The Instigator
flor
Pro (for)
Losing
9 Points
The Contender
MoonDragon613
Con (against)
Winning
36 Points

U.S. policies established post9/11 have substantially reduced therisk of terrorist acts against U.S.

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: 6/5/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,318 times Debate No: 4344
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (6)
Votes (15)

 

flor

Pro

risk= probability or potential
terrorism= unlawful use of force or violence to intimidate a state, power, or society.
I will let my opponent start the first arguments, then i will state my own!
thank you!
Flor
MoonDragon613

Con

Substantially = to a great extent or degree

Prior to and including 9/11, the number of Americans who died to terrorist attacks (the unlawful use of force or violence to intimidate America) was approximately 3200 over the span of 200 years. So pre 9/11, there were on average 16 deaths per year due to terrorism.

Post 9/11 there have been 3000 American casualties resulting from terrorist attacks, for example terrorist attacks against American soldiers in Iraq, over the span of 7 years. Therefore US policies established post 9/11 (such as the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan) have increased the number of American deaths due to terrorism to over 400 per year.

Of course these numbers are approximations. If you feel like correcting them with more accurate figures, then by all means. But the point still stands. Since 9/11, American foreign policy has placed more American lives in danger, ergo Higher, not lower risk for terrorist attacks.
Debate Round No. 1
flor

Pro

flor forfeited this round.
MoonDragon613

Con

If we assume United States soldiers to be part of the United States, post 9/11 US policies have thrust them into substantial danger of terrorist action. After all, where else is a US soldier in greater danger of terrorist attacks than in Iraq?

Now some might argue that post 9/11 policies have prevented a repeat of 9/11. HOWEVER if you would like to mount such an argument, you would have to prove that if it was not for the post 9/11 policies, another 9/11 scale disaster would have taken place during the previous 7 years. Good luck with that.
Debate Round No. 2
flor

Pro

ok so even if the US has increased the amount of deaths by invading Iraq, that still does not prove that the risk of terrorist acts remains. That only proves that the US POLICY (anything that the US made a descision about or continually does)of invading iraq was a violent one.

My opponent asked me to prove to him that 9/11 scale attacks could have happened. Here I provide you an extensive list of confessions made by Khalid Sheikh Muhammed, many of which are plans for terrorist attacks against the US, including the destroying of the sears tower. The asterisks mark where each confession starts. source: BBC. keep in mind that Khalid Sheikh Muhammed was the man in charge of the 9/11 attacks.

*The February 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center in New York City
*A failed "shoe bomber" operation
*The October 2002 attack in Kuwait
*The nightclub bombing in Bali, Indonesia
*A plan for a "second wave" of attacks on major U.S. landmarks to be set in the spring or summer of 2002 after the 9/11 attacks, which includes more hijackings of commercial airlines and having them flown into various buildings in the U.S. including the Library Tower in Los Angeles , the Sears Tower in Chicago, the Plaza Bank building in Seattle and the Empire State Building in New York
*Plots to attack oil tankers and U.S. naval ships in the Straits of Hormuz, the Straits of Gibraltar and in Singapore
*A plan to blow up the Panama Canal
*Plans to assassinate Jimmy Carter
*A plot to blow up suspension bridges in New York City
*A plan to destroy the Sears Tower in Chicago with burning fuel trucks
*Plans to "destroy" Heathrow Airport, Canary Wharf and Big Ben in London
*A planned attack on "many" nightclubs in Thailand
*A plot targeting the New York Stock Exchange and other U.S. financial targets
*A plan to destroy buildings in Eilat, Israel
*Plans to destroy U.S. embassies in Indonesia, Australia and Japan in 2002.
*Plots to destroy Israeli embassies in India, Azerbaijan, the Philippines and Australia
*Surveying and financing an attack on an Israeli El-Al flight from Bangkok
*Sending several "mujahideen" into Israel to survey "strategic targets" with the intention of attacking them
*The November 2002 suicide bombing of a hotel in Mombasa, Kenya
*The failed attempt to shoot down an Israeli passenger jet leaving Mombasa airport in Kenya
*Plans to attack U.S. targets in South Korea
*Providing financial support for a plan to attack U.S., British and Jewish targets in Turkey
*Surveillance of U.S. nuclear power plants in order to attack them
*A plot to attack NATO's headquarters in Europe
*Planning and surveillance in a 1995 plan (the "Bojinka Operation") to bomb 12 American passenger jets
*The planned assassination attempt against then-U.S. President Bill Clinton during a mid-1990s trip to the Philippines.
*"Shared responsibility" for a plot to kill Pope John Paul II
*Plans to assassinate Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf
*An attempt to attack a U.S. oil company in Sumatra, Indonesia, "owned by the Jewish former [U.S.] Secretary of State Henry Kissinger"
*The beheading of Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl

By the US policy of using extraordinary rendition and extracting evidence from this man, the US has reduced the risk of terrorist acts against the US, because we know how to counter these threats, and threats similar to them.

I would also ask you to consider the establishment of the National Intelligence Council. Pre 9/11, intelligence agencies (primarily FBI and CIA) were not permitted to share information. The FBI had info about the hijackers in the US. The CIA had info about the hijackers in the middle east. Had they shared information, connections could have been made and the attacks could have been prevented. Post 9/11, the NIC has been amended to particularly combat terrorism. It consists of 16 intelligence agencies that collaborate information and continue to prevent attacks today.

I would also ask you to consider the increased resources and increased employment within the US to counter terrorism. According to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, they have dramatically increased their ability to combat terrorism over the past five years. This includes the doubling of intelligence analysts and tripled number of linguists, increased the number of Joint Terrorism Task Forces (partnerships between the FBI and other federal agencies such as the department of homeland security responsible for taking action against terrorism) from 35 to 101, established the National Counterterrorism Center, established the Foreign Terrorist Tracking Task Force, established the Terrorist Screening Center, and finally instituted a Terrorism Financing Operations Section to shut down terrorist financing. All of these advances have set a national ground for counterterrorism that the US did not have before. By installing these new tactics after 9/11 we have made a substantial increase in our preparedness for terrorism, and now know how to combat it.

And finally, our own defense, through the department of homeland security. Following the 9/11 commission report's reccomendations, the US has established the DHS, and it has been funded and successfully protected our homeland after 9/11.

go back to the list of planned attacks against the US, and tell me that we have not reduced the risk.

thanks!

Flor
MoonDragon613

Con

risk= probability or potential
terrorism= unlawful use of force or violence to intimidate a state, power, or society.
Substantially = to a great extent or degree

Let's look at 9/10/2001. What's the probability that an American citizen would die of a terrorist attack on 9/10/2001? Well truthfully? It was approximately 1%. In fact, prior to 9/11, American "casualties" to foreign terrorists was virtually non-existent. Except for a smattering of American foreign nationals working at embassies, American citizens were well insulated from the terrorism and terrorist strikes.

Then there was 9/11. And then there were the US Domestic and Foreign policy decisions which included the establishment of Homeland Securities and the invasion of Iraq.

So now I'm gonna hold a little poll here. Audience, feel free to comment or respond. What is the probability that an American Citizen (such as our citizens in uniform) will die today from a terrorist?

If your answer is higher than 1, then I've won. Through significantly increased exposure to terrorist resources and terrorist attacks, we've Significantly INCREASED the risk of an attack by terrorists.
------------------------------------------------------------------

Now Flor wants to persuade you that now we have all these new measures which will prevent all attacks on American soil and a 9/11 scale disaster will never take place again on America because of these policy implementations.

But take a look ... where's her evidence? She has NOT A SINGLE scenario in her "evidence" where a terrorist attack which would have taken place under the old system did not take place because of our new system.

I'm not going to deny increasing the number of agents or increasing the size of the bureaucracy by pumping out more agencies might decrease the probability of a terrorist attack on American soil. But keep in mind these three arguments. First of all, the law of diminishing returns. After a certain point, throwing money or agents or acronyms have diminishing impact on security. Second, Flor still has presented 0 evidence (and lemme emphasize this, ZERO EVIDENCE) that these new safeguards have made a meaningful impact on security. And third, STATISTICALLY more American citizens are in danger from terrorism than in the HISTORY OF AMERICAN HISTORY thanks to the liberation of Iraq and Afghanistan.

(Not to mention that if Iraq goes sour it'll become a breeding ground for more terrorists)

So as far as I can see this debate can only go in one direction. Vote Con.
Debate Round No. 3
flor

Pro

flor forfeited this round.
MoonDragon613

Con

Oh boy, it's way too early to back out of this debate. I'm just getting warmed up over here. I haven't even touched the long term impact of our policies established post 9/11

Our Post 9/11 policies include not only the War in Iraq and Afghanistan, but also the establishment of Guantanamo, the use of light torture, and the institution of stop loss.

The use of Guantanamo and torture on prisoners has led to increased risk of terrorist actions against the United States for 2 reasons. Firstly, the widely publicized torture of Muslims cannot sit well with Muslims across the Middle East and the world. Now if these Muslims were tortured by other Muslims, then everything might still be peachy. But alas, that is not the case. With them being tortured at the hands of Americans, the hatred of America will continue to build an endless supply of recruits for future terrorist activities.

The institution of stop loss has had the opposite impact. Because of the deceitful practices of the US government, we can expect our supply of volunteers to simply disappear over the next several years. When that happens, our ability to threaten foreign nations with destabilizing military actions declines because we will lose the ability to stay within those nations and engage in nation building.

Taking these two post 9/11 policies in conjunction, we expect in the long term for the risk of terrorist attacks to rise once again.
Debate Round No. 4
flor

Pro

flor forfeited this round.
MoonDragon613

Con

MoonDragon613 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by flor 8 years ago
flor
yo logical master- i find your comment creepy.

I appologize profusely!!!!!!
I definitely had some good arguments.
If only I hadn't forgotten about this debate...

Anyway I'd like to debate this again with either moondragon613 or anyone else!!!!!

please just let me know!!

and again, I appologize for basically ignoring this debate. haha.

Flor
Posted by Logical-Master 8 years ago
Logical-Master
I've seen this chick somewhere before. hmm.
Posted by InquireTruth 8 years ago
InquireTruth
I agree with bthr004 - you left your self wide open by using unbalanced logic. Certainly american death tolls to "foreign" enemies was much larger before 9/11 if we include all wars prior - the 1% increases exponentially.
Posted by bthr004 8 years ago
bthr004
terrible debate,...

Moon,.. If you are going to include the death toll of American soldiers in the Iraq war or "post 9/11" and conclude them as terrorism not warfare,.. than why did you not include the American deaths from Vietnam, Korea, WW2, AND WW1, even the civil war could be included, etc etc.. in your point about terrorist threats of the past 200 years?

POOR DEBATE. If you had a better opponent you left yourself pretty vulnerable to serious counters.
Posted by jellyphish 8 years ago
jellyphish
Seems odd to begin an debate and then not continue it, poor form.
Posted by HandsOff 8 years ago
HandsOff
What the hell happened to the cute chicks? Good job Moony.
15 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by austinrsell 8 years ago
austinrsell
florMoonDragon613Tied
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 
Vote Placed by flor 8 years ago
flor
florMoonDragon613Tied
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 
Vote Placed by oboeman 8 years ago
oboeman
florMoonDragon613Tied
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 
Vote Placed by Derek.Gunn 8 years ago
Derek.Gunn
florMoonDragon613Tied
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 
Vote Placed by InquireTruth 8 years ago
InquireTruth
florMoonDragon613Tied
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 
Vote Placed by Johnicle 8 years ago
Johnicle
florMoonDragon613Tied
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 
Vote Placed by BeatTheDevil89 8 years ago
BeatTheDevil89
florMoonDragon613Tied
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 
Vote Placed by LakevilleNorthJT 8 years ago
LakevilleNorthJT
florMoonDragon613Tied
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 
Vote Placed by bthr004 8 years ago
bthr004
florMoonDragon613Tied
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 
Vote Placed by Tatarize 8 years ago
Tatarize
florMoonDragon613Tied
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