The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
4 Points

Resolved:we shouldn't retreat from the war on terror

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/5/2011 Category: Politics
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,326 times Debate No: 15806
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (1)




The war on terror is a much needed defense of American safety and those who advise retreating are advocating a policy that would ensure that our servicemen and women would have died in vain. The Taliban, etc. would simply retake the country, soon reverting it to its former state and rapidly attacking the US with increased fervor. This has been proved in history with the Barbary Coast pirates, whom the US appeased for years until the Marines whooped up on the early terrorists. The only way to stop the terrorists is to wipe them out, not flee in terror.


My case is a simple one, the fact is that instead of fighting a war on a front thats not ours is not justified especially since no WMD's were not found.
The entire war was for oil, and nothing else any excuse to fight over it.
Might i also add the 9/11 bombing, was done by people from another country i have heard Afgan, not Iraq; however lets move to more important matters on this thing we call terror.
So let me ask whats this terror and how exactly do we fight it?

I shall define some terms here:

1.Terror : the use of extreme fear in order to coerce people (especially for political reasons).
2.War : the waging of armed conflict against an enemy

Arguments :
1. This terror what is it? How do why fight terror? terror is a feeling, people fear this causes terror. So might I add the reason to start a war and keep it going is because people fear them? I clearly object, seeing how the cold war had both sides fearing for their lives then we must say the Russians where terrorist. Then we might say our creep next door neighbor scares you, cause you some fear and distress every time you go get the news paper, and he's walking his 2 inch ankle biter . Then we must wage war on him, for he is a terrorist; if he scares you then he's a terrorist and my opponent says we should wage war on him. Terrorist can be anyone , your scary dad, uncle, friend or anything other and they might not scare and cause you fear but what about others?

2. A war is to needed but a defense, since we been in this "war" what have we gained but body bags of our soldiers? Tell me because i have not seen anything gain actually i seen a great loss, everyone so eager to have their rights taken away with the signing of the patriot act, and the war that clashed forward onto a country which was found innocent of what they were accused of possessing no WMD's was found, none. Yet we invaded their country, stayed their for years, enforce our own government upon them. Invading peoples homes, now who seems like terrorist.

3. The simple fact is no war is needed and was never needed, we needed defense. Not the stripping of rights, or war, but better protection a little more security thats all.
Debate Round No. 1


Several logical fallacies immediately stand out in my opponent's argument. First, the war on terror is generally accepted as the war on terrorism, not on general fear. A terrorist is one who uses violence and/or threats to intimidate/kill citizens of the attacked nation. Al Qaeda, Hamas, et al. The definition of both the war on terror and terrorism/terrorist should be widely understood. the argument that the war on terror is for oil is not worthy of consideration.

The second point is that we are not arguing whether or not we should have entered the war, but whether, now involved in it, we should retreat. That fact should be plain because I expressly stated that our debate was about whether we should retreat from the war on terror. The argument that we shouldn't have become involved is a red herring and is not germane to our debate. Many of the politicians who now oppose the war originally voted for it, but again we are not arguing that. However, if we, currently enmeshed in the war, decide to remove our troops without finalizing the conflict and before the country's own government, military, and police are sufficiently strong to preserve the peace, the lives our our dead servicemen will have been ended for nothing. This is because the terrorist organizations will immediately return to the country. This is common sense. If you do not eradicate the enemy, and if you subsequently retreat, the enemy will regain power. Thus, we should not retreat from the war on terror.


Ok so i must argue that we should retreat? well then i will seeing how the war on terror has done nothing and leaving will do nothing iraq is over and already has established their government and will no turn back to the enemy. Secondly I would argue that the war on terror as i defined and you originally did not is not the conflict with iraq now who's fault is it for not defining things in the first round?

Since i defined them first i will argue that we should use my definition should be used, and other points against your definition. Seeing how i defined terror and you have not i believe my definition is correct as well as the war on terror is against terrorist well my case was that terrorist could be anyone even in your own country. However you decided to look over that, and you say its a fallacy to say the war was over oil? It makes logical sense to say it was for oil, we moved into a country with oil took over their government turn it into a democracy and killed their leader and now they owe us i mean come on; yeah it was for oil.

Where's your proof that the government has not a effective military? And my point is you will never eradicate terrorist ever. You would have to kill off the human race to do this.
Debate Round No. 2


JrRepublican forfeited this round.


Forfeit please vote for my side thank you
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by phantom 5 years ago
*clicks add to my favorites button*
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by boredinclass 5 years ago
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: via forfeit