The Instigator
VinhVuong
Pro (for)
Losing
6 Points
The Contender
l2jperry
Con (against)
Winning
21 Points

War on terror should be fought. I do not understand that people disagree with the war.

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: 1/11/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,595 times Debate No: 1676
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (6)
Votes (9)

 

VinhVuong

Pro

Mr 12jperry,
I see that people disagree with War on Terror. I want to know why. This is a war that should be fought and fought hard. These boneheaded terriost should be brought to justice. They came to our soil and attacked us and killed our inicent people. This isn't a war of choice, this is a war we must fight.

So, why do you disagree with this war?
l2jperry

Con

Thank-you VinhVuong for the debate.

First off, I would just like to say that I completely agree with you that those who are responsible for the attacks on Americans, and on United States soil should be brought to justice. I am completely, without a doubt, 100 percent for that.

My beef with the "War on Terror" is as follows...

1. You can't win a War on Terror.

- Just like a War on Drugs, a War on Drunk Driving. It's unwinnable, and expensive. We must first make the agreement that terrorism is not a religion, (no Islamic Radicals are not the only terrorists), it is most definently not a country, and it is not in one part of the world. Therefore, where does one go to fight a war on terror? Across the entire globe? That is hardly a realistic idea.

2. Wars undermine Civil Liberties.

- This War is just another way for the government to gain more power. The Bush administration implements the Patriot Act and justifies it as a protection of the people from terrorism. A wise quote was once said by Benjamin Franklin, "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

- Just like the War on Drugs, and pre-trial forfietry of property. The government uses the word "War" to get people to give up their rights. I'm not buying it.

3. Border Security.

- Why are we concerned with terrorists when our own border is left wide open? Shouldn't we focus first on securing our borders to prevent another attack? It doesn't really make sense to fight a War on Terror abroad, when terrorists can so easily illegally come to the states.

4. We're in a recession.

- The dollar is falling, our debt is rising. We depend more and more on foreign nations for loans. How will we even think about defending our nation if we go bankrupt? The number one thing we should be considered with is the economy.

I believe this is enough to get us started, I look forward to your response!

-R.J.-
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Debate Round No. 1
VinhVuong

Pro

Ok...here are my counters.

1. You can't win a War on Terror- Partially true

-The war on terror is basically a key part on why we have not been attacked by terriost in recent years. We are keeping them on their soil. They have their backs against the wall. We have been capturing leaders, killing leaders, stopped future attacks and they have their hands full with our troops over there.

Winning is hard, terriost will be there probably forever since they boneheads, but at least we are partially winning it and stopping them from future attacks.

2. Wars undermine Civil Liberties- Wrong

- The war is basically help keeping your civil liberties. If we aren't fighting them and the terriost get stronger, then we would have more casualty's and we won't have the right to do what we are doing now. It would be stricter. And the patriot act I believe should only be a temporary thing. I believe that we should do whatever it takes to find these radical pinheads. I am a firm supporter of the patriot act.

Security is what the patriot acts have to offer. We are being secured by letting the FBI and/or CIA track down these people, and arrest them. We have captured a good amount of terriost in our homeland, and patriot act helps.

3. Border Security- True

I completely agree with you on this one man. This is absolutely true. I think we should secure our homeland first but we should balance it. We should protect our borders and at the same time we are in at war vs. the terriost.

4. We're in a recession-True

Our country is heading towards recession. Our dollar is like crap and our government relies on other country to much. I am in business and i think so. They export more then they import. I think that stopping income tax and bringing in flat and fair tax would be a great idea. Corporate would more likely come back and etc. but that is an other part.
l2jperry

Con

Well, i'm glad to see you agreed with mostly everything i've said. I'll know refute the things you didn't agree with, and then bring some more arguments to the table.

1. War on Terror is unwinnable.

- You have stated that because of the war on terror, we remain unattacked. However, I have to disagree with you. Looking back overtime and looking at the attacks committed on U.S. soil since the beginning of the 1900's there have only been 5 terrorist attacks. And 3 of which had nothing to do with Islamic Terrorists. So really, it has only been 7 years since the last attack, but when you look at history American's really have not been attacked by terroists on our soil. So can we really say whatever we are doing is working?

http://www.infoplease.com...

2. Wars undermine Civil Liberites.

- Again I have to say, although the casualties suffered are immesly terrible, there have been very few terrorist related deaths to U.S. citizens. People are killed plenty more by car accidents. So to give up essential civil liberties, given to us by our creator, for safety from terrorism is ridiculous. The Patriot Act is completely unconstitutional and should be revoked immediatly.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. The "War on Terror" is used as propoganda to fight in the middle east.

- I believe, that just like how Hitler used the Reichstag fire to propogate a war against Communists, that President Bush and the current adminstration have used the 9/11 attacks to their favor to propogate a war against Islam in the middle easy.
Debate Round No. 2
VinhVuong

Pro

1. War on Terror is unwinnable.- still wrong

- Look this is a new era in terriosism. The past is the past and they were not as radical and bonheaded like these people. If you look at it, we have captured and stopped from many future attacks. For example, we spoiled an attempt to take down the Sears Tower in Chicago, Blowing up Planes in midair from USA to Britain and Britain to USA. So in my case we have saves lifes and we are winning against them.

2. Wars undermine Civil Liberites.- No
- You have stated their hasn't been much deaths but look, 2,000 people is enough. They couldve killed more like i said in my previous paragraph. It is true that more people die in car accidents and etc. but 1 life matters, and they got 2,000.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. The "War on Terror" is used as propoganda to fight in the middle east.

- Hitler is Hitler. He was radical bonehead. He had a different idea then the bush administration. Bush have war on Radical Islam is because they are killing incicent lives in the world and they attacked us. That is a perfect reason for it.
l2jperry

Con

War on Terrorism - UNWINNABLE!

- You have said that we have stopped terrorist attacks from occuring. First off, I would really appreciate a source. Secondly, this to me seems to make people guilty before the crime is even committed. This kind of reminds of George Orwell's thought crimes in 1984. Still though, very few terrorist attacks have been committed on U.S. Soil. You have still failed to point out what the the actual goal on a war on terror is. To elimate terroists completely? Hardly possible.

Wars Undermine Civil Liberties

- This may sound really wrong, but 2,000 lives is not enough to wage a war on terror. Yes, it is enough to find the murderers and bring them to justice. Which is why we should have used spies and special trained soldier in Afghanistan, not an entire military force. Still, talking about the lives lost has nothing to do with civil liberties. The patriot act violates countless civil liberties, and the excuse is for the war on terror. Therefore, this war is undermining civil liberties.

BOTTOM LINE:

You can't win a war on terror, you can't find where to fight it, and you certainly can't fight it with military operations in the middle east alone.
Debate Round No. 3
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by Yraelz 6 years ago
Yraelz
Its a war on an emotion. You can't fight emotions! Having said that i'm not actually voting because I haven't read the debate. =)
Posted by Vikuta 6 years ago
Vikuta
America invaded Iraq KNOWING that it would INCREASE the likelihood of attacks against the United States. If America wants to protect itself from terrorists, it should stop engaging in terrorism itself.
Posted by wingo101 6 years ago
wingo101
Canada is not a know safe haven and launching point for terrorists who would harm innocent Americans and Israelis.
Posted by audraxheartsxyou 6 years ago
audraxheartsxyou
Great Debate. I think I have to go with 12jperry on this one.
Posted by VinhVuong 6 years ago
VinhVuong
RationalMind232, I am talking about war on terror not war on Iraq. Two different things.
Posted by RationalMind232 6 years ago
RationalMind232
Its not the "War on Terror" itself I'm opposed to. It's what this administration thinks the war is supposed to be. We were attacked on September 11th and instead of getting the people responsible, we used it to stage a war against a country that had absolutely nothing to do with it. Not one hijacker was from Iraq. A war on Canada would've been just as justifiable as the war in Iraq!
9 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Vote Placed by miraquesuave 6 years ago
miraquesuave
VinhVuongl2jperryTied
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 
Vote Placed by adamh 6 years ago
adamh
VinhVuongl2jperryTied
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 JonJon 6 years ago
JonJon
VinhVuongl2jperryTied
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 
Vote Placed by kels1123 6 years ago
kels1123
VinhVuongl2jperryTied
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 miroslava 6 years ago
miroslava
VinhVuongl2jperryTied
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 
Vote Placed by A-ROD 6 years ago
A-ROD
VinhVuongl2jperryTied
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 
Vote Placed by brittwaller 6 years ago
brittwaller
VinhVuongl2jperryTied
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 
Vote Placed by DeATHNOTE 6 years ago
DeATHNOTE
VinhVuongl2jperryTied
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 
Vote Placed by l2jperry 6 years ago
l2jperry
VinhVuongl2jperryTied
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