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

Should military force be used to combat terrorism?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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: 5/13/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,148 times Debate No: 75252
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (1)




I believe that military force should be used but only for certain occasions.


I'd like to start off by thanking my opponent for starting this debate on a really important topic. To my opponent, I will lay out my arguments in a certain format and do not expect you to have the same format, although you certainly can if you wish.

Military Force- forces authorized to use deadly force, and weapons, to support the interests of the state and some or all of its citizens.

Terrorism- the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes

Contention 1: Military force is the best way to fight terrorism.

My opponent will be suggesting that military force should not be used for fighting terrorism, and stated that it should only be used for certain purposes. Perhaps he can clarify that in a later argument. Terrorism is nothing new. Guerrilla warfare tactics have been used for centuries. The Mongols used scare tactics such as using catapults to fling dead bodies into European cities and spreading the black plague. The American colonists used Guerrilla tactics on the British Army in the Revolutionary War by raiding their camps by surprise. I'm not equating the American colonists with 9/11 terrorists, I'm just stating the fact that terror tactics are nothing new, and in fact terrorism is a military tactic. It is common knowledge that the best way to fight military tactics is with military tactics. Terrorists all around the world, but mainly in the Middle East have a problem. They want to fight powers like the United States that have been bombing their countries for years, but they are people that are typically oppressed by tyrannical rule. They can't have their governments declare war, so they have to fight the war themselves. The 9/11 terrorists hijacked four U.S commercial planes and killed three thousands of our citizens. That is an act of war. Since then, we have used military force against al-Qaeda and have been successful in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Seal Team Six used military force to take out Osama Bin Laden in 2011. Since then, al-Qaeda terror attacks have significantly decreased. This is direct evidence that using military force is the best way to combat terrorism.

Contention 2: Military force is the only effective way to fight terrorism.

The thing about terrorists is that they are not countries. They typically live in countries oppressed by dictators, but there is no country called Osama Bin Laden. Normally with nations, the U.S can send diplomats to even hostile regimes like Iran to negotiate deals. The U.S government has not, cannot, and will not negotiate with terrorists. Military force is the only way that terrorism can be combated as stated in the resolution. The Burden of Proof rests on my opponent's shoulders. He must now provide a better way than military force to combat terrorism.

I look forward to my opponent's arguments.
Debate Round No. 1


Ispeakforthetrees forfeited this round.


I extend.
Debate Round No. 2


Ispeakforthetrees forfeited this round.


I extend. Vote Pro.
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by JernHenrik 3 years ago
To defeat terrorists:
you rape their women
castrate their sons
Posted by AlexanderOc 3 years ago

What he says he believes in round 1 is irrelevant. The resolution is all that matters, and since all resolutions are considered absolute, Pro would be arguing for any situation where military force should be used to combat terrorism. Any case, regardless of "certain occasions' would be enough to support the resolution.
Posted by LaughingRiddle 3 years ago
'Only for certain occasions."

You have taken con but support pro under the right circumstances. In a way there is nothing to argue about.

It would be stupid for anyone to argue "no we should not use force to combat terrorism in all circumstances" when circumstances are a compete contextual unknown.

Should suffice that use of force can be justified against terrorists for pro to win.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by tajshar2k 3 years ago
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: FF