The Instigator
TheUnapologeticTruth
Pro (for)
Winning
3 Points
The Contender
ararmer1919
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

The War in Afghanistan is futile and a waste.

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...
TheUnapologeticTruth
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/2/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,223 times Debate No: 36297
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (7)
Votes (1)

 

TheUnapologeticTruth

Pro

First round for accept.

The War in Afghanistan is futile and a waste of money. My burden is to prove that the cost of the war and our military resources could have been better applied elsewhere in a better effort to protect us from Islamic terrorists. My opponent has to prove the opposite.

Final round is for closing remarks and no new arguments are to be presented.
ararmer1919

Con

I thank my opponent for the challenge and I accept. I will argue that the war was not futile nor a waste and that it was necessary for the defense of the United States. Id just like it to be known that on the 15th of this month I will be deploying so if for some reason this debate takes to long I will not be able to continue after the 14th and I ask that any rounds forfeited due to this aren't held against me conduct wise. Best of luck to my opponent and lets have a good debate.
Debate Round No. 1
TheUnapologeticTruth

Pro

Thank you for accepting this debate.
For starters, the cost in lives of our soldiers and our allies is atrocious. In total there have been 3,358 total deaths of U.S. and coalition forces; 2,259 of those deaths are from U.S. forces (1) The cost in lives of the war exceeds the number of people killed on 9/11. (2) To make the war "worthwhile". To justify that high number of fatalities, we must conclude that without the war we would have seen more 9/11s and possibly a higher civilian death toll in the U.S. than the total cost of the war in terms of lives lost.

Can we justify the war on these terms? Is it reasonable to conclude that without the war we would"ve lost more lives and had more 9/11 type events? I answer, no.

Why? Well, we must examine how we were attacked. All of the 9/11 hijackers came here legally from various Islamic countries (none came from Afghanistan) (3) This proves that the war alone would not keep us safe because Islamic terrorists exist in every corner of the globe. To think that a war in Afghanistan would simply stop Muslims from hating us and wanting to kill us is illogical. Especially, since our immigration system is so slacked that we allow extremists in legally.

The war we are fighting is a religious one and a futile one at that. Simply waging a war in a single country against a religious enemy motivated by their prophet will not keep us any safer. Why? Because Islam is worldwide therefore the threat is worldwide. In order to be completely secure we must not allow Muslims into this country and we must not allow the "religion" to be practiced freely inside our borders without keeping a close eye on what is being taught in US mosques.
Our borders are unsecure and as a result, terrorists are coming both legally and illegally into the country. (4) The threat isn"t overseas in one location. It"s here at our doorstep. The threat is from within the U.S. not from Muslims in a cave halfway around the world in Afghanistan. The only logical and cost effective way to secure America is from within and not with some foreign war.

We could have turned Afghanistan into the next England or Israel and the threat of Islamic terrorism inside the United States remains unchanged. This simple fact alone means the entire war is futile and a waste. What has made us marginally more secure is the Department of Homeland Security, TSA and the Patriot Act. Not this foreign war. The Afghan war isn"t keeping terrorists from entering this country and operating. Increased internal security measures are.

A new report from Harvard indicates that the total cost of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars will reach between 4-6Trillion dollars when taking into account "... long-term medical care and disability compensation for service members, veterans and families, military replenishment and social and economic costs..." (5) So, cutting the bill in half for the Afghan war we could"ve kept around $3T and saved thousands of lives. It"s completely reasonable to think that even if we spent $1T on border security, new programs to locate Islamic extremism within the U.S. and immigration reform would have been a much better idea.

A program I would create would be to have local police forces working in conjunction with Federal agents to attend and scout mosques periodically within the U.S. Why is this necessary? Well consider the fact that U.S. mosques have become breeding grounds for anti-western and jihadist teachings. (6,7) This again, proves that the Afghan war itself has done nothing to keep Americans any safer. The threat is here, not there.

In conclusion:
-You cannot stop the threat of Islamic terror without stopping Islam itself. The threat will remain as long as muslims exist.
-Without the war we would have spared the lives of thousands of Americans and members of the coalition forces
-The war is extremely expensive and its clear that even a fraction of the cost would have been better applied to securing the border and internal security programs.
-The Deparment of Homeland Security, Patriot Act and the TSA are responsible for thwarting internal terrorist attacks and not the war itself.

1 http://icasualties.org...
2 http://www.statisticbrain.com...
3 http://www.fairus.org...
4 http://azcapitoltimes.com...
5 http://www.globalresearch.ca...
6 http://news.investors.com...
7 http://www.clarionproject.org...
ararmer1919

Con

Ok lets try this again. lol

First off my opponent claims that the war was a waste because the number of military lives lost exceeded that of the number of civilian lives lost. However this does not include the subsequent lives lost to terror attacks since 9/11 in the US and since my opponent brought up the coalition throughout the world. (Source#1) shows some of the most major terrorist attacks that have happened over the last 10 years but there are literally hundreds more that have happened each year. And by no means do I mean any dishonor to our Allies but if we remove the non-American lives lost we see that we have lost 2,259 service members. That's nearly 700 less then the September 11th attack alone. So the correct answer is no we have not lost more soldiers then civilians so far. But to the more important point, with the statistics and numbers aside, it is the solemn duty of each soldier to protect with his life if necessary the lives of his people. I would gladly give my life a thousand times over if it spared even a single civilian life and while not every service member feels the same way the majority of them do or did. But even if they don't feel that way it doesn't matter because protecting the people is the very basis of our existence. Even if the death toll was 10,000 soldiers it is still better then even a single civilian casualty. Even 1 is unacceptable. So it is far more acceptable for a soldier to die then it is for our citizenry to die. One of the most monumental things I've learned in my time in the Corps was something an instructor once said to me. "Know the difference between a life wasted and a life spent." If a solider dies but his death resulted in a civilian getting to live then this is not a wasted death but a spent one. So this begs the question is our sacrifices resulting in the lives of our citizens being protected? I will answer that later on as it ties with my next point.

"Is it reasonable to conclude that without the war we would've lost more lives and had more 9/11 type events? I answer, no."

This is incorrect. (Source#2) shows that since 9/11 there have been around 50 known terrorist plots in the US alone not including the thousands that have happened around the world nor the likely dozens that we will never even know about. your probably sitting there asking "why bring this up, this makes it look like the war isn't doing anything to prevent terrorism?" ill get to that in a bit but first lets look closer at source2 as well as (Source#3) and see who it is that is conducting these plots. As we can see a whopping 84% of all known terrorist plots were conducted by home grown terrorist. US citizens. Most of them were born here, grew up here, went to school and had jobs and lived normal lives just like you and me. Pro even brought up this very problem within out nation and it is certainly one that needs addressing though I would not go as far as to infringe on Muslims rights to practice their freedom of religion or banning them from coming to this country. But my opponents assumption that by focusing on border security and tighter immigration laws instead of the war in the Mid East we would have less terrorist attacks here is wrong since the majority of these attacks are being conducted by our own citizens. Do terrorist sneak across the border from time to time? Of course and it is a problem we need to work on but obviously not the most serious one since foreign attackers only make up a small percentage of known terrorist plots.

So you all are probably sitting there still thinking "this still just looks like things that hurt your own cause, why bring them up?" Ready for this bombshell? Why is it that the vast majority of terrorist plots in the US are home grown radicals and not foreign radicals? The majority of radical jihadist are foreign primarily from the Mid East and only a small percentage of US Muslims are radical yet they are the ones behind the majority of these attacks. So why aren't these foreign groups attacking us? We know they want to. They want nothing more then to kill us. It could be argued that this is due to our awesome homeland security and border defense. Obviously not the case and if you look at the numbers we only see a few cases of foreign jihadist attacks on the US. So where are they? The answer. They are to busy fighting our military in THIER holy land! because for every US boot in the Mid East fighting them in their back yard its 5 less jihadist coming over here and fighting and killing in your back yard. Because we are taking the fight to them they can NOT take the fight to us and this is where I said my first point ties in here. Our actions over there are safeguarding the lives of our people here. If we weren't over there I guarantee you that there would be far more attacks on US soil. Like I said lives wasted vs lives spent. Our sacrifice over there ensures the safety of our people. those are lives spent. Will it stop all terrorist attacks? Of course not. Will it bring about the end of terrorism? Probably not. But it keeps our people that much safer. So that age old question "how do soldiers 10,000 miles away keep me safe here?" is answered. Better to be proactive then reactive. Better to be on the offensive and not the defensive. So in conclusion this war and the sacrifice of our service men and women are neither futile or a waste.

As for the costs of the war I thank my opponent for cutting the price he mentioned in half since the Iraq war is not the topic here but I would go further and say that the cost is actually around 1.5 trillion since the war in Iraq was far more intricate and was against an actual uniformed military and government and thus would have cost more. But anyway I don't think there is a price on the lives of US citizens and thus the cost to ensure their defence doesn't really matter to me. There are far more worse things then the war that we waste way to much money on that could go to more important things. Like our broken welfare system or this obamacare train wreck.

I'll go ahead and rap that up for this round. In the next round I will point out why we choose Afghanistan for the site of this war. Good luck to my opponent in his next round.

#1 http://www.google.com...

#2 http://www.google.com...

#3 http://www.google.com...
Debate Round No. 2
TheUnapologeticTruth

Pro

Sorry about the mishap. I know it’s frustrating.

Ok, so my opponent concedes that the war is not stopping
- Attempts of Islamic terror on our homeland
- jihadis from crossing our borders
- “home grown” terrorism
- the ever present threat of Islamic terror inside the US

He concedes that the increased security measures have stopped attacks. He also concedes that the war is extremely costly and cost thousands of lives but tries arguing semantics instead of facts.

"So the correct answer is no we have not lost more soldiers then civilians so far."

What I originally said was, “The cost in lives of the war exceeds the number of people killed on 9/11”So yes, we have lost more lives of soldiers but no not “American” soldiers. However, the life of an allied soldier is the same as an American’s because they are over there fighting as well. We brought them into it. I know you said you mean no disrespect but they are on our team shedding blood alongside Americans.

“Even if the death toll was 10,000 soldiers it is still better then even a single civilian casualty. Even 1 is unacceptable.”

Even in war, we have a concept of “acceptable losses”. That is, what is the acceptable casualty rate before changing course. I would argue that a 10,000 to 1 ratio is not acceptable and does more damage to the country in the long run. As an example, in WWII the USAF had an acceptable bomber loss rate. I think it was around 10%. Well, when we started receiving losses in the 13% range we ceased deep penetration raids to stop incurring the high casualty rate. Sources aren’t necessary because I know with my opponent being in the military that he is familiar with this concept and exact numbers aren't necessary to prove the concept exists.

So I’ll ask my opponent. Would you have continued those air raid operations on the hopes that it would save 1 civilian life? Sacrifice all those lives and money for the idea of saving some unknown life at some possible future date? That’s not acceptable. What about Daniel Pearl, the US journalist that was beheaded? If what you say about the military is true then why didn’t we send in a battalion in the hopes of saving him? What if I said, “we can for sure save Daniel Pearl but you and another 9,999 marines must die.” Would that be acceptable? No. If anyone answers otherwise they are kidding themselves. Even American civilians would concede that isn’t acceptable. This is evident by the fact that the majority of Americans are against the war (1) So, yes the costs of this war are unacceptable even to the civilians you are trying to protect.

"However this does not include the subsequent lives lost to terror attacks since 9/11..."

True, but this simply reinforces my position that the war in reality is not keeping us safer. I know you being a service member makes you want so badly for your fallen comrades to not have died in vein, so do I. But let’s not ignore reality. The war isn’t keeping us safer and the losses are unacceptable at this point.

“Pro even brought up this very problem within our nation and it is certainly one that needs addressing though I would not go as far as to infringe on Muslims rights to practice their freedom of religion or banning them from coming to this country.”

Read my other debate on this topic, you might change your mind once you understand that the threat is Islam itself. Once you understand this you’ll understand that the war over there is futile. It makes no difference if we are killing Muslims over there because we have plenty here that want to kill Americans. And as you pointed out, the numbers are growing. So, it only makes sense to stop the war and focus our efforts on the home front.

"But my opponents assumption that by focusing on border security and tighter immigration laws instead of the war in the Mid East we would have less terrorist attacks here is wrong since the majority of these attacks are being conducted by our own citizens."

You already admitted that increased border security has helped stop terrorists from coming here, this is a given. Anyways, we would have less attacks obviously but those weren’t my only two solutions was it? Increased internal security measures are what have stopped attacks. Expanding those programs or creating new ones would help. And how would something like using agents and local law enforcement personnel to periodically attend mosques to see if they are teaching anti-American ideology, advocating violence or the implementation of Sharia Law in America be a violation of rights?

I ask, wouldn’t that be a good idea since the sources I supplied previously demonstrate that this is the case? You even said “home grown” terror is on the rise. The war is not going to stop this reality.

You’re whole argument boils down to basically “us being in their holy land keeps them over there and not fighting us here.”

Ok, well if we weren’t fighting over there how would jihadis get here? Many did and still do come through our porous borders. Many also sneaked in through extremely slacked immigration standards. So obviously there are only two ways for jihadis to get here. Both options could be completely taken away if we put our troops on our border, built a fence, and used drone surveillance and by using rigorous background checks for potential immigrants and completely halting immigration from Islamic nations.

These terrorists aren’t a sophisticated organized military with hundreds of war ships, fighter planes, etc that could mount a full on assault on American soil. If that were the case I’d agree that fighting over there is the better option however that’s not reality. It’s obvious that Jihadis couldn’t mount any sizeable force just outside our borders to pose a serious threat because they also have to sneak into Mexico.

"Do terrorist sneak across the border from time to time? Of course and it is a problem we need to work on but obviously not the most serious one since foreign attackers only make up a small percentage of known terrorist plots."

So you concede that they still sneak across but claim this isn’t the most serious problem? It only takes one terrorist with a dirty bomb to sneak across the border and unleash it on Los Angeles. The US/Mexico border is only 1,954 miles (2) If we took half the cost of the Afghan war we could easily build a wall, put troops on look out posts every 1/8mile, and step up drone surveillance. Our borders would be impenetrable no matter how many jihadis we on the other side due to our not being in Afghanistan. I just saved America $1T and the lives of over 2,000 American service members along with the lives of our allies.

Just for clarity, posts every 1/8 mile would require 15,632 troops on post at the border at any given time. To put that in perspective at the height of the war in Afghanistan we had around 100,000 troops there. (3) In conjunction with military personnel, we would keep using Border Patrol agents and the National guard. Because we already have bases, cities, Border agents, and infrastructure along our borders we won’t need to do much new building for logistical support. This keeps cost down. So it’s clear that my plan is a more sustainable and cost effective approach to protecting American lives than the Afghan War.


Vote Pro

1 http://www.hstoday.us...
2 http://en.wikipedia.org...
3 http://www.nationaljournal.com...
ararmer1919

Con

All right good round Pro. Going to keep me on my toes here I see.

Pro states that I concede these points that the war has not stopped
- “home grown” terrorism"
- "the ever present threat of Islamic terror inside the US"
Not really. What Pro doesn't place here is that there is a distinct difference between home grown and foreign jihadist. I ask Pro this, what exactly could the US military do against home grown jihadist? Unless my opponent is in favor of martial law, and we all know how horrible an idea that is. then there isn't really anything the military can do to quell home grown terrorist. Ever seen the movie The Siege? It is up to our law enforcement to take care of these threats and as we saw in the list of terrorist attacks against the US in the last 10 years we see they haven't done that bad a job. Now this brings me to the other two things he claims I concede.

"Attempts of Islamic terror on our homeland"
-" jihadist from crossing our borders"
Now cant help but feel that Pro missed the entire concept of my last round on this point. It is completely unrealistic and even childish to think that our military could prevent each and every single foreign jihadist from getting inside the US. It is not possible. The point I made in the 2nd round was that we have prevented the bulk of jihadist attacks. By not allowing them to even take place to begin with. If you review this part here " As we can see a whopping 84% of all known terrorist plots were conducted by home grown terrorist." As well as this part "not the most serious one since foreign attackers only make up a small percentage of known terrorist plots." As well as further readings from my second round we see that I already explained this. I will try again. While we can not possibly stop each and every attempt of foreign jihadist attacks what we can do is cause the majority of those that otherwise would come here and attack us to focus their efforts else where. Primarily by us having a presence on their front. If we did not have this presence which causes the jihadist to defend rather then attack then the number of foreign jihadist attacks would certainly increase and thus the amount of American civilian lives lost would increase. Even if we tripled border security and spied on every single Muslim in the US it would not prevent them all. The only other option would be to expel them all from here and iv already stated my distaste for such thoughts. So pretty much what this boils down to is not any single group of ours preventing jihadist attacks but the combination of our forces. Law enforcement to include border patrol and Home land Security on focused on the home front and dealing with home grown threats while our military focuses on the enemies front dealing with foreign enemies.

"However, the life of an allied soldier is the same as an American’s because they are over there fighting as well. We brought them into it. I know you said you mean no disrespect but they are on our team shedding blood alongside Americans."
Again this is a misunderstanding of what I was saying and I apologize if what I said wasn't clear enough. Let me try and fix that. The ONLY reason I didn't include our allies casualties when I said that was because you only used the September 11th attack as your point of reference for whether or not we have lost more civilian lives vs military lives. Because you did not include the 10s of thousands of lives that have been lost due to terror attacks through out the world as I pointed out in round 2 and so I only used the American soldiers death toll since it was the American civilian death toll that you were using as your argument. But I am thinking here that you are wanting coalition force loses included in this figure so then I also will include the global civilian loses due to terrorism in mine. So if we look at it like that then we see that no, unlike your claim that our military losses have exceeded civilian loses, we see that we have lost far less coalition soldiers then we have civilian populace. Our military loses is 3,358 while civilian casualties are in the 10s of thousands. So your point on "acceptable losses" is invalid since we have not yet crossed that threshold.

About your counter to what I said here "However this does not include the subsequent lives lost to terror attacks since 9/11..."
Its extremely unfortunate that so many attacks happen throughout the globe and I wish we could stop them. But as I already stated it is realistically impossible to stop all terror attacks and the US can only be so many places at any time. While there is still a lot of terror attacks elsewhere across the globe what we do see is a very very small amount of attacks on the US. And as stated even fewer of those attacks were caused by foreign aggressors.

"Read my other debate on this topic, you might change your mind once you understand that the threat is Islam itself. Once you understand this you’ll understand that the war over there is futile. It makes no difference if we are killing Muslims over there because we have plenty here that want to kill Americans. And as you pointed out, the numbers are growing. So, it only makes sense to stop the war and focus our efforts on the home front."
Like I said only a small percentage of American Muslims are radicals and I greatly object to punishing them all for what their bottom 10% do. As a Marine I know that group punishment sucks!!! lol. But like I said what can the US military do about home threats? Martial law??? And while we may, and I stress the may, be able to do a little more about home grown jihadist if we pulled out the troops since we'd save a buck or two what would happen is as I stated the enemy over seas would know no longer have any one to deal with and so an increase of foreign attacks will occur. So know instead of us being on the offensive keeping the bulk of radical Muslims away from our homes and fighting and destroying in their lands with only a small number of internal jihadist that our police force should be able to handle, now we are on the defensive being attacked not only from within but also from the outside. Attacked on all corner's if you will.

Now id like to stop real quick and point out for the record what I mean by increased foreign attacks cause I can already here someone like DeFool making some crack about paranoia and what not. When I say this I am not talking about the foolish idea that many undereducated Americans have of thousands of evil Muslims marching down their streets and taking over the US and blah blah blah. This is a ridicules notion and deserves all the criticism. All I am saying is that we will see an increase in simple regular terrorist attacks such as what many other nations in the world suffer. And not like a bombing every day or anything just more foreign attacks then what we see today is all.

So I'm running low on characters and want to get to why we went to Afghan and not Saudi Arabia or Pakistan or something. So sorry if I miss anything.

So why Afghan? Its a good question but honestly one really simple answer. Yes its true that the majority of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudi and other nationality's other then Afghan but it wasn't their nationality that we were after. Each of these men were members of the terrorist organization known as Al Qaeda. They were under the leadership of one Osama bin Laden. This is the man we wanted. This was the organization we were and are primarily at war with. For instance we never declared war against the nation of Afghanistan. Cause they weren't what we were after. (Source1and2) as we see here after 9/11 Osama was in Afghanistan. His headquarters was in Afghan. The bulk of his forces, his training camps, his resources, his command structure. His closest allies and supporters were the Taliban and when they would not hand him over as demanded we invaded.

I am going to have to conclude there unfortunately.

Debate Round No. 3
TheUnapologeticTruth

Pro


I’d like to thank my opponent again for accepting this challenge and for the good debate.


To clarify what I said was “The cost in lives of the war exceeds the number of people killed on 9/11”. See I said people. The use of “people” is generic and includes all lives both civilian, military, firemen, and police. When I later said, “To justify that high number of fatalities, we must conclude that without the war we would have seen more 9/11s and possibly a higher civilian death toll in the U.S.” I didn’t say U.S. civilians I just said “civilians”. A civilian as you know is a regular person not in the military or police force. I was using the word civilian in its generic form. To be clear, we also didn’t lose only “American” civilians on 9/11 either. But again, we are arguing semantics. We have as I pointed out, got more soldiers killed in this war than on 9/11 and add on top of that the extreme financial strain.


“Because you did not include the 10s of thousands of lives that have been lost due to terror attacks through out the world as I pointed out in round 2”


“there have been around 50 known terrorist plots in the US alone not including the thousands that have happened around the world nor the likely dozens that we will never even know about.”


I would ask that you don’t include other lives lost in foreign countries due to terrorism. We dind’t go to war for them we went to prevent future attacks on us and get revenge right? I also shouldn’t have to point out that other countries don’t have the same internal security programs we have. So yes, they will be more susceptible to attacks and thus shouldn’t be included in your argument. It also goes to prove my point yet again that security measure HERE are what stop the attacks. Not a war 10,000 miles away.


The cost in lives and money is beyond the “acceptable loss” threshold for Americans. This concept that I introduced last round you failed to address. So to you, is there no “acceptable loss” cut off point in this war? How many more have to die and how many more billions of dollars do we need to spend? From what it sounds like, there is no cost too great. No matter how many lives are lost or how much more in debt it takes us. Something like this is not sustainable nor is it justified when we consider who our enemies are and their geographic location.


You keep using the idea that if we aren’t over there killing them then they will come here and kill more of us. When this isn’t really a convincing argument.


Why? Well say we weren’t over there like before 9/11. How would these jihadis get here? Exactly how they did before. It’s not like our countries are sharing borders so they could just mount a 100,000 man army and march here. They don’t have a navy or airforce. We are protected by our oceans and two countries on our northern and southern border. I know, Canada wouldn’t let Jihadis immigrate in any sizeable numbers and coordinate an assault on us. The same goes for Mexico. They have to somehow get OVER HERE.


Well the simple solution is DON’T LET THEM. It’s easy to partner with our allies to the north and south and work together to screen immigrants thoroughly and to halt immigration from Islamic nations.


I also take it you have no issue with my border fence and post every 1/8 mile? This is much cheaper and won’t cost thousands of lives. Hell, if you want to kill them all then fine. Drop a nuke and be done with it. I’ll support that. I however cannot support an indefinite war and neither would our Founding Fathers.


Well that’s it from me. I will now turn the floor over to James Madison (The Father of Our Constitution) and let him take it from here but with a few interjections from me.


“War ... should only be declared by the authority of the people, whose toils and treasures are to support its burdens, instead of the government which is to reap its fruits.” James Madison


That is the people decide. Not the government or military itself. The people have spoken... They’ve deemed it futile and a waste.


“Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes; and armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few... No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare.” James Madison


“In time of actual war, great discretionary powers are constantly given to the Executive Magistrate. Constant apprehension of War, has the same tendency to render the head too large for the body. A standing military force, with an overgrown Executive will not long be safe companions to liberty. The means of defence against foreign danger, have been always the instruments of tyranny at home. Among the Romans it was a standing maxim to excite a war, whenever a revolt was apprehended. Throughout all Europe, the armies kept up under the pretext of defending, have enslaved the people.” James Madison


“An armed and trained militia is the firmest bulwark of republics ... without standing armies their liberty can never be in danger, nor with large ones safe.” James Madison


He was against large standing armies too. That’s a “two-for-one” in this debate.


It’s hard to argue with James Madison...


Vote pro for the Father of Our Constitution.


I just want to say, best of luck to you on your deployment. I fully support our troops just not the way in which we are using them. I just wished people listended to our Founders more.


ararmer1919

Con

And I thank my opponent for the challenge. Was a good run. Had some trouble do to character limitations so I hope I was able to get my point across effectively. We shall see.

"We have as I pointed out, got more soldiers killed in this war than on 9/11 and add on top of that the extreme financial strain"

"I would ask that you don’t include other lives lost in foreign countries due to terrorism."

Iv already stated my position on this. Since you included our allies soldiers death toll which is the only way to bring our military losses higher then the losses on 9/11 then you must also include the lives of those lost around the globe. Other wise its practically cheating. We've only lost 2,259 American troops. That's 700 less then 9/11.


"It also goes to prove my point yet again that security measure HERE are what stop the attacks. Not a war 10,000 miles away."

Iv also covered this point. That by the statistics we don't even see that many ATTEMPTS at foreign jihadist attacking the US. These few attempts we thwarted by our law forces here but that's not the argument I'm making. Its because of our presence there that the bulk of the enemy is to distracted to even get the chance to make the attempts.

"From what it sounds like, there is no cost too great."

Of course there is. I just don't think we've reached that point yet.

"Why? Well say we weren’t over there like before 9/11. How would these jihadis get here? Exactly how they did before. It’s not like our countries are sharing borders so they could just mount a 100,000 man army and march here. They don’t have a navy or airforce. We are protected by our oceans and two countries on our northern and southern border. I know, Canada wouldn’t let Jihadis immigrate in any sizeable numbers and coordinate an assault on us. The same goes for Mexico. They have to somehow get OVER HERE."

Iv already stated that this type of attack is preposterous. They would get here the same way they've been getting here. And while the border idea you have would certainly work for illegal immigrants but that wont stop them all. What about from Canada? What about those who come here legally? Which most of them do. Point is even with this border idea, which is great by the way, they will still get though.

"Well the simple solution is DON’T LET THEM. It’s easy to partner with our allies to the north and south and work together to screen immigrants thoroughly and to halt immigration from Islamic nations."

I respect my opponent but I've got to say this is extremely outrageous and goes against everything our nation stands for and I am against it 100%. As iv stated we can NOT punish the many for the few and we can not persecute a group based on their religion, which was the primary reason our fore fathers made the exodus to this country in the first place. This is a terrible idea. Plus we already know that many in our southern neighbor support and help the enemy. The drug cartels, which practically run the country, aid them like allies. Not much help to get from them.

Your right. It is hard to argue what James Madison. The only things Ill try is by pointing out that his stance on large military was towards the government becoming to powerful and using them against their own people, not against fighting our enemies. And I don't think this applies here. Also I don't believe the average bulk of the American people the ability or intelligence to make such a decision. Is that not why we have elected representatives? I feel more comfortable with an educated person who knows what the heck they are doing making a decision then listening to the mob.

Well that will about do it for me. Again thanks to my opponent for the challenge. It was fun and I thoroughly enjoyed debating with you. Also thanks for your support. Best of luck to you as well.
Debate Round No. 4
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by calculatedr1sk 3 years ago
calculatedr1sk
RFD part 2: This was Pro's biggest liability in my opinion, but on balance ended up being smaller than the ones Con fell into only because even if Al Queda is defeated that still doesn't secure American safety from terrorism, as both sides agreed homegrown terror was the prime threat. Con's assertion that lives spent overseas keep us safe here because the enemy is forced to defend their own turf doesn't make a lot of sense and seems to even countered his own argument. Pro's anti-liberty position of religious persecution and repression, while distateful to many including myself, is admittedly the more targetted solution to the problem to Islamist terrorism, since, again, both sides have correctly identified homegrown terrorism to be the biggest threat. That being the case, the Afgan war at best fails to protect us from the treat in our own midst, and at worst exacerbates it by providing another greviance and recruiting tool to potential jihadis. Therefore it could reasonably be thought of as futile and wasteful from that perspective.

I am only able to judge the debate by the arguments presented, I can't make the contender's arguments for them, but if I were in Con's corner coaching him, as would have been my preference, I would have emphasized the geopolitical objective of halting the radicalization of Islam in that region, which Pakistan up till then had been instigating. We didn't completely flip them to become a faithful ally, but we made it more difficult for that strategically vital country to openly oppose us. We mostly successfully bribed/coerced them to fight alongside of us against their own Frankenstein monster. Additionally, a strong presence in Afganistan serves to contain Persian ambitions, as they are hemmed in by American and allied friendlies on both sides (Iraq and Afganistan) although for me this is not that compelling since I don't view Iran as the serious threat to peace or our interests that it is commonly portrayed as by our media.
Posted by TheUnapologeticTruth 3 years ago
TheUnapologeticTruth
at this point the war is a waste would you not agree? That is THIS debate.. not, whether or not we should have bombed em. I would be all for that. Drop a couple nukes n call it a day. However, this 12 year long war is ridiculous. What do we have to show for it at this point? Nothing really. Its not worth the lives lost or money spent.
Posted by SitaraPorDios 3 years ago
SitaraPorDios
I have to agree with Ararmer for this reason: Al Qaeda and the Taliban were partially responsible for the death of many people on American soil. That cannot and should not be tolerated. We need a strong national defense. This liberal "I wanna teach the world to sing" garbage is getting us nowhere. Any president worth the votes will bomb the you know what out of anyone that declares war on the country that he leads. If not? He should be impeached and charged with willful neglect of his duties.
Posted by TheUnapologeticTruth 3 years ago
TheUnapologeticTruth
Dang it! I just realized I didn't highlight my entire argument... I left off the Madison source by accident. Here it is. By posting it here I hope I don't lose points...

http://www.notable-quotes.com...
Posted by ararmer1919 3 years ago
ararmer1919
ok that kinda sucked cause there was a whole lot more I wanted to cover especially over the reasons we invaded Afghanistan but I completely ran out of characters. I hope I was able to get enough across, lol and I'm sorry if this is not allowed but I had no space for them in my debate so I'm posting my sources here if you don't object. If so then by all means I accept the docking of points for this.

http://www.google.com...

http://www.google.com...

http://www.google.com...

http://www.google.com...

Again sorry if this isnt allowed and feel free to count it against me if it is.
Posted by TheUnapologeticTruth 3 years ago
TheUnapologeticTruth
lol been there.. just do your work in MS Word so that doesn't happen again in the future.
Posted by ararmer1919 3 years ago
ararmer1919
So I just spent about two hours writing my first argument and hit the tab to put down the sources and my stupid F#*&ing computer backed out of this tab and so my ENTIRE argument was lost. Needless to say I punched the wall extremely hard and now my hand hurts lol. Sorry mate but I got to take a break. I'll be back on later to redo all that hard work. :(
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by calculatedr1sk 3 years ago
calculatedr1sk
TheUnapologeticTruthararmer1919Tied
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: For the most part I enjoyed this debate, and can see that both sides put a great deal of effort into it. However, I went back and forth on my decision several times because there were also significant problems for both sides. The number of civilian deaths and the days on which such losses occured make for good pretexts that can rile up the population, but such calculations are largely irrelevant for this kind of issue. Only a handful of American lives were lost in the "Boston Massacre" for example, nowhere near the loss of life caused by the Revolutionary War itself, so if decisions were actually made and evaluated by the methodologies that both sides wasted our time with in this debate, there wouldn't even BE a United States today. I had to read Pro's round 4 several times to be sure of my decision, because from what I can tell he did not respond to the underlying rationale Con provided at the end of Round 3 for the war. RFD continued in comments...