The Instigator
sillykitten
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Double_R
Con (against)
Winning
36 Points

Resolved: The United States should invade Iran.

Do you like this debate?NoYes-3
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 6 votes the winner is...
Double_R
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/4/2011 Category: Politics
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,302 times Debate No: 17397
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (6)

 

sillykitten

Pro

My Opponent is to make their argument in the first round, and I will refute it,
Double_R

Con

I’d like to thank Pro for initiating this debate and welcome her to debates.org. Being that my opponent as the instigator did not properly clarify the resolution, the privilege becomes that of the challenger to provide reasonable clarifications to ensure a principled debate. As such, I provide the following:


Invade: to enter forcefully as an enemy; go into with hostile intent: to enter as if to take possession(1)


By should; we are debating the best course of action for the US in the immediate future, based on information we have available today.


Burden of Proof: My opponent states that I must make the first argument and she will refute it. However in any debate the burden of proof is on the instigator to affirm their resolution.


Argument


The act of one country to invade another takes valuable resources and national focus that could be utilized in other areas. To make this decision responsibly a country must have valid reasoning for doing so. The absence of such reasoning constitutes a decision that those resources should not be spent on invading the country in question. Therefore since in this debate so far we have an absence of such reasoning, the US should not invade Iran.


With that I pass it on to my opponent to hopefully provide strong reasoning that will lead to a good debate.


(1) http://dictionary.reference.com...

Debate Round No. 1
sillykitten

Pro

Iran is dangerous. they have a crazy leader who believes utter flim flam like europe purposely keeping clouds away and they execute homosexuals. not to mention their hatred of our ally isreal. no, time to step it up a notch and bang some heads together. preemptive warfare ftw!
Double_R

Con

My opponent appears to have closed her account and thus I will not waste much time. I will simply point out that she has provided no valid reason for the US to invade Iran. She states that Iran is dangerous but does not explain how. She states that they execute homosexuals but fails to explain why the US should be responsible for dealing with this issue. Finally she states that they hate our ally Israel, which it is obviously not a justification for war.


My opponent has made an utterly poor attempt to satisfy her burden of proof, and did not make any attempt to consider the consequences a decision such as this one. Being that she has closed her account and will obviously be forfeiting the rest of the debate, I see no reason to go further and will leave this in the voters capable hands.

Debate Round No. 2
sillykitten

Pro

If we d not attack them, than they will cetainly harm us or our allies. When you say that their hated of israel is not a reason to be prepared to war them, you're saying we shouldn't stand up for our allies. Think about it, how much easier would it hae been to take over Iran 30 years ago before they had such a powerful military? they just keep getting stronger! eventually it'll ome to war, and better sooner with the U.S. as the sole superpower than later, when it might not be. Vote Pro!!
Double_R

Con

My apologies to my opponent and the readers for assuming my opponent would forfeit. Apparently this website allows users to finish their debates even after their accounts have been deactivated.


Rebuttal


Pro badly misconstrues my statement to imply that I suggest we should not stand up for our allies. I obviously said no such thing. I stated that hatred is not a justification for war. There has never been an accepted reason established in history of mankind that justifies taking lethal action against another person or group for their emotions.


Pro then states that Iran keeps getting stronger and it would have been easier to take over them 30 years ago. Every nation on earth has the right to grow stronger, that is how civilization progresses. Pro has provided no reason why this justifies war.


Conclusion


While any politically educated person recognizes that Iran is a country that we must be concerned about, Pro has clearly not made any serious attempt to satisfy her burden of proof to show why we should invade Iran. With that said I will not waste any more of the reader’s time as I feel the conclusion here is obvious.

Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by BlackVoid 5 years ago
BlackVoid
Yeah, Pro is changing the status quo, so she should have made the opening argument.
Posted by Xboxlive 5 years ago
Xboxlive
As the instigator you have the burdon of proof
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by F-16_Fighting_Falcon 5 years ago
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
sillykittenDouble_RTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: This kitten was just too silly to debate on DDO.
Vote Placed by Man-is-good 5 years ago
Man-is-good
sillykittenDouble_RTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Sillykitten took no effort, tried to shift the burden of proof, had some spelling mistakes, and did not argue or use sources.
Vote Placed by YYW 5 years ago
YYW
sillykittenDouble_RTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Poor arguments made by PRO were effectively and systematically dismantled by CON. Overwhelming victory for CON.
Vote Placed by baggins 5 years ago
baggins
sillykittenDouble_RTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Obvious
Vote Placed by quarterexchange 5 years ago
quarterexchange
sillykittenDouble_RTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: This was a joke.
Vote Placed by ApostateAbe 5 years ago
ApostateAbe
sillykittenDouble_RTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Con argued for his/her own respective position. Pro contradicted his/her own resolution.