The Instigator
stargate
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
tajshar2k
Con (against)
Winning
6 Points

War on Terror

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
tajshar2k
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/2/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,180 times Debate No: 83123
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (41)
Votes (2)

 

stargate

Pro

I am for the war on terror, con is going to be aginst the war on terror.

This will be a four round debate
First round is acceptance
Second round is first augment
Third round is counter augment
Four round is your closing augment

Forfeits are not allowed in this debate, if you forfeit a round you will lose the debate and all points will go to the slide which did not forfeit.

Now if you want to accept this debate then you must go to the comment section and tell me you want to accept this debate. By Friday next week I will pick who gets the position of con.
tajshar2k

Con

I accept. It will Pro's job to fulfill his BOP. I only have to refute his arguments to fulfull my requirement, but I may have some arguments to strenghthen my case.
Debate Round No. 1
stargate

Pro

1. Threat to national security, currently there are a number of major terrorists groups around the world. They area a direct threat to the us's national security and ours allies as well. This is shown throughout the world, that we live in very dangerous times and need to be ready and willing to protect our allies and the lives of every American. There are still terrorist attacks in the us some of these are the San Bernardino, CA terrorist attack which happened in December 2 2015. During that terrorist attack 14 where killed and 17 where injured. Another terrorist attack that was on us soil was Chattanooga, it happened in July 16 2015. 5 where killed and 2 injured. This proves that Americans lives are at threat and there is a very real danger here at home. The worst terrorist attack in us history was the 911 attacks where four planes where taken over by terrorists and they killed us civilians. 2,977 died due to the 911 attacks. These terrorist attacks are meant to stick fear into the hearts of every American, it is meant to make us fear them and let them win and give up hope. We are at a state of war with these terrorist groups, they threaten us and what we stand for. So the must logical choice of action is to remove this threat to ensure the protect if civilians at home, and protect the us and it's allies.

2. There was more loosed in 911 and other terrorist attacks other then lives. Money is lost due to damages, and how much it costs to send emergency services. The 911 terrorist attack made the USA lose 178 billion dollars. This is a massive amount of money that was lost. This and the loss of American lives is a great reason why we fought the war on terror and should keep on fighting. These costs count in the damages done, and the economic impact.

3. Our allies our being directly threatened by these terrorist groups. One such terrorist attack was on one of our allies, this ally being France.. 130 civilians died due to ISIS, this is a attack on our allies soil. France is also a member of NATO. This is just another act of violence by terrorist groups. They see us and our allies as threats, so how do they react? By attacking us, they have support to and went on expanding for a long time. There biggest threat and obstacle to them right now is the USA and its allies, and Russia and its allies. We should keep on fighting this war on terror due to protecting American lives, and protecting us interests.

4. The threat of IS is very real, and is only growing. For example on the 11th of November 2015 in Lebanon 43 where killed and 240 where injured. The terrorist attack where a Russian plane was taken out only proves this fact. Is can be anywhere, they are a very real and dangers threat to everyone around the world, so why let this threat grow even more if we stop fighting it? Why stop our war on terror? Why watch while more and more die, and the threat growths even more powerful. We must be willing to stand up with our allies and meet this threat head on.

5. The UN has called on all nations to fight against ISIS, so why shouldn't we. Nations are starting to rise up to meet Isis. Russia, France, Germany. We have the power to fight Isis and any terrorist group in the world. So why must we stand back and watch?

http://www.haaretz.com...
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com...
http://www.bing.com...
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com...
tajshar2k

Con

Why the War on Terror is no longer desireable, and why I will be defending the Con side. This debate will be talking about the War on Terror which was declared by the Bush administration on Oct 7 2001. This debate topic has been very vague, since Stargate doesn't specify if he's debating whether it was justified, or whether we should continue to enter countries and fight the radical groups within it.

https://en.wikipedia.org...;




A1: The World isn't any safer after the War of Terror was launched

The whole point of the War on Terror was to end global Terrorism, in which the many countries, which were lead by the United States were going to countries in the middle-east, and were trying to kick out Radical-Islamic groups and Dicatators. We witnessed this in the Afghanistan War and the Iraq War. 2 wars which the United States was involved in. Since The War on Terror was declared by the Bush Administration, there has not been a decline in International Terrorism ,and infact, global terrorism has only been increasing. Please look at this graph.


Here, you can clearly see that International Terrorism has not not been going down. Since the 2003 invasion of Iraq, the number of civilan deaths has only been rising in these countries, and the article itself claims "Since, 2000 there have been over 61,000 terrorist attacks" So, it doesn't make any sense to continue to be Pro War on Terror, when it clearly isn't even working. Since I have demonstrated how ineffective the War on Terror is, let me talk about the costs.

http://www.globalresearch.ca...


A2: Cost

I have demostrated the ineffectiveness of the War on Terror, now I will show how much American Taxpayers actually have to pay for it. According to Forbes, the War on Terror has costed nearly 1.7 trillion dollars, since it was declared in 2001. This is infographic displays this information. For something that clearly is not even working, the American taxpayers are simply throwing their money away.




A3: Fundementally Flawed Idea

The War on Terror, simply put forth is a flawed idea that will never end. The idea that you are fighting an idealogy, gives the hint that it will only end if that idelogy is stopped. The only problem is, that is impossible. It is impossible for the U.S milltary to stop Islamic terrorism, because Islamic terrorism comes from Islam. When will the a war against an idea ever end? There is no definite end. As history as showed us, as soon as one radical group is supressed, another group pops out. In the early 2000's, there was Al-Qaeda. Now the U.S as supressed Al-Qaeda, and it's influence is diminishing, we have another enemy which is ISIS. There isn't any sound argument that should make us believe defeating ISIS will end it all, because Islamic terrorism is an idea.

You can't stop an idea. To make it easier to understand, basically anything ending with "ism" is impossible to completely defeat. Communism, Terrorism or Nazism. They may be supressed, but they will never go away for ever. We still have communists and Neo-Nazis in America. I have showed in my first argument, terrorism is certainly not going away, and infact is increasing. To sum it up, the War on Terror is a flawed idea, which the U.S cannot win, since the concept of fighting an idea is boundless.




A4: The War on Terror lead to ISIS

This will be focusing more specifically on ISIS, and how it was created. Many people believe that the U.S needs to fight ISIS, but this will basically be a repeat of what has happened before. Prior to the Syrian Civil War, We had the Iraq War. Now, what was the Iraq War? A war that was launched to take out the Dicator Saddam Hussien out of power, due to allegations he had posession of WMDs, which would pose a threat to the U.S. I'm not here to debate the Iraq War, but the result was that the Ba'athist Party of Iraq was overthrown, and this resulted in the destablization of the region. The U.S tried to bring democracy and order to Iraq, but instead of engaged in an additional 8 year war, where they were fighting radical groups which rose to power in Iraq.

One of these groups which began to rise were called the "Daesh" (now known as ISIS) Daesh particpated in the Iraq insurgency, and also gain immense strength in another conflict known as the Syrian Cvil War. Eventually the group became known as ISIS, and had captured a significant portion of Syria and Iraq. Like I mentioned before, there simply is no good reason as to why defeating ISIS will end terrorism, because past events has showed that only power vaccums occur, in which other radical groups will take over. To simplify this, the War on Terror created ISIS, and going on the fight them, isn't going to solve the problem.

https://en.wikipedia.org...
https://en.wikipedia.org...(2003–11)
Debate Round No. 2
stargate

Pro

1. First off Isis formed in Syria and quickly spread to Iraq. One of the reasons they took so much land in Iraq so fast was due to us leaving to fast. If we had stayed just a couple more years it could have made all the difference. The area was actually becoming a bit more stable before we said okay guys it is time to pack up and leave. Simply put the Iraqi army and government was not ready to take control of there own nation, and needed more training for there army and needed more experience. There was no Isis in Iraq when we where there, yes there where terrorist attacks but those to where going down until we started the massive withdraw of troops from Iraq. When we did this it made a power vacuum in Iraq, the Iraqi government didn't fill it so Isis did.

2. Our wars are always costly, more so when it lasts longer and we send more troops. Yes the war on terror has cost tax payer money. But every war we have fought has cost tax payers money. The reason this war costs more then others is due to how much we put into it, the bombing raids, sending troops, and economic aid for other nations, and doing this on a world wide scale.

3. So here is the question you must ask yourself are you willing to let terrorism go unchecked. Because the war on terror costs include the money we use the fight Isis and for the Kurds and others fighting Isis. If you want the war on terror to end then that means all the lives we lost overseas we for nothing, all the money we spent was for nothing, and let's just give up. That is really then,got her option to give up and hope someone else wins. Even if we have the power and money to stop them you do not care.
//therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=11986
https://en.m.wikipedia.org...
http://fas.org...
tajshar2k

Con

Rebutalls

1: Pro makes mention of national security and cites that terrorists attacks still occur in the U.S. However, this only gives us a good reason to focus on national security, not fight war overseas. These groups Pro talks about, are groups that are now strong and powerful due to intervention from the past, so why should be continue to fight these groups? This argument is really of topic, because Pro doesn't give us any reason as to why we need to fight a war, to stop these terrorist attacks from happening. Might I add, that since we intervened, the terrorist attacks have only been increasing, not decreasing.


2. Pro fails to use proper English grammar, so I'm confused what he is saying in his first sentence. If Pro is trying to say terrorist attacks costed us billions of dollars, then fighting this war costed us 1.7 trillion dollars.

3. Pro needs to understand that we should only help our allies, if they ask for our help. Just because they got attacked, doesn't mean that gives us an excuse to fight a war in another country. We should only go to war if our nation is attacked, and we have a Congress to vote for a declaration of war for a reason.

4. Pro seems to assert that by continuing the War on Terror, we will save lives. This however is not the case. Nearly 1.3 million lives have been lost due to this conflict.

http://www.commondreams.org...

5. Why should we stand back? Because getting involved will likely make it worse, if we look at our previous interventions. What we need to do, is encourage other local powers to step in and intervene, and not do it all ourselves. To be honest, I don't really know how to respond to this, because Pro never actually specified anything in his resolution. Simply it was a Pro or Con thing.
Debate Round No. 3
stargate

Pro

1. Con bring up that fact that we have terrorist attacks at home. So we should bring our troops home. Yet this is simply not a good idea. If we pull out completely then there will be power vacuums in those nations. The reason we should keep on fighting this war is simply. We are being treated by them and so are our allies. We have been being treated by terrorist groups sense 911 really. They attack us at home, yet you are saying it is a good idea to leave them along overseas? What about the weaker nations, the ones who can not stand up to them and win? What about the millions that will die because we did not act fast enough? They will still fight us, they will still kill Americans even if we pull back. This is due to them threaten our very values. They kill anyone who does not agree with them, they sell woman into slavery(usually into being a sex slave). They have little to no woman rights what so ever, they kill anyone who is Christian and if you are a minority group you are in even more danger from them. They will hate us and try to kill us until either they are gone or we are, there is no in between in this matter. They want war we shall bring war. They will attack us even if we do not attack them, so isn't better to fight and end them before they cause even more civilians to die?

2. True this war has coasted us tons of money, but you must understand what we are fighting for. We are fighting for our allies, we are fighting to end a threat to our nation, we are fighting to protect those who need us. Millions die, tons are in slaved due to them. They have killed American civilians and us allies civilians. The un even said they are a threat and every nation and should be stopped. There is a link to the un and it's stance on those issue of Isis in my second round.

3. We have tried to get local powers to fight. Turkey hasn't done what is needed and is more afire of the Kurds then Isis. Jordan might fight but would need help, Iran might aging help but I simply do not trust Iran, the gulf states pulled out of this issue a long time ago, Saudi Arabia will not even try. The on,y ones really fighting them on a local level is Iraq and the Kurds and Syria and Syrian rebles. The Syrian rebles are not strong enough, the Syrian government is just as bad as Isis in many aspects, the Kurds do not have enough troops to push Isis back, Iraq is just not sting enough and doesn't push them back enough when they do it is amount never major victories.

4. So to round up where the points will go is really who had the best arugement to defend there stance on the war on terror. I think every voter should carefully look at both slides, and hopefully they vote pro. Now back to con
http://www.amnestyusa.org...
http://www.cnn.com...
tajshar2k

Con

Allow me to quote my opponent.

"Con bring up that fact that we have terrorist attacks at home. So we should bring our troops home"

This is a complete lie, and I never actually said that. I never even said that we should bring our troops home. My whole argument was just showing why the War on Terror should be discontinued. Bringing troops home, and continuing the War on Terror is 2 different things. We could have troops just stationed there to train soldiers in their local country, or for some other reason. So Pro's argument is basically useless, since I never actually said this.

"They attack us at home, yet you are saying it is a good idea to leave them along overseas? What about the weaker nations, the ones who can not stand up to them and win?"

Yes, I do say it is a good idea, because past events have shown us simply fighting them has done absolutely nothing to reduce terrorism in other countries. In fact, it has increased. Pro has done nothing to refute this, and simply is repeating what he said before. For Pro's point on weaker countries, it's worth noting we are somewhat repsonsible for making them weaker. This was the result of the War on Terror in it's earliest days. Pro says that we should help other nations stand up and fight, but the question is whether a 1.3 trillion spenditure is worth fighting somebodies war. So far, Pro hasn't made a convincing case as to why that budget is worth it.

"They will attack us even if we do not attack them, so isn't better to fight and end them before they cause even more civilians to die?"

Do you know that for a fact? Where is your evidence that would indicate that? I have already shown with evidence that more people have actually died when the War on Terror was declared. You have failed to give any evidence to back your claims.


"True this war has coasted us tons of money, but you must understand what we are fighting for. We are fighting for our allies, we are fighting to end a threat to our nation, we are fighting to protect those who need us. Millions die, tons are in slaved due to them. They have killed American civilians and us allies civilians. The un even said they are a threat and every nation and should be stopped. There is a link to the un and it's stance on those issue of Isis in my second round."
Debate Round No. 4
41 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by stargate 12 months ago
stargate
Maybe next time.....
Posted by UtherPenguin 12 months ago
UtherPenguin
I wanted to debate you on the topic, but then I forgot :P
Posted by stargate 1 year ago
stargate
True, butit would be a lower amount for example you are fighting a nation or have a active role in it you would need more troops then if you where just training people.
Posted by stargate 1 year ago
stargate
Um...good job it looks like you will win.
Posted by tajshar2k 1 year ago
tajshar2k
my last part didn't save for some reason.
Posted by tajshar2k 1 year ago
tajshar2k
the debate was okay i guess. And not nessarily. The War on Terror is fighting terrorists in an actual war. We can have troops in the region training others, or playing a defensive role.
Posted by stargate 1 year ago
stargate
So did you like them debate? Also if we end the war on terror it means lowering the amount of troops, so yes bringing them home.
Posted by stargate 1 year ago
stargate
Um you should be able to post.
Posted by tajshar2k 1 year ago
tajshar2k
bro this stupid glitch aint letting me post!
Posted by Nonsense 1 year ago
Nonsense
Don't terrorize the poor terrorists, how would you like it if they did that to you?

Oh wait, they do!
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by YYW 12 months ago
YYW
stargatetajshar2kTied
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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: See RFD: http://www.debate.org/forums/politics/topic/78487/
Vote Placed by TheJuniorVarsityNovice 1 year ago
TheJuniorVarsityNovice
stargatetajshar2kTied
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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: http://www.debate.org/forums/personal/topic/78450/