The Instigator
Starpad
Pro (for)
Losing
28 Points
The Contender
Cody_Franklin
Con (against)
Winning
34 Points

The war in Afghanistan is justified

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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: 7/24/2009 Category: Politics
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 7,990 times Debate No: 9034
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (11)
Votes (9)

 

Starpad

Pro

The war in Afghanistan is a justified war, because it was in response to an attack upon the united states that was unwarranted .

Let the debate begin
Cody_Franklin

Con

Let's begin with a simple definition:

justified - shown to be just.

just - guided by truth, reason, justice, and fairness.

The burdens are also quite clear; my opponent has the burden of proving that the war is currently justified, and my burden is, obviously, to prove otherwise.

To get this debate going, I'll offer 3 arguments to begin with.

I - The War in Afghanistan threatens to bring war with Pakistan.

This is rather straightforward; currently, we are fighting our fair share of wars; we are fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq, we've got troops deployed as peacekeepers in flash points all around the world, and tensions are on the rise with North Korea and Iran; add to this list, Pakistan. Obama has released statements declaring that, 'if necessary', the war in the Middle East would also be extended into Pakistan [http://stopwar.org.uk...]. This is further evidenced by the fact that, for some time, and quite recently, tensions have been developing between officials in Washington and those in Pakistan [http://www.time.com...] [http://www.huffingtonpost.com...]; as we can see, tensions have been on the rise for many months now; and, with Obama's idea of expanding the war in Afghanistan, it's very likely that the war will engulf Pakistan as well; the last thing that we need right now is another military conflict, and more American lives are being lost; obviously, if the War in Afghanistan were not being expanded, this would not be such an issue; but, as this War is directly responsible for the increase in tension between Washington and Pakistan, it's clear that this war is not justified.

II - The War in Afghanistan increases security risks for other countries.

Many people look at this war from a strictly American perspective; and, as we are far overseas from Afghanistan, many of us like to think that the horrors of terrorism are too far away to bother us again; but, in this mistaken line of thought, we forget our European neighbors who gave us financial and military aid throughout the many years of the war, and the risks that they took in order to give us that aid. [http://stopwar.org.uk...] On the third point brought up, it discusses how there was very little threat, if any at all, of terrorism before the war began. However, after the effects of these wars (not only Afghanistan, but as part of the snowball effect, Iraq), and the aid to American, MI5 reported that the threat of terrorism had actually increased; as we can see, while American fights and expands its war in Afghanistan, it does so at the risk of its allies; and, these risks are very real: take, for example, the bombings in London, on both July 7th, and July 21st, 2005 [http://en.wikipedia.org...] [http://en.wikipedia.org...]. Thus, because our allies incurred unnecessary risk due to our involvement in the war, it cannot be justified.

III - The War in Afghanistan increases the risk of future terrorist attacks against America.

While we think that we are safe, far from the shores of the Middle East, this is simply untrue [http://www.afterdowningstreet.org...]. Reported here, the Oxford group urged the United States to pursue more intricate security measures to deal with the possibility of future terrorist attack. The US government itself actually released a statement in that report discussing how it was more, not less, likely that terrorist attacks could occur in places like New York, and that the war had actually been "counterproductive". As you can see, the War in Afghanistan has actually compromised many of our security efforts, and has left us vulnerable to future terrorist attack. In fact, mere months ago, former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice reported that the chance of a terrorist attack on the United States was one of the top threats we face [http://www.usatoday.com...]. And, because our involvement in Afghanistan lead to other military struggles, the threat of terrorist activity against America is now even higher; and, as we know, putting American citizens in danger is not justified.

With these first three points in mind, I'll save a couple other arguments for the coming rounds, and I'll turn the debate over to the Pro at this time. Thank you for reading, and good luck, Pro.
Debate Round No. 1
Starpad

Pro

I find the just war theory; a doctrine of military ethics can help us gauge what qualifies as a justified war in most circumstances. The doctrine is of Roman philosophical and Catholic origin and has being widely used for thousands of years.

Just cause is defined within the doctrine: The reason for going to war needs to be just and cannot therefore be solely for recapturing things taken or punishing people who have done wrong; innocent life must be in imminent danger and intervention must be to protect life. Force may be used only in a truly just cause and solely for that purpose—correcting a suffered wrong is considered a right intention, while material gain or maintaining economies is not. [http://en.wikipedia.org...]

Do you agree that the war in Afghanistan meets the qualifications to be a just war within the Just War doctrine or do you disagree with the with the Just War Doctrine

Responses:

I - I would first like to point out that your first point is an inaccurate one because of changes in Pakistan's change in policy towards the Taliban has changed drastically and now the Pakistani military is now beginning to target the that have taken refuge in South Waziristan where the Taliban and Al-Qeada, meaning there is now no need for the United States to become involved militarily with Pakistan. However even before this change in policy the reason that the war threatened to spill over into Pakistan is because the Pakistani government refused to pull troops from its border with India and focus them on their border with Afghanistan [http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com...]. Regardless of this fact the Pakistani government has begun acting on the advice of American and European countries and their use of diplomacy with India. The decision to target the by the Pakistani government is also due to the fact that just like the united states Pakistan is witnessing terrorist attacks being committed against their country because of the Taliban. It would appear that the Washington and Pakistan in fact have a common enemy.

II - It is true that the European countries are posed with a much greater threat then us in North America because of their vicinity to Afghanistan and other countries that support the Taliban and Al Qaeda, but the London bus attacks were in fact fueled by the then recent war in Iraq. In fact 2/3 of Britain's citizens believed that the attacks were fueled because of the invasion of Iraq and their decision to aid the United States and the bombers also cited it as their motivation as well [http://www.guardian.co.uk...][http://en.wikipedia.org...]. And in recent months Al Qaeda has jump-started its campaign efforts indicating that the Taliban and Al Qaeda are ruining out of money which they need to carry out further terrorist attacks.

III - The argument that the United States has become vulnerable to future attacks because of the war in Afghanistan is an inaccurate one, in recent months Al Qaeda has released video indicating that they are jump starting fund raising because their funds are diminishing, that combined with the fact that their safe havens in South Waziristan have put the Taliban and Al Qaeda in a very unfavorable position and has drastically diminished their ability to orchestrate organized terrorist attacks against the United States and Europe.
Cody_Franklin

Con

Alrighty, let's get Round 2 underway.

-The Just War Theory-

a. The Just War Theory, are you define it, discusses the reasons and motivations for going to war; however, as the saying goes, the road to Hell is paved with good intentions; merely because someone means well does not excuse the actions taken and the consequences of those actions; so, truly, the Just War Theory is essentially used by politicians and military leaders to make a war seem legitimate to the public at large; so, really, the JWT is more of a political tool than anything.

b. Two wrongs hardly make a right; while force might be a necessity, it is far from justified; after the 9/11 terrorist attacks, Americans were guided by rage towards terrorists, paranoia of another attack, and a desire for revenge; if we look back to definitions, proving something is justified proves that it is guided by truth, reason, justice, and fairness; anger, fear, and the want of revenge are hardly any of these things; as we can see, we were spurred into war by desperation as opposed to objective reason and fairness; and desperation is simply not justification.

Now that we've put the theory under scrutiny, I would like to move on to individual arguments.

1. You discuss how the only reason the United States was going to become militarily entangled with Pakistan was because they would not remove troops from the Indian border. In the interests of fairness, assuming that this is entirely the truth, then it obviously proves injustice on the hands of the United States; we would have been declaring war on a country simply because they refused to follow our 'suggestions'. [http://www.usatoday.com...] As we can see here, the Pakistanis are essentially 'abdicating' to the Taliban, according to Sec. of State Clinton. Because the reason for expansion of the conflict was Pakistan's 'failure to comply' with the wishes of officials in Washington, the fact that Pakistan is essentially using a policy of appeasement with the Taliban will make the expansion of the war even more likely, and would thus claim the lives of even more American and foreign soldiers; as we can see, the recent resurgence of the Taliban in Pakistan increases the likelihood of war; in fact, the hopes of expanding the war into Pakistan are shared by many: [http://www.asiasociety.org...]. Obviously, putting so many domestic and foreign lives on the line, especially through yet another invasion, is simply not justified.

2. Essentially, the only reason that European powers became involved in military efforts with the United States is because they are our allies, and it seemed that we weren't the ones provoking the war; however, the War in Afghanistan led to not only the War in Iraq, but all of our current efforts in the War on Terror; so, again, because of the United States involvement in Afghanistan, we were also catapulted into several other conflicts, which put our allies at unnecessary risk, thus there is a lack of both justification and foresight on the part of Washington. Furthermore, I fail to see how the financial campaigning of extremist groups such as Al-Qaeda and the Taliban proves a lack of funds, or how it proves the War in Afghanistan to be justified; if what you say is true, and these terrorist organizations are indeed running low on funds, then it's a clear indication that they plan to carry out further terrorist attacks, ergo our war effort has been unsuccessful, and as I've given clear evidence to show, has been quite counterproductive [http://en.wikipedia.org...] [http://www.antiwar.com...].

3. First off, you've already discussed the fund raising, and it has already been refuted. Also, understand again that, if these groups are, as you claim, raising funds, that shows clear intentions for future terrorist attacks, and so the argument that America is at risk for future terrorist attack is not only in line with the evidence that I have presented in Round 1, but is also in line with the scenario you have presented. I presented that evidence from our own government, who released the statement declaring that it is more, not less, likely for another terrorist attack to occur on American soil; the Taliban have certainly showed trends for resurgence in the past, and have come back strong every time; these kinds of trends, the recurring violence, suicide bombings, etc. are clear on pages 5 and 6 of this Committee on Foreign Affairs report: [http://foreignaffairs.house.gov...]; and, as this article from about 3 years back shows us, [http://archive.newsmax.com...], the Taliban continue to come back with larger numbers each time; they began operating in squad-sized units, then company-sized units (100 men), then battalion-sized units (400 men); thus, our fight against the Taliban is very bittersweet; the fact is, we're losing many American lives in this war, and the Taliban simply seem to keep coming; their resolve hasn't diminished, and the risk of terrorist activity against America has increased, which puts not only the American military at risk, but endangers the lives of American citizens; this certainly is not only a counterproductive war, but an unjust war, as well.

As Round 3 approaches, I will stand down for now, and allow my opponent to deal with my rebuttal. Good luck, Pro.
Debate Round No. 2
Starpad

Pro

Starpad forfeited this round.
Cody_Franklin

Con

As my opponent no longer exists, I ask you to flow my arguments through from Round 2, and obviously, give all 7 points to CON.
Debate Round No. 3
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by MTGandP 7 years ago
MTGandP
Defaulted to PRO due to forfeits.
Posted by Cody_Franklin 7 years ago
Cody_Franklin
Conduct: Con - Pro not only forfeited, but closed his account in the middle of a debate, and probably stole Con's whole argument.

S/G: Con - Pro had a few errors with capitalization, grammar mistakes, etc.

Arguments: Con - Pro left the last batch of arguments sitting idly, as he forfeited Round 3; and Pro's arguments were many times based off of assertions and questionable information.

Sources: Con - Con had done far more research than Pro, provided more credible sources, and turned much of Pro's research and logical evidence against him.
Posted by Xer 7 years ago
Xer
Yeah, like either use it for school, formal debate, general knowledge, or another site.

You were doing a great job with really good research, so I guess plagiarism seemed easier for him haha.

This is only a theory/hunch though..
Posted by Cody_Franklin 7 years ago
Cody_Franklin
You mean, stick this argument on some other site? Surely he wouldn't be dumb enough to open a different account and repost it here, somewhere.

Though, I'm flattered in a weird way that he would plagiarize me; I must have done an okay job.
Posted by Xer 7 years ago
Xer
He probably is gunna plagiarize your argument.

I see no other reason why he would disable his account.
Posted by Cody_Franklin 7 years ago
Cody_Franklin
Ah, I see; well, I just looked and saw the 'inactive' page, and figured that he probably wouldn't disable his own account in the middle of a debate; it would appear that I am mistaken.
Posted by mongeese 7 years ago
mongeese
It wasn't closed, which means that there were no infractions. It looks like he voluntarily disabled his own account.
Posted by Cody_Franklin 7 years ago
Cody_Franklin
It would seem that my opponent's account is no longer active; I'm wondering what he did to get himself removed.
Posted by Cody_Franklin 7 years ago
Cody_Franklin
I do appreciate it.
Posted by Starpad 7 years ago
Starpad
alright
9 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Vote Placed by losedotexe 6 years ago
losedotexe
StarpadCody_FranklinTied
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 crisratzys 6 years ago
crisratzys
StarpadCody_FranklinTied
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 patsox834 7 years ago
patsox834
StarpadCody_FranklinTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Vote Placed by MTGandP 7 years ago
MTGandP
StarpadCody_FranklinTied
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 Agnostic 7 years ago
Agnostic
StarpadCody_FranklinTied
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 
Vote Placed by Youngblood 7 years ago
Youngblood
StarpadCody_FranklinTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 tribefan011 7 years ago
tribefan011
StarpadCody_FranklinTied
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 
Vote Placed by mongeese 7 years ago
mongeese
StarpadCody_FranklinTied
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 Cody_Franklin 7 years ago
Cody_Franklin
StarpadCody_FranklinTied
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