The Instigator
Pro (for)
3 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

The war in Afghanistan was justified.

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  
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: 1/25/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,364 times Debate No: 2194
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (6)
Votes (1)




I am not sure if I support this position, but I would like to debate it anyway. After 9/11, it was obvious that the Taliban regime in Afghanistan was a threat to our national security and it did not look like they would sit around and negotiate with us. The Taliban also worsened the life of Afghanistan's citizens, so it was also a moral thing to do. The war in Afghanistan was justified and it would have been dangerous and wrong not to invade.


Invading Afghanistan was not justified.

I. The affirmative claims that the Taliban regime was a threat to our national security. This is false, as I shall explain.

A. Fifteen of the hijackers were from Saudi Arabia. 2 were from the UAE, and 1 each from Egypt and Lebanon. Not a single one was from Afghanistan.

These hijackers were well educated, many, if not most of them, lived in the West beforehand. The affirmative has not proved that they had any ties to Afghanistan.

B. Because none of the hijackers were Afghanis, and the affirmative has not proved that they were trained there, it is clear that Afghanistan did not directly cause the attacks on Septemeber 11th.

II. Taliban /= Al Qaeda

A. Al-Qaeda was behind the attacks on September 11th, however, one who is part of AQ is not necessarily part of the Taliban. To assume such is quite dangerous, for the Taliban is many things, a government regime, a party, and primarily centered in Afghanistan. On the other hand, AQ is a terrorist group, an international one.

B. Just because the Taliban has sometimes supported members of AQ does not mean that we have a legitimate reason to eliminate them.

The US government has supported the Taliban to fight the Soviet Union, and thus, using such logic as the affirmative, it would then be just for someone to eliminate the US government because it has supported terrorists.

Clearly, this is bad logic.

C. Because the Taliban regime is what we toppled in Afghanistan, not AQ, it was unjust, because we did not target the creator of the problem.

III. AQ is an international organization, invading a country will not stop it.

A. Because AQ is not based in a country, invading a single country for the sake of weakening it is foolish. It can simply move to another country.

B. Wars in the Middle East strengthen AQ, the destruction caused gives them something to accuse the west, and the US in particular, of. They can now point and claim, "See how those imperialists seek to ruin us!". War only adds fuel to the fire that is AQ.

In fact, since the invasion of Afghanistan, there have been even more attacks internationally.

C. Increased terrorism in other parts of the world is bad, it rebounds on us.

1. Increased terrorism leads to more destruction, more loss of life, more misery, more economic hardship.

2. These impacts of terrorism beget more terrorism, the violence, lost family members, and struggling economic life give more recruits to terrorist organizations.

3. This cycle continues, feeding terrorism until the point in which we are less safe, because there are many people willing to strike out at us.

D. Ultimately, the invasion of Afghanistan has strengthened AQ, and not done enough for the people of Afghanistan.

IV. Contrary to my opponents claim, the Taliban actually helped the lives of Afghanis compared to what they had before.

A. I will not claim that the life of the average Afghani was good with the Taliban, however, it is not better today, for it is much less secure.

B. The life of an Afghani prior to the reign of the Taliban was far worse than it was during the reign.

C. Prior to the reign of the Taliban, Soviets were attempting to use the countries resources, crime was common, and order was nonexistent.

1. The Soviets were invading Afghanistan, causing much destruction.

2. Warlords had much power, and robber bands stifled trade by demanding money on roads, raped women, and murdered those who would not pay.

3. Order was nonexistent, the central government was weak.

D. The Taliban reformed the government, bringing order, defeating the Soviets, and greatly reduced crime.

1. The government was given much more power, and could not provide order and security to citizens.

2. The Soviet threat was over, Afghanistan did not need to worry about being conquered by a foreigner (until the US came along).

3. Crime was greatly reduced, this is perhaps one of the few admirable things which the Taliban did. Murder, robbery, and rape were all greatly reduced under their strict reign.

E. Although the lives of many people were not great, they were certainly better under the Taliban then they were in the period of lawlessness before it.

V. America had many alternatives to invasion.

A. As I proved earlier, terrorism leads to more terrorism, and our war has increased terrorism. Ultimately, this is counter productive.

B. The best solution would have been to counter the rising hate against America with mass media, schools, and the spreading of Western knowledge.

C. A more peaceful solution would make us look much better, make us less hated, and still accomplish more than what we have so far.

D. None of the real goals of the invasion have been accomplished, and they will not be. The status quo is the worst case scenario, and had we done something different it could not have been worse.

E. If the affirmative would like to make this more of a debate towards the impacts of the war, as discussed above, I am willing to do so in the next two rounds, however, I have interpreted this to be a debate on the justness of the war. (Although some impact calculations are still necessary to determine the best course of action)

VI. If anything, the US would have been better off invading other countries.

A. Saudi Arabia is a known funder of terrorism. Almost all of the hijackers on September 11th came from there, and ultimately, if any invasion would have been just (although I would say none are) it would have been the invasion of Saudi Arabia. In fact, Osama Bin Laden himself is Saudi royalty.

B. Other countries are also involved in terrorism, and could have been invaded.

C. The invasion of Afghanistan was essentially arbitrary, there were many other possibilities (though the best one would be not to invade). My opponent must prove otherwise.

VII. Conclusion

AQ carried out the attacks of September 11th, and not a single one of these attackers was from Afghanistan. AQ is not the same thing as the Taliban, and invading Afghanistan has only strengthened AQ. Things were better under the Taliban than before it (although still not good) so one cannot support the invasion on such "moral" terms. America had many alternatives to war, and at the very least had better choices to wage a war against.

So vote for me!
Debate Round No. 1


I fight bullet points with bullet points

I.You claim the Taliban posed no threat. In fact, they harbored Al Qaeda and allowed it to base in Afghanistan.
A.AQ had influence over the government because without AQ the Taliban would be broke and powerless to fight off the opposition. According to Peter Bergen's "The Osama Bin Laden I Know", "Al Qaeda would provide the Taliban some much needed Cash and zealous Arab fighters, while the Taliban would provide a sure refuge and a carte blanche to build up the training camps of the al Qeada organization."(Page 161) Al Qeada and the Taliban were allies and they needed each other to function. AQ was also part of the Taliban army and therefore had power over it.
B.Also according to Peter Bergan's book, "Al Qeada developed a number of training camps during this period…more promising graduates would receive advanced terrorist tactics" (Page 161) All of the 9/11 highjackers received this training and thousands of other terrorists did as well.
C.Without the Taliban AQ's power is shrunk by a gigantic amount, there is a reason that there have no major terrorist attacks, and that's because Al Qaeda has no base and no control over any country.
D.Osama Bin Laden has publicly pledged faithfulness to Mullah Omar, the Taliban leader and is, therefore under him.

II.You say the US supported the Taliban when they fought against the Soviet Union, but that was in the past when they were not affiliated with AQ and weren't even a party yet. They were just a bunch of soldiers trying to rid Afghanistan of the Soviets. This was a mistake on the part of the US, because the Taliban later turned against them.

III.Even if the Taliban did not cause the attacks, AQ had its base there and the Taliban would not destroy it because they needed AQ.
A.I have already showed you that AQ trained its terrorists there and is able to have all its operations there without needed to be secretive. Without this base, it has been much more difficult for AQ to attack us.
B.Unless the Taliban was eliminated AQ could have attacked again.

IV.AQ cannot operate well in another country because there is no other country that will allow it.
A.Now, any country that AQ tries to carry out an operation in, let alone train soldiers in, hunts AQ down
B.AQ has to operate in such secrecy that it cannot spread its message and cannot inform supporters of its location
C.AQ has not been able to carry out any attacks on the US
D.You say Saudi Arabia funded terrorism, but there is little evidence for this and Sauid Arabia does not train them or provide a safe haven for them

V.You say terrorism has increased, but the attacks are small and nothing like what could have happened if AQ had been allowed to attack again
A.AQ was planning on even more damaging attack

VI. AQ would have been able to train many more terrorists then could have been created by anger and the terrorists they trained could have caused much more damage since they were much more skilled

VII. As the Afghani government takes over, things in Afghanistan are settling down
A. There is a stable government
B. Now the US will not be part of the government and the Afghanis will except it even more

VIII. The Taliban were terrible to their people
A.The Taliban shot everything that moved in the city of Mazar-i-Sharif and then forbid people to burry the 8000 slaughtered inhabitants until they rotted and were eaten by dogs after six days
B.Hazras were ethnically persecuted and were defiantly not better off
C.They lashed and cut off body parts of women who did not follow their strict dress codes
D.Strict Islamic law made most acts impossible and people lived in fear of punishment for simple mistakes in this law
E.While living conditions may have been better, people's daily lives were marked by fear and many people were killed

This is about whether or not the invasion of Afghanistan was justified, which is defined as "having an acceptable reason" and I think there are many acceptable reasons for invading Afghanistan.


I am sorry to say that I simply do not have time to continue this debate at the moment.

I have what is essentially the most important debate tournament of my career tomorrow, and so I am writing this quick response just so you know that I would like to continue this debate.

Hopefully, we could redo this debate, and have no one vote on this one. Or if you'd really like, we can continue this one.
Debate Round No. 2




Please do not vote!
This debate will likely be redone at a later time.
Do not vote on this debate!
Debate Round No. 3
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by llamallama 8 years ago
I wrote not to vote! :(
but someone did!

Do they even read all our arguments?!

too bad you got eliminated, but at least you made it to the quarterfinals
Posted by zarul 8 years ago
My partner and I went 4-0 the first day.

We secured 2nd seed for the elimination rounds.

In the quarterfinals, we hit a school's B-team (and we had beat their A-team the day before), and we were thinking things were going well.

Then the judges voted us down on a 2-1 decision, but they biased (they like Cato, which the other team ran on us).

So yeah, it was good, but could have been a lot better.
Posted by llamallama 8 years ago
Challenge me whenever you have the time. How was your tournament?
Posted by zarul 8 years ago
Alright, we can try and get no one to vote, and then it'll stay a tie, and sometime, preferably in about a week or so, I'll challenge you to a debate.
Posted by llamallama 8 years ago
My first part was more of an introduction so we could still finish the debate, but if you want to redo I'll redo it.
Posted by llamallama 8 years ago
Debate tournament?! I'm debating a proffessional?! Wow!! Good luck!
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by trayhayes 8 years ago
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 Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30