Whatever point he was trying to make here was not articulated clearly enough, for he doesn't refute the instability of the weapon, which I have proved.

Onto defending my case, then finishing attacking my opponents

Defense

My opponent states that I don't give evidence saying that Iran had involvement in the bombings, yet I clearly did....

R1: The articles and links I provided show that Iran backed the terrorist group that actually carried out the attack, which is just as much of an offense, and more of a threat. He then states that since we have troops in these middle eastern countries, it justifies Iran attacking us. Even though right before that he denied Iran attacking us. Still, it shall be refuted. Looking at the wiki source that my opponent provided, we can see that the total amount of troops in the middle east, excluding Iraq and Afghanistan, is around 13,000. We can also see that in Germany, we have stationed over 50,000 troops. In South Korea, 28K. In Japan, 40K. Even the United Kingdom has 9000, almost as much as the middle east. There is no reason that the Iranians should take offense to the presence of U.S. troops in the middle east. Other Asian countries don't freak out with the massive amounts of troops in BOTH Japan and South Korea, and Europe likewise is compliant, yet Iran deserves to terrorize our personal? Don't think so. He then says the amount of troops are irrelevant because we shouldn't have been there. This can easily be countered with the fact that taking an American life because they don't think we should be there, whereas nowhere else does this happen in such a wide scale, isn't justifiable.

R2: My opponent states "It only takes one shot to shoot down a nuke". He then throws up a wiki source as proof, yet after looking at this source, I couldn't find it. Nor was it particularly relevant, seeing as these defenses have never actually been tested, and that my opponent hasn't refuted the fact that they are not dependable.

Moving on to refutations

American lives
My opponent has the misconception that, by not invading a nuclear armed Iran, we would save more lives. As I have proven our nuclear defense system to be inadequate and unable to do the job, it can be said that if Iran launched a nuclear attack on us, we would lose millions of American lives . This does nothing to help it's contention; it actually harms it

The point falls.

Foreign opinion
My opponent tries arguing that China will get involved if we invade Iran. He backs this with the fact that China and Iran are in a partnership for oil.

NOTE: An invasion of Iran with the purpose to destroy their nuclear capabilities will not harm oil trade from Iran to China, therefore there would be no intervention from China

My opponent then mistakes an invasion for a war. The reason an invasion is NOT the same as a war is because of the war powers resolution. The War Powers Resolution of 1973 stipulates the president must get congressional approval to send American forces to combat zones beyond a 60-day time frame (1). That means that within that 60 days, the president can basically do what he wants. An invasion of Iran that would take less than two months would not be an act of war.

Also, just because China and Russia have dealt missiles and other arms to Iran doesn't mean they would back them at all. It's the "black market", not the "black brotherhood" or something.

My opponent then completely concedes the Cash point.

|Conclusion|
As we can all see, all my points have remained, while my opponents points have fallen. The debate revolves around me proving that the U.S. should invade Iran in the future. In the future, they will obtain nukes, which I have proven. They will then use these weapons, for they have not hesitated in the past. If not on the U.S., then on one of our allies, which would drag us into a war. Preventing that from happening is only possible through invasion. Even if we could shoot down nukes from Iran, it still would drag us into a war with them. If someone shoots a gun at you and misses, are you cool with it? No, you go kick their a$$. Well, if they had a gun you should probably run, but if you are the U.S., with plenty of guns and people to shoot them, you go and stomp them down. Through what my opponent advocates, he contradicts all of his points.

Vote Con. Than YOu.
Debate Round No. 4
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by PeacefulChaos 5 years ago
PeacefulChaos
Darn, my voting reason got cut off again. I'll just explain here.

Conduct and S&G was the same. Arguments was tricky, since both sides did fairly well. At first, I was compelled to vote Con, but when I looked a little closer and into the facts, Pro won by bit more. Sources goes to Con because he had more and most of Pro's were Wikipedia.
Posted by sadolite 5 years ago
sadolite
Both sides make arguments, Blah Blah Blah both sides miss one very important point. America does not fight wars to "win" anymore. Going to war without the intention of totally annihilating your foe is pointless and a waste of time money and lives. I vote pro. There is a reason nuclear bombs don't deter war anymore we don't use them and the rest of the world knows it. We are to chickenshit and politically correct to use them. We would rather kill our own through attrition in conventional warfare than kill all of them in one day.

Hey look!! You can say "chickenshit"
Posted by ChrissyTierra 5 years ago
ChrissyTierra
can somebody challenge me 2 a debate pleeeaaassee? im really new to this :(
Posted by PartamRuhem 5 years ago
PartamRuhem
AHHHHH I forgot to post the source for the war powers resolution.

1. http://www.loc.gov...

Hope people read this before voting.
Posted by Deathbeforedishonour 5 years ago
Deathbeforedishonour
Ok, no rush :)
Posted by PartamRuhem 5 years ago
PartamRuhem
Sorry, I can't get to this till tomorrow. Will post in time.
Posted by Deathbeforedishonour 5 years ago
Deathbeforedishonour
Alright, you can do that.
Posted by PartamRuhem 5 years ago
PartamRuhem
I will accept this if I can argue that the US should go to war with Iran in the future, not the present. Or something along those lines.
Posted by 16kadams 5 years ago
16kadams
I hate it when it posts twice
Posted by 16kadams 5 years ago
16kadams
Sorry for declining it.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Spritle 5 years ago
Spritle
DeathbeforedishonourPartamRuhemTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Read Larz' vote for description of mine. I do have to add that this debate was very entertaining. Both sides made good pints but I have to give my vote to Con.
Vote Placed by Greyparrot 5 years ago
Greyparrot
DeathbeforedishonourPartamRuhemTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro made solid arguments defending the cost to benefit analysis for USA, pro loses conduct for using fear tactics saying "pro obviously wants to be nuked."
Vote Placed by PeacefulChaos 5 years ago
PeacefulChaos
DeathbeforedishonourPartamRuhemTied
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:32 
Reasons for voting decision: Reasons in comment section.
Vote Placed by larztheloser 5 years ago
larztheloser
DeathbeforedishonourPartamRuhemTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Con managed to show Iran posed some potential threat, pro managed to show war is not without costs. I wanted both debaters to directly relate the threat to the cost and show why one justifies or unjustifies the other. Neither did. Pro had burden of proof to show costs outweighed threat, so this debate goes to con. That being said, con did not really prove threats justify war, so it was close. Pro should also have clearer structure, as it did make it look like pro was dropping points.