The Instigator
american5
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Jade75
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

War in afganistan

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/13/2011 Category: News
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,338 times Debate No: 15917
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (11)
Votes (0)

 

american5

Pro

The war in Afghanistan is necessary and must continue until bin laden is found
Jade75

Con

Since my opponent is pro and has yet to provide burden of proof for his claim that "The war in Afghanistan....Laden is found.", I will open my side of the debate with a few short points to why the War in Afghanistan is not necessary and should not continue. I will expand on these points as well as make additional points in my Round 2 argument.

**Note: I'm assuming Pro's definition of the "War in Afghanistan" is the operation known as "Operation Enduring Freedom" (see [1]). If this is incorrect, I would not know since Pro did not specify too concretely the terms of this debate. I apologize for advance if this happens to be the case, but I am fairly certain it is not.**

1) The war has already cost the United States 445.1 billion dollars total over the past decade [2], and the cost only continues to grow with each passing day the United States is involved in said war.

2) There have already been 1,461 United States casualties since the start of the war [3].

3) As recently as 2009, some have said the war to be similar to the war in Vietnam that took place in the late 1960's [4].

4) The United States has not been able to catch Osama Bin Laden for the past 10 years, and is apparently no closer to doing so today [5].

5) Bin Laden isn't supposedly even hiding in Afghanistan - he's suspected to be hiding in Pakistan [5].

6) Bin Laden's capture would not signal the end of the war, considering the fact he is only the first person on a long list of dangerous war criminals connected to the 9/11 attacks, most notably Ayman al-Zawahiri, the al-Qaeda second in command [6]. Is the purpose of this war really to capture one single man, or is it to supposedly create democracy in a foreign country?

7) Even if the point of the war was to catch one man, we are (and I will re-state this for emphasis) no closer to catching him than when the war began nearly a decade ago [7]. In fact, we aren't even sure the man is still alive [8].

These points being introduced, I wait for Pro's opening arguments and for my chance to expand on my points in the second round.

Best of luck, Pro, and here's hoping for a great debate!

[1] http://www.globalsecurity.org...
[2] http://costofwar.com...
[3] http://projects.washingtonpost.com...
[4] http://www.voanews.com...
[5] http://www.usatoday.com...
[6] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[7] http://articles.nydailynews.com...
[8] http://www.washingtontimes.com...
Debate Round No. 1
american5

Pro

The war in Afghanistan is necessary and must continue until bin laden is found I apologize for being so late I am still figuring out how to use this website

My point to this war is that we were attacked on September eleventh two thousand one and the point of war is self defense I do agree the war dose cost a lot but we are fighting for good purpose do you believe you can put a price on reasons like life freedom defence or should we just let the deaths of 9/11 go in vain Osama Bin Laden may not be the only one involved in 9/11 but he is top of the chain of command and he declared war on us this is not a show of American imperialism bringing freedom to a new country to expand our influence it is a show of a country being attacked by a group of racist war criminals it is no different then if the clan had caused 9/11 or anyone else we are defending our self's here also yes we have lost more than 1,000 troops in this war but that's not as many as it seems it was a great victory if you only lost 1,000 troops in Thermopylae the Persians lost half of a army numbering in the hundred thousands to millions yet still marched on to burn down Athens we need to continue to fight fight like real Americans 1941 the Japanese imperial empire made a unprovoked attacked a US military base in the Hawaiian islands that base was pearl harbor the Japanese attacked both civilian and military targets the attack was successful in doing much damage yet even though the Japanese were seen as invisible the US wanted revenge and went on a long and bloody campaign costing hundreds of thousands of lives until victory was finally taken by the US now to compare the two events 9/11 and Pearl Harbor both attacks were unprovoked both attacked military and civilian targets both were successful at doing great damage and both started a war the only difference is that against the mighty Japanese imperial empire even with hundreds of thousands of casualties America surged forward in a war against a small group of warlords with less then two thousand casualties America wants to withdraw and surrender a win able war
Jade75

Con

I thank my opponent for his response.

Now to reply to some of his claims...

"or should we just let the deaths of 9/11 go in vain"

I don't believe fighting in a war that is sucking the nation's economy dry like a parasite on an animal is avenging the deaths of 9/11. I also don't believe participating in a blind hunt for a man that could already be dead (a.k.a. Osama Bin Laden) at the expense of the lives of our very own soldiers constitutes avenging their deaths either. Fighting a war with no apparent objective that has been drawn out WAY past its welcome doesn't sound like the best plan for vengeance to me either.

"this is not a show of American imperialism bringing freedom to a new country to expand our influence"

Yes. Yes it is. Partially, at least. America as a nation is an entity committed to the promotion of democracy, and one of the major issues we are facing right now is the setting up of a democracy in Afghanistan [1]. Our influence is the only thing going for said democracy at the moment, but no one ever said sapping our own country's resources while we have a myriad of problems here at home to set up another country's future was a good idea. Granted, to have done nothing in response to the devastating attacks that occurred 9/11 would not have been right, but this war certainly has not proven to have been the best solution as of late.

"it is a show of a country being attacked by a group of racist war criminals it is no different then if the clan had caused 9/11 or anyone else we are defending our self's here"

Granted, al-Qaeda is a group of what could be considered racist war criminals, and the War on Terror is extremely important. However, it is a tad bit different as if 'the clan' had caused 9/11. The fact that Bin Laden had expressed his ... strong feelings ... towards the U.S. prior to the reason my opponent says we went into the war in Afghanistan [2] and that the United States had numerous dealings with Bin Laden prior to 9/11 proves that there is a great difference in the matter. Also, 'war criminals' haven't exactly been exclusively on one side of the dispute [3] [4]. Is a war necessary if THAT is what is coming from it?

"yes we have lost more than 1,000 troops in this war but that's not as many as it seems"

That's not as many as it seems? Tell that to the 1,000 grieving families whose sons, daughters, brothers, fathers, and husbands would still be here if not for the continuation of this war.

"it was a great victory if you only lost 1,000 troops in Thermopylae the Persians lost half of a army numbering in the hundred thousands to millions yet still marched on to burn down Athens"

I don't understand the point Pro is trying to make via this quote. We're talking about a war that applies to the United States right NOW. Its two completely different situations.

"we need to continue to fight fight like real Americans"

What does this mean? What does it mean to "fight like real Americans"? If you aren't fighting like a "real American", does that mean you are worthless? I would really appreciate some clarification on this point by my opponent, since it is very vague.

"1941 the Japanese imperial empire made a unprovoked attacked a US military base in the Hawaiian islands that base was pearl harbor the Japanese attacked both civilian and military targets the attack was successful in doing much damage yet even though the Japanese were seen as invisible the US wanted revenge and went on a long and bloody campaign costing hundreds of thousands of lives until victory was finally taken by the US"

Victory was taken by the U.S.? I'm sorry, but some fact checking may be in order. The reason the U.S. joined in the efforts of the Allies was for REVENGE? Not really. [5]

"to compare the two events 9/11 and Pearl Harbor both attacks were unprovoked both attacked military and civilian targets both were successful at doing great damage and both started a war"

Both started a war? Both were unprovoked? These contentions made by Pro are nothing more than fallacious gibberish that demonstrates a complete misunderstanding of history. [6]

"against the mighty Japanese imperial empire even with hundreds of thousands of casualties America surged forward"

You might want to compare the number of casualties the United States sustained to the number of casualties the U.S.S.R. sustained in World War II [7]. To say America was the sole entity 'surging forward' when talking about such a War is completely fallacious. And by the way, the "mighty Japanese imperial empire" did not constitute for all of those causalities. Not by far.

"n a war against a small group of warlords with less then two thousand casualties America wants to withdraw and surrender a win able war"

Pro, please define what constitutes a "win" in this war. Please explain how a war against a "small group of warlords" has anything to do with the ability for the war to be won [8]. I don't understand how Pro can call the war necessary when he can't even express how the war can be won in his opinion.

Burden of proof has yet to be presented by Pro.

[1] http://www.time.com...
[2] http://www.adl.org...
[3] http://www.rollingstone.com...
[4] http://www.rollingstone.com...
[5] http://www.worldwar-2.net...
[6] http://www.howstuffworks.com...
[7] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[8] http://afpak.foreignpolicy.com...
Debate Round No. 2
american5

Pro

american5 forfeited this round.
Jade75

Con

My opponent forfeited round three of the debate without affirming his resolution or answering the questions I put forth in my second round argument. He has not provided burden of proof past a rambling second round argument that was not supported by facts - only by opinion. He has not illustrated the point set out by his position in accordance with the resolution in a factual manner, and that leads to the conclusion that the resolution is negated.

Vote Con.
Debate Round No. 3
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by huhmasta 3 years ago
huhmasta
Bahaha a tie? this argument was more one sided than Mexican American War.
Posted by huhmasta 3 years ago
huhmasta
neither can I
Posted by Jade75 3 years ago
Jade75
I can't.
Posted by huhmasta 3 years ago
huhmasta
You vote
Posted by Jade75 3 years ago
Jade75
Can someone vote please?
Posted by huhmasta 3 years ago
huhmasta
yyuppp..... knew this would happen. Pro was just rambling :-/
Posted by huhmasta 3 years ago
huhmasta
uhh yeaah...unless Pro drastically makes an insane comeback, I think Con has this.... Not very convincing Pro.
Posted by huhmasta 3 years ago
huhmasta
Oookkkk.....American5....have you heard of SENTENCES? Do you know how to use proper grammar and PERIODS? I'm trying to read what you said, but it's awfully difficult when your entire argument is literally one sentence.
Posted by american5 3 years ago
american5
to all people that are reading this debate I apoligize for starting late im new to the website and still figuring it out
Posted by huhmasta 3 years ago
huhmasta
Same here, I'm expecting great things from this debate. And American5....you have to SPECIFY the details, rules, definitions, etc. of this debate....otherwise things just get WAY too broad...
No votes have been placed for this debate.