The Instigator
khaylitsa
Con (against)
Winning
35 Points
The Contender
blond_guy
Pro (for)
Losing
21 Points

WAR ON 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  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
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: 2/19/2008 Category: News
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 5,158 times Debate No: 2786
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (9)
Votes (15)

 

khaylitsa

Con

when you look back in history for the answers you often find the answer to questions. when i looked at this topic i did so. Bush said all that time ago that we would go to Iraq to fight back the attack on 9/11. this was called the war on terrorism. this continues today in Afghanistan and Iran. i am not against the principle "the war on terrorism, i am against the way that we are fighting it.
blond_guy

Pro

Well if you are not against the concept, why does it say so on your profile? The issue is simple: "Do you support the war on terrorism?"

I do, I believe we must fight terrorists. Either fight them or negotiate (they usually don't really want to negotiate, and that's the problem). When you are asked "Do you support the war on terrorism?", answer with your own interpretation of what the war on terrorism is. Apparently you don't believe the war in Iraq can be considered war on terrorism. So the war in Iraq is a different topic, now tell me why you wouldn't support the fight against terrorists.
Debate Round No. 1
khaylitsa

Con

well, let us define 'the war on terrorism'. i will quote from Wikipedia ""AUMF" (the other being "Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002"), was a joint resolution passed by the United States Congress on September 18, 2001, authorizing the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the attacks on September 11, 2001. The authorization granted the President the authority to use all "necessary and appropriate force" against those whom he determined "planned, authorized, committed or aided" the September 11th attacks, or who harbored said persons or groups." so what you are supporting when you are arguing against me is a bill that was passed by bush of all people to take revenge on the people who caused 9/11. once at these places he did not find what he was looking for and while he was there took oil from it. from there he expanded and as you will see in the titles of today the war on terrorism has become a slogan to try to get people in favor of the war. i would also like to say that this bill gives bush the right "to punish all who HE THINKS may be part of the people who committed 9/11.
blond_guy

Pro

You start off saying <>

Then you went on this rant about the bill A.U.M.F.
I do not support this bill like you said, and I don't see the connection between this bill and the war on terrorism. Bush's "war on terrorism" was a distraction from the REAL war on terrorism we should be having.

You gave me the quote: "to punish all who HE THINKS may be part of the people who committed 9/11."

But I didn't find that quote on the wikipedia article you referred to. It is not true that Bush has the right to punish whoever he thinks is responsible for 9/11, otherwise Hillary Clinton and Howard Dean would be sentenced to death :P. (not to mention all the comedians that make a living off of his mistakes)
This bill was basically permission to go into Iraq. What does this have to do with the war on terrorism?
Debate Round No. 2
khaylitsa

Con

i apologize for my misprint. what i was referring to was the quote The authorization granted the President the authority to use all "necessary and appropriate force" against those whom he determined "planned, authorized, committed or aided" from wikipedia. this basically says that any county he says planned 9/11 he could commit war against. now that is rectified i would like to ask if you just ignored my whole argument i just made. you gave a flimsy excuse saying that "Bush's "war on terrorism" was a distraction from the REAL war on terrorism we should be having." the whole point of 'my rant' as you call it was to tell you that Bush made the war on terrorism and i am against what he made it. that was the whole point of this debate. i don't care about the the REAL war on terrorism we SHOULD be having, it is what is happening NOW that concerns this debate. an what is happening now.... take this link and see another bill that was passed. http://en.wikipedia.org.... this shows that when completed with Afghanistan he moved on putting troops into foreign territory without any sort of permission and taking advantage of the bill he got passed to fight the people who started 9/11. and by the way they STILL haven't found the person/ organization who did it.
blond_guy

Pro

<<<>>>>>>>>

Let's not be ridiculous. The President has no such right, and if, for example, he wanted to go to war with Iran he would have to go through our checks and balances all over again.

<<<>>>>

Well I incited you to start this debate because you stated you did not support the war on terrorism. Now, if you don't think the war in Iraq is a true war on terrorism, then it shouldn't enter our debate. Point is, we agree Iraq is NOT war on terror, so now let's check out what is and see why you don't want it.

<<<<<<<<<http://en.wikipedia.org....... this shows that when completed with Afghanistan he moved on putting troops into foreign territory>>>>>>>>>>

I'm not sure I understand how the link relates to G.W.B. because this bill you provided the link for is from 1991.

<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>

I thought we were settled that Al-Qaeda made the attack. Unless you're one of those conspiracy maniacs who I love debating.
You can debate me on the 9/11 attack conspiracy separately.

Meanwhile, thank you for this debate.
Debate Round No. 3
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by rock022 8 years ago
rock022
Understand that I clearly stated the fact in which during information searching for the debate, I clearly stated and presented the link to the statement I had posted. I did not in any way shape or form hided the fact. In every respond posted by me I provided you with the researched information on the issue. All you provided was you view, which was not even right because Flag burning in the US is not illegal. In this debate I would be on side in the "WOT" but you still do not provide any research to back your point. If you provide evidence your debate becomes more powerful. This who won the debate thing on the website is not the view of the population, just the vote on those who bothered to read the arguments and decide to take a side. i.e. If a person comes in to this debate and hates the WOT, well that is an automatic vote. Did they bothered to read? And why is it we can not see a voting record? A person who is bias against an issue will always vote in his/her favor. With a voting record you can see a better picture on why the person voted like it did, this will even make it interesting when debating an issue.
Posted by blond_guy 8 years ago
blond_guy
rock022, I like to speak out and use facts. I use facts in every argument, which proves I know what I'm talking about. That's how I prove that I've done research, as opposed to finding something someone else wrote and then copying it and pasting it on my argument without another word about it.
Posted by rock022 8 years ago
rock022
I just finish debating "Burning the flag, Illegal?" with blond guy. Funny he just whines about the issue and provides no research. How can you debate and argue that no one provided you with anything productive, while just whining and not researching?
Posted by blond_guy 8 years ago
blond_guy
HAHA khaylitsa! War on terrorism means war on terrorism. I interpret war on terrorism my way. If you think the war in Iraq has something to do with the war on terrorism, then you've been fooled by President Bush. You are part of the 30%, hahaha! If you don't believe so then I don't know why you even brought up Iraq IN THE FIRST GULF WAR!
Posted by blond_guy 8 years ago
blond_guy
HAHA khaylitsa! War on terrorism means war on terrorism. I interpret war on terrorism my way. If you think the war in Iraq has something to do with the war on terrorism, then you've been fooled by President Bush. You are part of the 30%, hahaha! If you don't believe so then I don't know why you even brought up Iraq IN THE FIRST GULF WAR!
Posted by khaylitsa 8 years ago
khaylitsa
ummmmmm in responce to that comment i was arguing for what the debate was on he was getting WAY side tracked
Posted by blond_guy 8 years ago
blond_guy
Well Yraelz, I told him to start his debate based on his stance (you can see on his profile) of being AGAINST the war on terrorism. I just debated to say in so many words that if you believe Al-Qaeda attacked us, you should definitely want to declare war back.
Posted by Yraelz 8 years ago
Yraelz
Hmmm.... Blond_Guy is arguing for an ideal terrorism war and khaylitsa argues for the current war on terrorism. The resolution simply says, "WAR ON TERRORISM!!!"

So I suppose I won't bother voting but rather recommending that resolutions be worded better in the future.

Sorry =/
Posted by khaylitsa 8 years ago
khaylitsa
cmon if u rlly think tha he won look at his debate! he didn't give any info to support him self he only tried to put me down. really its pathetic.
15 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Kenostic 6 years ago
Kenostic
khaylitsablond_guyTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 khaylitsa 6 years ago
khaylitsa
khaylitsablond_guyTied
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 hauki20 7 years ago
hauki20
khaylitsablond_guyTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:20 
Vote Placed by JBlake 8 years ago
JBlake
khaylitsablond_guyTied
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 claypigeon 8 years ago
claypigeon
khaylitsablond_guyTied
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 dxpilot 8 years ago
dxpilot
khaylitsablond_guyTied
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 Out_and_Proud 8 years ago
Out_and_Proud
khaylitsablond_guyTied
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 RonPaul08 8 years ago
RonPaul08
khaylitsablond_guyTied
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 Kusfraba 8 years ago
Kusfraba
khaylitsablond_guyTied
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 John_Quincy_Adams 8 years ago
John_Quincy_Adams
khaylitsablond_guyTied
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