The Instigator
Knuckles
Pro (for)
Losing
5 Points
The Contender
Fluer
Con (against)
Winning
11 Points

The War on Terror

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...
Fluer
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/14/2011 Category: Politics
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,646 times Debate No: 19870
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (5)

 

Knuckles

Pro

I believe the war on terror is an essential for the survival of a nation. National security is the, if not the most important item on the U.S.'s agenda. I mean major military figures are warning us about the terrorist. It is so worrying that they are informing Police Officers what to do if there is a terrorist attack in our schools, and tell them they should always carry concealed weapons with them. You know things are bad when they are informing them of this. Nation security is by far the most important item on the U.S.'s Agenda. If you still think it is ridiculous after reading this, then that's your problem.
Fluer

Con

I agree that terrorist attcks are a major source of concern and police should e taught how to handle these situations. However we have a tendency to ignore the root of the problem and I feel that is what is happening with this so called "war on terror". There is a problem in society, a worldwide lack of acceptance. While I am not proposing that we attempt to make everyone give out "free love" instead of weapons and amunition I don't think fighting fire with fire is working. There is more good to be done in promoting understanding through education instead of promoting stigma by labelling this a war increasing fear on both sides of the table. You may say that this is impossible and illogical even to suggest it but by promoting understanding in our own country (UK/USA) we hold our moral high ground which has been lost over recent years.
Debate Round No. 1
Knuckles

Pro

So you are saying we should try and understand the reasoning behind slaughter infidels? There s no "understanding" these people. They would let us understand if we wanted to. I know that the radicals are a minority in Muslim culture, but if other Muslims are "disgusted" by these acts of terror then why are they standing idly by? If they were truly disgusted they would do something about it.
Fluer

Con

No.
What I am suggesting is that we actually teach our own citizens about the religious and social beliefs that these people have in order to combat this stigma that occurs in our so called civilised society. For example we now see that there is a massive stigma on Muslim people because they have been portrayed as stereotypically bad people. I believe that this type of marginalization makes the situation so much worse. I do agree that there is a lack of any strong logical reasoning behind terrorism and I think it is very difficult for anyone in a rigid culture like Islam to go against those in their own culture when they are more easily persuaded that these acts of terrorism are "right" when they are marginalized by western stereotypes.
If our western culture is supposed to be superior to theirs maybe we should start trying to think about more ways of coming to a mutual agreement with those that are terrorising us other than "we have bigger guns, we are going to stop aid to your country, oh and by the way we still need your oil."
We still have to put the protection of our own people first but even by labelling this a war we are inciting stigma by suggesting, even unwittingly, that these people or culture are our enemies to be feared and hated. They have done some bad things but no country is unblemished by acts that are selfish and have cost many people their lives.
They may be hurting us but if you really want to brandish this a "war" then we must also remember that we are hurting them. When something like this goes on for so long we begin to lose the "why" behind it all and if there isn't as much "why" to start with then it just gets lost quicker. The whole thing just becomes "they are the enemy so kill them" with absolutely no reasoning behind it at all causing so much more damage and harm than is necessary. All it takes is for one country to be more mature and just say "Hold on a minute. Is this something that we actually want and need to do? Do we need to kill these people?". This will not happen over night and this will not immediately stop all of the killing but it is a start. When western countries are seen to take a step back from a conflict to be seen to be using demographic means of discussion unselfishly because they understand that civilians dieing, on both sides of this "war", is not going to help anyone we then have more of a moral high ground and we have more support and backing off of other nations. I also think that this gives more people hope. Hope that some day there will be an end to this violence. Because a lack of hope and the light at the end of the tunnel being a mere unreachable blip causes people to think that extreme violence is the only answer when it is not.
Debate Round No. 2
Knuckles

Pro

They killed thousands of Americans, what more must I say?
Fluer

Con

That is precisely the blinkered views that I am talking about and it doesn't help.
Individuals should be punished for crimes they have committed but when the situation becomes as generalised as it is in today when not just individuals are being prosecuted but cultures are being prosecuted. If we go by your logic which is "they have killed American citizens" which gives us the right to to attack their cities their culture and cause unnecessary damage to international relations then they are also perfectly within their rights to attack us however they see fit because we have also killed innocent citizens. This seemingly never ending cycle is what is so harming to those in the culture who have no part in terrorist acts because they see that America and the west has made this a war against their own culture, which by the way they love. This is the very reason they feel they cannot stand up against the terrorist acts committed by their own people because we have legitimised these killings by making it a war. They may be our enemy but we are theirs. You cannot simply say they killed my people so I will kill theirs. It is arrogant, selfish, harmful and such a complex situation can never be solved by naive statements such as that.
For your very reason that people are dieing the situation should be handled with a lot more care and thought and should never simply be put down to "well they hit us so we will hit them back". That type of thing doesn't work in the playground and it certainly is not going to work in a hostile situation that has international relations in hot water.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by 1Historygenius 5 years ago
1Historygenius
KnucklesFluerTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:11 
Reasons for voting decision: I do agree with the previous voters. Pro had some good grammar, but overall Con won.
Vote Placed by imabench 5 years ago
imabench
KnucklesFluerTied
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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: pro could have easily won this debate but he had really shitty arguments. "They killed thousands of Americans, what more must I say?" any argument that I can fit in a comments section isnt really a good argument, so I gave that and conduct to the con
Vote Placed by logicrules 5 years ago
logicrules
KnucklesFluerTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Burden is with pro and he failed to prove essential. Overall the debate was just opinion based upon nothing.
Vote Placed by 16kadams 5 years ago
16kadams
KnucklesFluerTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:32 
Reasons for voting decision: hm...pro had shorter but smaller arguments, but con gets better spelling. good debate, I will probably need to change this later and re-read the arguments.
Vote Placed by vmpire321 5 years ago
vmpire321
KnucklesFluerTied
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:13 
Reasons for voting decision: Hmm. PRO could have won, but CON made superior arguments in this case. And be sure to use the "Spell Check" option... I saw less mistakes on PRO's part, so I gave him spelling and grammar.