The fight against Terrorism is a battle that is impossible to win.

Welcome to this debate

definitions first and foremost

Terrorism: the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion
Battle: an extended contest, struggle, or controversy
impossible : incapable of being or of occurring b: felt to be incapable of being done, attained, or fulfilled
http://www.merriam-webster.com... (all from same source)

My first argument is that Terrorism is an idea, not unlike patriotism, that the only way to destroy would be to erase the idea off the face of the planet. you cannot fight an idea.

Secondly, the only way to combat terrorism is more terrorism, which creates a logical paradox. its like literally fighting fire with fire all you get is more fire.

"My first argument is that Terrorism is an idea, not unlike patriotism, that the only way to destroy would be to erase the idea off the face of the planet. you cannot fight an idea."

so does war fit the "idea" category too?

you cannot fight an idea, but you can fight actual terrorists like were doing around the world. Al-Qaeda is not an idea. Hamas is not an idea. Hezbollah is not an idea. These are terrorist organizations that can be fought (as is happening as I type this).

"Secondly, the only way to combat terrorism is more terrorism, which creates a logical paradox. its like literally fighting fire with fire all you get is more fire."

How do you come to the conclusion that the only way to fight terrorism is by using more of it? We're fighting terrorism abroad without terrorist tactics. Give me an example of this "logical paradox."

does war fit the "idea" category too?
no war is a tangible battle with an evident winner by annihilation or surrender.

"you cannot fight an idea, but you can fight actual terrorists like were doing around the world. Al-Qaeda is not an idea. Hamas is not an idea. Hezbollah is not an idea. These are terrorist organizations that can be fought (as is happening as I type this)."

I acknowledge that Al-Qaeda, Hamas and Hezbollah are in fact real groups, think of Terrorism as a disease and those groups being symptoms. The removal of the symptoms doesn't destroy the disease it just puts it into a slightly more submissive state.

"How do you come to the conclusion that the only way to fight terrorism is by using more of it? We're fighting terrorism abroad without terrorist tactics. Give me an example of this "logical paradox."

(logical paradox would be like a man who always lies saying "I am lying")
it creates a paradox because it would be necessary to suppress any intent to use fear as a coercion tactic the only way to do that would be more fear.

isnt the war in Iraq a tangible battle?

"it creates a paradox because it would be necessary to suppress any intent to use fear as a coercion tactic the only way to do that would be more fear."

That is just not a logical conclusion. Terrorism as a tactic is not the solution to winning the war on terror. Terrorism cannot defeat an army. We are in Iraq with a fully-trained army of soldiers. They are not using terrorism to win the war. They are using military tactics that have been proven to work in the past.

wow, what on earth are you talking about?

alright first yes the war in Iraq is very tangible people are dieing and it costs our government trillions. but then again the war on terror and the war in Iraq are two very different things. the war in Iraq was a war against nuclear weapons, and then when the government acknowledged that there weren't any WMD's then it changed to a part of the war on terror but then when we found out that Sadam had no connections to any terrorist organizations so it was kinda for nothing (and dont say 9/11 the guy we think did that is in another country all together)

and yeah terrorism usually doesn't defeat an army, however the fear that if they form an army they will be effectively be wiped off the face of the planet suppresses that army. but of course terrorism isn't a tactic to get rid of terrorism (yet) its like fighting fire with fire all you have is more fire. back to the disease analogy the disease is wreaking havoc on the body while our war in Iraq is like mending a stubbed toe. and yes military tactics fight other militaries not terrorism.

Terrorism isn't tangible and that's what the war on terror is trying to get rid of. its not something we can win not only with the tactics we are using right now but without creating a larger fear to suppress the terror.

based off the definition of your debate topic, the war on terrorism is a war that can be won. And if you dont want to go to that stretch or disagree with that statement, you can't say the the war on terrorism is "IMPOSSIBLE" to win. Anything in the realm of reality (this fits that criteria) is possible.

what do you mean of my deffinition of the debate topic? my deffinition of the debate topic was basicly the attempt to rid terrorism from the world. which not only is the US going the wrong way in which to accomplish its goal and its impossible. What i would have liked to have seen was a example of why it acctualy is a fight we can win (ie deffinion battle) or how it can be beaten inside my terms. This debate in the grand sceme of things has gotten nowhere. We can try to stop the groups but like the kkk they will be back its like a club anyone can join to hurt other people. and unless we can scare terrorism out of them it can't be done (which is in itself terror) so its unstoppable and this round gos to the affermative side (or my side)

this debate sucks. i dont even know what were debating. my final point is that to say the fight against terrorism is "impossible" to win is incorrect and naive. It is not impossible.