The Instigator
Rockylightning
Con (against)
Losing
7 Points
The Contender
Danielle
Pro (for)
Winning
62 Points

War in Afghanistan

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 10 votes the winner is...
Danielle
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/16/2009 Category: Politics
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 8,537 times Debate No: 10150
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (10)

 

Rockylightning

Con

Than You opponent for joining this debate: now

Proposition

I.Casualties
a.20,119 people have been killed in Afghanistan
i.this number includes 11,152 Afghan Troops
ii.7,589 Afghan Civilians Killed
iii.746 US soldiers killed
iv.551 other soldiers killed
v.75 contractors
vi.and 6 Journalists! (according to icasualties.org)
b.Why should we keep fighting this war started on the false notion that there were weapons of mass destruction there? That was the only reason, BUT THERE WERENT so why are we still there
II.Military
a.Remember history. The British Afghan wars and the Soviet occupation of the 1980s should be a warning against military involvement in a country whose tribal tensions make it almost ungovernable.
b.There is no longer the opportunity that there was in 2002 and 2003 to build a stable democracy. Overtures have already been made to moderate factions of the Taliban about a power-sharing agreement. The West should focus its energies on devising a diplomatic solution, rather than an unachievable military victory.
c.President Hamid Karzai has proved a weak ruler far too tolerant of corruption in his narco-state.
d.An even greater problem is the small number of national contingents ready to undertake offensive operations in the rebellious south - America's 'surge' of 17,000 troops is not being matched by Europe. Lacking the will to put sufficient boots on the ground, Nato should get out of Afghanistan before the alliance is irreparably damaged.
e.The policy of eradicating opium poppy crops, without providing a feasible alternative, has alienated the farmers, who then look to the Taliban for financial support.
f.The policy of eradicating opium poppy crops, without providing a feasible alternative, has alienated the farmers, who then look to the Taliban for financial support.
g.The continued military mission is costing billions at a time when Western economies are suffering. We simply can't afford to remain fighting in Afghanistan.
h.Western 'occupation' of Afghanistan, particularly when it involves civilian casualties, is a powerful recruiting agent for Islamic extremists in Pakistan, and thereby increases the terrorist threat to countries such as Britain.
Danielle

Pro

First, I'd like to thank Con for beginning this debate and wish him the best of luck. That said, it should be noted that my opponent plagiarized his entire argument; all of his contentions can be found here - [ http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk... ]. However, since I have already accepted the debate before becoming aware of this bad sportsmanship, I'll continue pressing forward with this debate.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

I'll begin by addressing my opponent's arguments:

1. Con begins by pointing out that so far 20,119 people have been killed in Afghanistan. While that is indeed a sad number, the reality is that casualties occur in war all the time. For instance, between 40 and 70 MILLION people died during WWII. The civil war in Afghanistan in 1979 had nearly 2 million deaths as well. So, this is in comparison a pretty low death-rate war considering wars in the past. Nevertheless, the argument here is that simply because people are dying is no reason to end a war. Death is expected when people engage in combat. The military should continue to only kill strategically and of course avoid killing any civilians.

2. Con asks, "Why should we keep fighting this war started on the false notion that there were weapons of mass destruction there? That was the only reason, BUT THERE WERENT so why are we still there?" I'd like to remind Con that we did not invade Afghanistan under the notion that there were WMDs; we knew all along that Afghanistan didn't have any. The government did, however, believe that there were WMDs in *Iraq* which was a mistake. So, this point by Con is really irrelevant since WMDs have nothing to do with the war in Afghanistan and never did.

3. Con says that the British-Afghan wars and the Soviet occupation of the 1980s should be a warning against military involvement in a country whose tribal tensions make it almost ungovernable. I disagree. It was the Taliban regime in Afghanistan that was sheltering Osama bin Laden; the man responsible for organizing the terrorist attacks on the U.S. The government in Afghanistan is entirely corrupt and manipulated by whomever gives their leaders the most money, power and protection. Indeed Afghanistan's president Hamid Karzai has said, "Corruption is the biggest obstacle to defeating the Taliban insurgency" [1]. While he promises to clean up the Afghan government, U.S. officials worry that Karzai himself is also corrupt. So, you can see that it's not the tribal tensions that make the region ungovernable but rather Afghanistan's malicious leaders.

4. Con states that there is no opportunity to build a stable democracy in Afghanistan like we had back in 2002 and 2003. I'd like for Con to back up that statement. He cites overtures being extended to offer a Taliban power-sharing agreement. However, history shows us that any potential negotiations with the leadership of the Talibanreveal their habitual pattern of negotiating in bad faith. So, there's no reason to believe that current negotiations would be any different. We should fail to even accept that option and continue just trying to dismantle them entirely, or at least remove them from politics all-together or as much as possible.

5. Con says, "The West should focus its energies on devising a diplomatic solution, rather than an unachievable military victory." However, if the U.S. abandons an unwinnable and unjust war in Iraq, it could invest more resources into winning the war in Afghanistan. Congressman Barney Frank notes, "The war in Iraq has weakened the United States internationally and divided it domestically, while draining needed resources. It is precisely because the Iraq war is not defensible on any other terms that the Bush/Cheney approach uses the big lie to defend the war in Iraq on grounds that in fact describe the war in Afghanistan" [2].

6. Next, Con says that President Hamid Karzai has proved a weak ruler far too tolerant of corruption in his narco-state. However, as my previous source pointed out [1], the president has promised to crack down harshly on inside government corruption. Further, the president won a re-election thanks to a democratic vote in Afghanistan. To overrule that vote would be contrary to our democratic ideals.

7. Con writes, "Lacking the will to put sufficient boots on the ground, Nato should get out of Afghanistan before the alliance is irreparably damaged." I'd like to see evidence of which alliances exactly are being damaged, and why it is a bigger risk than leaving the Taliban to control Afghanistan. Go!

8. Regarding Pakistan and Iran being threats to the U.S., these countries could be a launching pad for terrorism regardless of whether the Afghanistan war was going on or not. We should keep the faith that a country like China can and will keep Iran in check for the time being.

9. Con says, "The continued military mission is costing billions at a time when Western economies are suffering. We simply can't afford to remain fighting in Afghanistan." Again, one way to remedy this is to abandon the war in Iraq. Another is to cut spending at home o frivolous expenses such as Abstinence Only sex education or pork project in particular. The U.S. has not backed down from a fight or been bullied in the past due to numbers. Of course the economy is important to consider, and as such, we should consider the reality that a lot of people are employed simply because of this war. In addition to military personnel, there are scientists, politicians, lobbyists, and people in the factories making guns and weapons (consider the Military Industrial Complex); basically being at war in Afghanistan creates jobs. So that's a plus. Most importantly, people would argue that American safety should be of utmost importance - more important than the cost of the war.

10. Finally, the idea that the Taliban is having an easier job of recruiting because of American occupation is false. The reality is that the Taliban has had power ever since Russia invaded Afghanistan nearly 3 decades ago. After the country was destroyed by the communists, the Taliban accepted American help (money, weapons and technology) and used that to their advantage to gain power. The people out of desperation have looked to the Taliban for help. This has and would have continued occurring regardless of American involvement in the region. If anything, some people in Afghanistan have had hope that the Americans would help, the same way Americans helped the Jews during WWII.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Because I don't have a whole lot of space, I'll briefly explain why I support the war in Afghanistan. Of course my opponent should consider the arguments that I made in my rebuttal to his presentation. Additionally, I'd like for Con to keep in mind the reality that Afghanistan has been the breeding ground for the terrorist organization known as al Qaeda, who has successfully launched an attack against the U.S. and continues to threaten our national security today. If the Taliban gained any more power in Afghanistan, it would pose a huge threat to Western safety in addition to the Afghan way of life. The Taliban is an extreme group which oppresses the people in the region, stifling not only their economy but their entire culture, progression and way of life. Their rise of power in the region would have detrimental effects across the board.

Sources:

[1] http://www.telegraph.co.uk...
[2] http://www.huffingtonpost.com...
Debate Round No. 1
Rockylightning

Con

First i would like to thank the pro for participating in this debate

First I will refute my opponent's points then i will go on to my own points.
1st they said that i was copying points from that site they stated, whether this is true or not, i do admit i copied those points from that site most of my points are not from that site.
2nd they said that Afghanistan is a breeding ground for terrorits: This is true BUT why send combat troops to a war that is impossible to win. We are fighting a war that we cannot win. All guerrilla wars we have entered, we lost. Remember vietnam, so many troops were killed, why repeat this? We DID kill more vietcong and North Troops than we lost but the numbers lost were so daunting that we just had to pull out. WE CANNOT WIN A WAR WHERE PEOPLE DRESSED AS CITIZENS BLOW THEMSELVES UP. To win such a war is to eliminate everyone including citizens. I don't think so. In the few cases that al- Qaeda has confronted us in a WWII style firefight we have won, but when its just car bombs and landmines? how do we win?

The pro has stated in a refutation that the president has promised to crack down on inside government corruption and that he won re-election thanks to a democratic vote: we all know that in such an unstable country that things happen. Things like rigged elecions? According to ABC and CBS news, (which was on TV so i cannot provide a web site source) Afghanistan has had multiple reports of violence because of this election, more specifically, "if you don't vote for him, i kill you." and similar. So how can we trust a country that is a "breeding ground" for terrorists as the pro has said AND has an unstable government? Therefore the pro has contradicted itself by saying that its full of terrorists and that it has a stable voting system.

Next i would like to say that the pro has stated that the government has said that there werent WMD's in afghanistan, that is FALSE, in an old recording by CNN news, Former President George Bush CLEARLY states that "Al Qaeda may have weapons of mass destruction" and AL QAEDA IS IN AFHGANISTAN!!! so if you cannot put two and two together here it is: AL QAEDA HAS WMD's AND THEIR IN AFGHANISTAN, PERIOD.

Next i would like to address that the pro has stated that 20,119 "is indeed a sad number" but " a pretty low death rate" in comparison to other wars. Well, even 100 deaths over a false war, EVEN ONE DEATH OVER A FALSE WAR IS A CRIME. We sent an army where special forces, and tactical forces would have done better. To win a war against an invisible enemy, we must become invisible, and with an army, we are CLEARLY not invisible.
I will refute more of my opponent's points in my later speeches.
bottom line is: WE SENT AN ARMY WHEN OTHER FORCES WERE NEEDED, AND IT'S TOO LATE TO BACK OUT NOW
-------------------------------------- Thank You
Danielle

Pro

I'd like to begin by pointing out that Con is in fact lying; he most definitely did take all of his arguments from the site that I mentioned. Because he did not present one original argument, nor did he cite the source of the place he stole the arguments from, he therefore has plagiarized his R1 arguments and it should be noted at least as far as conduct points goes in this debate. That said, I'd also like to note that Con has dropped several points that I made in the last round. For the purpose of clarity, I put all of the arguments in numerical form so as to be sure that none of them were dropped. I'm going to point out which arguments Con completely failed to address my keeping up with the same numerical pattern.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

1. Regarding the casualties of war, Con posits that even one death over a "false war" is a crime. However, it is not a false war that we're fighting in Afghanistan. Let it be known that we're not at war with Afghanistan itself. We are engaged in a war with the Taliban who have taken over the region. The Taliban has attacked us, and now we're going after them. The war is IN Afghanistan but not WITH Afghanistan (to clarify). Therefore the casualties of war are indeed sad, but as I said, there are casualties in every war. They waged an attack on us, and we're fighting back just as people do in every war. This is really moot point.

2. Con points out that Bush accused al Qaeda of having WMDs. This is FALSE [1]. Bush accused Saddam Hussein in IRAQ of having WMDs; in order to gain support to infiltrate Iraq in search of these WMDs, Bush attempted to link Saddam to al Qaeda. However, this turned out to be irrelevant as Iraq had no WMDs.

3. Con has dropped my 3rd bullet regarding corruption in Afghanistan; however he addresses this reality when talking about the president and the type of elections that they have over there. I will address that when we get to the accompanying bullet for that argument (number 6).

4. Con has dropped m 4th argument: we shouldn't trust the Taliban agreements.

5. Con has dropped my 5th argument: leaving Iraq would help us win the war in Afghanistan.

6. While Con makes a good point that corruption is hard to get rid of in Afghanistan, he fails to provide a better solution. Should we just back down and let these corrupt people seize control of the government?! No, doing so would have even worse results and impacts on America. Instead, we should try to eliminate the corruption any way that we can. If they threaten to shoot, then we should shoot back. After all, violence seems to be the only solution that these people will respond to. Of course we should also seek to use non-violent means in the form of monetary agreements and incentives via treaties, threats, etc. first.

7. Con dropped my 7th argument: I asked about our alliances and why we should leave Afghanistan to Taliban control.

8. Con dropped my 8th argument: regarding countries like Iran and Pakistan being launching pads for terrorism.

9. Con dropped my 9th argument: the war in Afghanistan and its economic effects in the U.S.

10. Con dropped my 10th argument: regarding Taliban recruitment in Afghanistan.

So as you can see, Con has not addressed or refuted many of my arguments, though he promises to in the final round. I'd like for Con to go back and acknowledge each separate argument and point that I made individually in numeral order, so as to ensure to try and combat all of my points. For now, I'll respond to Con's new argument as well:

Con says that we can't win a war in which our enemies use guerrilla warfare. However, there have been several books and strategies which have been written detailing how you can win such a war. One of them notes, "The successful practice of guerrilla warfare requires an intricate knowledge of the opponent's structure whether military, governmental, commercial, economic, or political" [2]. As such, we can assume that if we keep our intelligence secret and the Taliban unaware of what we have up our sleeves, etc., then they will not be able to successfully beat us in that way. Further, it is almost universally agreed upon that the way to win such a war is to establish a non-corrupt government to challenge the terrorist resistence [3]. So, there is actually a way to win this war.

Back to Con for now.

[1] http://www.commondreams.org...
[2] http://calldp.leavenworth.army.mil...
[3] http://www.washingtonpost.com...
Debate Round No. 2
Rockylightning

Con

The pro said: "he casualties of war are indeed sad, but as I said, there are casualties in every war. They waged an attack on us, and we're fighting back just as people do in every war." this is a VERY bad way of looking at this. We are sending an army where special forces would be better suited. Think about it, how can we fight a war, where we barely know who to fight? Suicide bombers? We can't tell! Only in firefights have have we known who we are actually fighting. And once in a while it even turns out it's friendly fire! It's empirical that a war against an unseen enemy can't be won. But if we send in specialized troops, we will be able to fight this. Currently the war in Afghanistan has gone overboard, how can a tank kill a suicide bomber, how can a jet full of bombs, kill people intermingled with citizens, how can a helicopter, destroy targets that are not marked by uniform, but by race? This is insane!

Also they stated Bush accused Saddam Hussein in IRAQ of having WMDs: This is SO true, and later in this paragraph Bush attempted to link Saddam to Al Qaeda, so if Saddam (hypothetically) had Wmd's and he was linked (hypothetically, because we are talking about a past decision) to al Qaeda, THEN AL QAEDA HAD WMDs!!!

All the bullets that i have dropped will be picked up now thank you-
The pro said we shouldn't trust the Taliban agreements: I have never stated that we should accept ANY AGREEMENTS with the Caliban: I AM SIMPLY STATING THAT THE WAY THE WAR IS BEING FOUGHT IS INEFFICIENT AND NOT HELPING. I AM SAYING THAT WE SHOULD REMOVE OUR ARMY AND SEND IN SPECIAL FORCES (which the pro has not addressed why not to send in special forces)

The pro also said that leaving Iraq would help us win the war in Afghanistan
This may be true, but only the instigator has the right, duty, and honor, to send out A PROPOSAL to this shall be REGARDED AS IRRELEVANT
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now onto their sixth point: "should we just back down and let these corrupt people seize contol of the government? NO!" I will refute this by saying that the pro has FAILED TO NOTICE my point saying we will not FULLY RETREAT, just pull our ARMY out and send in some SPECIAL FORCES, which will work at eliminating the Taliban leaders, not the grunts. If they do take over the government, the special forces will conduct assassination efforts.
-------------- THE PRO HAS FAILED TO ADDRESS MY SPECIAL FORCES POINT -----------

The pro asked about our alliances and why we should leave Afghanistan to Taliban control
: Just because we leave does NOT mean the Taliban will take control, we are TRAINING Afghans to defend themselves and THE SPECIAL FORCES WILL ACT AS A SAFETY NET IN AFGHANISTAN UNTIL A VERY STABLE GOVERNMENT HAS BEEN STARTED.
------------------------------------------------
Now onto the pro's 8th point: they said that "These countries would be a launching pad for terrorism; we should keep faith for a country like China can and will keep Iran in check for the TIME BEING"
This is completely irrelevant because this debate is about the war in AFGHANISTAN ONLY; the pro keeps bringing up POINTS THAT ARE NOT ABOUT AFGHANISTAN!!!
--------------------------------------------------------
Onto their NINTH POINT, They stated that we should abandon the war in Iraq, AS I HAVE STATED BEFORE, ONLY THE INSTIGATOR, NOT THE CONTENDER HAS THE POWER TO PROPOSE, so THIS POINT IS IRRELEVANT.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now onto my opponent's tenth point
The pro has stated that the idea that the Taliban is having an easier job of recruiting because of American occupation is false, Now i will tell you why it's not false with this small anecdote: A teenager in Afghanistan is surprised and shocked by the sudden occupation of his home town by American forces, he and his father are pushed around by americans. They are enraged. They hate the Americans for occupying their town. They stomp over to a Taliban training camp. This COMPLETEL REFUTES MY OPPONENTS TENTH POINT. On the same point they said Afghans would think of Americans as Liberators in, like Americans to Jews in WWII. This is false! We are occupying their country. FIGHTING ON THEIR LAND. BOMBING INNOCENTS!!! THIS IS NOT HOW IT WAS DURING WWII. THE GERMANS RETREATED IN WWII, THE TALIBAN WALK INTO A TOWN AND BLOW THEMSELVES UP.

The pro also stated that many books have been written on how to win a Guerrilla war. THIS IS ALL IN THEORY, the books that have been written (I WOULD LIKE A source from the pro on one of these books please) THE BOOKS HAVE NOT BEEN TESTED, IN WAR. THERE WERE THESE BOOKS DURING THE VIETNAM WAR BUT LOOK WT HAPPENED THEN. DISGRACE, WE FAILED THERE. WE CANNOT WIN THIS WAR.

So now to conclude->------------- - - - - - - ----------
WE CANNOT WIN A GUERRILLA WAR AGAINST AN UNSEEN ENEMY UNLESS WE USE MY SPECIAL FORCES PROPOSAL. (which the pro has not addressed)

SO while the PRO feels like jeopardizing MANY lives for the sake of one, while I PROPOSE that we use tactical forces to take out the leaders, the people must decide which is more efficient...
A TANK AGAINST A SUICIDE BOMBER? no
A JET AGAINST A SNIPER IN A TREE? no
A HELICOPTER AGAINST A LEADER SENDING OUT ORDERS SOMEWHERE IN A MOUNTAIN? definitely no
a special forces unit against a Taliban leader? YES

for all these reasons and the proposal the the pro refuses to refute, the CON HAS CLEARLY WON THIS DEBATE
Thank You-

-- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
========================================================================================================================================================
Sources:
http://www.pollingreport.com...
http://www.nytimes.com...
http://www.washingtonpost.com...

(polling report, New York Times, Washington Post)
========================================================================================================================================================
Danielle

Pro

1. Here Con attempts to manipulate the reader into thinking that I don't care about the casualties of war. That is false. What I said is that just because people have died in this war thus far, doesn't mean that we should pull out of war necessarily. In entering war, we accept that casualties are inevitable. What we must work to do is continue to specialize in efficiency and minimizing the costs but especially the lives of war. If that includes switching to using specialized troops as my opponent has suggested, then fine, but note that sending in specialized forces does NOT indicate us backing out of the war. So here it seems as if my opponent and I agree that Americans need to do more in Afghanistan.

2. Con, here's the thing: Bush needed an excuse to invade Iraq. So, he made up the idea that al Qaeda (the terrorist organization that attacked the US) were somehow linked to Saddam Hussein. Regardless, we invaded Iraq and there were no WMDs. The only way al Qaeda could have had access to WMDs was if they were linked to Hussein. Since Hussein didn't have WMDs either way, then we've accepted that al Qaeda probably doesn't. You probably misconstrued what the connection actually was.

3. Regarding Taliban agreements, Con says that he never suggested or mentioned such a thing. The thing is, Con absolutely did mention them in R1 when he stated (and I quote), "Overtures have already been made to moderate factions of the Taliban about a power-sharing agreement" as a suggestion or point in his favor for why we should end the war. Because Con completely plagiarized his R1 argument, he didn't realize that he suggested this - but he did, and I responded to it. Also, you'll notice that the FIRST time Pro suggested using special forces was in the last round.

4. Con got the points mixed up; the part about Taliban agreements was actually #4.

5. I had said that one way to solve the problem of us making little gain in Afghanistan is to leave Iraq and invest more resources in Afghanistan; a war that's actually not unwarranted. This idea is favored by many politicians, some of which I have sourced (such as Barney Frank). Con writes, "This may be true, but only the instigator has the right, duty, and honor, to send out A PROPOSAL to this shall be REGARDED AS IRRELEVANT." You'll notice that here (a) Con agrees with me and (b) does nothing to dismantle my point or make a cohesive one of his own. My argument still stands.

6. Once again, Con brings up the special forces idea; however, he only mentioned this for the first time IN THE LAST ROUND. This is the first opportunity I have to address it. And, my answer is still the same: it's a great solution, but still perpetuates the war in Afghanistan (just a shift in strategy). As such, the resolution is affirmed.

7. Again, Con mentions the special forces; I've addressed this point many times. Also, Con write that if we leave Afghanistan, the Taliban might not take control. That is false. The Taliban would inevitably take control because (a) they have a lot of resources and (b) they have an increasingly desperate population. Con also suggests that we train the Afghan people to defend themselves; again this requires our army SO the resolution is once more affirmed. Implementing a different war strategy is not eliminating the war all together. I win this point.

8. Con mistakenly notes that countries like Pakistan should be considered irrelevant regarding the war in Afghanistan. He yelled (in all caps) that Pakistan had nothing to do with this debate! Rar rar rar! However, once again you'll notice that Con is just COMPLETELY OBLIVIOUS TO WHAT HE PLAGIARIZED IN ROUND ONE. In fact, Con wrote in R1, ".Western 'occupation' of Afghanistan, particularly when it involves civilian casualties, is a powerful recruiting agent for Islamic extremists in Pakistan, and thereby increases the terrorist threat to countries such as Britain." So, HE TALKED ABOUT PAKISTAN - and then when I refuted his point - he says that I am making an irrelevant point. Perhaps if Con wasn't such a mindless CHEATER, he would be aware of what was going on in this debate.

9. Con says that I said we should leave the war in Iraq. Then he writes, "AS I HAVE STATED BEFORE, ONLY THE INSTIGATOR, NOT THE CONTENDER HAS THE POWER TO PROPOSE." Uh, yeah. And we instigated the war, SO, we can end it. Nevertheless, my 9th point did NOT mention leaving Iraq at ALL. It was actually about the economic effects the war in Afghanistan has on the U.S. Since Con ignored this point completely, it should be awarded to the Pro.

10. My 10th point was about Taliban recruitment; I pointed out that they would have the same or still high ability to recruit due to previous things I've mentioned (resources and a desperate population). Con has refused to accept this. He needs a history lesson. When the Russians tried to make Afghanistan Communist, the Americans equipped Afghanistan and the Taliban to fight them off. The Taliban then gained power and proceeds to utilize anti-American propaganda. However, while Americans still do good over there, some have hope in our efforts. Yes, it's unfortunate that our military keeps sucking so hard and accidentally killing civilians. The military needs to become strict, harsh and extremely disciplined in their morality, efforts and skill (and tactics used) in that regard. We also DO need to use special forces as Con suggested, as well as increased intelligence and help in stabilizing an uncorrupted government. However, in ADDITION, the army needs to continue efforts to take out the Taliban to remove them from power completely. As such, the resolution is affirmed.
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by Chrysippus 7 years ago
Chrysippus
Pro on all points, easily.

Con, and I say this with the kindest intentions, take the time to do the following before you you post anything in future:

a) Make sure your logic is sound. Emotion should not be the only content of your arguments.

b) Make sure your spelling and grammar is right. Poor writing makes you look ignorant, and loses you points in a major way.

c) Kindly avoid yelling at us. All caps gets tiresome after awhile, and loses it's true value: emphasis for the most important point in your argument.

d) Lastly, avoid plagiarism like the plague. If you cannot think up a good argument on your own, make sure you cite your sources. Put the arguments into your own words, or use quotation marks. It's someone else's work, after all; don't steal it.

And for goodness sake, when you are caught lying about something, be man enough to own up. You copy/pasted your entire argument from point II onwards at least; and were paying so little attention that you copied one point twice! Your subpoints II:e and II:f are exactly the same...
Posted by Rockylightning 7 years ago
Rockylightning
good debate hopefully
10 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Danielle 6 years ago
Danielle
RockylightningDanielleTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Vote Placed by Rockylightning 6 years ago
Rockylightning
RockylightningDanielleTied
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 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 Theasdf101 6 years ago
Theasdf101
RockylightningDanielleTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by LaSalle 6 years ago
LaSalle
RockylightningDanielleTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by SilentWolf 6 years ago
SilentWolf
RockylightningDanielleTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by XimenBao 6 years ago
XimenBao
RockylightningDanielleTied
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:07 
Vote Placed by Nails 7 years ago
Nails
RockylightningDanielleTied
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:07 
Vote Placed by StephenAlsop 7 years ago
StephenAlsop
RockylightningDanielleTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Vi_Veri 7 years ago
Vi_Veri
RockylightningDanielleTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Chrysippus 7 years ago
Chrysippus
RockylightningDanielleTied
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:07