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

Should the U.S. continue to take military action in the War on Terror?

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: 5/14/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,028 times Debate No: 75298
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (1)




Rules: no trolling, cite all facts or statistics, keep ideas original, no plagiarism, no cussing.
Leave the other opponents personal profile info out of this. Round 1 pro rules and con intro, round 2 pro intro con argument, last round pro argument and rebutle round 2 from con argument and then conclude, con rebuttle conclude


(Hope this works, only had an hour to work)


I do not support the notion that the United States should continue or pursue military action in the “War on Terror.” My reasoning will be particularized through the following premises.

Terrorism: the use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims. [10]

Premise I: The War on Terror has been empirically ineffective.

Based upon solely past experiences regarding the War on Terror, we have seen no specific advances or successes in deterring terror from occurring, nor heuristic success in changing society’s views or concerns. Citizens from various countries around the world are still worried about terror from a variety of organizations. [1] As the fear factor has not been dissuaded from public perception, the War on Terror cannot be accredited with success.

If the War on Terror has been even remotely successful, we would not be seeing the following news headlines:

  1. “Texas Man Arrested for Alleged Pledge of Allegiance to ISIS” [2]

  2. “Scotland Yard sees terror threat as hundreds of Britons return from Syria” [3]
  3. “Ancient Ruins at Palmyra Are Endangered by ISIS Advance in Syria” [4]
  4. “ISIS executes 26 civilians near ancient Syrian city” [5]
  5. “'I was flogged daily:' Rescued Boko Haram survivors share tales of horror” [6]
  6. “Boko Haram Launches Fresh Attack On Maiduguri” [7]
  7. “Gunfire and explosions at Nigerian school as Boko Haram carry out latest attack during classes” [8]

    It is imperative to note that each of these events were conducted by prominent terrorists groups active today, and even more so that each of these events have happened within the last week (7 days). If the War on Terror cannot stop these awful events from occurring, we must abandon the “war” and find new tactics to prevent these horrific atrocities. The premise is fulfilled: the War on Terror is ineffective.

Premise II: The War on Terror has yielded unseemly events.

Terrorist groups are often condemned for their torturous and inhumane acts, but the War on Terror has led these terrorists to the same fate, in various instances. Writer Joanne Mariner notes, “Pakistan's intelligence agencies worked closely with the CIA to "disappear" terrorist suspects, hold them in secret detention, and subject them to torture and other abuses.” [9] The same immorality at which the international community looks down upon is being served to the ones largely at blame. This could fall under the definition of terrorism, as defined earlier, and shows that the pursuit to end terrorism is counter-intuitive. The premise is fulfilled: unseemly events are subsequent to the War on Terror.

Premise III: The enemies are not adequately defined.

The simple statement “War on Terror” is a difficult suggestion to digest. A question that comes to mind is, “what is terror?” I propose a rhetoric: We defined terrorism, but can we really classify a certain race, country, or organization that is responsible for these violent or fearful acts? In reality we can’t.

The Washington Post provides an article that supports this premise. “It defines neither a geographic context nor our presumed enemies. Terrorism is not an enemy but a technique of warfare -- political intimidation through the killing of unarmed non-combatants.” [12] Were we to specify terrorism as simply the organizations known to condone them, we would still face problems.

There are 95 internationally-recognized terror groups all around the globe. [11] To declare *war* on so many opponents is impractical and impossible. Instead of a subjective and nonviable “war on terror” we need to deal with threats individually as they arise. The premise is fulfilled: we cannot fight terrorism, per the definition.

Premise IV: The War on Terror lacks US support to continue.

The War on Terror campaign was institutionalized after the 9/11 attacks in the US. [13] No doubt, they’ve been around for quite awhile. But the prolonged state, without positive progression and notable achievements has deteriorated interest and motivation to continue. In fact, some of the most important roles in fighting terror may not be sustainable for the persistence of the War on Terror.

In fact, Business Insider documents, “Frustrations with the never-ending U.S. war on terror are mounting among the country’s elite fighting forces. These top-level troops—called special operations forces—are fraying at the edges after more than 13 years of near constant deployments, according to public comments by current and former leaders at the U.S. Special Operations Command (SOCOM).” [14] With new problems arising (ISIS and Boko Haram), these special forces are simply not capable of continuing. Without this back-up, the War on Terror will not continue at even minute success. The premise is fulfilled: the War on Terror lacks necessary support to continue unrelieved.

Premise V: Alternatives would be more pragmatic solutions to the problems.

It is undeniable that terrorism is a problem. But the War on Terror, as my opponent leaves it, is undesirable and far from pragmatic. I have consistently shown flaws with the existing policy, and now will provide a solution. Rather than using direct military force and action to attack terrorism, we need to take necessary steps to prevent terrorism, and deal with problems before they arise.

Multiple variations and alterations of the War on Terror would be beneficial, and they are key to note. The Third World Traveler gives suggestions, a few of which include: cooperations with countries affected by terrorism, moving towards an international effort to assist against terrorism, and finally support the countries who need assistance and gain knowledge of global events. [14]

These steps, though not directly a *war* against terrorism, could be utilized as a policy to prevent terrorism, rather than fight it. Gaining intelligence of organizations and strategies is crucial to warding off terrorism and providing a better, safer, and ultimately peaceful world. The premise is fulfilled: more pragmatic and efficient solutions have been provided to use as a means to deter terrorism.


In closing, we find that past experiences have proved fruitless when it comes to military action, the efforts can be turned immorally against the terrorists themselves, we can’t attack *terrorism* itself, we lack necessary US support, and better alternatives could be pragmatic and beneficial. Thus, we must negate the resolution, and not continue military action by the US in the War on Terror.
















Debate Round No. 1


fonzi22201 forfeited this round.


My opponent has forfeited. Extend arguments.
Debate Round No. 2


Rebuttle: While my opponent may state that if we were even remotley close to having the fight for war of terror work that those headlines he stated eould not be a big deal. Whike some may look bad like Isis killing 26 people that is a reason to continue to fight. If my opponent can say that it is not working because Isis is not stoping to kill people the truth is that if we keep fighting Isis can and will be eliminateds. If we leave Isis alone they will only get bigger. The other head lines are headlines because the war on terror is working.

Aregument while my opponent states that the war on terror is bad according to Obama said in a press confrence "Our systematic effort to dismantle terrorist organizations must continue," he said. "But this war, like all wars, must end. That's what history advises. That's what our democracy demands." This is how we will end the war we must fight to end it. "But this war, like all other wars, must end." This is saying that this must end that we must ensure Americans future. This is showing that most of the world that we live in today is not how it was an hour ago. Slowly Isis is advancing. Alos according to; Al Qaeda is almost gone. says The latest surge of triumphalism came after bin Laden's killing a year ago. U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta asserted that the United States was "within reach of strategically defeating al Qaeda," while President Barack Obama proclaimed, "We have put al Qaeda on a path to defeat," We will win we must for the sake of America.

In conclonclusion we will win this war we must for the future Americans and as Barak Obama said "But this war, like all other wars, must end."


My opponent fails to understand the concept I was referring to. The War on Terror has not been effective, as proven by multiple headlines mentioned in my first speech. Moreover, he has not provided any headlines that show the war on terror is successful. On the other hand, I have provided multiple sources showing the relative ineffectiveness of the War on Terror.

It could be argued that Obama is also advocating for the ending of the War on Terror. If he is saying the war must end, this can be used in support of the Con position. This military action should be suspended.

In regards to al Qaeda, the death of bin Laden was a great success, but this has not been accompanied with the total removal of al Qaeda threats. Furthermore, new threats have come into portrayal. For example, ISIS and Boko Haram are more modern displays of insecurity. Therefore, instead of routing al Qaeda completely, the US has only weakened one group and arguably facilitated two new threats in the process.

Conclusively, my opponent has assisted my side by quoting our president, and dropped the following arguments:
The War on Terror is empirically ineffective
The War on Terror has yielded unseemly events
The Enemies are not adequately defined
The War on Terror Lacks US support to continue
Alternatives Would be more pragmatic solutions to the problems.

Vote CON
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by lannan13 1 year 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct to Con due to Pro's forfeiture. Sources to Con for him using an ample amount more than Pro. Pro failed to uphold the BOP and prove how/why the US should continue the WOT, however, Con disproved the resolution and Pro ended up dropping several of Con's points.