The Instigator
sagarous
Pro (for)
Winning
47 Points
The Contender
crazypenguin
Con (against)
Losing
32 Points

The American Invasion of Afghanistan was justifiable.

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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/7/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 4,046 times Debate No: 1482
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (3)
Votes (21)

 

sagarous

Pro

Good morning/afternoon/evening,

I would like to first thank my opponent for joining me here today/tonight for this debate and any onlookers for partially judging this debate. I would also like to eventually thank any voters who vote for me in this debate.

Now my points:

1) After the 9/11 attacks the U.S. was fully justified to attack Afghanistan because it was an act of self-defence. There was viable proof that Afghanistan harbored several terrorists that conspired in the 9/11 plot, therefore the attack was justified.

2) Besides harboring several terrorists, Afghanistan was ruled by a government that was radically dangerous to our own national security. The Taliban were known oppressors of their people and it was in our place to help them.

3) bin Laden is a necessary evil to eradicate that justifies the invasion.

Therefore this war is justified.
Thank you.
crazypenguin

Con

Thank you for debating sagarous.

First I will rebutt your points and then make my points. The U.S was not

justifiable to enter Afghanistan even after 9/11 because there is not absolute

proof that the terroists were from Afghanistan nor do we know that Afghanistan

attacked on purpose for bad reasons entirely maybe they suspected something or

had a good reason. Secondly it doesn't matter who is ruling Afghanistan and

what he is doing. Yes we can come in and help but we can't go barging in any

place we want to and stick ourself in the problem. If we suspect that Mexico

has a bad government would we go barging in and take over control or would we

find out what is really happening and then maybe help them if they need it.

Thirdly even if bin ladin was behind all this do we go tearing up Afghanistan?

Do you have full proof that Bin Laden was behind all of this? For one person

you are going to go into a fully functional place and blow it up. Now for my points

There was no reason that we knew about to go into Afghanistan only a theory.
We had no reason to interfere while not completely sure.
Searching for one guy gives no reason to blow up an entire city and ruin it for a long time
Debate Round No. 1
sagarous

Pro

Thank you for your prompt reply.

First, I will refute your rebuttals.

>>The U.S was not justifiable to enter Afghanistan even after 9/11 because there is not absolute proof that the terroists were from Afghanistan nor de we know that Afghanistan attacked on purpose for bad reasons entirely maybe they suspected something or had a good reason.<< This is your exact quote. All grammatical and spelling errors were crazypenguin's.

I never stated that the terrorists were from Afghanistan, so this is irrelevant.

I also never stated that Afghanistan attacked on purpose for bad reasons entirely because they suspected something or had a good reasons, so this too, is irrelevant.

>>Secondly it doesn't matter who is ruling Afghanistan and what he is doing. Yes we can come in and help but we can't go barging in any place we want to and stick ourself in the problem.<< This again is an exact quote from my opponnent.

We are going in and helping, and we are not BARGING IN. Mexico being hostile is totally irrelevent because Mexico is not harbouring and refusing to extradite terrorists that killed thousands of our own civilians on the eleventh of September.

Third, we do have full proof that bin Laden and al-Qaeda were responsible for 9/11. THEY SENT A TAPE TAKING ALL RESPONSIBILITY FOR IT!

Afghanistan was not fully functional at the time of attack. Afghanistan was already unstable with the rule of a vicious terrorist government, the Taliban.

I will refute your points later. Anyways, your points are merely restatements of your rebuttals to my points, which you have failed to properly refute.

Thank you.
crazypenguin

Con

First let me state to my opponent that this is a debate not a spelling bee. I apologize to my judges if you have a hard time reading it.

It is not irrelevant that you didn't state that the terrorists were from Afghanistan because you implied by saying "After the 9/11 attacks the U.S. was fully justified to attack Afghanistan because it was an act of self-defence." what else does it mean then that the terroists were from Afghanistan. IT couldn't imply anything else.

Afghanistan did attack maybe for another reason so again it is not irrelevant but indeed very relevant because I quote "There was viable proof that Afghanistan harbored several terrorists that conspired in the 9/11 plot, therefore the attack was justified." signifying that they did have bad intentions.

We are not helping we are barging in, and besides Mexico is an example I took randomly. If they wanted our help they would have asked.

Afghanistan may not have been fully functional but still it was better off then it is now thanks to the US.

The Con side has won this debate by refuting all your rebuttals and making solid examples.
Debate Round No. 2
sagarous

Pro

Thank you for your prompt reply

I'm sorry. I should have clarified...the invasion of Afghanistan was an act of self-defense because Afghanistan harboured known terrorists that killed thousands of innocent civilians on September 11th and refused to extradite them when demanded. My sentence could have been implied as something else for someone who does not take sentences and looks at it from such a narrow point of view to propagandize it for one's own self interest. Or...someone with a higher IQ.

I have never stated that Afghanistan, in its own sovereign state, directly attacked the United States. I merely stated that Afghanistan harboured and refused to extradite known terrorists that killed American citizens on 9/11.

You would not know whether or not Mexico would ask if they needed help. Mexico needed help during the Texan Independence War. Did Mexico ask? No. They were defeated in a decisive victory for the Texan Revolutionaries at the Battle of the Alamo. Did Mexico ask when they needed help? NO. This is irrelevent. We are debating about Afghanistan, not Mexico. Afghanistan does not equal Mexico. End of point. Are you implying that Afghans are the same as Mexicans? Then you are not only wrong, you're racist.

What proof do you have that Afghanistan was better off before America invaded?

The Con side does not win. Your rebuttals have been weak and I have easily defended my arguments. You have also made no solid examples. You have made no examples. The only examples you made were those flimsily reinforcing your rebuttals which are not examples nor points.

You have often prematurely declared victory of a point or the entire debate when you have provided no solid proof nor evidently, shown any research on your part, nor much work of any kind.

I would like for you to declare victory ONLY AFTER YOU HAVE SHOWN PROOF AND/OR POINTS THAT ARE STRONG. So far, I have been disappointed with my opponent.

Thank you.
crazypenguin

Con

First of all I am very sad and disappointed to say that I have been quite angry in this debate for several reasons. First of all I am quite mad about the insults I have received and the attacks I have also received. Such as for example "someone with a higher IQ." and "I have been disappointed with my opponent." this has gone a little to far. So as my conclusion for this introduction I have to say that you are not my teacher to tell me and I will now tear down your argument.

Actually you should have been more precise rather then stating that so It is actually your fault for not stating the right thing. Second How could the invasion of Afghanistan be an act of self-defence when it was Afghanistan who attacked for an unknown reason. If it was self-defence then what or who attacked them?

But they did directly attack the US even if it was terrorists from Afghanistan because otherwise they would have given up the terrorists and admitted it.

Did the US wait? No they just jumped in, what if they waited? What would happen them and last of all MEXICO IS AND EXAMPLE FOR THE SIXTH TIME. And know I am not implying that Afghans are the same as Mexicans.

I have proof because you can check in the Newsweek that it shows Afghanistan before and after and believe me it was better off at least houses still had roofs.

And there again for a direct response you have no right to comment on my debate but to merely debate me. So I have been quite disappointed with your insults and you are nowhere close to winning this debate for it is just a mere illusion that you have.
Debate Round No. 3
sagarous

Pro

Thank you for your somewhat prompt reply.

First of all, I am sorry that I may have made you angry. I apologize for that, yet is it necessary to fire back something else?...>>So I have been quite disappointed with your insults and you are nowhere close to winning this debate for it is just a mere illusion that you have.

The reason why I left my opening statement without much detail is because I had the belief that my opponent would know the basis of the debate topic and be able to infer and know the facts of the invasion.

Once again, I state that I have never mentioned that it was the sovereign state of Afghanistan itself that attacked us. Terrorists (which I also have not said were from Afghanistan) that attacked the United States on 9/11 fled to Afghanistan and after many attempts in diplomatic negotiations with the Taliban, refused to extradite the known terrorists.

Next, could you possibly clarify this sentence?->>Second How could the invasion of Afghanistan be an act of self-defence when it was Afghanistan who attacked for an unknown reason. If it was self-defence then what or who attacked them?

Your next argument states >>But they did directly attack the US even if it was terrorists from Afghanistan because otherwise they would have given up the terrorists and admitted it.

In rebuttal to this point, Afghanistan itself did not attack the United States. Just because Afghanistan didn't give up the terrorists doesn't mean that Afghanistan attacked us. Afghanistan at the time was under the control of a known terrorist organization, the Taliban. When al-Qaeda, another terrorist group, sought refuge, the Taliban welcomed them with open arms as brothers and defended al-Qaeda, and refused to extradite them to the US.

Next you state that the United States did not wait to attack Afghanistan. This is wrong. We did wait. There was enough time to have a tape from al-Qaeda released taking full responsibility for the attacks. There was enough time for the government to form several committees confirming that Afghanistan was the place of refuge for al-Qaeda and that al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden were responsible for the attacks. There was also enough time for a vote in the United Nation, one that ended up with full support for the American and British invasion of Afghanistan, even though the United Nations is notoriously known for a pacifist stance.

If Mexicans are not the same as Afghans, why mention them?

You state that Newsweek showed pictures of Afghanistan before and after. Before and after what? The American invasion? The Taliban invasion? The Soviet invasion? The Ottoman invasion? You do not need to be more specific because this point is irrelevant anyways. The aftermath of the American invasion of Afghanistan is not part of whether or not the American invasion of Afghanistan was justified in the first place. I agree that the aftermath was not planned thoroughly but that does not mean that the initial American invasion was not justified. This point therefore no longer is relevant and should no longer be discussed.

I will not comment on your debate, but to recapitulate, I shall state that I have refuted all of my opponent's rebuttals and arguments and successfully defended my own points.

Thank you.

Good day/afternoon/evening.
crazypenguin

Con

Thank you,

Now to rebutt your points

But if Afghanistan did house the terrorists and did not show them or claim to have them and give them up they are essentially attacking the US.

To Clarify How was the Afghanistan invasion an act of self-defence?

They did wait but not long enough, they could have waited and go more information then just from a video that they recieved.

FOR EXAMPLE!!!!!

I will state that after the AMERICAN INVASION for your information. It is not irrelevant because the debate is about The American Invasion of Afghanistan was justifiable. key word being American Invasion, so you did admit that the aftermath was not planned thouroughly and that we did ruin Afghanistan by entering and invading
Debate Round No. 4
sagarous

Pro

Thank you for your prompt reply.

Seeing as this is the final round, there may not be any new points brought up in the spirit of the debate format. Only rebuttals and restatements.

Now, on to refute your points:

>>But if Afghanistan did house the terrorists and did not show them or claim to have them and give them up they are essentially attacking the US.

Afghanistan did claim that they housed the terrorists. I never said that they did not show them or claim to have them. The only thing that I said that Afghanistan repeatedly refused to do was extradite them.

>>To Clarify How was the Afghanistan invasion an act of self-defence?

If Afghanistan houses terrorists that are known to have killed thousands of American citizens, and time after time after time again, they refused to extradite them...this is essentially a declaration of war. Not by the Afghan sovereign state but by the Taliban, which has not been recognized as a government by the world's nations except for Pakistan, whose diplomatic ties were strained after that, therefore, not necessarily the government.
If your neighbor attacks and kills your sister, and he runs to another neighbor's house, and that other neighbor agrees to house him and refuses to give him up to you...wouldn't it be justified to enter the house to apprehend the neighbor that killed your sister?

>>They did wait but not long enough, they could have waited and go more information then just from a video that they recieved.

I did not say that they only waited for the video and then attacked. There was at least a month of negotiations with the Taliban, within the UN General Assembly and the Security Council along with the International Court of Justice, there were intense debates and discussions within governments from over forty-seven countries; all within the time between september eleventh and mid october. Even though the period of time was relatively short, there was much done during that time and therefore time is not an excuse.

>>I will state that after the AMERICAN INVASION for your information. It is not irrelevant because the debate is about The American Invasion of Afghanistan was justifiable. key word being American Invasion, so you did admit that the aftermath was not planned thouroughly and that we did ruin Afghanistan by entering and invading

The word invasion refers only to the initial invasion, defined by the time of entering the borders of Afghanistan to the time of the overthrow of the Taliban regime. Thus, your aftermath point and your pictures in Newsweek are irrelevant because they were no doubt relevant only AFTER the removal of the Taliban. Anyways, much of the damage caused to Afghanistan during the initial invasion and a short time after the overthrow of the Taliban was caused by the Taliban themselves to ruin as much for the liberators and thus cast the invaders in a negative light.

As I have refuted all of my opponent's rebuttals and points, I shall now restate my points:

1) After the 9/11 attacks the U.S. was fully justified to attack Afghanistan because it was an act of self-defence. There was viable proof that Afghanistan harbored several terrorists that conspired in the 9/11 plot, therefore the attack was justified.

2) Besides harboring several terrorists, Afghanistan was ruled by a government that was radically dangerous to our own national security. The Taliban were known oppressors of their people and it was in our place to help them.

3) bin Laden is a necessary evil to eradicate that justifies the invasion.

Seeing as I have successfully defended all of my points from my opponent's rebuttals and I have successfully refuted all of my opponent's points, the Pro side of the argument deserves to win this debate. Therefore, the American invasion of Afghanistan is justified.

I would like to thank my opponent for debating with me, all the readers of this debate, and all the voters who voted in this debate, regardless of whether or not they voted for my argument. I would also like to thank the webmaster(s) of debate.org for creating such a wonderful medium through which we may express ourselves and conduct ourselves in civilized and sanitized debate.

Thank you all.

Good day/evening/night.
crazypenguin

Con

First I am sorry to say but I did not read your whole argument so I shall just restate points/rebuttals

Afghanistan was better off before we entered
We had no solid information and we should have waited before invading
Afghanistan could have attacked for other reasons for which we attack unneccesarilly in self-defence
Thank you and I am sorry if this is a disappointing closing

Thank you for this debate,
Debate Round No. 5
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by goldspurs 9 years ago
goldspurs
Sheep, I have been to Afghanistan and most of the people want us there. If in WW2 most of the people in japan didn't support their goverment but we were still attacked are we still not justified to attack them?

The Taliban deserved to be removed from power for the atrocities commited under their control.
Posted by sheepgotoheaven 9 years ago
sheepgotoheaven
So Afghanistan is responsible for what an extremely small fraction of its people do? Thats like saying if there is a bad guy hidden in New York, we bomb the whole city. It's just not justified. How can we retaliate by killing over 3000 innocent? An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.
Posted by righty10294 9 years ago
righty10294
I live on the water near a cuople of bases, and on 9/11 there were a couple of subs in the water, which you rarely see on, and my dad said, "We are going to war" IT WAS NECESSARY!!!
21 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by sdcharger 8 years ago
sdcharger
sagarouscrazypenguinTied
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:70 
Vote Placed by padfo0t 8 years ago
padfo0t
sagarouscrazypenguinTied
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 
Vote Placed by sagarous 8 years ago
sagarous
sagarouscrazypenguinTied
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:70 
Vote Placed by crazypenguin 8 years ago
crazypenguin
sagarouscrazypenguinTied
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 
Vote Placed by bigbass3000 8 years ago
bigbass3000
sagarouscrazypenguinTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:30 
Vote Placed by Kleptin 8 years ago
Kleptin
sagarouscrazypenguinTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:30 
Vote Placed by balluh 9 years ago
balluh
sagarouscrazypenguinTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:03 
Vote Placed by AK-47debater 9 years ago
AK-47debater
sagarouscrazypenguinTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:30 
Vote Placed by Padfoot36 9 years ago
Padfoot36
sagarouscrazypenguinTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:03 
Vote Placed by righty10294 9 years ago
righty10294
sagarouscrazypenguinTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:30