The Instigator
Amveller
Con (against)
Winning
42 Points
The Contender
RicheyWentz
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points

The War in Iraq

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 6 votes the winner is...
Amveller
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/11/2011 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,767 times Debate No: 16420
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (8)
Votes (6)

 

Amveller

Con

Debate Description

In this debate Con will argue that the War in Iraq is wrong. Pro will have to argue the war in Iraq is just and right.

I will start this debate off by making a few points

• War can never be a moral act, not even as a "last resort." In the best case, war is a necessary evil.

• The war in Iraq does not qualify as a just war, conforming to a set of principles that have evolved among civilized societies. A just cause should not be confused with a just war.

• This War has had corrosive effects on our Constitutional rights. It has brought out the worst in our presidents, vice-presidents, and attorney generals who are tempted to take shortcuts.

• This War has selectively and profoundly disrupted the lives of more than a million family members across the United States. There have been more than 4,400 U.S. Troop Casualties. Which is roughly 1200 more deaths then that in the trade center bombings.

• Spent & Approved War Spending = about $900 billion of US taxpayers' funds spent or approved for spending through November 2010.

Rules:

[1] Forfeiting of rounds 1 through 3 will constitute a loss of all 7 points.
[2] Forfeiting round 4 will constitute a complete loss to this debate

I will ask that my opponent make his arguments in a timely manner and leave out arguments based on wordplay or definitions.

=Sources=

http://usliberals.about.com...
RicheyWentz

Pro

It's fun killing people, therefore war is just. There isn't any other greater thrill in the world. Also, someone who thinks that "the war in Iraq" is a good debate needs to get their head checked because it has been done way too many times before by much more qualified individuals. =]
Debate Round No. 1
Amveller

Con

My opponent is obviously not taking this debate serious. If he feels it has been taken on to many times he should not of excepted this debate. He only insults me with ignorance. His only argument is "its fun killing people" maturity has not crossed his path so you must vote Con!
RicheyWentz

Pro

My opponent has misspelled the word "accepted" therefore one must be suspicious of the validity of his arguements. And yes without war, killing people is a crime. With war, it is sport. That is a valid agruement that you have not attempted to address, therefore, vote pro!
Debate Round No. 2
Amveller

Con

To the readers and voters of this debate I apologize for my misspelled word. I was offended by my opponents response and replied from my phone while driving.

To my opponent, you have not addressed any of the points made by myself in round 1. Your only argument "killing people is a fun sport while in War" is an ignoramus insult to any one intelligent that debates topics on this site. From this point on I will simply post sources to prove my point. I will not engage in a argument with someone that lacks ethical demeanor and, moral content.

=Sources=

http://work.colum.edu...
RicheyWentz

Pro

Opponnent hasn't proved any of the first points, and I'm pretty sure he stole his ideas from a website instead of thinking on his own.

Opponnent is a tool with pseudo-intelligence and would probably be very boring if you hung out with him.

This topic has been done several times before, no one gives a poop!

Therefore, vote pro! War is sport!
Debate Round No. 3
RicheyWentz

Pro

Sources have to be up to date or they aren't valid.

First one is from 2003. 2nd one is from 2005.

It is the year 2011, try to keep up.

Sources are dated and so is this topic.

Vote Pro!
Debate Round No. 4
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by ilovedebate 3 years ago
ilovedebate
this topic isn't supposed to be lightly handled
Posted by dinokiller 3 years ago
dinokiller
whats this, i dont even...
Posted by RicheyWentz 3 years ago
RicheyWentz
The War on Iraq is not an enjoyable debate potatolover, as it has been done many times before and is a dated topic. Very unorginal, which isn't fun at all.
Posted by potatolover 3 years ago
potatolover
This debate system should be (on the serious debates) enjoyable and educational. Other wise I have seen that the pro has not taken it seriously and did not prove any kind of points, but only mock or be very immature about this. I would say for any debates later on from RicheyWentz are going to be not worth the trouble and prove to be a waste of anyone's time.

Con wins
Posted by RicheyWentz 3 years ago
RicheyWentz
Well, those are interesting topics. How many times have they been done before?
Posted by Amveller 3 years ago
Amveller
I will be blocking RicheyWentz after this debate, I am new to this site and just found out I can block him. I find it funny he criticized the topic of this debate when...well these are 3 of his 5 debates....

"Getting Older sucks noodles"
"Having a penis is better than having a vagina"
"Queen's bohemian rhapsody is pretentious garbage"
Posted by Amveller 3 years ago
Amveller
I really wish someone serious would have taken on this debate. I am truly disappointed. I would like to apologize to the readers and voters I surely do not advocate this.
Posted by Thaddeus 3 years ago
Thaddeus
Richeywentz' debates are painful to read.
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by askbob 3 years ago
askbob
AmvellerRicheyWentzTied
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:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Don't accept a debate or a challenge unless you're willing to actually debate it. You just wasted amveller's time. If you don't want to debate, then don't debate.
Vote Placed by HandsofManos 3 years ago
HandsofManos
AmvellerRicheyWentzTied
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:70 
Reasons for voting decision: I didnt really want to vote for con because i disagreed with his arguments, but pro forced my hand. what an ass.
Vote Placed by kohai 3 years ago
kohai
AmvellerRicheyWentzTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro didn't take this debate seriously and had horrific conduct. It is obvious who the winner is
Vote Placed by bigpoppajustice 3 years ago
bigpoppajustice
AmvellerRicheyWentzTied
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:70 
Reasons for voting decision: This really wasn't even a deb8.
Vote Placed by boredinclass 3 years ago
boredinclass
AmvellerRicheyWentzTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: pro didn't even try and had horrible conduct, no sources and no arguments
Vote Placed by CiRrK 3 years ago
CiRrK
AmvellerRicheyWentzTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Could have been a good debate if Pro actually tried. Giving all 7 points to Con because Pro had literally no arguments and resorted to annoyance instead