The Instigator
jamesneal
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
RedRanter
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

US should not get involved in syria

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/9/2013 Category: Economics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,045 times Debate No: 38719
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (0)

 

jamesneal

Pro

first round is acceptince. Good Luck
RedRanter

Con

I accept.
Debate Round No. 1
jamesneal

Pro

The US should not get involved in Syria because it will only cause more problems for us. Here is an example of what I mean. When the US got involved in Afghanistan in 1973 they helped them out. But then once Osama Bin Laden came back into role, Afghanistan attacked the US many times including 9/11. If we help Syria it could just cause a terrorist attack on the US. Are people really willing to throw there safety away to help some other country? And the more countries the US intervenes in the more enemy's we will get. So why dont we just worry about our own country and leave the other ones alone.
RedRanter

Con

I’d like to thank my opponent for supplying the resolution and hope this debate will be
informative for both parties involved. I wish my opponent the best of luck in the next
couple rounds of this debate.


Refuting the opening statement -

My opponent begins his opening statement with this claim:

  • The US should not get involved in Syria because it will only cause more problems forus.

Notice, I could easily counter his statement with my own claim:
  • The US should absolutely get involved in Syria because it will solve many problems forus.

Conclusion:
Unsupported assumptions are insufficient to meet the burden of proof. I

challenge my opponent to satisfy his burden with evidence, and a solid interpretation thereof.


Refuting the conclusion of the interpreted evidence –

My opponent continues his arguments:

  • When the US got involved in Afghanistan in 1973 they helped them out. But then once
    Osama Bin Laden came back into role, Afghanistan attacked the US many times
    including 9/11.

Notice, I could easily counter this claim without much effort:

  • U.S. aid to Afghanistan occurred in 1978 (not 1973). It consisted of a non-military CIA
    action to provide funds, weapons and training to Islamic militants fighting the
    USSR puppet Government. [Devotion to Duty, Apr 29, 2013].
  • Al Qaeda justified the attacks on 9/11 as retaliation for supporting Israel and themilitary action in. None of these relate to the CIA sanctioned aid to combatCommunism in the area.
  • Al Qaeda didn’t move into Afghanistan until the late ‘90s. The extremists started inSudan, not Afghanistan. [Devotion to Duty, Apr 29, 2013]

Conclusion: Osama Bin Laden is not the result of U.S. aid to Afghanistan in 1978. Osama Bin
Laden is the product of religious fundamentalism. [An Interpretation of the Quran, 2004]
The Al Qaeda regime took full credit for the attacks and justified the action as retaliation
for “America's support of Israel, its involvement in the Persian Gulf War and its continued
military presence in the Middle East.
” [9/11 Attacks, Oct 10, 2013]

I look forward to the next round of our debate.

[1] Central Intelligence Agency, “Devotion to Duty”, April 29th, 2013. Link –

https://www.cia.gov...

[2] 9/11 Attacks. (2013). The History Channel website. Retrieved 8:45, October 10, 2013, Link –

http://www.history.com....

[3] Majid Fakhry, An Interpretation of the Quran, New York: NYUP, 2000, 2004) As cited by proxy –

http://www.answering-islam.org...

Debate Round No. 2
jamesneal

Pro

Syria is not causing the US any problems right now, how ever getting involved with them could and more then likely will cause the US problems. My point about afghanistan was to show that helping either side of a war could cause us problems of attacks. Another reason why we should not get involved in syria is becuase we don't have the money for it. We need the money here to help the citizens of the US, and we should not be spending anymore money on another war. In the wake of the sequester, the Pentagon does not have much extra cash on hand. According to one report , there are no extra funds in the Defense budget to pay for a bombing campaign against Syria. Oklahoma Senator Jim Inhofe has stated this concern bluntly, observing that “our military has no money left.” With over 79 percent of Americans demanding a Congressional vote prior to any military operation, the lack of money is problematic for a White House keen to avoid having its plans rejected on Capitol Hill. Unlike the war power questions, there is no dispute among legal scholars that only Congress has the power of the purse, i.e. the exclusive power to raise revenue and appropriate funds.
RedRanter

Con

RedRanter forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by RedRanter 3 years ago
RedRanter
Holy crap. The text editor for submitting debates is awful. It cut off all the text in special font, rather than converting it to rich text.
No votes have been placed for this debate.