The Instigator
Chargers
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
brant.merrell
Con (against)
Winning
9 Points

The war the U.S. Is fighting on terrorism will not come to an end to terrorism

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
brant.merrell
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/13/2014 Category: News
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 650 times Debate No: 58895
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (8)
Votes (2)

 

Chargers

Pro

I believe that the war on terrorism is completely pointless and does not have an outcome where terrorism will be completely abolished.

First round is for acceptance
brant.merrell

Con

I accept this debate.
Debate Round No. 1
Chargers

Pro

I would like to start off by thanking my opponent for accepting this debate.

Now to start off this debate. The war that the U.S. is fighting on terror will not come to a point where we will be able to abolish terrorism because no matter what there will always be someone that is willing to attack us. There will never be a point where our lives will be safe from terrorist attacks. It doesn't matter if the war comes to an end or not. The bottom line is that terrorism will never be completely abolished from this planet. The fact that we are fighting this war is pointless because we are draining money into our military to be able to be over in other countries fighting this war that has no end to it. It has no outcome to where it will be the end of terrorism. It is leaving a lot of soldiers injured and dead for a cause that will never have an outcome to the point where a lot of Americans want. This war is significantly adding to our national debt and since the beginning of the war it has cost the United States a total of about $1.492 trillion. This is money that could have been spent elsewhere in other areas such as medicine and education. Since the beginning of this war we have had over 50,000 injuries from 2001-2012 of our own soldier alone.

http://useconomy.about.com...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com...
brant.merrell

Con

brant.merrell forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
Chargers

Pro

Chargers forfeited this round.
brant.merrell

Con

brant.merrell forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
Chargers

Pro

Chargers forfeited this round.
brant.merrell

Con

The Purpose of the War on Terror
Terrorism, like disease, will never be abolished from this planet. Counter-terrorism, like medicine, will always be necessary. We all agree that there will always be humans willing to attack humans. We can never be sure that a stranger in a public mall won't draw a weapon, or that a sudden case of road rage won't cause a lethal freeway accident. While they will always exist, terrorists must always be forced to run and hide, rather than being allowed to declare their own borders, collect their own taxes, and fund their own weapons research. The war on terror is designed to limit terrorists from coalescing, raising funds, organizing campaigns, brainwashing recruits, and developing weapons. It has a purpose even though random and basic risks of living are not part of its mission.

The Costs of making War on Terror
President Clinton ordered strikes against specific targets in Sudan and Afghanistan when he saw convincing evidence that 1. they were involved in bombing a U.S. embassy, 2. they had a strong history of attacking Americans, and 3. they were making plans to carry out more plans in the future.[1] President Clinton authorized Operation Desert Fox when Iraq refused to comply with U.N. resolutions.[2] President Clinton never did to American finances what President Bush did. The nation-crippling costs of the "War on Terror" that begin with the Bush Administration were due to bad leadership. Since George W. Bush has left office, the costs of the war on terror have continuously dropped, the efforts of the war have expanded to more political and economic strategies targeting organizations instead of geographies, and realistic costs for killing Osama Bin Laden under President Obama were proven to be little more than the routine funding for the C.I.A. and special forces. Just recently, President Obama rightly offered to help find the 200 Nigerian schoolgirls who were abducted by the terrorist group Boko Haran.[3] This is a perfect example of how a war on terror is more than a war on terrorists, and doesn't have to cost the nation $4 trillion.

The Costs of not making War on Terror
Our political ties with allies in the Middle East who appreciate peace, freedom and human rights suffer when we refuse to come to their aid. Their problems escalate as their tyrants tax their resources, imprison their figureheads, and use their leverage to establish alliances with neighboring countries. Saddam Hussein would have been a particularly cheap project if he had been eliminated in the 1980's, rather than waiting until he had murdered 250,000 Iraqis. The Clinton Administration began a hunt for Osama Bin Ladin in 1998, which, if better funded, might have saved America the costs of the Afghan war. The general trend is, if we wait for them to arrive at our shores in this highly globalized and technical age, they will have already caused damage that can never be reversed and will be more difficult to destroy than ever before.

Additional Strategies to Consider
The War on Terror originally focused on the geographically defined nations of Iraq and Afghanistan. Terrorists in those nations quietly found their niche in Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and the rest of the globe. Invading a nation has a limited relevance with a steady decay rate. A war on terrorism itself, however, requires working with the intelligence communities of our allies to deplete the funding, sabotage the operations, and undermine the influence of terrorist organizations. Despite the Bush Administration's extremist funding of rockets, ships, armored vehicles and aircraft, realistic strategies of any war also focus on alliances, public relations campaigns, and global resources. In the case of our war with Japan, an example of a public relations campaign involved airborn leafletts that warned Japanese citizens of what an atomic bomb was and that we had just built one. We don't use airborn leafletts much anymore because now we have satellyte. Terrorist leaders propogate interpretations of the Quran that I would argue are lies. They play on a longstanding belief in the Quran, which itself I believe to be a pack of lies. They rely on lies about Jews, about westerners, about infidels, about Allah - they rely on popularity and economic desperation. Who is to say that a Taliban militant is more than three hours of internet research away from abandoning the lies that fuel his beliefs? The Bush Administration may have set the wrong tone, but the war on terror could evolve into a truth campaign, and there would still be militants, and bombings, and terrorists - but their power would be more systematically and humanistically limited.

Sources

1. http://edition.cnn.com...

2. http://www.cnn.com...

3. http://www.christianpost.com...
Debate Round No. 4
Chargers

Pro

Chargers forfeited this round.
brant.merrell

Con

*sigh* . . .
Debate Round No. 5
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by brant.merrell 3 years ago
brant.merrell
Once again, my apologies for forfeiting round 2.
Posted by brant.merrell 3 years ago
brant.merrell
Additional Strategies to Consider
The War on Terror originally focused on the geographically defined nations of Iraq and Afghanistan. Terrorists in those nations quietly found their niche in Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and the rest of the globe. Invading a nation has a limited relevance with a steady decay rate. A war on terrorism itself, however, requires working with the intelligence communities of our allies to deplete the funding, sabotage the operations, and undermine the influence of terrorist organizations. Despite the Bush Administration's extremist funding of rockets, ships, armored vehicles and aircraft, realistic strategies of any war also focus on alliances, public relations campaigns, and global resources. In the case of our war with Japan, an example of a public relations campaign involved airborn leafletts that warned Japanese citizens of what an atomic bomb was and that we had just built one. We don't use airborn leafletts much anymore because now we have satellyte. Terrorist leaders propogate interpretations of the Quran that I would argue are lies. They play on a longstanding belief in the Quran, which itself I believe to be a pack of lies. They rely on lies about Jews, about westerners, about infidels, about Allah - they rely on popularity and economic desperation. Who is to say that a Taliban militant is more than three hours of internet research away from abandoning the lies that fuel his beliefs? The Bush Administration may have set the wrong tone, but the war on terror could evolve into a truth campaign, and there would still be militants, and bombings, and terrorists - but their power would be more systematically and humanistically limited.
Posted by brant.merrell 3 years ago
brant.merrell
The Costs of not making War on Terror
Our political ties with allies in the Middle East who appreciate peace, freedom and human rights suffer when we refuse to come to their aid. Their problems escalate as their tyrants tax their resources, imprison their figureheads, and use their leverage to establish alliances with neighboring countries. Saddam Hussein would have been a particularly cheap project if he had been eliminated in the 1980's, rather than waiting until he had murdered 250,000 Iraqis. The Clinton Administration began a hunt for Osama Bin Ladin in 1998, which, if better funded, might have saved America the costs of the Afghan war. The general trend is, if we wait for them to arrive at our shores in this highly globalized and technical age, they will have already caused damage that can never be reversed and will be more difficult to destroy than ever before.
Posted by brant.merrell 3 years ago
brant.merrell
The Costs of making War on Terror
President Clinton ordered strikes against specific targets in Sudan and Afghanistan when he saw convincing evidence that 1. they were involved in bombing a U.S. embassy, 2. they had a strong history of attacking Americans, and 3. they were making plans to carry out more plans in the future.[] President Clinton authorized Operation Desert Fox when Iraq refused to comply with U.N. resolutions.[] President Clinton never did to American finances what President Bush did. The nation-crippling costs of the "War on Terror" that begin with the Bush Administration were due to bad leadership. Since George W. Bush has left office, the costs of the war on terror have continuously dropped, the efforts of the war have expanded to more political and economic strategies targeting organizations instead of geographies, and realistic costs for killing Osama Bin Laden under President Obama were proven to be little more than the routine funding for the C.I.A. and special forces. Just recently, President Obama rightly offered to help find the 200 Nigerian schoolgirls who were abducted by the terrorist group Boko Haran. This is a perfect example of how a war on terror is more than a war on terrorists, and doesn't have to cost the nation $4 trillion.
Posted by brant.merrell 3 years ago
brant.merrell
I wrote a response that I was about to post, I'll paste it into this comments section out of respect for the debate.

The Purpose of the War on Terror
Terrorism, like disease, will never be abolished from this planet. Counter-terrorism, like medicine, will always be necessary. We all agree that there will always be humans willing to attack humans. We can never be sure that a stranger in a public mall won't draw a weapon, or that a sudden case of road rage won't cause a lethal freeway accident. While they will always exist, terrorists must always be forced to run and hide, rather than being allowed to declare their own borders, collect their own taxes, and fund their own weapons research. The war on terror is designed to limit terrorists from coalescing, raising funds, organizing campaigns, brainwashing recruits, and developing weapons. It has a purpose even though random and basic risks of living are not part of its mission.
Posted by brant.merrell 3 years ago
brant.merrell
I'm sorry, is there any way we can redo this debate?
Posted by Ragnar 3 years ago
Ragnar
A couple suggestions: First of all, define endless (otherwise someone will claim the human race will end, and the war on terror with it). It will prove hard to argue it is pointless, but on balancing losing in a basic cost to benefit analysis may be an ideal direction to take this. Also you might find some useful general tips at https://docs.google.com...
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by lannan13 3 years ago
lannan13
Chargersbrant.merrellTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 3 years ago
9spaceking
Chargersbrant.merrellTied
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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: con makes unrefuted rebuttals