The Instigator
Clausewitz
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Ron-Paul
Con (against)
Winning
33 Points

The War In Afghanistan Is Winnable

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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...
Ron-Paul
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/21/2012 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,922 times Debate No: 26435
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (0)
Votes (5)

 

Clausewitz

Pro

First round is acceptance, followed by 4 rounds of debate. I will offer in this debate a sensible strategy for U.S. victory in Afghanistan. I hope my opponent accepts my offer, and I look forward to and intellectually challenging debate.
Ron-Paul

Con

I accept and wish my opponent the best of luck.
Debate Round No. 1
Clausewitz

Pro

Clausewitz forfeited this round.
Ron-Paul

Con

Since my opponent has the BoP in this debate, I guess I will wait for him to post his arguments.
Debate Round No. 2
Clausewitz

Pro

Clausewitz forfeited this round.
Ron-Paul

Con

Well I don't want to bore my readers, so I'll post a few arguments.

My point: Its goals have not been accomplished and it isn't working.

The problem: "The appropriate question is not whether the war is winnable. If we define victory narrowly, if we are willing to apply the resources necessary to have a reasonable chance of success, and if we have capable and credible partners, then of course the war is winnable. Any war is winnable under these conditions.

None of these conditions exist in Afghanistan, however. Our mission is too broadly construed. Our resources are constrained. The patience of the American people has worn thin. And our Afghan partners are unreliable and unpopular with their own people."[1]

What's the effect: "Tuesday night, President Barack Obama unveiled his new strategy regarding the war in Afghanistan: to begin deploying 30,000 American troops to Afghanistan in the next few weeks. However, no matter how many troops we send, how many resources we exhaust and how many lives we lose, the war on terrorism that we have been fighting for more than eight years is an unwinnable war.

Fighting an entity is one thing, but fighting an idea " fighting an ambiguous group of people who harbor terrorism and hatred is a completely different story " something that we cannot accomplish by sending 30,000 more troops to the Middle East."[2]

Conclusion:

"After a decade of major security, development and humanitarian assistance, the international community has failed to achieve a politically stable and economically viable Afghanistan. ..."[3]

The war has been a failure; there is no reason for it to turn around.

Sources:

[1]: http://www.cato.org...
[2]: http://www.dailyillini.com...
[3]: http://www.war-times.org...
Debate Round No. 3
Clausewitz

Pro

Clausewitz forfeited this round.
Ron-Paul

Con

You know, this guy challenged me specifically to this debate. Why would he challenge me and then leave it?
Debate Round No. 4
Clausewitz

Pro

Clausewitz forfeited this round.
Ron-Paul

Con

Vote con.
Debate Round No. 5
No comments have been posted on this debate.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by emospongebob527 4 years ago
emospongebob527
ClausewitzRon-PaulTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Votebomb
Vote Placed by tulle 4 years ago
tulle
ClausewitzRon-PaulTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro didn't offer any arguments. Lost conduct point for starting a debate he didn't intend to finish.
Vote Placed by Koopin 4 years ago
Koopin
ClausewitzRon-PaulTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: FF
Vote Placed by Mirza 4 years ago
Mirza
ClausewitzRon-PaulTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro forfeited. Conduct to Con. S/G equal - typos do not count. Pro presented no arguments, nor sources. Con is the victor.
Vote Placed by AlwaysMoreThanYou 4 years ago
AlwaysMoreThanYou
ClausewitzRon-PaulTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct: Con, Pro forfeited. S/G: Con, 'I look forward to and intellectually challenging debate.'. Arguments: Con, Pro provided none and Con's were convincing. Sources: Con, Pro provided none while Con provided three decent ones.