The Instigator
Jifpop09
Pro (for)
Winning
12 Points
The Contender
bubbatheclown
Con (against)
Losing
2 Points

The LRA caused more terror then Al- Qaeda

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 5 votes the winner is...
Jifpop09
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/30/2014 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,700 times Debate No: 51239
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (35)
Votes (5)

 

Jifpop09

Pro

I will be arguing that the Lords Resistance Army (LRA) caused more fear and terror then Al-Qaeda. This is not centered on who got more media attention, but as who did more terrible things. Besides that, the rules are pretty explanatory.






    1. lords resistance army

      Web definitions



        1. The Lord's Resistance Army, also known as the Lord's Resistance Movement, is a militant movement, which is described by some as a new religious movement or a cult which operated in northern Uganda and South Sudan. ...

          http://en.wikipedia.org...






    1. al-Qaeda. al-Qaeda. a radical Sunni Muslim organization dedicated to the elimination of a Western presence in Arab countries and militantly opposed to Western foreign policy: founded by Osama bin Laden in 1988. "For hym was levere have at his beddes heed,

      Al-qaeda | Define Al-qaeda at Dictionary.com
      dictionary.reference.com/browse/al-qaeda



bubbatheclown

Con

I accept. May the better debater win,
Debate Round No. 1
Jifpop09

Pro

Case 1: Militarization of Children

The LRA is notorius for capturing children and putting a gun in their hands. Kony found Children a better soldier, as people often hesitated before shooting them, and they were often easy to control and manipulate. The LRA had a practice of making children kill their parents with a blunt weapon, to take away any reasons they might have to be defiant, and to crush the childs values. They make up the majority of the LRA army, and are sent in combat first, with a leader far back. About 30,000 children have been recruited into the LRA. The scary thing is, that most of the kids are not even of teenage years. They are 7 or 8, and if your to weak, you would shot. The kids were never buried either, instead being stacked along the road or in a trench, in mass graves.



http://womennewsnetwork.net...

http://web.archive.org...



Case 2: LRA Sex Slavery

The LRA does not ignore girls either. Not only are some given guns as well, most become sex slaves. They are often beated and cut up, as they are sold to some of the worst people in Africa. Little girls are raped constantly within the LRA, and often in the most brutal ways. Something that goes against even the values Al-Qaeda possesses.





http://news.bbc.co.uk...

Case 3: Conduct of War

The
LRA is most famous for its brutlity in war. They survive on raiding, and after a battle, they commit terrible atrocities. They will mutilate dead bodies, burn down houses, rape survivors, and cannibalize the rest. Sometimes, they even force the kids they capture to engage in the same practice of cannibalism. Over 90% of the people killed in the LRA's revolution have been civilians, as they show no regard for human life.


http://invisiblechildren.com...

http://www.un.org...
bubbatheclown

Con

Estimate of Casualties from LRA Insurgency:

65,000+ killed (Northern Uganda only
http://en.wikipedia.org...'s_Resistance_Army_insurgency
Deaths: 32,000
Injured: 0
Missing: 30,000
Displaced: 2,100,000
http://jasper-cs373-wc.appspot.com...

Now it's Al-Qaeda's turn.
Al-Qaeda has probably had somewhere around 5000 direct casualties.
http://npsglobal.org...

On first glance, it appears that Con has won this debate. However, if you stick with me a little longer, I will prove that this is not the case. It turns out that Al-Qaeda has had a TON of indirect casualties.

Al-Qaeda's September 11, 2001 Attacks resulted in the War on Terror. The US Government's foreign policy became a policy of combatting terrorism wherever it may pop up. Here are a few of the places that the US has invaded as a result of the War on Terror:
Afghanistan
http://en.wikipedia.org...(2001%E2%80%93present)
http://www.cfr.org...

Iraq:
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://news-basics.com...

These wars resulted in: (Note: total casualties in each of these conflicts are most definitely at least slightly higher than stated)
Iraq:
103,160-113,728 civilian deaths in Iraq from violence, 24,219 dead and 117,961 wounded on the Coalition Side, and a total of 28,821-37,405 Iraqi combatants dead.
http://en.wikipedia.org...
Afghanistan:
16,725-19,013 civilians dead, 14,846 Coalition forces dead, and an unknown amount of Afghan insurgent deaths.
http://en.wikipedia.org...(2001%E2%80%93present)

Con is probably tapping his finger impatiently, saying that Iraq was a war against Saddam Hussein and the Ba'ath Party while Afghanistan was against the Taliban. And he's right: neither of these wars were directly against Al-Qaeda.
But consider this: would a single soldier have stepped foot in Afghanistan or Iraq in 2001 and 2003 had 9/11 not happened? Thus, Al-Qaeda is indirectly responsible for more deaths than the LRA's direct deaths.
ALSO, may I add that Al-Qaeda actually is fighting in Iraq?
http://en.wikipedia.org...

Now, let's bring up another subject:
Definition of Terror:
a very strong feeling of fear
something that causes very strong feelings of fear : something that is terrifying
violence that is committed by a person, group, or government in order to frighten people and achieve a political goal
http://www.merriam-webster.com...

Let's see...the suicide rate has increased since 9/11, due to our many recent wars
http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com...
http://blog.mysanantonio.com...
I'd say that this proves Al-Qaeda and its effects on the world have caused sufficient terror

Trillions have been spent on fighting terrorism
http://nation.time.com...
This also proves how terrified we are of a few bearded Muslims with bombs.

Also...
http://www.splcenter.org...
I'd have to say that many of these Islamophobic people are afraid of Islam and/or its followers. Either that or they just want revenge against someone.

I await Con's response.
Debate Round No. 2
Jifpop09

Pro

I only have time for one argument this round, and its a rebuttal to every single point Con made last round.

He seems to be of some illusion that Al-Qaeda is responcible for every single death that happened in Afghanistan and Iraq.

R1: Al-Qaeda had no connection with Saddam Hussien, and him suggesting that we got into a war with him over Al-Qaeda ia absolute nonsense. It just is.

R2: Same thing with Afghanistan. Almost all the fighting was done with Taliban forces, and even though they started a chain reaction, they are not nessecarily 100% responcible for our involvment, or does it make them as terrible in the slightest.

So, since I find my opponents arguments incredibly weak, I will extend mine.
bubbatheclown

Con

"I only have time for one argument this round, and its a rebuttal to every single point Con made last round."

"He seems to be of some illusion that Al-Qaeda is responcible (sic) for every single death that happened in Afghanistan and Iraq."

Indirectly they are, because their 9/11 attack set off a chain reaction that caused the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

"R1: Al-Qaeda had no connection with Saddam Hussien (sic), and him suggesting that we got into a war with him over Al-Qaeda ia (sic) absolute nonsense. It just is."

Aside from the fact that we don't know whether Hussein ever had dealings with Al-Qaeda, the fact is that the chain reaction set off by 9/11 (an attack perpetrated by Al-Qaeda) caused our war in Iraq.

"R2: Same thing with Afghanistan. Almost all the fighting was done with Taliban forces, and even though they started a chain reaction, they are not nessecarily (sic) 100% responcible (sic) for our involvment (sic), or does it make them as terrible in the slightest."

Actually, the Taliban had dealings with Al-Qaeda.
"In 1996, bin Laden moved to Afghanistan from Sudan. He came without invitation, and sometimes irritated Mullah Omar with his declaration of war and fatwas against citizens of third-party countries,[254] but relations between the two groups improved over time, to the point that Mullah Omar rebuffed his group's patron Saudi Arabia, insulting Saudi minister Prince Turki while reneging on an earlier promise to turn bin Laden over to the Saudis.[255]
Bin Laden was able to forge an alliance between the Taliban and Al-Qaeda. The Al-Qaeda-trained 055 Brigade integrated with the Taliban army between 1997 and 2001. Several hundred Arab Afghan fighters sent by bin Laden assisted the Taliban in the Mazar-e-Sharif slaughter.[256] The so-called Brigade 055 was also responsible for massacres against civilians in other parts of Afghanistan.[23] From 1996 to 2001 the organization of Osama Bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri had become a virtual state within the Taliban state.
Taliban-Al-Qaeda connections were also strengthened by the reported marriage of one of bin Laden's sons to Omar's daughter. While in Afghanistan, bin Laden may have helped finance the Taliban.[257][258]
After the 1998 U.S. embassy bombings in Africa, bin Laden and several Al-Qaeda members were indicted in U.S. criminal court.[259] The Taliban rejected extradition requests by the U.S., variously claiming that bin Laden had "gone missing",[260] or that Washington "cannot provide any evidence or any proof" that bin Laden is involved in terrorist activities and that "without any evidence, bin Laden is a man without sin... he is a free man."[261][262]
Evidence against bin Laden included courtroom testimony and satellite phone records.[263][264] Bin Laden in turn, praised the Taliban as the "only Islamic government" in existence, and lauded Mullah Omar for his destruction of idols such as the Buddhas of Bamyan.[265]
At the end of 2008, the Taliban was in talks to sever all ties with Al-Qaeda.[266]
In 2011, Alex Strick van Linschoten and Felix Kuehn at New York University's Center on International Cooperation claimed that the two groups did not get along at times before the September 11 attacks, and they have continued to fight since on account of their differences."
http://en.wikipedia.org...

"So, since I find my opponents arguments incredibly weak, I will extend mine."
I see nothing weak about my arguments; vote for Con.
Debate Round No. 3
35 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by bubbatheclown 3 years ago
bubbatheclown
Considering how ridiculously long it took Pro, I hope my opponent doesn't mind if I take my own jolly good time before posting.
Posted by Jifpop09 3 years ago
Jifpop09
The war on terror took place in multiple countries over multiple reasons. Al-Qaeda had no formal connection with Saddam Hussein, and even if they did, setting off a chain reaction does not make them more "terrible".
Posted by bubbatheclown 3 years ago
bubbatheclown
Wikipedia classifies the Iraq War as part of the War on Terror. The War on Terror happened because of 9/11. 9/11 happened because of Al-Qaeda.
Any questions, class?
Posted by Jifpop09 3 years ago
Jifpop09
Bubba, this is litterally the most ridiculous thing I ever heard -_-. We invaded Iraq because Bush thought Saddam had WMD's. It had literally nothing to do with Al Qaeda. We didn't even launch into Iraq from Afghanistan.
Posted by bubbatheclown 3 years ago
bubbatheclown
Like I said, there would be no 2003 US Invasion of Iraq if it weren't for Al-Qaeda,
Posted by Jifpop09 3 years ago
Jifpop09
*? df
Posted by Jifpop09 3 years ago
Jifpop09
Wow, is he really trying to connect the total amount of deaths in Iraq with Al-Qaeda.
Posted by fazz 3 years ago
fazz
Quoting round 2: "The rationale for invading Iraq as a response to 9/11 has been widely questioned, as there was no cooperation between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda."

Thats your source, right?
Posted by fazz 3 years ago
fazz
Yes you did: ..https://en.wikipedia.org....
Posted by bubbatheclown 3 years ago
bubbatheclown
I think otherwise:
http://en.wikipedia.org...
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by ESocialBookworm 3 years ago
ESocialBookworm
Jifpop09bubbatheclownTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:31 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro was more convincing. He used better points. Wikipedia is not a very reliable source Bubba. Conduct- Pro called Bubba's arguments weak.
Vote Placed by Aravengeance 3 years ago
Aravengeance
Jifpop09bubbatheclownTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Con relied on casualties while Pro had arguments such as rape, cannibalism, using children for war, and other atrocious acts. Imo some things are worse than death.
Vote Placed by ChrisF 3 years ago
ChrisF
Jifpop09bubbatheclownTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:31 
Reasons for voting decision: Con's arguments relied entirely on the idea that everyone killed in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars could be blamed on Al Qaeda, despite the fact that Al Qaeda had no power at all in Iraq until after the war, and did not participate as much as the Taliban in Afghanistan.
Vote Placed by Actionsspeak 3 years ago
Actionsspeak
Jifpop09bubbatheclownTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: withdrawn
Vote Placed by sewook123 3 years ago
sewook123
Jifpop09bubbatheclownTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Con based some of his arguments on hypothetical situations such as the connection of Iraq invasion with Al-Qaeda. There are little or evidence that connect these two events. USA's so called objective of ivading Iraq was to find the "weapon of mass destruction," which did not really exist.