The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
4 Points

War on Terror

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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/7/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 555 times Debate No: 77362
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (20)
Votes (1)




I think the war on terror does more good then bad. I think that we tried to do the right thing, yes many may have lost their lives, but I think the world is better off then if we never tried. I will be arguing that the war on terror needed to happen, and we are better off now rather then if we didn't.
Round one acceptance.

-Round two opening argument[s]

-Round three rebuttals.

-Round four closing argument[s]



Thanks to Stargate for challenging me to this debate and good luck!

As according to the resolution, I will be arguing against the war on terror--otherwise known as the global war on terror, which is officially led by the United States and its allies.

Debate Round No. 1


Okay let me start out with saying the War on Terror had to happen, and we need to keep on fighting. I know many have died due to this war, and many people think we are doing this just to gain some money. But we are doing this due to the 9 11attacks on the twin towers. A grope which is know as al-Qaeda attack the world trade center which was in New York City. This attack damaged the economy in new York and made it so there were changes in the global market. This was the first attack one US soil in sense the bombing of peal harbor in ww2. We had grow to think that we where safe , but then we saw many Americans die in just a few hours. Those people that died where not US troops, no they are people like you and me who live every day lives. Not to only did that happen to the twin towers, but it the Pentagon was also attacked, where we have some of our most impotent secrets. This terror grope killed 2,982 Americans, on top of that 6,000+ where injured. Americans lost their lives that day, and it woke as up, we saw what could happen and we finally knew that we ha to do something.

We are trying to stop that from happening aging, you might think the USA is making thing worse. But we are trying to fight the fight no one is willing to fight. Sometimes you have to stand up for what you believe in. I know many people have died in this costly war, and I know every day more people join terrorist groups like ISIS. But that is all the more reason to stop them. ISIS will kill anyone who goes stands between them and what they believe in. They make it so you have to follow their religion or you will die. They make it so if you speak out against them you die, woman can not vote and have to be with a man at all times. On top of that they kill people from western nations, even if you give them the money. They rap woman, and the force children into the army. I know that is wrong, and it most be stopped. We should keep on fighting until they realize that they have to accept change. That is what they are afraid of change, they hate western ideas and our culture. On top on that people in the middle east do not really care about all the 9 11 attacks that happened.

By a war on terror I do not just mean a war in the middle east, no I want a global war on all forms of terror. We have to remember what we are fighting for, and we need to make sure we do not lose our self's along the way. We are fighting for a better world, a world we no one lives in fear, and if you like the USA or not we are trying to make that dream of a prefect would become a reality. It is time we remember what was happened in history, and it is time we make that dream a reality.


Opening Argument:

I will begin my case by outlining exactly why the "war on terror" is neither needed or justified.

Given that Iraq and Afghanistan were posing no real threat to the United States or to places such as the U.K, invading them; especially on the basis of the 9/11 attacks that had literally nothing to do with either country--especially as the majority of men believed to be responsible for them were from Saudi Arabia. Essentially the U.S government went into Iraq to overthrow Saddam Hussein, who on the contrary to endorsing terrorism actually tried to control terrorist fractions with his country.

The U.S led war on terror has in fact directly contributed to groups such as ISIS and the damage they have created in Iraq and Syria. Under the leadership of Saddam Hussein--who had a secular form of governance, the rights of other religious groups were protected. IF Saddam had not been assassinated, ISIS would simply not exist. The fact is that Christians are now an endangered minority who have suffered greatly at the hands of ISIS [1.] and [2.]

Tens of thousands Assyrian Christians have in fact been displaced by ISIS [3.]

Once again, this is not something that would have occurred prior to the war on terror and the removal of Saddam Hussein. The Islamic State declared that these Christians would either be forced to pay a heavy tax or convert to Islam.

The total estimate of Christians that have been forced to flee their homeland in Iraq has reached over 125,000 [4.]

This is just one reason why the war on terror has been detrimental and *why* it has primarily achieved negative results.

If we're to judge the "war on terror" as whole, it's estimated that it's left 1.3 million dead in three total countries [including Pakistan] [5.]

There is even strong grounds that the "war on terror" was illegal due to the U.S invading a country that did not pose an "imminent threat" to it. The U.S invaded Iraq without the support of the U.N and therefore undermined international law.

A U.S attack on Syria would also violate international law [6.]

Referring again to Iraq, a Dutch inquiry found that the Iraq invasion did breach international law as defined by the U.N [7.] and [8.]

Debate Round No. 2


Now you are saying that it is unneeded, and that we are just killing more people and exploiting people there. But I will say it aging this war has to happen. Even if it last for decades, or for centuries, I know that this war could very well go on forever. But I will tell you this people die all around the war, some are murdered, while others die in wars some die in there beds.
We are entering a age in which yes there is less wars, but there are massive incress in crime and corruption worldwide. The Mexican drug cantel, the frac rebels in Columbia, ISIS and many others. Those groups cause terror around the world. Our world is walking on egg shells, it will only take one slight step to though everything into chaos.

Now that I have said that I will will explain where Pros augment messes up. Now yes we attack Iraq, but there leader was a dictator. He ruled with a iron first and ruled by terror. Now in my opinion did we need to attack Iraq, I think we didn't. But I do not lose any sleep that we did. Now yes it amy look like we did the wrong thing, but thing can only get better.

"Tens of thousands Assyrian Christians have in fact been displaced by ISIS" I know that has happened, but that gives us all the more reason to counting this war. ISIS kills and rapes thousands of people. I think hat we should wipe that terror group out once and for all, I want to restore peace and porosity to that region in the world. In fact I want to create a prefect world.

Once again, this is not something that would have occurred prior to the war on terror and the removal of Saddam Hussein. The Islamic State declared that these Christians would either be forced to pay a heavy tax or convert to Islam. All the more reason to attack ISIS. This proves that they are have Islamic extremists, and as I said they hate the west, and they see Christians as the west.

There is even strong grounds that the "war on terror" was illegal due to the U.S invading a country that did not pose an "imminent threat" to it. The U.S invaded Iraq without the support of the U.N and therefore undermined international law.
Look someone had to do it. The world is falling apart, we need to create a unified world, and as much as I would love it to happen though peace. But it does not, look at history the UN, after WW1 the people created the league of nations, and that failed, they where not ready to do what had to be done. I for one want to stop the world from falling into chaos before it happens.



Pro argues that despite the extensive damage and vast numbers of people that have been killed as a result of the war on terror. Over 114,000 Iraqi civilians were killed during the U.S invasion alone [9.]

In Afghanistan almost 18,000 people have been killed over the past decade, according to statistics published in 2015 [10.]

There is in fact *no* evidence presented by Pro to show that the number of deaths--in both the Middle East and the West, would actually be higher than it is no. I will highlight once again that the U.S army [and U.K within Afghanistan] have significantly contributed to civilian deaths, and to considerably more of those that would have occurred if an invasion[s] had not taken place.

As outlined in my opening argument, the U.S invasion of Iraq also destabilized the country and caused the insurgence from groups like ISIS. Pro has completely misunderstood the *fact* that under Saddam Hussein and his governance, all extremist [specifically Sunni] fractions were controlled within the country and minorities had the rights protected.

Whereas now, Christians are told that they have to pay a high Jizya [tax] or are either forced to convert to Islam or killed; this applies to all ISIS controlled areas, which are gradually expanding.

The Iraqi army is presently trying to retake the city of Ramadi, which ISIS captured in May. However there has been very little success so far [11.]

Referring to the hardship that is inflicted on Christians, a people that lived permanently within the region for thousands of years and are now having to leave their ancient homeland behind. Some of the Christians are simply given no other option of escaping into surrounding countries, and others are given charitable support by individuals and/or organizations [12.]

An Iraqi priest describes here how 10,000 Christians left Ankawa, a Christian community in Erbil [13.]

It's also been reported on by the U.N how ISIS often resort to beheading followers of Christianity, including children--as well as actually burying them alive [13.]

Additionally, in both Syria and Iraq there's been many cases of crucifixion [14.] and along with beheading, this is a threat that all Christians face [15.]

Alluding again to the amount of Christians that are having to flee the Middle East [16.]

Once again, the primary relevance of this is that it would simply not be happening if the U.S had not of invaded Iraq and if this war on terror was not being perpetrated. On the contrary to decreasing extremism within the Middle East, it has caused more of it and brought persecution on the very people that have resided there for centuries and have ancient ties to the region.

Another major negative to the war on terrorism is that promotes fear to those in the West, which can be seen in the case of 9/11 and how it was used to justify an all-out invasion on two different countries that had absolutely nothing to do with the attacks.

The War on Terror is merely about control, not protection of people in the west or actually the removal of terrorist groups; as can be seen in the example of ISIS, a group that has drastically grew in strength and power since Saddam Hussein was assassinated.

Pro has failed to provide a valid reason for why this war is justified and to why it should continue. Especially as I've pointed out that less people would be killed if the war on terror was to stop.

One very contradictory aspect to it is that the U.S has consistently aided terrorist groups in the Middle East, such as the Al-Nusra front. [17.]

The White House has in fact explicitly admitted to sending 'lethal' aid to the Syrian rebels [18.]

==Concluding Argument==

It seems clear that Pro has thoroughly failed to comprehend the *real* impacts of the War on Terror and even promotes some kind of 'global' war directed not only at the Middle East but on the entire world. However, as I have explained in both rounds, such a war only leads to more civilian deaths and more destabilization of countries. We are simply not 'fighting for a better world" [as Pro claims] if people are forced to suffer unjustly, killed, and removed from their homelands; which is exactly what is now happening to Christians in the Middle East. Instead of protecting the good, the U.S has nurtured the bad and for these people it is not a 'dream' but rather a 'nightmare'. These are the realities of war, and they must be recognized.

As Pro has evidently not affirmed his position and negated my own, I suggest that you vote CON.
Debate Round No. 3
20 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by TheJuniorVarsityNovice 1 year ago
Finally, you both need to give more conclusions and summary. State what your argument is and then state why it means you win. A *Lot* of debaters have this issue, they state a problem but not why that problem is a significant one. Someone could say 'the problem is that the TV is too loud' but they might not know how significant the problem is until you tell them ' Oh yea and there is a killer in the other room so if he hears the TV he will come in here and slice our heads off'...that is a significant problem lol. So, yea, it was an alright debate, follow some of these tips and the debates will be a lot better....

Posted by TheJuniorVarsityNovice 1 year ago
...but you really should have told the readers why pro's points were lackluster at best, how they really didn't succeed in affirming the resolution, you could have easily done this is all I am saying. In con's first speech she brings up a couple of points, she says that the war on terror is being used as a guise to attack nations which were not even involved in the original problem and in doing so actually created more terrorism, showing that the war on terror is counter productive, by making this argument she turns pro's argument that the war on terror is good because it stops them, it turns out that it created them in the first place...this is her best argument. Pro never refutes any of con's arguments so she easily wins just by default of conceding her arguments..One argument pro talks about is that the war on terror has killed 1.3 million people in 3 countries, this argument doesn't mean anything to me though because I don't know what kind of people they are, were they terrorists? in that case it would be good....were they children? in that case it would be fixes this later though by stating that around 130k civilians have been killed by the war on terror, this is very bad. Again pro never refutes this. Con's last main argument is that the the attack in the middle east broke the law, the problem is she never states why this is bad, who cares that we broke the law?? America can do whatever it wants right? well, maybe not, but by not saying *why* this is bad you leave deciding that to the reader, the second problem with this argument is that it doesn't say anything about why the entire war on terror was bad, just this one instance...

Tips: You both should start refuting your opponent's arguments more and in more detail, that is where the true debate happens. Pro, you should really define your resolution more and give a clear answer to what the debate will discuss, for examples look at a few of my debates. Pro should also fix grammar.
Posted by TheJuniorVarsityNovice 1 year ago
I'd get right down to business and say that this math was a 4.5/10 on the goodness scale. The overall things that made it this way? Lack of attacking each other's arguments...aka 'clash', the topic being undefined, not nearly enough conclusionary statements like 'this is why I win this round, this is why opponent loses', and also the arguments didn't have very much impact, they were fairly small and not idk 'big picture' enough....these problems go for both teams. Let's continue...

First though I just let everyone know from the start, winner is con.

Pro starts the debate by making an appeal to emotion, stating that because terrorists hurt the US, it was OK to attack the middle east, he also states that this war was inevitable. neither of these points matter as far as the resolution is concerned. The fact that the US attacked the middle east in a just way says nothing about whether or not the war as a *whole* is/was good or bad, nor does the fact that is might be inevitable. The end of the world is also inevitable however that doesn't mean its a good thing. Pro also states, basically, that the war on terror aims to stop ISIS, ISIS is bad, and thus the war on terror is good. This is one of those small scale arguments I was talking about, even if stopping ISIL is a good thing that doesn't mean that the entire global war on terror is a good thing, it only means that the war on terror in that instance is good. I'll come back to this topic in a second but first I would also like to tell pro to edit his arguments before he posts, pro had very bad grammar through the debate, I don't like giving out grammar points but in this debate it was an every round issue, pro, just revise your arguments before you post them.

Although this is a clear win for con, she had a host of things that she could have done better as well. One of the biggest things, for both sides, but specifically for pro because she was better, was a lack of clashing arguments. Con you win by a great bit
Posted by stargate 1 year ago
Oh come on another debate with no votes.
Posted by stargate 1 year ago
Many die, but this has to happen. If we where not then trust me even more would die. We need to end terrorism, and I mean any group if they are middle eastern, american, spanish, and one. Bit you do not get what I am saying, and what I have been saying sense I have started debateing here. I want a untied, prefect would. But terrorism is on the rise, that is slavery. You may not know it, but I believe we need to fight to stop evil, in this case terrorism.
Posted by stargate 1 year ago
"Are you serious? Wow...

And what exactly is the 'greater good', more oil for the U.S? Less governmental control in Middle Eastern countries? You're entitled to your opinion, but I can quite easily say that it is *not* informed."

No none of the above, we are fighting for a safer better world. You can say what you want about me, hqte me if you want, but build that hatred into something great. Also if we where fighting for oil then are oil prices would be down, which they are not. Also you totally missed the point I tryed to make, but oh well you can only win so many battles.
Posted by Emilrose 1 year ago
So by creating a 'war' you're somehow stopping the 'cycle' of it?

No, you're participating in that cycle *and* promoting it. Many will suffer and die, but for no cause.
Posted by stargate 1 year ago
Also I understand why you may hate this war, and hate my augment and the USA. But I hope you at lest understand what I am trying to say, and what we are trying to do. Some eggs have to breack before you get that omelet.
Posted by stargate 1 year ago
I know many have died in this war on terror. I know many have died, and I know their are terror groups like ISIS. I know we have mismanaged some thongs involving this war. But it had to happen, and we still need to fight terror. Look we made a mistake, fine but we should not pull out. Now more then ever they need our help there. They hated the USA even before we started that war, they hated us and everything we stand for. What do you want us to do pat them on the head each time people die? Just look the other way? I am sorry but I will not stand for that, we need to make it so every nation gives people human rights, and upholds those human rights. This world is divided, and it is slowly but steadly falling apart. I want to stop terrorism, amd make the perfect world, the world wothout war, the world without rape, the world with murder, and I believe this war is a step towards that dream, it will not be easy. But there is hope at the end of this war, many will die, but we have to stop the cycle of war, and abuse, you may not like it, but we need this war.
Posted by Emilrose 1 year ago
Are you serious? Wow...

And what exactly is the 'greater good', more oil for the U.S? Less governmental control in Middle Eastern countries? You're entitled to your opinion, but I can quite easily say that it is *not* informed.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by TheJuniorVarsityNovice 1 year ago
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: comments