The Instigator
mn_vikings_man
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Steelerman6794
Con (against)
Winning
14 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  
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: 5/26/2010 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,358 times Debate No: 12158
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (4)
Votes (2)

 

mn_vikings_man

Pro

Would you rather have some terrorist running planes into our countries cities or, would you rather go out and find them and get information on the location of Osama Bin Ladin and other high priority personals. They killed many innocent civilians. For what reason? They hate freedom and they hate America.
Steelerman6794

Con

I would first like to thank my opponent for starting this debate. I look forward for an illuminating debate.

Pro and I have agreed that the formal resolution for this debate will be "Resolved: The War On Terror is in the United States' best interest." As Con, I will be arguing that the War On Terror is NOT in the United States' best interest. Although my burden really is to simply negate the arguments of Pro, I will introduce a couple contentions that will hopefully initiate some clash.

==========CONTENTION 1: THE WAR ON TERROR IS A FLAWED POLICY==========

The War On Terror is a policy that was originally instituted by the Bush Administration in response to the September 11, 2001 attacks on the United States. In general terms, the objective of the program has been to root out terrorists that have an intent on attacking the United States. According to the U.S. Law Code, terrorism is "premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents" (1).

The problem with the policy is that, per the definition I provided, the United States is effectively expressing war against a doctrine, against a belief. Robert Higgs, a Senior Fellow of the Independent Institute writes, "Terrorism is a form of action available to virtually any determined adult anywhere, anytime. [As a result] the War on terrorism…can only be a figure of speech" (2). In other words, we are waging war against an unseen ideology. How does one win that kind of war? The answer is, it cannot be done. The War On Terror cannot be won. We can do the best we can to stop jihadists from attacking the United States, but total victory will always be impossible.

==========CONTENTION 2: THE WAR ON TERROR IS COUNTERPRODUCTIVE==========

The War On Terror is not only an unachievable goal, but many of the measures the U.S. has taken in conformity with the "war" have actually done the opposite of what was intended. For example, despite out occupation of Afghanistan, the amount of Taliban-controlled territory is actually INCREASING, from less than 20% in 2004 to 54% in 2006 to now 72% by 2008 (3).

Moreover, the War in Iraq was supposed to end Saddam Hussein's sponsorship of terrorism, but our military occupation of the country actually increases the United States' risk of being attacked. The reason for this is that our presence in Iraq give terrorist groups a "celebrated cause" for recruiting new members (4). The excuse (which may or may not be warranted) of "foreign invaders" is often used by Al Qaeda to unite recruits under a common goal: to destroy the "American enemy." To wrap this concept up, my point pretty much is that the United States' continued occupation of the Iraqi homeland actually increases anti-U.S. sentiments in the country, thereby breeding hatred and wants of revenge.

==========MY OPPONENT'S ARGUMENTS==========

I assume that my opponent is waiting for the next round to post the bulk of his case, but I will still rebut the few statements he posted in Round 1.

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

"Would you rather have some terrorist running planes into our countries cities or, would you rather go out and find them and get information on the location of Osama Bin Ladin and other high priority personals."

As I said in my first contention, scouring the world for terrorists simply cannot work without an infinite supply of resources. Only in a perfect world would this be possible. Even invading individual countries ends up doing more harm in good, as I showed in my second contention.

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

"They killed many innocent civilians. For what reason? They hate freedom and they hate America."

My opponent provided no explanation for terrorists "hating freedom." Until he elaborates, the statement cannot be taken at its word.

Unfortunately, however, there will always be those who hate America. There will always be those who are willing to attack the United States. Those people are not limited to terrorists living in the Middle East. As of right now, the best the U.S. can do is constantly improve its domestic defense while doing its best to foster diplomatic relations with other governments to end any sponsorships of terrorist groups.

====================================================

I would again like to thank my opponent for instigating this debate. And I look forward to his response.

Sources:
(1) http://www.state.gov...
(2) http://www.lewrockwell.com...
(3) http://www.cfr.org...
(4) http://www.cnas.org...
Debate Round No. 1
mn_vikings_man

Pro

I am writing a book about my experiances in Iraq and Afghanistan and let me tell you, until you have met an Iraqi insurgent face to face you will never understand how much they America and freedom. Yes it would be hard to fight all the terrorists in the world but we have to unite our allies and fight them together, if we do this I am 100% certain we can win. I got this information from some of my talks with General McNeil.
Steelerman6794

Con

I thank my opponent for his response. Because it was short, I will address each sentence.

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

"I am writing a book about my experiances in Iraq and Afghanistan and let me tell you, until you have met an Iraqi insurgent face to face you will never understand how much they [hate?] America and freedom."

According to my opponent's profile, he is a 14-year-old male from Rosemount, Minnesota. It is therefore highly unlikely that he has ever been to Iraq or Afghanistan, or that he has met an Iraqi insurgent. My opponent must provide evidence that his statement is true because it directly contradicts the description on his profile. I ask my opponent in the next round to relay his alleged experiences in detail, as I could only imagine the trauma of meeting an America hating, freedom loathing Iraqi insurgent.

Also, regardless of whether or not an Iraqi insurgent "hates America," I have shown that occupying Iraq actually makes them hate us more. Using the military to invade a country is hardly a way to foster compliments from Iraqis.

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

"Yes it would be hard to fight all the terrorists in the world but we have to unite our allies and fight them together."

It's important to make allies with other governments. However, any attempts to open diplomatic negotiations with Middle-Eastern nations that haven't been invaded by America have been stifled because of the War On Terror's motto that "The U.S. always knows best." Throughout the War On Terror, America has been acting as the world's police force, not an effective mediator.

I thank my opponent for his response. Because it was short, I will address each sentence.

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

"I am writing a book about my experiances in Iraq and Afghanistan and let me tell you, until you have met an Iraqi insurgent face to face you will never understand how much they [hate?] America and freedom."

According to my opponent's profile, he is a 14-year-old male from Rosemount, Minnesota. It is therefore highly unlikely that he has ever been to Iraq or Afghanistan, or that he has met an Iraqi insurgent. My opponent must provide evidence that his statement is true because it directly contradicts the description on his profile. I ask my opponent in the next round to relay his alleged experiences in detail, as I could only imagine the trauma of meeting an America hating, freedom loathing Iraqi insurgent.

Also, regardless of whether or not an Iraqi insurgent "hates America," I have shown that occupying Iraq actually makes them hate us more. Using the military to invade a country is hardly a way to foster compliments from Iraqis.

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

"...if we do this I am 100% certain we can win."

How does one win against terror? It's an ideology. It's like the Spanish Inquisition against any non-Catholic religions. Many non-Catholics were killed, but were the "threats" of Judaism, Islam and Protestantism wiped out? Of course not. The same applies to the War On Terror.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I got this information from some of my talks with General McNeil."

First of all, what information did you get from General McNeil? I would love to read an excerpt of your conversation with him. When and where did the two of you meet and talk?

=================================================

In conclusion,the resolution has been negated. None of Con's contentions have been touched upon, and thus far has never really introduced any contentions. Any of my opponent's attempted arguments have been negated. Please vote CON.
Debate Round No. 2
mn_vikings_man

Pro

mn_vikings_man forfeited this round.
Steelerman6794

Con

My opponent has forfeited. According to Debate.org, " Forfeiting a round destroys your credibility and makes it less likely that voters will vote for you." I urge voters to keep this in mind, and to please extend my previous arguments.
Debate Round No. 3
mn_vikings_man

Pro

Sorry I didn't post the last round I was on vacation with my family. And for the whole 14 year old part of your case my son created this account and recommended that I try it so now I am. When I said "win the war on terror" I meant to dramatically cut down terrorist threats. You wanted some evidence in detail so here is a story: It was about 2 months after I landed in Iraq with my squad and we had a lead on a potential insurgent hideout in our vicinity. So we had to go check it out. Mike the oldest of our group went in first. It looked all right, no activity going on. But we made one fatal mistake, we all went to the downstairs first. You never ever want to do that because if there are insurgents in the building they will simply through a grenade down and you are just sitting chickens, and that is exactly what they did. I ran and dove out the door. Luckily everyone else followed. But Jim, our "kid" (he was the youngest having just turned 19 within the past couple of weeks) got. Hunk of shrapnel in his left leg and ended up getting it amputated. We should have thrown it back up but we just assumed that they had cooked the grenade (or pulled the pin which starts the 5 second fuse). That explosion caught a lot of attention and we were being compromised (forced to try and run out of there and get picked up by a helicopter at a pre designated area). We ended up losing one man, Kyle while being compromised and injuring Jim from the grenade. That is all I can say the rest I cannot speak of do to safety reasons.

If we form a coalition (a mixed group of Iraqi and American military squads) it has proven to be much more effective at gaining respect from civilians and fighting the insurgents because it is there own military and they know the landscape and area well. We are not occupying Iraq, that myth is one that has made many good men die. That does make them hate us more, but we aren't. We are only trying to free Iraq, not take it over.
Steelerman6794

Con

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

"When I said 'win the war on terror' I meant to dramatically cut down terrorist threats."

Right, and and this can not be done by continuing to scour Iraq and Afghanistan for rogue terrorists. As I showed and cited in Round 1, our presence in Iraq is actually causing Al-Qaeda to gain more recruits than ever before!

------------------------------------------------------ Your Experience In Iraq -----------------------------------------------------

First off, regardless on how I view the War On Terror, I still have the utmost respect for those who serve my country in uniform, and I thank you for doing so.

I would like to ask you this. If we had not invaded Iraq to try and find non-existant weapons of mass destruction, wouldn't Kyle and thousands of other U.S. troops still be alive today? Our soldiers are dying every day, and what good has resulted that outweighs this fact?

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

"If we form a coalition (a mixed group of Iraqi and American military squads) it has proven to be much more effective at gaining respect from civilians and fighting the insurgents because it is there own military and they know the landscape and area well. "

That is what we've been trying to do, but these Iraqi soldiers are the product of a government that the U.S. instated. Therefore, Iraqi citizens often view these soldiers with the same mistrust, no matter what their intentions.

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

"We are not occupying Iraq, that myth is one that has made many good men die."

Occupy (v): to live or reside (in a certain place)
http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu...

So yes we are in fact occupying Iraq. U.S. soldiers are currently living and residing there.

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

"We are only trying to free Iraq, not take it over."

That's our intention, but not to the Iraqis as I have shown. We are viewed as invaders.
Debate Round No. 4
mn_vikings_man

Pro

First of all thank you for honoring the us soldiers, but the part about them dieing is that they died for a good cause and when we join the military they make sure that we know how much of a risk there is and we accept that because we want to fight for a good cause. So the soldiers that die, die with honor and no regrets. Although I am sorry any soldiers have to die it is worth it for the protection of millions of civilians.

invade: march aggressively into another's territory by military force for the purposes of conquest and occupation; "Hitler invaded Poland on September 1, 1939"
I got this from Google define. So since we are not trying to conquer Iraq or Afghanistan we are not trying to occupy it.
Steelerman6794

Con

Steelerman6794 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by mn_vikings_man 6 years ago
mn_vikings_man
Do any of you know any contentions for the proposition "Juveniles should be tried as adults"? I am on the affirmative side.
Thanks!
Posted by mn_vikings_man 6 years ago
mn_vikings_man
"The War on Terror is in the United States' best interest"

Yes that is the resolution.
Posted by Steelerman6794 6 years ago
Steelerman6794
What resolution do you want to use? Are you arguing that "The War on Terror is in the United States' best interest"? That would make an appropriate resolution.
Posted by pbplk58 6 years ago
pbplk58
so....what's the resolution???
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by I-am-a-panda 6 years ago
I-am-a-panda
mn_vikings_manSteelerman6794Tied
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 lindseyloo92 6 years ago
lindseyloo92
mn_vikings_manSteelerman6794Tied
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