The Instigator
CiRrO
Pro (for)
Winning
13 Points
The Contender
Who
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

The notion that: "There were no WMD's in Iraq", is false.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/30/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 781 times Debate No: 5206
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (2)
Votes (3)

 

CiRrO

Pro

I affirm: The notion that: "There were no WMD's in Iraq", is false.

WMD: Weapon of Mass Destruction

[Contentions]

Contention I: WMD's were discovered in Iraq.
Who

Con

Greetings. Thank you to my opponent for extending this challenge to me, though I am not sure I will be able to call it that much longer.

First, I will do some resolutional analysis. It is always best to clarify what is meant by the topic before you start arguing.
Due to the context of this topic, it is obvious that we are specifically talking about the time period when the US began its current military operations in Iraq. I will explain why this is obvious. "The were no WMD's" has only been used as a reason we should not have gone to war, and "They have WMD's" was used as one of the main reasons we went into Iraq.

Now it's necessary to explain what is meant by WMD's. We're talking about large scale weaponry. Weaponry on a scale where the US should actually care whether Iraq has it or not. We're not talking about a rifle, we're not talking about a rocket-powered grenade launcher, we're talking about large-scale chemical or nuclear weaponry. Weapons that can cause MASSIVE damage, like the damage cause by flipping a giant enemy crab on its back and attacking the weak spot. Large scale, massive damage. Those are the criteria.

So now that we know what's being argued, I'll go ahead and argue it.

My opponent brings up only one point in his initial round: "WMD's were discovered in Iraq."
Alright, I'm going to be as blunt as possible here. Saying something does not make it true. Sure, maybe there were WMD's discovered in Iraq, but my opponent has not backed this up in any way. It would be like me saying "No, they weren't," and considering that a proper rebuttal. Ladies and gentlmen, as debaters we need to back up our claims, and my opponent has failed to do so.

Even so, I will address this point, just in case my opponent finds a way to give it some merit next round. Even if WMD's were discovered in Iraq, this does not mean that Iraq had WMD's when we invaded, which is obviously what we're discussing. They could have been made after we invaded, they could have been brought into the country by an America seeking to vindicate its actions, they could have been brought into the country by any third party, and as I said already, they might not even have been there at all, as far as this debate is concerned.

With that, I will let my opponent make his case, something he neglected to do in R1.
Debate Round No. 1
CiRrO

Pro

I apologize to "Who" for my rather short and unwarranted case. My mom needed me and it was an emergency. I hope my opponent understands. Ok, moving to the round.

--> I agree to my opponents observation that it was weapons before we went in
--> I also agree to his statement that weapons of mass destruction are weapons that causes widespread destruction. Nuclear, chemical, biological, and long ranged ballistic missiles are WMD's. (UN Definition)

[Contentions]

I. WMD's were discovered in Iraq

Thousands of Chemical weapon caches were discovered in Iraq during the Iraqi Freedom campaign. The argument against this is that they weren't nuclear. however, according to my opponent he concedes that chemical weapons are in fact WMD's. My opponent will most likely ask for sources, so I will provide them. Since, I have proven that WMD's were found in Iraq, it is necessary to affirm. Before, I give sources, I will go over my opponents given burdens.

1. WMD's present during the invasion. I.e. Iraqi freedom campaign.
2. Nuclear or Chemical

[Sources]

1. http://www.foxnews.com...
2. http://www.washingtonpost.com...
3. http://www.iraqwatch.org...

Now, I have achieved my burden on the fact that:

1. They are chemical weapons.
2. They project started in the 1970's and was used against the Iranians during the conflict between Iraq and Iran. Furthermore, it fits the "time" burden, on the fact that we discovered them during the invasion.

Thank you ladies and gentlemen.

PS: I strongly apologize for the first round. Who is a very good debater, and I know he will understand my emergency predicament. So, I thank you "Who"
Who

Con

Who forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by Who 8 years ago
Who
And just for the sake of saying it, if I had gotten online in time for R2, I would have argued that they weren't "large scale" chemical weapons that could cause "massive damage." Though they might have been, I really know nothing about this.
Posted by Who 8 years ago
Who
Gah, 12 hour reply time got me.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by wjmelements 8 years ago
wjmelements
CiRrOWhoTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Vote Placed by s0m31john 8 years ago
s0m31john
CiRrOWhoTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 
Vote Placed by Logical-Master 8 years ago
Logical-Master
CiRrOWhoTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00