The Instigator
bmascolo
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
boredinclass
Pro (for)
Winning
7 Points

War on Terror

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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...
boredinclass
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/28/2011 Category: Politics
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,401 times Debate No: 15000
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (11)
Votes (2)

 

bmascolo

Con

1. There has been no link made between the Middle East and Taliban.
Terrorists can be anywhere. Saddam Hussein is the connection we had made to the Middle East but our government never found what Saddam Hussein had to do with the 9/11 attacks. The targeted group seemed to have diverged from Taliban to all of the Middle East.
2.The threat we had from Iraq was exaggerated. After the 9/11 attacks, we had every reason to try and stop terrorism. Our pursuit to stop terrorism became an almost "hide and seek" approach to finding the terrorists, creating more problems.
3.Government reasons for continuing war versus American people/soldiers. The American people in Iraq wish to promote a stable government for the people in the middle east. But the government really just wants to gain control over the oil in the middle east. So the American people and soldiers involved have a totally different reason aside from government. Risking the lives of our people for own selfishness instead to better Iraq
boredinclass

Pro

I'll start by clarifing that the mddle east isn't the only place with terrorism. There are enemies of nations everywhere

>There has been no link made between the Middle East and Taliban
-I have two points on this arguement
a. Did he really say that, they are based, and from afghanistan
b. Taliban isn't terror, it's insurgency

>Terrorists can be anywhere
Exactly why they created the WoT, to counter terror everywhere

>The targeted group seemed to have diverged from Taliban to all of the Middle Ea
- 9/11 was planned by al queda, not the taliban

>The threat we had from Iraq was exaggerated
-We needed to go in to save the kurds from their despot ruler

> gain control over the oil in the middle east
Why is that bad?

>Risking the lives of our people for own selfishness instead to better Iraq
-News flash, we pulled out

>more problems.
I'd like an example

>wish to promote a stable government
That's op Iraqi freedom, not part of the WoT
Debate Round No. 1
bmascolo

Con

Ok, If you read the comments you would see I corrected myself. And if you also read you would see I stated "Terrorists can be anywhere" And yeah, we may have pulled out now, but this in general, 9 years for what?! Whether its Iraqi Freedom or the WOT was it not all stemmed from one event? We never would have been involved if 9/11 did not give us a reason to. And theres nothing wrong with trying to gain control on oil, but why are we wasting our time due to the governments insecurities instead of actually doing something productive? The middle east has been in control of oil much like we have control of trade, so let them be and continue to trade. Why waste our time when our country already has enough problems and bring everyone home. We did not need to save the kurds from anyone, that had nothing to do with the attacks made on us. Like I said, I understand why we got involved years ago but enough is enough whether we withdrew or not, still there..
boredinclass

Pro

>was it not all stemmed from one event
-no, WoT came from 9/11, and iraq freedom stemmed from the kurd massacre

>wasting our time, something productive
-Economic security isn't a waste of time and is extremely productive

9/11 was a warrent to save the people of Iraq from a despot

>so let them be and continue to trade
-Recent events in Egypt have caused hell on the oil market, we need an assuanrce that the area is stable

>We did not need to save the kurds
That's exactly what we said about the jews before they went to the concentration camps

Net Benefits of WoT
isreali security
Oppresion of the Taliban
There have been no successful domestic terror attack on the Us since
Greater Domestic security
Political capital to certain politicians, this is key to secure a balanced agenda
Debate Round No. 2
bmascolo

Con

yeah the government is really concerned with economic security with other countries, maybe we should worry about our own, with unemployment rates in our country, trade has always been a factor with the united states and other countries. the kurd massacre was yet another foreign conflict that we got involved in. at the end of the day there was initially not specific reason for the wot to start. their country was being run their own way.. you dont see other countries at iraq with us for the sole reason that it wasnt their conflict to fight and neither was it ours besides going in and making sure there were no weapons of mass destruction and to stop terrorism targeting our country.yeah i mean i guess you can listen to everything you see in the news but really its irrelevant. reality and media are two seperate things. the wot was because of 9\11 and look how many more conflicts have started bc of our eagerness to get involved. uneccessary and VERY exaggerated.
boredinclass

Pro

In the end, all my opponent argued against was the operation Iraqi freedom. Which he doesn't answer why there is no link. It was to eliminate an evil despot. The WoT was started to aoid attacks from ANY enemy. Foreign or Domestic. He drops that terror attacks since the WoT has begun. He drops Isreali security. He drops political capital. So vote pro to secure our country from terror attacks. All his arguements have no link to the debate at hand. Vote pro
Debate Round No. 3
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by bmascolo 5 years ago
bmascolo
i suggest you learn to read for i corrected my arguement
Posted by Jallen289 5 years ago
Jallen289
No sources bmascolo. And there indeed are links between the middle east and the Taliban. That wasn't a very smart argument.
Posted by boredinclass 5 years ago
boredinclass
Next time, put more time, characters, and clarify your resolution
Posted by bmascolo 5 years ago
bmascolo
I don't think there's really such thing as over thinking when it comes to debating against anything. Our whole country is being affected by this conflict that the government keeps pushing and pushing making it seem like we're continued to being threatened, our country has its guard up ever since the terrorist attacks and I agree about that but what's the point of having our troops there? Our soldiers and what the government is fighting for is two separate things just continuing to drag on something that is over. if we haven't found weapons of mass destruction and haven't effectively liberated the people in Iraq, than what's the point, same thing with 5 years ago.. its just over with.
Posted by bmascolo 5 years ago
bmascolo
haha yea thats what i meant sry, The Taliban is not technically from the middle east, bu has been pushed. the government just does not have the same motives as majority of the Americans do in my opinion, i feel like many americans could agree that we don't really know what we are fighting for anymore because the government seems to want a democracy set up for the people in iraq but really we know that the government is more concerned about gaining control of oil. I just think that the point of us still continuing keeping troops there is pointless, i think maybe right after 9/11 it was sensible but really in the long run the war being continued is just out of government selfishness.
Posted by CiRrK 5 years ago
CiRrK
haha I was trying to give the benefit of the doubt xD
Posted by BlackVoid 5 years ago
BlackVoid
Yeah I think you are overthinking. Judging by how short the warrants are and the lack of spacing to separate arguments, I doubt con is being very technical.
Posted by LaissezFaire 5 years ago
LaissezFaire
I think he means Al-Qaeda and Iraq.
Posted by CiRrK 5 years ago
CiRrK
I think he was trying to say that the Taliban was from Afghanistan, which is technically in Western-Central Asia, and not the Middle East (but I could be over thinking)
Posted by Grape 5 years ago
Grape
"There has been no link made between the Middle East and Taliban."

lol wut
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Cliff.Stamp 5 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
bmascoloboredinclassTied
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: Con's resolution and argument is muddled and never achieves BoP.
Vote Placed by TUF 5 years ago
TUF
bmascoloboredinclassTied
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: Pro was alot more structured, and adressed all points. Great spelling and grammar as well.