The Instigator
crossfade102495
Con (against)
Losing
5 Points
The Contender
ConservativePolitico
Pro (for)
Winning
6 Points

War With Iran

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 3 votes the winner is...
ConservativePolitico
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/9/2012 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 971 times Debate No: 21861
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (10)
Votes (3)

 

crossfade102495

Con

I will begin this debate with an overall assessment of the situation with Iran as well as my position and argument.

Iran is currently under pressure from most of the Western world due to claims that it is developing nuclear weapons and intends to act aggressively toward other Middle Eastern countries. There is mixed sentiment on the subject of whether or not America should declare war on Iran and invade them.

I personally am strongly against an invasion of Iran because I believe that it is an unprovoked show of violence which would only serve to further sour our relations with Iran. Also, there is no proof that they are building nuclear weapons and they do not have the capacity to attack us or our allies.
ConservativePolitico

Pro

First off I would like to start by making a distinction:

war - a state of armed conflict between different nations or states or different groups within a nation or state

invasion - an instance of invading a country or region with an armed force

War does not have to constitute and invasion. Keep that in mind going forward.

Iranian Aggressiveness

Iran has been extremely aggressive lately when dealing with the West, especially Israel. The main proponent of Iranian aggression has come through the rhetoric of their president Ahmadinejad.

Ahmadinejad has continuously made threats against the states of Israel.

Here are some examples:

"Israel is destined for destruction and will soon disappear" - November 13, 2006.

"The Zionist regime is counterfeit and illegitimate and cannot survive" - October 19, 2006

"A new Middle East will prevail without the existence of Israel" - August 4, 2006
[1]

It is clear that the Iranian president and his regime hate the state of Israel. This aggression cannot go unchallenged for an indefinite amount of time especially coupled with the fear of a nuclear weapon.

Nuclear Weapons

Iran's nuclear program seems illegitimate because Iran is not hurting for energy of any kind.

- Iran is the 4th largest oil producer in the world. [2][3]
- Iran takes in $77 billion a year in oil revenue [4]
- Iran is home to the third largest oil reserve in the world [5]
- Iran is home to the second largest natural gas reserve in the world [5]

From these statistics we can see that energy should be no problem for Iran. This abundance of energy sources makes people wonder about the intentions of their nuclear program since it seems apparent that they are not hurting for energy. In fact, 18.5% of all Iranian electricity is lost to waste due to technical failure [5] which points to infrastructure problems not production problems.

As we can see Iran is not hurting for power and the power problems they do have can be fixed without the help of nuclear energy.

The fact that Iran is not in need of nuclear energy added to the potent anti-Israel rhetoric leads one to conclude that it is a good possibility that Iran is developing uranium for a bomb instead of energy. How else will Iran make good on their pledge to destroy Israel? If it walks like a duck and sounds like a duck and looks like a duck its a duck. Do you want to wait until they show us a completely finished nuke before believing them? Everything points in the direction of nuclear weapons. They are even testing long range missiles [7] capable of being attached with a nuclear warhead.

Long Range Capability

Reports have Iran testing missiles able to hit "US targets" in the Middle East and in Eastern Europe. [6] So the statement you made is false. Also, Iran has the capability to hit Israel with a missile and Israel is a US ally. So the statement you made is incorrect.

War Without Invasion

The US could engage Iran in a war without invading Iran. We have no purpose to invade Iran but war does not have to include an invasion. We could wage a war through the air and at sea focused on breaking the Iranian capability to make war and to destroy their nuclear program. This can be achieved through bombings and missile attacks without putting one boot on the ground in Iran. There would be no need to invade at all.

The goal for a war with Iran would be to prevent a nuclear strike by Iran on a US ally. This war would be designed at achieving this goal and invasion does not have to be a part of that. We could break the Iranian capability without invading anything.

Therefore, between the enrichment of uranium when Iran is not in need of nuclear power, the potent anti-Israel rhetoric and the capability to attack US targets I propose a war in which air and sea power is used to break the Iranian nuclear program and war machine.

Thank you.

[1] http://israelnjudaism.blogspot.com...;
[2] http://www.huffingtonpost.com......
[3] http://www.infoplease.com......
[4] http://en.wikipedia.org......(Iran)#Revenues_from_crude_oil
[5] http://en.wikipedia.org...;
[6] http://www.usnews.com...;
[7] http://www.haaretz.com...;
Debate Round No. 1
crossfade102495

Con

Frist, the definition of war which I am referring to is as follows (I apologize for not making it clearer):

Merriam-Webster defines war as "a state of hostility, conflict, or antagonism" [1]

To justify my use of the words "war" and "invasion" in conjunction, I'll point out that most wars warrant an invasion of one country by another.


Iranian "Aggressiveness"

The main reason that Iran has shown any verbal aggressiveness toward America and the West is because of the actions which those countries have taken against Iran in the past. An example of this would be the coup d'etat of 1953. This effort was carried out by the American CIA along with British groups. It was codenamed Operation Ajax and was funded in part by the American government. The operation overthrew the Iranian government and installed a dictator who was sympathetic to America. In 1979, an American general was sent to Iran to instigate another coup, but it failed miserably and the Iran Hostage Crisis began. [2] Just a little history to explain the current situation.

I believe your quotes, in full, look like this:

"The western powers created the Zionist regime in order to expand their control of the area. This regime massacres Palestinians everyday, but since this regime is against nature, we will soon witness its disappearance and destruction." [3]

"The Zionist regime is counterfeit and illegitimate and cannot survive... The big powers have created this fraud regime and allowed it to commit all kind of crimes to guarantee their interests." [4]

"In spite of all the satanic schemes, with the help of God and the people's resistance, the new Middle East will turn into a region without the United States and the Zionist regime, and the arrogant powers will have no place in this Middle East." [5]

These sound like words of a man who wishes for the disappearance of the Israeli state, but it does not in any way insinuate that Iran will be the one to cause that disappearance. As a matter of fact, Ahmadinejad has never directly stated that Iran itself will remove Israel with force.


Nuclear Weapons

While it is true that Iran is not "hurting for energy," they get 99.7% of their total energy from fossil fuels. [6] That is a staggeringly large percentage of their energy production. If they were able to produce nuclear energy, they would be able to sell even more of their fossil fuels. They are currently using the majority of their fossil fuels on themselves and are still making a large revenue from selling them. It is feasible to imagine that Iran's pursuit of nuclear power is simply a way to make more money (which is always welcome in any country).

Sadly, it is true that a large amount of their energy is wasted due to technical failures. However, nuclear power is known to be far more efficient than fossil fuels and would thus be the obvious alternative for a nation with access to uranium.

As I've stated before, Iran has never pledged to destroy Israel. This is a common misconception among Americans and others in the West.

As to the possibility of nuclear weapons, Iran has agreed to allow UN inspectors to search their main military site in Tehran. [7] If they had any nuclear weapon technology, they certainly would not allow inspectors into their military base. Any radiation from such technology would easily be picked up with a Geiger counter.


Long Range Capability

I found an article which highlights the testing of long range missiles by Iran but I could not find the range of said missiles. [8] Unfortunately, your source for this subject would not open. I trust it was reliable though.

In fact, it is believed that Israel possesses between 100-200 nuclear weapons. They are also upgrading their arsenal so that their missiles are now trans-continental (5000 miles). [9] Why do they need such high-range missiles?


War Without Invasion

War without invasion is, by definition, not possible unless it is done through missiles.

Merriam-Webster defines invasion as "an act of invading" [10]
It defines invading as "to enter for conquest or plunder; to enroach upon" [11]

Thus, the situation you described would be considered both an act of war and invasion.


In conclusion, any invasion of or act of war against Iran would be completely unprovoked and unnecessary. The leader of Iran, Ahmadinejad, has expressed contempt for our ally Israel but has never directly stated that he would attack them. Pre-emptive stikes have been used before (most notably in Iraq) and ended with negative consequences. We should not engage in this type of attack again or else risk angering the Middle East further and creating an even clearer image of an America that is pro-war and aggressive.




1- http://www.merriam-webster.com...
2- ;(Video)
3- http://www.jihadwatch.org...
4- http://www.jihadwatch.org...
5- http://www.ynetnews.com...
6- http://www.tradingeconomics.com...
7- http://www.myfoxchicago.com...
8- http://www.cbsnews.com...
9- http://www.haaretz.com...
10- http://www.merriam-webster.com...
11- http://www.merriam-webster.com...
ConservativePolitico

Pro


Iranian Aggressiveness

Iran and the West have had a long history of controversy and disagreement. I agree. However, the past is past. Whatever context you put the Iranian quotes in, it still overwhelmingly points to the desire to see Israel wiped off the map and there is no justification for making such comments. They are hostile towards the West and towards Israel. That has been established.

Next you say that Iran doesn't actually say they'll be the ones to wipe Israel off the map but I'll get to that next section. This has no bearing on their comments.

Nuclear Weapons

Iran's nuclear faciliities aren't even big enough to be viable for power production. [1] The plants they are using do not produce enough uranium to be usable in a powerplant but are very condusive to military purposes. If they are developing nuclear power then why do their facilities say otherwise.

i. Nuclear Power is a Responsibility

Due to the dangerous nature of nuclear power and the hazards and implications that come with it, possessing it is a huge responsibility. The Iranians are not yet ready for this responsibility.

Iran is a huge supporter of terrorism. They have sponsored, helped and funded the terrorist group Hezbollah. [2] Hezbollah has been one of the main groups attacking Israel via the Gaza strip. Now, you said Iran never directly said they'd be the ones to destroy Israel so what better way to do it than go through their terrorist front? All it would take is a suitcase full of old uranium pellets from a Iranian reactor strapped to a stick of dynamite and you have a "dirty-bomb" that could be given to any terrorist group on Earth by the Iranian government.

Nuclear power is not only dangerous when used in a weapon. If you don't have the means, money or technology to properly deal with and dispose of all the things that go with nuclear technology then you should not be able to possess it and Iran clearly does not meet all the requirements.

A UN inspector can't stop the outflow of illicit radioactive material to terrorist groups.

Long Range

I apologize for my source not being able to open. It said the range of these missiles was enough for Iran to be able to hit Israel, US bases in the Middle East, Turkey and parts of Eastern Europe. This is plenty of range to attack the United States forces and some of her allies.

While it is believed that Israel has nukes it has never been confirmed by the United States or the UN so their position as a nuclear power remains skeptacle at best. Also, Israel has the technology, the money and the support to deal with nuclear technology if the need ever arose to do so. Iran does not.

Again, it wouldn't be too hard to stuff old radioactive material into a bomb or missile to create a potentially hazardous situation for many, many people.

War Without Invasion

Once again, war does not equal invasion. The Japanese were at war with the US in WWII but never invaded and we never invaded them save for island hopping. Why? Because bombs ended the war. War does not need an invasion to be war. All we would have to do is bomb their air fields, oil fields, ship yards, barracks and nuclear facilities to achieve the goal. An invasion of Iran wouldn't be needed and in fact would be completely counterproductive to US goals. We just want to make it so that Iran cannot misuse nuclear technology to harm our allies.

* Iran sponsors terrorism
* Nuclear technology in the hands of Iran could lead to it being in terrorist hands
* We could wage a war by air and sea to prevent this without an invasion of the country


[1] http://leuropa.eu...;
[2] http://terrorism.about.com...;
Debate Round No. 2
crossfade102495

Con

Iranian Aggressiveness

I disagree with your notion that the "past is the past," which implies that they should basically just get over it. I have a feeling that if the situation was turned and it was Iran who had overthrown the US government through covert military action, the past would be very important to you. We have hurt these people in the past solely for the purpose of special interests. That is inexcusable and we have no right to expect them to just forget about it. Israel has also made statements showing an extreme hatred for Iran and the rest of the Middle East. [1]

Since you don't dispute my claim that Iran has never directly threatened to attack Israel, I assume that you accept it. Thus, any expression of contempt from Iran against Israel can be seen as nothing more than a strong dislike.


Nuclear Weapons

Iran is currently attempting to mine more uranium so that they can actually run an efficient nuclear program. However, they are afraid (and justly so) of being bombed or otherwise attacked by the West.

While I agree that nuclear power is a definite responsibility, I do not in any way believe that we have the right to dictate who is ready for such a responsibility. How can one nation accurately determine the ability or skill of another nation better than they themselves can?

Since the ties between Hezbollah and Iran are so well-known, it would be illogical for the Iranians to supply them with uranium. It would automatically be assumed that they were the suppliers and they would quickly be dealt with. Not only would it be foolish, it would also be suicidal.

I would like proof that Iran does not have the capabilies which you outlined as being paramount. In fact, we ourselves are not able to efficiently dispose of nuclear waste. Do we not deserve to have nuclear power as well?

Finally, your statement about the UN inspectors. While it is true, the fact of the matter is that any basic Geiger counter would detect large amounts of uranium and any such deposit would be immediately investigated.


Long Range

I cede that it is possible for Iran to strike certain targets in the Middle East with conventional missiles. However, it would be not only self-destructive but also detrimental to their overall cause. Why would Iran attack Israel with missiles when they themselves greatly respect the land as a Holy Place of Islam? It would be considered a desecration of the land.

I do not believe that you adequately addressed my point on Israel, but I will not press it.

We have already established the fact that Iran makes a large amount of income from selling its fossil fuels. They are not hurting for money in any way, and if they were, they could simply drill and sell more oil.


War Without Invasion

By your statement about the US and Japan alone, it is shown that invasion does in fact accompany war. You allowed for an exception (island-hopping), but your exception serves to prove my claim.

Again going back to the definition of invasion which is being used in this case, an enroachment upon land or air space would be considered an invasion. Therefore, your bombing scenario is considered invasion.


To conclude, Iran's verbal aggressiveness is justified due to the past actions of the Western world. Iran has the liberty to develop nuclear power if they so wish and no country should have the right to stop them. There is zero proof that Iran is producing a nuclear weapon of any kind. War by air or sea would still be considered an invasion on the part of America.


1- http://www.huffingtonpost.com...
ConservativePolitico

Pro

Iranian Aggressiveness

When did the US overthrow the Iranian government? If you are talking about the Iranian Revolution you are sadly mistaken. The Iranian Revolution overthrew the monarchy that was in power and the US had very little to do with that. In fact the US didn't even believe Iran was in a state of revolution. The US was midly pro-monarchy in Iran due to the security it brought against the USSR on the border there. The Iranian Revolution put in the current government Iran has today so I really have no clue what you're talking about.
[1]

Just because a nation does not act on its hatred does not mean that the hatred is not there. This is logical fallacy. Hatred does not need an act of violence to be consumated.

Nuclear Weapons

We can argue that Iran lacks the responsibility needed for nuclear power in two very different areas:

1) They can't even manage their traditional power grid. They have outages, shortages and waste that is due completely to infrastructure and operator error and nothing to do with output or supply. If they can't even manage a traditional power grid correctly what makes you think they can handle an extremely expensive, finicky and volatile nuclear plant? It has nothing to do with the nuclear waste itself but how they set up, run and prevent accidents from happening. They do not have this technology and that is apparent by their management of traditional power resources.

2) Their open support for anti-US terrorist groups is disturbing. Why would we give Iran even the slightest opporitunity to obtain material that could be used to threaten not only the national security of the US but of key US allies as well?

- Also, if the ties with Hezbollah are "so well-known" how come they get away with supplying them with missiles to launch into Israel on a daily basis? If they're brash enough to openly support this group with weaponry aimed at killing civilians what makes you think they wouldn't supply them with other things as well?

Your argument about the Geiger counter is completely useless. Who is going to be allowed to walk around Iran with a Geiger counter in one hand and a phone to the UN on the other? No one. The UN can barely get standard people into the country and actually manage to get the Iranians to keep them there on a regular basis. Who's sweeping the Iranian deserts with a Geiger counter?

Long Range

You cede the point.

Also, Israel is a nonfactor in the nuclear discussion because they have never even let the world know they have nuclear weapons and have shown no signs of wanting to use nuclear force against Iran. The same cannot be said of Iran who supports anti-Israel terror groups with weapons already and have already indirectly attacked Israeli civilians. Israel has made no such move and therefore this argument is a nonfactor.

War Without Invasion

Let me clarify the meaning I was trying to convey so the readers to do not get fooled by your obvious attempt to trap me with schemantics.

We would not have to wage a large scale GROUND invasion against Iran with US soldiers on the ground in large numbers to achieve our goal. I've already said that missile force, air force and sea power would be neccessary for this effort. What I am refering to is a mass land invasion which would NOT be required.


* Iran is not responsible enough for nuclear power and letting them obtain it would be a clear and present danger to Israel and the United States
* Iran is a supporter of anti-Western terrorist groups
* We could achieve our goals through military operations without using massive land power

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...;
Debate Round No. 3
crossfade102495

Con

Aggressiveness

The overthrow of the government which I am speaking of is the coup d'etat carried out by the American foreign intelligence group CIA and a British espionage group. I have already explained this event in an earlier round, so if you've forgotten you can direct your attention to Round 2. Thank you.


I am not denying that the hatred is there. In fact, I know it is there and I argue that it is perfectly justified. But from what we have observed in the past, Iran is not going to attack Israel. It would be a foolhardy attempt that would be detrimental to their cause.


Nuclear Weapons

1) First off is the issue with waste. I'll point out that we ourselves have a total waste amount of 58% of the energy which we produce. [1] No matter how you want to spin it, that is a lot of wasted energy. And your argument that they could not possibly have the ability to deal with the issues of nuclear power because of their inability to manage their traditional power is nonsensical. The technology required to sustain those plants is far different from the technology required to sustain traditional power supplies.

2) By "allies," I assume you mean Israel. The group which is threatening to attack Israel with missiles are the Palestinians. The story with them is much longer and I assume that you already know it. Hezbollah is mainly concerned with keeping Palestine and other nearby Muslim lands in the control of the Palestinians. Thus, they are willing to attack the lands which are in close proximity to their target. That I could find, there have been no recent attacks by Hezbollah on Israeli cities with missiles. There are several Israeli-run websites and sites that are sympathetic to Israel which claim that there have indeed been attacks by Hezbollah, but I could find no less biased source to confirm that. Most of the missiles come from Lebanese militant groups. [2]

I'm afraid you are missing my point. UN inspectors are being allowed to test for radioactive material however they please. Why on earth would you want to sweep the whole desert with a Geiger counter? Unless people are truly that paranoid about this issue, that sounds fairly conspiratorial to me. The missiles (if they were to exist) would be housed in a military base, and if there WAS a sign of radioactivity, then it could be tracked to wherever the weapons are placed.


Long Range

I did cede the point, but you again fail to adequately address my counterclaim.

Since you make the claim that Israel has not attacked Iranian civilians, I'll direct your attention to the assassination of Iranian scientists. [3] This was carried out with the assistance of a terror group. So no, it is not a nonfactor. Israel is just as hostile to Iran as Iran is to them.


War Without Invasion

Since you are become visibly distressed with the invasion issue, I'll just point out to the voters and readers that PRO still is making the same argument that he began with. Beyond that, I drop the issue because it is bothering my opponent. In addition, I will not harp on the fact that PRO used a Wikipedia source.



To conclude finally, my opponent has countered most of my arguments well but still cannot cope with the counter-examples which I provided. Iran is not a danger to the land of Israel for the reasons which I have already stated. It also is no threat to the national security of the United States. Iran supports groups with the same general mentality as them, and so does Israel (and the West for that matter). It would be easier if we could just stop sticking our noses where we don't belong and allow them to peacefully (or fairly peacefully) end their struggles with each other. It is a problem which has existed for many years and is not getting any better with American "assistance."

Thank you and remember to vote CON for the end of American imperialism, interventionism, and policing the world.




1- http://www.physorg.com...
2- http://www.nytimes.com...
3- http://www.huffingtonpost.com...
ConservativePolitico

Pro

Aggressiveness

Yes, I remember now. However, that institution has already been disposed of and is now irrelevant.

Again, Iran does not have to attack Israel directly to hurt the nation. They can point a nuclear weapon at them and force them to live in fear as the USSR did to us in the Cold War or they can use this material to help terror groups hurt Israel.

Nuclear Weapons

1) Iran does not have the capability of managing nuclear power. We have waste yes but we have the necessary precautions in place to deal with any nuclear accidents that may come our way. Iran does not. Their level of technology is far lower than ours.

2) There have been many foiled attempts by Hezbollah to attack Israel that were stopped by Israeli intelligence. Just because the attacks haven't been successful doesn't mean they're not there. [1] Hezbollah has tried repeated attempts to attack Israel in the past few years but has been made unable to do so but that doesn't mean they are no longer a threat. Also, Iran supports far more than just Hezbollah and have fiscally supported many groups who have attacked both Israel and the United States. This threat of terrorism is not isolated to merely Hezbollah. Iran cannot be trusted with nuclear materials. [2]

Long Range

It has been proven Iran has the capability of attacking US and Israeli targets with missiles. Iran has nuclear materials and are trying to gather more but not enough for an energy source and can therefore be assumed they have the capability for creating a nuclear missile.

- Israel was never proven to be involved with the attack on those scientists. Iran openly supports terrorism. I provided the financial numbers in source two. This attack was never confessed to be by Israeli design. Everything else is mere speculation.

War Without Invasion

We can go to war without invading Iran by land. This point was ceded in my favor.

Also, I invite my opponent to a debate about the accuracy of Wikipedia as a source.

Conclusion

- Iran supports anti-Israel and anti-US terror groups and could give nuclear materials to these groups to be used in an attack.
- Iran has no need for nuclear energy at the present time.
- Iran is openly hostile to Israel and the United States.
- Iran has the capability to build a nuclear missile.
- We can bomb Iran to prevent these things without starting a full scale land war.
- Iran is a danger to the region, to the US and to Israel.

[1] http://www.haaretz.com...
[2] http://www.theisraelproject.org...

Debate Round No. 4
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by crossfade102495 4 years ago
crossfade102495
Then I apologize, and may my last comment be disregarded ^_^' My mistake.
Posted by ConservativePolitico 4 years ago
ConservativePolitico
Nothing in the comments should be used to influence a debate.
Posted by crossfade102495 4 years ago
crossfade102495
I realize it's virtually useless now, but CP's sources are almost all from Israeli sites. Just pointing that out for possible (or probable) bias.
Posted by Zaradi 4 years ago
Zaradi
Gimme a sec to read through this all and figure out what's being said and I'll vote within the hour.
Posted by ConservativePolitico 4 years ago
ConservativePolitico
Yes? lol What'd I do to deserve such a calling?
Posted by Yep 4 years ago
Yep
POLITICO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :P gl and sorry Zaradi too slow! :D
Posted by Zaradi 4 years ago
Zaradi
Eh, no biggie. Have fun!
Posted by ConservativePolitico 4 years ago
ConservativePolitico
Oops... Sorry >.> Didn't know you had it called.
Posted by Zaradi 4 years ago
Zaradi
Damm you CP! Damm you for taking my debate! -.- xD
Posted by Zaradi 4 years ago
Zaradi
Give me a bit to pull some research together and I'll accept this.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by 1dustpelt 4 years ago
1dustpelt
crossfade102495ConservativePoliticoTied
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: Pro justified the war with Iran. He proved that Iran is a threat (Nuclear power, aggression, etc.).
Vote Placed by Mimshot 4 years ago
Mimshot
crossfade102495ConservativePoliticoTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: I was surprised by this performance, ConservativePolitico usually does much better. This time, Pro didn't seem to really be responding to Con's arguments, but just kept bringing up the same points. Also, Hezbollah in Gaza? The source he cited for that claim certainly doesn't say that. That and the extensive use of blogs and wikipedia, and I've got to give sources points too.
Vote Placed by 16kadams 4 years ago
16kadams
crossfade102495ConservativePoliticoTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro proved we could have a war without an invasion, and provided reasons to bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran, oooo! Bomb Iran! Had to do that... Pro proved they where making nuclear weapons and doesn't need to make nuclear power, therefore nuclear power option is false. Then he proved they are aggressive towards us and our allies and plan to kill Israel and us. He justified a war, con didn't fulfill his BoP, pro wins!!!