The Instigator
sagarous
Pro (for)
Winning
65 Points
The Contender
iq_two
Con (against)
Losing
9 Points

The American invasion of Afghanistan is justifiable.

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  
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: 12/17/2007 Category: News
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 5,685 times Debate No: 614
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (6)
Votes (22)

 

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.
iq_two

Con

Even if your point were true, we would not be justified in invading Afghanistan. War kills innocent people, not the people who we are truly against. However, even if you can justify war, especially offensive war, attacking Afghanistan is not justified.

Your first point was that attacking Afghanistan was an act of self defense, because Afghanistan harbored several terrorists that conspired in the 9/11 attack. However, it was not the country of Afghanistan that committed the attacks, but individuals. The biggest mistake our administration made after September 11th was treating the terrorist attacks as the beginning of a war, or wars, rather than a criminal attack. And even if Afghanistan did harbor the criminals who committed the attacks, that does not justify attacking the whole country. Many other countries harbor criminals that committed crimes in the U.S., and we aren't attacking them. Granted, the 9/11 attacks are more than just any crime, but even so, it was individuals who committed them, not the country of Afghanistan. The war on Afghanistan is an example of the Bush administration's "if you're not with us you're against us" mentality. Blaming Afghanistan for the attacks is saying that since some people from Afghanistan committed them, the whole country is at fault, a clear logical fallacy. If an individual from a country commits a crime in, or even attacks, another country, does that justify declaring war on the entire country?

Your second point was that the Afghani government was dangerous to us and oppressive to its own people. I don't disagree with this. However, you're forgetting that it was the United States who helped the Taliban to power in the first place. We can't put a government in power and then say, Okay, now that we're done fighting Communism, we don't like you anymore."

I think your third point was that eradicating bin Laden justifies the invasion (if not, say so, it wasn't clear). As horrible as bin Laden is, one evil person does not justify invading an entire country. And even if it did, invading Afghanistan was not the correct strategy. I mean, we did invade Afghanistan, and we haven't caught bin Laden. On the other hand, had we had some CIA agents go to Afghanistan more surreptitiously, they most likely would have been able to find bin Laden, and without starting a war.
Debate Round No. 1
sagarous

Pro

Thank you for your reply

First of all, in your rebuttal to my first point you replied that and I quote, "even if Afghanistan did harbor the criminals who committed the attacks, that does not justify attacking the whole country" However, if your neighbor kills a loved one and runs off to a friend's house to arrive...and the friend decides to help and hide the neighbor, wouldn't the police need to attack the neighbor's house in order to arrest your neighbor? Next, you comment that the United States treated the terrorist attacks as the beginning of a war instead of a criminal attack. However, these people represented a non-U.S. force. Therefore this is not merely a criminal attack , but a declaration of war. Although al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden are not sovereign nations, the nation which shelters the group must be part of the attack itself. You also mention that there are other nations that harbor criminals that have committed acts against persons of our country. However, none of these criminals have committed and act of the 9/11 scale. Therefore, this point is irrelevant. As for the "if you're not with us you're against us" argument, if a nation is holding a terrorist group that is wanted by the United States, and is not willing to cooperate with the United States to either allow the United States to search the country or search the country themselves, wouldn't the United States be justified to attack? Let's go back to the neighbor killing your loved one scenario. When the neighbor runs to his friend's house and his friend agrees to protect him and refuses to help you, wouldn't your neighbor be guilty as well...even though he didn't commit the crime himself?

Next, you point out that we put the Taliban into power in the first place. You are wrong because we merely gave arms to the Taliban to expel the Soviets and at no time did we endorse them. Anyways, this point is also irrelevant because there was no way to know whether or not the Taliban would be oppressive or not to its people when it governed, because at the time, it wasn't the governing body.

For my third point, you mention that one evil person does not justify invading a country. Were we justified to attack Hitler, when he ruled Nazi Germany? Were we not justified to attack a nation led by a ruler so evil that he committed countless acts of genocide? Once again, however, the point is irrelevant. You mention that "even if [bin Laden justified the invasion of Afghanistan], it was not the correct strategy." However, this debate is not about whether or not the invasion of Afghanistan was the correct strategy, this debate is whether or not the invasion of Afghanistan was justifiable.

And because I have refuted or made your rebuttals irrelevant, the war in Afghanistan is justified.

Thank you.
iq_two

Con

I disagree with a lot of what you said but unfortunately am really busy right now and don't have time to pick your argument apart. So I will simply respond to your statement that the war in Afghanistan is justified because you have refuted my rebuttals. However, my rebuttals were simply responses to your argument, not my reasons why the invasion was not justified. THE INVASION OF AFGHANISTAN IS NOT JUSTIFIABLE BECAUSE WAR IS WRONG AND KILLS INNOCENT PEOPLE!
Debate Round No. 2
sagarous

Pro

Thank you once again for your reply.

I regret that I will not be able to debate with you fully because of your personal businesses.

In rebuttal to your point that wars are bad...that is a generalization that is sometimes wrong. Was the war against Nazi Germany bad? Was it wrong to attack a nation that led horrific genocidal attacks against European Jews, the gypsies, and others. Was it wrong to fight for our belief that Nazi Germany's actions were wrong? Was it wrong to believe in our fight for democracy and anti-Communism in the world when Communist aggression in Vietnam and Korea threatened their southern democratic neighbors? No! These were not necessarily the right strategies to deal with these nations but that doesn't classify wars as "bad".

Next, you state that wars kill innocent people. Sometimes it is necessary, as regretful as it is, to lose innocent people in times of war. But many times, these innocent people lost their lives in order for us to defeat a greater evil. The Afghan people, I regretfully must say, were a sacrifice for the downfall of the Taliban, thus innocent people were killed to destroy a greater power.

Therefore, as I have refuted all your points and have successfully defended my points (much to my regret that this debate could not have been argued to the fullest), the American invasion of Afghanistan was, is, and will be justified.

Thank you...and God Bless Us All...God Bless America.

Good day/afternoon/evening/night
iq_two

Con

iq_two forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by iq_two 9 years ago
iq_two
Saying that the war in Afghanistan killed innocent people does not in any way lessen the loss of life on September 11. In any war, no matter how "just", most of the people fighting are just normal people who none of us have any quarrel with. It's the government that's bad, and if in wars the leaders of the opposing countries fought a duel to the death then sure, maybe that would be fair, but the people who actually die in wars are just ordinary citizens who happen to have been born in the country they are fighting for.
And even if you can't buy the idea that the soldiers fighting for the other side can be innocent people, what about the young children who loose their parents?
It is a tragedy whenever innocent lives are lost no matter what country they are from and whether it was through war, terrorist attacks, crime, natural disaster, accident, disease, starvation, anything.
Posted by Solarman1969 9 years ago
Solarman1969
pretty much the same

Liberal= pacifist
Posted by ishamael_89 9 years ago
ishamael_89
Solarman, I believe the terminology you were looking for is pacifists, not liberals, as I'm sure you did not mean to generalize your comment. :)
Posted by goldspurs 9 years ago
goldspurs
I just find it amazing that the Con chooses to say that the war in Afghanistan killed innocent people. I guess the innocent people killed on 9/11 doesn't matter. Guess we should allow more of our own citizens die so we don't kill innocent people in Afghanistan. What logic!!
Posted by Solarman1969 9 years ago
Solarman1969
Liberals are just amazing in their thinking

BECAUSE WAR IS WRONG AND KILLS INNOCENT PEOPLE!

Ok, so just let the bad guys win and become a slave!

Hitler- let him alone !

Tojo- misunderstood

Bin Laden- its OUR FAULT!

Duhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!
Posted by sagarous 9 years ago
sagarous
I'm sorry for this confusion, but for my second to last line for Round 2 Pro, the line should read, "And because I have refuted or made irrelevant all your rebuttals, the war in Afghanistan is justified."

Sorry for this confusion.

Thank you.
22 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Mharman 8 months ago
Mharman
sagarousiq_twoTied
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 sdcharger 9 years ago
sdcharger
sagarousiq_twoTied
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 sagarous 9 years ago
sagarous
sagarousiq_twoTied
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 Padfoot36 9 years ago
Padfoot36
sagarousiq_twoTied
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 padfo0t 9 years ago
padfo0t
sagarousiq_twoTied
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 undecided_voter 9 years ago
undecided_voter
sagarousiq_twoTied
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 indicolts 9 years ago
indicolts
sagarousiq_twoTied
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 UN_diplomat 9 years ago
UN_diplomat
sagarousiq_twoTied
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 GovernmentSpies 9 years ago
GovernmentSpies
sagarousiq_twoTied
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 hark 9 years ago
hark
sagarousiq_twoTied
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