The Instigator
DeUcEs
Pro (for)
Winning
15 Points
The Contender
Hound
Con (against)
Losing
12 Points

War is not good for the United States.

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
Pro Tied Con
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: 12/9/2010 Category: Politics
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,056 times Debate No: 13969
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (6)
Votes (8)

 

DeUcEs

Pro

I firmly believe that war is NOT the answer to all of the United States problems. In fact, I feel that if war were to cease and never happen again the United States would be more powerful than ever, as well as have more money than we ever have had. The reason I feel this way is because A. money would help our economy, people would begin to live a lot better, go without food less, have more money to pay bills, and the quality of life would just rocket. And B. Peace. If we didn't have war we would have peace in the United States, there would be less fighting and things like this, and the world overall in my opinion would just be a better place in general.
Hound

Con

Hello! I commend Pro on making this debate.

There is a pretty big flaw with what you're saying: we don't just suddenly decide we want to war. Since the most current war is the War on Terrorism, I'll assert you're talking about it as well.

First off, the United States would not be in peace if we stopped war. We would be stepped on by other nations and groups, and our own nation would be attacking itself due to its own criminal activity.

Summary: The United States would not achieve peace by ceasing war; we're fighting for a cause and if we recanted that cause, what would become of us?

I await my opponent's response; good luck!
Debate Round No. 1
DeUcEs

Pro

Hello, and good luck in the debate, thank you for your response.

I never said that we just suddenly decided to go to war, and yes, even the war on terrorism was handled wrong. I think that if we kept our people in our country that we would have no problem. I don't see how blowing up other countries helps us, especially not when we are going to places like Iraq, blowing them up and then paying to rebuild their country so that they can get mad again and make sure to do more damage next time. That was if you remember correctly when the economy in the United States first began to drop really bad. Also, if we stayed here in our country on our turf, and just defended our country rather than taking time to go to another place that is unfamiliar to us, that we don't know I feel it would be more effective, so no I don't think that it really helps us, if you don't know the area your in and your fighting there, you are the weaker one, because you don't know what to expect. Having said this, to make it a bit more clear. I feel that having our men and women who are fighting stay here I think we would actually strengthen ourselves as well as become more secure, and save money all at once. If we can beat them there, we can do it here too.

Thank you,
D3uC3s

I look forward to receiving your response.
Hound

Con

Thank you.

What I meant from stating that we never decided to go to war is because I wanted to stress the fact that we were forced. Yes, forced. The War on Terror began after the events of September 11th. We as a nation were attacked, and many lives were lost. Are we expected to sit here idly and do nothing? Negotiation was not possible after these events; it is either us or them.

My opponent states that we should be defending our country from inside its demarcation because it's not effective to travel elsewhere to fight. Honestly, let me ask you this. Are we supposed to just wait for the next terrorist attack and then find it in ourselves to defend our country? Are we simply supposed to stand there and let another 9/11 happen because we are trying nothing to stop these groups that reside outside our nation's walls? No. That is not ideal.

We cannot beat them here. We have ample security here that is doing everything in its power to stop terrorist attacks (and it has.) The fact that army men and women are out there defending us from the outside is not ineffective or weak, rather it's admirable and VITAL to our survival.

We are not weak because we're treading on other terroritory. They're hiding and we'll find them; it's not like the army does not plan where it will go and what procedures it will do.

War is actually necessary; in this case anyways. We were attacked, not only physically but EMOTIONALLY on NUMEROUS occassions of terrorist attacks. We as a nation should NOT and ARE NOT going to stand by idly and watch terrorist groups grow stornger because we're too afraid to chase them down.

Thank you, and I await my opponent's response.
Debate Round No. 2
DeUcEs

Pro

First off, I would like to thank my opponent for his/her response.

My opponent leads you to believe that we were forced into this war, as though a gun was held to every Americans head at the very moment 9/11 occurred. He/she states "We were forced by the events on 9/11 to engage in war." I am having a very hard time agreeing with this. When 9/11 happened, no doubt it was a tragedy, however there was not a gun to anybody's head with someone saying that all of our heads would be blow off if we did not go to war. There is always an option for something like this, and if I remember correctly we voted to go to war, a mistake in my opinion made by every American citizen that voted yes.

Next, my opponent asks, "Are we expected to sit idly doing nothing?" by saying this my opponent suggests that perhaps if we did not go out of our way to go to Iraq that we would be sitting and doing absolutely nothing within the United States to defend ourselves, in other words we would be enabling them to come back and hit us again with no consequence. Again, I never said this either. If we were to remain in the United States we would ideally prepare for something like this to happen again, so that we would be ready for this to happen again and stop it before it goes too far. Our country has been on a constant lock down since 9/11 and I highly doubt that it will ease up anytime soon.

Another thing which my opponent would like for everyone to believe is that negotiation is not in any sense of the word a possibility. I never mentioned that we should be negotiating with them, however if close attention was payed around the time we bombed their country we already are negotiating, we rebuilt their land in attempts to Americanize them, a big mistake that was very costly to the United States.

In my opponents argument he/she also asks "Are we supposed to stand there and let another 9/11 happen because we are doing nothing to stop these groups that reside outside our nations walls?" My answer to this, which is similar to what I have been saying is no, by all means we should fight back, I just don't feel that going to their country, to unfamiliar grounds is the way to do it. Of course there are calculated plans that we go by while we are there fighting, however, those plans can not be guaranteed to be 100% every single time, one move and entire sections of the military can be eliminated. For example, if one of our platoons walks around the wrong corner and a group of Iraqi men is waiting there we don't stand a chance, especially with the laws we have set in place. Do you realize that we are not allowed to shoot a gun at any given place unless someone has fired in the soldiers direction from that place? This is what causes us to be weakened. Not knowing the grounds just contributes to this.

The next thing which my opponent believes is that "We cannot beat them here." My opponent also states that "we have ample security here that is doing everything in it's power to stop terrorist attacks (and it has)." If we have this awesome security which I acknowledge that we do, then how would we not be able to beat them in our own court? We know this land better than anyone else, and we would have plenty of time before they were to arrive that we could map out how to do it. In the movie 300, 300 men took on an army of millions and damn near won. We are a nation of billions, there is no reason we should not be able to stand our ground if necessary, not to mention that it would be cheaper to set up for war along the borders of the united states rather than going to other countries.

The next interesting thing that my opponent brought up was "We are not weak because were treading on other territory. Their hiding an we will find them; Its not like the army does not plan where it will go and what procedures it will do." This is not true ladies and gentlemen. If we are not 100 percent sure of where we are exactly, or whats around the next corner, or whose waiting with a gun behind the next door we are in danger, we are weakened by a lack of knowledge of any significant plans set up by the Iraqi's, what you don't know is not always good for you. Also, like I said before, it doesn't matter what procedures are used, if we do not know the area we simply will not be as stable as we should be.

Finally, the opponent says "War is actually necessary; In this case anyway. We were attacked, not only physically but emotionally on numerous occasions. We as a nation should not and are not going to stand by and watch terrorist grows grow stronger because were too afraid to chase them down." I would like to start by saying that if we had remained in the United States that wouldn't mean that we were afraid to go and find them. Second, it would provide us with a more calculated plan for retaliation the next time something came up. Meaning that we would be more prepared, being as it is our own land that we would be on, we would know the areas better, meaning we could set up traps, attacks and many other things that would catch them by surprise if they were to enter our country again, this is actually what they are doing to us, setting traps and things for us to fall into, and although we are doing alright over there more men are dying than should be. Also, PTSD and other illnesses caused by trauma or other reasons are becoming a problem with returning soldiers. More of our men are suffering badly than what most people might think, and with these illnesses they are suffering some more when they get back home. If war did not exist neither would a lot of problems that we are currently facing as Americans.

I would like to thank my opponent and wish him/her luck in the final round. May the best man win, and it has been a pleasure.
Hound

Con

Thank you.

Are we not forced into this war? Would we, as a nation, after being ATTACKED by terrorists who are BENT on destroying us, would we as a nation even THINK about doing nothing? We're at war because of what has happened to us; we will not reside in our nation's walls and allow these terrorists responsible roam free. It's a seek and destroy mission. If we eliminate them by going there then that saves us from future attacks.

I am glad, ladies and gentlemen, that my opponent brought up that America as a majority wanted this. The consensus said that we should go to war is what my opponent is saying. Majority rules; we're a democracy. We as a NATION, decided this. People must have thought long and hard about it.

I never said we would not be defending ourselves within our nation. On the contrary, I stated that if we were to only defend what was in our interior walls, there would be no way of harming terrorist groups. We'd keep being attacked and attacked. Over and over again. The terrorist groups would grow and eventually we would be attacked successfully. You're neglecting to realize that the US is already highly secured and we're always ready for terrorist attacks. There have been numerous terrorist attacks that would have been successful throughout the years, and many have been stopped.

Negotiation with the terrorists and anyone who advocates them is not possible; not after what they've done. I have not heard of the Americanizing part, however I'm sure that the US was attempting peace. If it DID end up to be a big mistake; atleast we tried. The reason they probably did this is because there are innocent people in those countries that live there; but then again I'm not quite sure. A source would have been nice, but I'm willing to take my opponent's word for it.

We are not able to fight back if we stay in the US, as I've mentioned before. It is not possible to reach these people if we stay inside our nation without venturing out. If that means treading on unfamiliar grounds, despite the fact that much research and calculations are done, then so be it. The war has already shown progress and it also shows we're not weak, which is what my opponent wants us not to be, yes?

I have mentioned this before. You want those groups to be at large while we're busy defending ourselves? How about taking these groups down so we don't get another attack? You want your kids and grandkids to grow up in a nation that would constantly be under attack? With the war, the terrorists are too busy defending themselves; despite the fact they still are trying.

So you're saying because we don't know, we're wrong. My analogy may seem incongruous to the matter at hand, but was Dmitri Mendeleev wrong about his discoveries? In some places, maybe. He wasn't for sure. However, he made THEORIES which were educated and therefore was faithful in what he was doing. The army is not stupid. They plan and train for the kinds of situations they must bear.

As for knowing the area, I've said it before that there are PLANS. The soldiers KNOW where they have to go. Not knowing the area does not mean you do not prepare for what's there.

"I would like to start by saying that if we had remained in the United States that wouldn't mean that we were afraid to go and find them" It would show we're not going to diddly if you hijacked our planes and crashed them into buildings.

"Second, it would provide us with a more calculated plan for retaliation the next time something came up. Meaning that we would be more prepared, being as it is our own land that we would be on, we would know the areas better, meaning we could set up traps, attacks and many other things that would catch them by surprise if they were to enter our country again, this is actually what they are doing to us, setting traps and things for us to fall into, and although we are doing alright over there more men are dying than should be."

Setting up traps in the United States? We are not about to turn into a war zone. Have you seen the sights of Iraq and other war-infested places? Men who volunteered died. They shared the mindset of sacrificing their lives for their countries. It was necessary when fighting for freedom and it is more than necessary now.

If war did not exist, those men could very well die in a terrorist attack.

I thank my opponent for this debate; it was quite stimulating and I hope to debate Dueces again sometime!
Debate Round No. 3
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by nephilim 6 years ago
nephilim
Does anyone else have a electronic type engine named "word?"
Posted by nephilim 6 years ago
nephilim
Well honestly the argument here is in a manner of context the "use" of language or "words" as a form of definition to privilege a man or woman who knows more than any given other. A war is a pig in a farm. Are you saying pigs should not be eaten in America? The misunderstanding here is evidently interestingly probably not very amusing for "people" who don't like to think of themselves as animals of any known sort. I am afraid I don't think there is a "word" for "war" as it to my knowledge should be evident only in the afterlife. Take the old Viking burial sites for instance. Take mythology. Read religion. This may be what religion is.
Posted by Hound 6 years ago
Hound
The same could be said of my opponent.

And I feel I sufficiently showed that if we did not go to War, we'd be stepped on repeatedly; this would result in us actually being harmed MORE than if we had just gone to war.
Posted by darkkermit 6 years ago
darkkermit
Hound needed to prove that we would be less safer if we didn't go to the war on terrorism. This was his BOP, and he did not convincingly show this. No sources to confirm and no real facts. Hence I voted Pro.
Posted by Hound 6 years ago
Hound
I can already tell some voters didn't read the debate.

Nice.
Posted by Hound 6 years ago
Hound
Great debate, thanks =]
8 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Vote Placed by DeUcEs 6 years ago
DeUcEs
DeUcEsHoundTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Vote Placed by cherokee15 6 years ago
cherokee15
DeUcEsHoundTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:42 
Vote Placed by TheDizziestLemon 6 years ago
TheDizziestLemon
DeUcEsHoundTied
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 darkkermit 6 years ago
darkkermit
DeUcEsHoundTied
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 Hound 6 years ago
Hound
DeUcEsHoundTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Vote Placed by Jcat 6 years ago
Jcat
DeUcEsHoundTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:23 
Vote Placed by rogue 6 years ago
rogue
DeUcEsHoundTied
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:30 
Vote Placed by SuperRobotWars 6 years ago
SuperRobotWars
DeUcEsHoundTied
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