The Instigator
rockyou9
Con (against)
Losing
38 Points
The Contender
mongeese
Pro (for)
Winning
60 Points

The war in Afghanistan can be won

Do you like this debate?NoYes+6
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
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: 11/9/2009 Category: Politics
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 3,573 times Debate No: 10027
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (17)
Votes (17)

 

rockyou9

Con

My position on this topic of debate is that the American war in Afghanistan CANNOT be won.

I'm just going to provide some background information on the issue: The United States military invaded Afghanistan after the terrorist attack on 9/11. Concluding that the attack was by Al Qaeda, the United States government immediately sought to punish the criminals by any means possible. Understanding that Al Qaeda was protected by the extremist Taliban faction, the Bush administration demanded that they hand over Al Qaeda's operatives. They refused to do so. The US military invaded a couple of weeks later.

The core reason why we cannot win the war in Afghanistan is because there will be future generations that will be willing and able to become members of the Taliban. Even if our military completely eliminated the current generation of Taliban warriors, there will be another generation to take their place. So once we begin fighting this new generation, and if we eliminate them as well, then there will only be another generation ready to take their place. You see, it is a never-ending cycle of birth-fighting-death. We can only fight like this for so long. Eventually, the economic strain caused by the need for more weapons and troops will result in America's deterioration. We already spend nearly a trillion dollars on this war annually(http://www.alternet.org...), so if our government's money continues to be poured into this one conflict, then they won't have any remaining money to spend on infrastructure, health, education, or scientific development. For these reasons, the war in Afghanistan cannot be won by the United States military.
mongeese

Pro

The war in Afghanistan can be won. It can be won very easily.

America has nukes. (http://www.brookings.edu...)

The costs of assembling large numbers of nukes is in the billions. Seeing as we've spent trillions, a few billion to end the war would seem like nothing.

America could very easily drop a hundred nukes on Afghanistan.

"Concluding that the attack was by Al Qaeda, the United States government immediately sought to punish the criminals by any means possible."
The criminals would be blown to pieces by a nuke, and it is possible, so the U.S. government would gladly use nukes.

My opponent's only contention is that future generations would perpetuate the war. However, with nukes, the next generation would be blown to pieces, and future generations would never exist.

In conclusion, America can easily win the war. All it takes is a few nukes.

With that, I leave the floor to my opponent.
Debate Round No. 1
rockyou9

Con

Dropping nuclear weapons on the historical state of Afghanistan? My opponent seems to have not contempt for human life. If we drop nuclear weapons on Afghanistan, not only would it obliterate millions of innocent civilians, but it would also make us the most hated country on the international stage. Our dearest allies would turn against us once they see the threat that we pose to them with our ability to use such devastating weapons.

The term win in this situation would only be achieved if we restore peace to the suffering nation of Afghanistan and allow its people to lead free lives.

Killing so many innocent people and making so many new enemies cannot be considered winning, in fact, it can be considered failing our own morals to preserve life.

Besides, can we truly win a war if it results in financial and economic turmoil? My own opponent's source states: 48. Ballistic missile defense spending in 1965 vs. 1995: $2,200,000,000 vs. $2,600,000,000. With our country spending that much money on weapons who's only purpose is to obliterate everything in its path, there is no way the American economy could ever recover, which in my opinion means defeat.

So as my opponent suggests that we can simply obliterate the existence of future generations merely by using a couple hundred nuclear weapons, I say that the economic failure, created enemies, and loss of innocent human life as a result of such an action would be the true failure in this war.
mongeese

Pro

My opponent talks of the consequences of nuking Afghanistan. However, I never said that we should nuke Afghanistan. I'm just saying that we could.

"The term win in this situation would only be achieved if we restore peace to the suffering nation of Afghanistan and allow its people to lead free lives."
Nuclear wastelands are very peaceful. My opponent gives no reason behind requiring the Afghani people to be allowed to lead free lives. Besides, death is freedom. Freedom from suffering.

"Killing so many innocent people and making so many new enemies cannot be considered winning, in fact, it can be considered failing our own morals to preserve life."
So, we'd win the war, but we'd lose our morals and the war after that. However, we'd win the war in Afghanistan. There was no requirement for my solution to be moral.

My opponent cites the costs. However, we spent $2.6 billion over a 30-year period. The nukes required for Afghanistan wouldn't cost that much. Besides, as my opponent pointed out, we're already spending trillions, and we waste billions on other things daily. http://en.wikipedia.org... A few billion to end the trillion-dollar-war would have a beneficial effect on the economy.

"So as my opponent suggests that we can simply obliterate the existence of future generations merely by using a couple hundred nuclear weapons, I say that the economic failure, created enemies, and loss of innocent human life as a result of such an action would be the true failure in this war."
1. The economy would not fail.
2. The enemies may defeat us in the next war, but we'd enjoy our victory for a while.
3. Loss of human life always results from war. Why would this be different?
4. Failure in this war would be failure to accomplish our goal, "the United States government immediately sought to punish the criminals by any means possible."
Debate Round No. 2
rockyou9

Con

My opponent quoted me on the fact that I said that we could only win this war in Afghanistan if we restored peace to the suffering nation of Afghanistan and allow its people to lead free lives. He stated that "nuclear wastelands are very peaceful." I must point out that simply obliterating an entire country and killing both the enemies and innocent civilians would not restore it to the peace that it once had, but rather completely eliminate life in the region, which is not restoring any type of peace to any place.

"Besides, death is freedom."

This is incorrect in the sense that freedom is having the CHOICE to live or to die. Freedom is not having no word in your imminent death by nuclear forces.

"So, we'd win the war, but we'd lose our morals and the war after that. However, we'd win the war in Afghanistan. There was no requirement for my solution to be moral."

It is true that you had no requirement for your solution to be moral, however, I am saying that by killing so many innocent people, our war in Afghanistan could never be considered a victory. The very suggestion that by taking millions of innocent lives in order to win a war is absurd in itself since you cannot win a war if so many innocents die in the process.

"A few billion to end the trillion-dollar-war would have a beneficial effect on the economy."

It may seem like that, however once you consider that when other nations realize that we are a threat to their people's well being, they will declare embargo's on us, which would put America in an even deeper economic hole than we are currently in.
mongeese

Pro

"[S]imply obliterating an entire country and killing both the enemies and innocent civilians would not restore it to the peace that it once had, but rather completely eliminate life in the region, which is not restoring any type of peace to any place."
Yes, it would. It would restore the peace that existed billions of years ago, in a time in which only bacteria lived. It was a very peaceful time. No humans died.

"This is incorrect in the sense that freedom is having the CHOICE to live or to die. Freedom is not having no word in your imminent death by nuclear forces."
Okay, death is not the freedom of choice, but the freedom from suffering. But still, it is freedom.

"[B]y killing so many innocent people, our war in Afghanistan could never be considered a victory."
There's absolutely no requirement for a victory to be moral.

"[Y]ou cannot win a war if so many innocents die in the process."
And why not?

"It may seem like that, however once you consider that when other nations realize that we are a threat to their people's well being, they will declare embargo's on us, which would put America in an even deeper economic hole than we are currently in."
The debate's resolution is "The war in Afghanistan can be won," not "The war in Afghanistan can be won without putting America into an economic hole."

In conclusion, nukes would restore absolute peace and absolute freedom from suffering to Afghanistan and punish the criminals, the original intended goal of the war.
Debate Round No. 3
17 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by mongeese 7 years ago
mongeese
I'm not advocating actually launching the nuke. I'm saying that we could, affirming the resolution.
Posted by Broken 7 years ago
Broken
This just shows how little people on this site actually think. Launch a nuke on Afghanistan and watch how the world reacts. Once one nuke goes off in the world, there will be more.
Posted by TOMlive 7 years ago
TOMlive
9/11 was the biggest cover up in history duh
Posted by rockyou9 7 years ago
rockyou9
Mongeese, thank you for the debate. Very interesting position, and I hope to share more intriguing arguments with you in the future!
Posted by tBoonePickens 7 years ago
tBoonePickens
What Iraqi people?
Posted by DTK_12 7 years ago
DTK_12
I must Concede to the fact that the contender is right when he stated that nuclear wastelands are very peaceful. Although it's true, it would also seem that he is proposing that we kill many civilians in order to wipe out a few. That would mean that you have no appreciation for human life. I would like also like to point out that the instigator might have too much hope for the Iraqi people. In closing I would like to state that the con. is right when he said he can win but the instigator is right when he said not at the cost of millions of civilians.
Posted by Chrysippus 7 years ago
Chrysippus
Arguments to Pro for having demonstrated a possible way to win the war in Afghanistan. The practicality of using nukes has no bearing on the possibility of winning that way.

All other points tied.
Posted by lelanatty 7 years ago
lelanatty
the predictability of the outcome of this debate is quite disappointing. It should get more and more interesting after it is over. Great topic, by the way.
Posted by tmhustler 7 years ago
tmhustler
wow thought for sure you would redefine the term "won"
Posted by Maikuru 7 years ago
Maikuru
That's all I ask. Maybe zombies or...I don't know, go with your instincts =D
17 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by mindwarper10 7 years ago
mindwarper10
rockyou9mongeeseTied
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:07 
Vote Placed by RivertonHS 7 years ago
RivertonHS
rockyou9mongeeseTied
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 
Vote Placed by ricky78 7 years ago
ricky78
rockyou9mongeeseTied
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 
Vote Placed by Danielle 7 years ago
Danielle
rockyou9mongeeseTied
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 
Vote Placed by Pote 7 years ago
Pote
rockyou9mongeeseTied
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 
Vote Placed by XimenBao 7 years ago
XimenBao
rockyou9mongeeseTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:05 
Vote Placed by philosphical 7 years ago
philosphical
rockyou9mongeeseTied
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:07 
Vote Placed by ac1125 7 years ago
ac1125
rockyou9mongeeseTied
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:07 
Vote Placed by rockyou9 7 years ago
rockyou9
rockyou9mongeeseTied
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:52 
Vote Placed by tBoonePickens 7 years ago
tBoonePickens
rockyou9mongeeseTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03