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

Should Iran be left to their devices?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+4
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: 7/23/2012 Category: Politics
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,788 times Debate No: 24831
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (10)
Votes (1)




Sure Iran has threatened many times to obliterate Israel, but honestly what are the chances of that happening? And if they were bold enough to commit such an action couldn't the US just go in and topple the regime?



My opponents case is that Iran isn't a threat and, therefore, we should not intervene. But this is indeed false. Iran is indeed a threat and requires immediate action. My opponents point is refuted in my case.


===Iran is a threat===

Many opponents of intervention in Iran like to cite sources saying Iran is a peaceful nation, and has not been to war in hundreds of years. (Iraq Iran war?) But even so, this ignores the fact Iran supports other organizations that do the fighting for it (terrorists). They also ignore the threats of a nuclear armed Iran. An attack on Iran would not be as "bad" as would be Iran using nuclear weapons against Israel, or even starting an arms race with Saudi Arabia. Military strikes, carefully planned to destroy Iran's nuclear ambitions, would likely spare the region millions of lives. It would also increase the US national security and open up more feilds of peaceful relations with much of the region [1].

Other evidence from an unlikely source, NYPD, states men linked to Iran where found in NYC attempting to find ripe terror targets. 13 suspects linked to the Iranian government posing as tourists where caught conducting "surveillance of possible attack sites" [2]. New Reports from high ranking intelligence officials confirms these results and they have argued Iran may no longer be hesitant on attacking US soil. Many evidences are linked to the Iranian plot to assassinate Saudi Arabian ambassador on our soil. My opponent in his response stated they are not dumb enough to do these moves, yet they are crazy enough to commit acts of terror on the strongest nations soil, and have 13 of their people arrested (but let go) who admitted to be linked to their government. Yes, they are that dumb. New reports show Iran may be the biggest terror threat to New York City [3]. The officials also warned there may be more of these thirteen individuals, it may be hundreds of agents walking amongst us every day attempting to find good areas for attack. All under the funding and support of the Iranian government. They concluded these Iranian terror groups pose more of a threat then Al Qaeda to us, in other words Iran is now the biggest threat to the US [4].


1.Nuclear capabilities hold large threats to the region, and can cause a nuclear arms race or destroy a whole country (israel).
2. Iran poses a direct threat to the US via terrorism

===Iran has the capability of a nuclear bomb===

A counter to one of the arguments may be Iran may be working on a bomb, but they will never have the capability to create one. But new secret UN documents report Iran does, indeed, have this capability. Most people at the UN are in agreement that Iran has this capability to create atomic weapons, based on new reports. Iran is likely to overcome problems with delivery systems, and will soon be able to have the information (if not already acquired) to create nuclear weapons within the coming months [5]. Even based on new negotiations to reduce the amount of uranium they may create, it will have no effect on their program. They would have enough to continue operations in enrichment and soon have weapons grade uranium. Worst case scenario it takes them 42 days to make the uranium they need, best case scenario it would take 8 months. They have the capability to create nuclear weapons [6]. And as stated, military strikes can put major holes in the Iranian program and may even halt it all together, likely saving thousands of lives [1].

===Iran's link to terrorism===

Many could point out even though Iran's goons where here scouting for something, it is possible they where not planning to find targets. Even so, Iran still is funding many terrorist groups threatening our allies in the region. Reports from the Obama Administration reveal these somewhat worrisome points, “U.S. Secretary of State Hilary Clinton expressed concern that Iran is using its relationship with Hamas to influence the uprisings in the Middle East. She stated, “We know from our intelligence reporting, from anecdotal reporting, our embassies, our political officers that everywhere Iran can take advantage, they're going to, either directly or indirectly through proxies like Hezbollah and Hamas… You've got Hamas right on the border of Egypt. You have absolutely every reason to believe that with Iran now supporting Hamas that they're going to be in there trying to figure out what they can do to influence the outcome.”[7] (2011 report)

Further, Hamas is reporting that they have missiles, and in 2011 two where test fired. No injuries or deaths reported, but investigations show Iran is the source of the missiles. Iran is indirectly promoting terrorism, well its fairly direct, and giving them the materials they need to really hurt us, and our allies in the region [7]. The project monitoring Iran also notes political affiliations between the organizations.

New reports agree with the Iran-terror coalition. New evidence shows Iran is directly linked with Hezbollah. Many investigations show Iran is giving them funding, equipment, and training. Many bombers discovered in England show the bombers got direct help from Hezbollah, and therefore Iran [8].

===Nuclear arms race in the region===

A nuclear arms race would strain the economy and policy in the region, severely hurting the area and possibly leading to disastrous nuclear fallout in the region. Saudi Arabia will likely be the one that Iran woudl worry about as Israel would only strike in defense or if it was seriously threatened. Saudi Arabia, though, would view this as a threat and begin and arms race between the two large nations and potentially destroy the region. (like the US cold war destroyed much of southern Asia and Eastern Europe). Experts, though, say the threat between these two nations and nuclear war would be higher then the US - USSR cold war. There are a few scenarios:

1. The wars sparks conflict between Saudi Arabia and Iran (Iraq may join in), and war breaks out. Pakistan may also enter.
2. Nuclear weapons enter the hands of terrorists, the range of weapons say nations (such as the UK or Israel) would be heavily threatened
3. Both occur

Either way, nuclear war is a large possibility and needs to be stopped. Experts now agree, even the military opion must be on the table [9].


Iran must be stopped, and a military strike coupled with sanctions (and computer viruses like Israel used) would likely be the best way to end the nuclear, terrorist, and other threats. And full out invasion, on an extreme situation, would be a good way to save the middle east from imminent destruction.

Debate Round No. 1


Note that the in the Iran-Iraq war Iraq was the aggressor. But that's besides the point. The U.S. and other Western powers have not even tried to make an agreement with Iran. So how can you make the conclusion that Iran is not a peaceful nation, sure it can be belligerent at times but I mean give it a chance. Which goes to the point of terrorism, have they actually executed ANY of these plots? No. Sure they have "searched for attacks sites" but how do you know that these plots aren't for a time of war? If Iran actually did strike the U.S. and Middle Eastern allies have the capability of destroying Iran if it fell out of line. Also, Hamas in Egypt would be probably be suppressed, if they attack Israel, due to the recent renewal of the Israeli-Egyptian peace treaty by President Mohammad Morsi. There cannot be a serious attack from Syria either. Lordknuckle also provides a valid point. The U.S. itself "terrorizes" many nations into doing certain things which protect their interests. I.E. Gaddafi giving up Libyan nuclear ambitions (And you cannot say he was a terrorist at the time because "Gaddafi managed to improve his image in the west and by the early 2000s had mostly benign relations with western democracies.")
(from: They also bullied Japan into allowing them keep bases their more than 75 years after the end of WWII.


Iran is peaceful, and we have failed to make a deal

There is no proof Iran is peaceful, or that its nuclear program is peaceful. Also note their funding of terrorist organizations are not peaceful as by definition terrorists are active aggressors in the world. The IAEA has not been able to conclude, “that Iran’s nuclear program is non-military.” In other words, it is likely a military operation attempting to gain access to nuclear weapons [1].

I would also like to see my opponent prove that Iran funding terrorist organizations has some peaceful motive, though I see this as impossible. Terrorists by definition use coercion and war to scare the people they hate and that are not legally binded to any law (though can be supported by/support certain law) [2].

In both scenarios we see Iran is likely not peaceful. And their threats will likely cause some harm, whether it helps terrorists, which gain access to nuclear weapons, or a nuclear arms race with Saudi Arabia… Or Israel not existing when I am in college… Irans threat is likely real.

My opponent then states we have not reached a deal, and he is correct. Iran has not accepted our offer, they reject the notion of stopping nuclear production and the only deals they accept are the ones that do not affect the overall goal, getting nuclear weapons. In other words, yes we have not made a deal, but because it’sIran will not accept one [3].

Searching for attack sites

Due to the fact these operatives where also possibly linked to terrorist groups they needn’t be legally bound to any law (see above). Therefore if they choose a site they can attack, and likely use Iranian funding/materials.

US can retaliate

Ok… Iran destroys Israel, Saudi Arabia starts arms race, we attack the whole country, and not just the missile sites. Millions die. Sanctions plus attacks on their nuclear based doubled with aggressive peace talks equals a few scientists working for a horrible cause dead, two or three countries saved. Which scenario should we prefer?

The US is a terrorist organization

Coercing people or attacking people to leave their posts is not terrorism as much of the time it is to prevent large exterminations of their people. I would also like to note much of the coercion we used might have increased the world’s benefits as America has done many great things in the world, too. We have spread democracy, and in theory this would promote stability and peace, prevent massive genocides, increase free trade, and has prevented the spread of authoritarian regimes [4]. As we can see, the US, although not perfect, is more desirable then Iran or terrorist organizations which oppose all progress.







Debate Round No. 2


Please be careful not to speak with such authority even though it appears you do not fully understand my previous statements. Nowhere did I say the the U.S. is a terrorist organization (please excuse me if I made it appear as such) what I did say is that the U.S. has used "terror" to protect and pursuit it's political interests. (In this situation I use terror as in threats and violence). You say that the IAEA has been unable to prove that the operations are of a non-military nature, but they have also failed to prove the opposite, that it IS of a military nature, thus making that point null and void. You have also insinuated that I said that Iran has used terrorist for peaceful purposes. Once again that was never said. I AM FULLY AGAINST TERRORISM AND IT ISN'T RIGHT IN ALL SITUATIONS. (emphasis on all) I challenge my opponent to prove that Iran IS NOT peaceful what so ever and if such is proven I will withdraw all my arguments. With regards to deals, of course Iran will not accept our deals. The deals brought to the table to date are all lop-sided and are actually similar to the "treaties" with the Native Americans and Asian states. And to respond to the U.S. can retaliate. I'm pretty sure that Iran would accept an agreement in which powers of the world have a right to keep Iran in check, just as long as they get to keep their weapons. The conclusion of an all out attack on Iran's nuclear laboratories is quite radical and in my opinion would be hypocritical of the US. Think about Pearl Harbor, everybody thinks that Japan was crazy for doing that but in my opinion it was justified. The US attempted to bully Japan into releasing it's whole empire (note the US itself had an empire too) and just because Japan was bold enough to stand up against it they were quite shocked. So, if in the end there is an attack on Iran WE CAN NOT SAY ANYTHING IF THEY DECIDE TO ATTACK ISRAEL, SAUDI ARABIA, AND CLOSE THE STRAIT OF HORMUZ and possibly the Red Sea.
Conclusion: An attack on Iran would be counter-productive and we should reach a deal that includes Iran being checked by regional and world powers and limiting the size of it's nuclear arsenal.


Iran’s nuclear program

If they concluded it is “not peaceful”, it is impossible for it to be anything else but to be hostile. A nuclear program cannot be neutral. Its either peaceful, or not. Concluding one means the other is implied. Also, the IAEA report shows Iran has 27% enriched uranium, which is a large step towards weapons grade material and over the 5% needed to be only for nuclear power [1]. In other words, it is obviously a hostile program. Further, American and European officials are concluding the purpose of the program is to make weapons, not power. The only dissenting opinion is one entity, and that’s the Iranian government.

America the terrorists

You said LordKnukle brought up a good point; his point was America was more of a terrorist organization then Iran. So the way it was worded sounded like his point.

Iran is peaceful?

My opponent has challenged me to prove Iran is not peaceful. I have already showed this.

a) Nuclear program is weapon like, not peaceful

b) Also note, funding terrorists cannot have any peaceful means

These facts already prove that there is some Iranian plans in violence. Further reports have confirmed that many of the missiles being created involve help from North Korea (we are still technically at war with them), and their missiles pose a threat to Israel and all of our allies in Europe, as they are capable of reaching the U.K. [3]. Also, reports show Iran not only funds violence via terrorism but has been promoting violence in Afghanistan. “The United States is reportedly concerned about Iranian efforts to encourage violence in neighboring Afghanistan, as U.S. officials have revealed that Iran sent agents into Afghanistan in February with the express purpose of fomenting violent protests after the accidental burning of Qurans by NATO troops”[4]

If Iran were peaceful, this would not be happening.

Deals with Iran

All the peace talks are lop sided, we say stop it now. Is that a bad goal? No. My opponent’s points are really laughable. We say stop the program that may destroy the region and hurt relations with Europe, and they essentially give us the bird. I think these ultimatums are the proper diplomatic approach to a crazy regime.

Attacks on Iran’s facilities

What’s bad about stopping a nuclear program, even if we are the aggressors? My opponent brings up Japan. Actually the reason they attacked us was because they attacked our allies in Asia (the U.K.) and we stopped shipping supplies to their empire, and their economic problems forced them to expand to gain territory and eventually gain money. America wasn’t the aggressor [5]. Bombing Japan saved many American and Japanese lives, as would preemptive strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities. It would hugely slow production, cost millions for them to revamp, and tell them we can “walk the walk” as well as “talk the talk”. Walk lightly, carry a big stick, and occasionally use it.







Debate Round No. 3


This is the latest IAEA report on Iran. It states that there is a possibility but nowhere does it say that it is absolutely a non-peaceful program. It suggests that there is a possibility due to Iran's uncooperative attitude. Also when you say it has 27%, the latest reports contradict that. They say Iran is in possession of Uranium enriched to about 20% under weapons grade uranium. In my opinion of what he said, he has insinuated that America has done more things in it's past that would prove it to be a "terrorist state" than Iran, note the U.S. has supported the Mujaheddin. What is the Mujaheddin? A terrorist organization. The U.S. also trained some Al Qaeda operatives. I also never meant terrorist organization. I mean that the U.S. has resorted to "terrorism". Sure Iran has FUNDED "terrorist organizations". But these organizations ARE NOT Iranian based. And also these organizations are considered terrorist by a limited number of Western countries. And can you please show me the reports that Iran has been supporting violence in Afghanistan. And my opponent goes on to say that this wouldn't be happening if Iran was peaceful. This wouldn't have happened if the U.S. wasn't such a bully in the first place. And you also say my points are laughable. My main issue is that the U.S. itself has nuclear arms and no one gave it grief about it. This is the main reason I am against any attack on Iranian nuclear laboratories. I'd like to see American response if Russia and China teamed up and forced the U.S. to destroy it's nuclear arsenal. (I guarantee if China put sanctions on the U.S. it would be quite crippling, even though American manufacturing is on the rise.) With regards to Japan you have your facts wrong. The U.S. put pressure on Japan by asking it to give up ALL of it's empire and embargoing oil. Japan also never attacked the U.K. before December of 1941 and China was not a U.S. ally until after the start of the war. The U.S. was also really aggressive diplomatically and was the first to threaten war. And you say many lives will be saved by the attacks on nuclear laboratories. This suggestion is incorrect. If an attack is commenced I can guarantee that Iran will strike back and hard.
Conclusion: An attack on Iran will cost more lives than coming to a conclusion diplomatically, and the U.S. is being hypocritical by not allowing Iran to have a nuclear research program.


IAEA report

Just because something is not spelled out does not mean it is heavily implied/obvious. They concluded the Iranian nuclear program was not peaceful. Other then a power source, there are now many uses for nuclear. There are things such as sterilization, but the way they are making the uranium (enriching it to such a degree near weapons grade) means it would be too radioactive for any other purpose except for power (though not optimal) or warheads [1]. So in reality, there are two options: power or weapons related. And the IAEA says there is no peaceful purpose to the program, and there is no neutral nuclear program possible. Therefore it is only logical that it is some type of hostile program.

And I am aware 20% is not weapons grade, but it is not power grade either. Power grade is 3-5% so it can be fuel but will not have the capability of explosion [2]. Weapons grade is near 80-90%. Now although the fuel is 20%, Iran’s fuel is obviously not for power, and the more they work the more enriched it becomes. It is expected they will get into the 80-90 ranges within the next year if we do not intervene.


Something being based in a country is irrelevant. For example, if the U.S. told Iran to invade Saudi Arabia we would still be the aggressors whether the operation is based in our country or what.

Although America has done some bad things, the terrorist groups we funded was during the cold war when all countries where funding organizations to fight the other. Although we did train them, and that’s inexcusable, that ignores what America has done for the world and what Iran has not. America has spread democracy helping many nations, the alternatives being Russia or China, which would not have been good for the world. On balance, America has made the world we know, and it could be worse otherwise [3].


I don’t need to show you anything, its not that hard to click the links I provided.

What if China and Russia disarmed us…?

What if they know sanctioning and crippling the largest economy in the world would lead to worldwide depression and likely nuclear war?

Further this is irrelevant, a what if argument is not convincing as it’s exactly that: speculation with no facts. Saying what if and then showing it is a likely scenario would be logical. But this scenario is idiotic. Hurting our economy hurts the rest of the world; we are 40% of the world economy. And if China hurts its largest consumer it hurts itself too. So don’t say things that will never happen unless our economy begins to shrink. Naturally… a lot.


Source for the unfounded assertion? As my research shows Japanese and German expansion caused the war [4].

Saving lives

It would save lives, what would Iran strike back with? Within 18 hours we could arrive with thousands of the best troops in the world with Naval support and Israeli air support. And they have no capability of striking us, without the bomb at least. If they attacked Israel, Israel would easily win. If they used terrorists to climb the fences and try to overwhelm, they would lose. Most citizens have guns and the army is extremely good. So tell me, what would they strike with? Nothing.

Now if we let them get the bomb. They might destroy a whole country (Israel), cause an arms race with Saudi Arabia, and cripple oil prices around the world causing mass economic recession.

A military strike is the best option.






Debate Round No. 4


You say my position on Japan is unfounded?? You also say that "research" you have conducted has proved different than what I have asserted... There is a book called Giants of Japan. Parts of the book prove my previously stated assertions. Also I have a premonition (or actually a postmonition at this point) that your research is biased. try actually looking it up from Japan's point of view and I promise you that you will see that my previous assertions are, in fact, correct. But you have finally admitted it! You showed in your arguments that Iran as of now is nowhere near a state of possessing uranium capable of creating a weapon. Also you say that Iran is in possession of 27% enriched uranium, which is, incorrect. The latest report is there and it is from the same source you claim says that Iran posseses 27% enriched uranium. If you read it it says Iran has a LIMITED amount of 20% enriched uranium. And if it
has taken them almost a decade to get to the point of twenty percent enriched uranium what makes you think that they could be capable of attaining near one hundred percent in
one year. Also I gave a somewhat improbable scenario, what
does it matter? You also have not been able to prove to me
CONCRETELY that the program is not peaceful. You may
use logic and probability but you can not say definitely that the program is not peaceful. Nowhere in the latest reports on Iran have the words "non-peaceful" without them blaming
non cooperation. If you convinced one again the
report is a short scroll above this rebuttal. READ THE
REPORT. Do not base your assertions on what you have
heard on the news for they have provided you with false
information. I also once again apologize if I made it seem as
if the US was a terrorist organization. What I meant was the
US utilizes terrorism more than Iran. Also Iran is in no way,
shape, or form a terrorist organization, they might supply
foreign, supposed, terrorist organizations but they
themselves are no terrorist organization. I will not address
that next round please do not bring it up. Also you
never answered my question. Iran, though they may not
possess nuclear missiles, will retaliate with their inter-
continental ballistic missiles. You did say that you are
concerned about our allies in the region and also Europe
(which is well within Iran's reach). If we attack vs. let them
have a limited program there will be even more fatalities. I
don't know about you but I'd rather Iran exhibit the Gaul to
launch one nuclear than the US and allies attack and Iran
responds with multiple attacks on major cities across the Old
World. By the way, very hilarious song. Its catchy too.
Conclusion: The response from Iran would be much more
devastating if we attacked first due to their inter-continental
capabilities than if we allow them a limited nuclear program.



My opponent never answered my question: how is this relevant? Anyway, I like this topic so I will continue.

Wait, so American point of view is biased yet the Japanese one isn’t? How does that make sense? Also, I never doubted these sanctions occurred, rather argued they where justified. The reason we added sanctions was because, “September 1940. The U.S. placed an embargo on Japan by prohibiting exports of steel, scrap iron, and aviation fuel to Japan, due to Japan's takeover of northern French Indochina.”[1] In other words, we had the embargo as they invaded our allies in Asia. That is justifiable.

And their response was unjustified. (Still how is this relevant?)

Nuclear Program

The IAEA report sides with me on the issue of uranium. The report included things like: “The report suggests that Iran has the materials and the knowhow to produce a nuclear warhead in a matter of months. [Which includes uranium]”[2]

Further my opponent has not done fact checking on uranium, as I showed last round. Iran’s uranium supply is exactly what you would need for small-scale bombs (they need a little more, though) and their production rate means the bombs could be finished, soon. They have the needed materials.[3]

Further, it is not a probability they are hostile. Its either they are guilty (hostile), or not hostile. There is no neutral. IAEA implied something that was politically incorrect and said they where not neutral, this is saying they are hostile. Iran’s seek for nuclear weapon is clear. Many studies and diplomats have proven it is not nuclear power Iran is after, and that they have plans to use them in destructive purposes. It has been scientifically proven, without a doubt, that Iran is hostile.[4]

And, either way, my opponent has failed to prove the contrary.


Dropped by my opponent.

America & Terrorism

Even if this is true is it relevant? Russia killed millions of people yet fought a nation (Nazis) that also killed millions of people. So I fail to see how this is relevant. And, anyway, I showed how our terrorist thoughts where violent and hostile to other nations. Though it had a good means of ousting Russia from native peoples home. Iran I using terror to take the home of the Israelis (its there, they had it first until the Arabs took them over). Our terrorist means served a universal purpose, theirs does not.

And all funding of terrorism (even ours) has hostile aspects of it. Therefore my opponent fails to prove that it is a peaceful.

Arms race between countries – dropped

Why vote CON?

  1. Terrorist point dropped except he dwelled on a sub point (America).

  2. Dropped how Iran could cause an arms race between itself and Saudi Arabia, and ruining the region.

  3. I showed the nuclear program is indeed hostile and should be treated as such

  4. Japan is irrelevant, and regardless refuted

Vote CON

On a side note:

*Beach boys song*

Bomb” ?”"Bomb Bomb, Bomb Bomb Iran,

Bomb Bomb Bomb, Bomb... Let's Bomb Iran!

Let's take a stand and Bomb Iran!

They're Evil-doers yes it's true, there's nothin' left to do,

But Bomb Iran, Bomb Bomb, Bomb Bomb Iran!

Went to Iraq, caught lotsa flack,

No turnin' back so while we're there let's just attack,

And Bomb Iran! Bomb Bomb, Bomb... Let's Bomb Iran!

They're a threat to me and you, there's nothin' left to do,

But Bomb Iran, Bomb Bomb, Bomb Bomb Iran!

Troops will have to see, a tour of duty 3,

They may get the shaft and you know we'll have to draft,

To Bomb Iran! Bomb Bomb, Bomb... Let's Bomb Iran!

They got the nukes you know it's true, there's nothin' left to do,

But Bomb Iran, Bomb Bomb, Bomb Bomb Iran!

Bombed Afghanistan, but gave up the Taliban,

Hey at least this rhymes with "stan" and that's enough to make a plan

To Bomb Iran! Bomb Bomb, Bomb... Let's Bomb Iran!”

[1] 3




Debate Round No. 5
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by JernHenrik 2 years ago
Does Iran torture?
Posted by alex.g 6 years ago
I find it very disturbing that a person can say- "And if they were bold enough to commit such an action couldn't the US just go in and topple the regime"...
do the life of Israelis is so not important ? when saying that they are bold enough to do such a thing you mean attacking Israel with atomic weapon..? there could be million casualties only as a result of the explosion, not to mention the other million that will die from cancer in the next ten years...

toppling the regime after the attack won't be necessary because after Israel will be attacked there will be no house standing in Iran after the atomic counter-strike from Israeli submarines..

the problem with this point of view is that one may think atomic Iran is only a threat to Israel... try to think , lets say 20 years ahead, assuming there will be an Islamic regime in Iran, isn't it possible that other countries will be in danger , just because they are Christians or even SUNI Islamists?
do you really think that forever only south-Korea could get hurt by PRK's atomic attack ?

take for example the afghans- during the 1980's they were trained and supported by the U.S.. 20 years after the same weapon and training are killing american soldiers..

world politics is a fragile thing and it's wrong making decision based on current situation
Posted by 16kadams 6 years ago
People vote!
Posted by kjw47 6 years ago
Not a terrorist Lordknuckle-- one half of the two horned beast( eagle)--the other half is the lion( great britian)
Posted by 16kadams 6 years ago
Finish one argument, another comes up. DAMN!!!

Posted by Yamashita 6 years ago
left to their devices does mean left alone
Posted by YYW 6 years ago
Noob snipe away, 16k.
Posted by 16kadams 6 years ago
Ok tomorrow I need too write two argunments
Posted by Lordknukle 6 years ago
Lolz. If I were Pro, I'd argue that the US is a much larger terrorist than Iran.
Posted by YYW 6 years ago
Need some clarification here: does "left to their devices" equate to "left alone" as in "not interfered with by western powers"?

If that is the case, I'll be happy to take CON.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by TUF 6 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 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: Pro had no argument structure, no sources, and dropped the vast majority of the point held by con. He failed at BOP, and spelling and grammar as well. This is a straight 7 point win for Con.