War in Iraq

I support the Iraq war. We need to settle business with the middle east and this is a good way to do it. Each U.S. death is worth it.

If my opponent fails to warrant his points, you default NEG due to burden of proof.

I await any and all reasons as to why the War in Iraq should be supported.

We need to settle business with the middle east and Iraq. George H.W. Bush fought them in the Gulf War, and we have yet to settle business. We took care of Saddam, and now we must help rebuild this tarnished country. Giving lives for others is worth it.

I told you in my R1 that if he provides no warrant for his arguments, you cannot vote for him, since he has the burden of proof.

Let's look at his points.

"We need to settle business with the middle east and Iraq."

- He never tells you what exactly this business is.
- Or why it needs to be settled. So this point is null.

"George H.W. Bush fought them in the Gulf War, and we have yet to settle business."

- He never tells you who "them" is.
- Nor did he tell you why George H.W. Bush matters.
- And he still doesn't say what the business is. So this point is null.

"We took care of Saddam, and now we must help rebuild this tarnished country."

- He never tells you why we must.
- He never tells you the significance of Saddam.
- Rebuild? We're in there for the FREAKIN OIL.
- REBUILDING is not what you do in a WAR. So this point is null.

"Giving lives for others is worth it."

- He never tells you why that's true.
- He never tells you why this is better than, say, NOT "GIVING AWAY" LIVES AT ALL.
- Since when could you "give [away]" a life (I'm assuming we're not talking about sex makes babies here)? It's not like a napkin; life has uncountable value.
- Under the point of view that "giving lives for others is worth it", then pretty much ANY AND EVERY WAR is justified, since the government can ALWAYS say "ITS FOR YOUR SAFETY". Well, we saw what went on in Vietnam didn't we? Killed all those Vietnamese and all those Americans for no reason. Safety. People think it's suddenly only an issue that America has to face. The only thing we have to see in Iraq is terrorist cells, and the only thing we're doing by sending troops over there is

1) Killing them, since they'll be under fire by insurgents and terrorists
2) Killing them, since there will be suicide bombers every now and then
3) Killing their lives, since plenty of them come back with PTSD
4) Killing them faster, since high stress levels of knowing you're going to be under fire but unsure of which direction it's going to come from wear out cells faster

Oh yes, and to get the oil.

The only justification my opponent has provided is that "we have unsettled business". He doesn't tell you what the business is, and he doesn't tell you why we NEED to finish unsettled business. He also doesn't tell you why it's suddenly justified to start "giving lives" for the cause of unsettled business, so he hasn't fulfilled any of the basic burdens of even just making an argument.

Therefore, he has not fulfilled his burden,

and you vote CON.