The Instigator
CrazyRepublican
Pro (for)
Losing
15 Points
The Contender
quarterexchange
Con (against)
Winning
16 Points

War with Iran

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  
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 - Required
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/5/2011 Category: Politics
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,248 times Debate No: 16320
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (8)
Votes (7)

 

CrazyRepublican

Pro

Iran is a great threat to the U.S. both Ideologically and militarilly. Their president has called for the death of our great nation, and that our long time ally Israel be blown off the map. They have allied themselves with our longtime enemy Russia, in which Russia has given them the nuclear material that they need to make our nightmare a reality. Their criminal radical islamic government in their attempts to inforse islamic law has violated their own peoples human rights and has murdered anyone who disagrees with their particular form of Islam. Therefore, The U.S. and its allies should mount a preimptive strike against Iran before they attack us and our allies and do exactly what Hitler and Sudam Hussein tried and failed to do. THE WORLD DOESN'T NEED ANOTHER HITLER!
quarterexchange

Con

While the Iranian leader has called for the destruction of Israel his threats carry little to no water, and even if they did, we can't go around attacking every nation that threatens our allies, we can only prepare.

If Iran does get the ability to launch nuclear warheads the U.S. has already developed ABM systems that are designed to deal with nuclear threats from rogue nations with only a handfull of nuclear weapons at their disposal.[1]

Israel is also a nuclear state with a much more formidable military at their disposal than Iran. [2][3][4]

Wars are tremendously expensive both in terms of resources and loss of life and it would be a huge burden on the U.S. to take on yet another front in the Middle East to fight a nation that is not a direct threat to us or even U.S. allies.

Again, Israel's military is much stronger, Israel has nuclear missiles of their own, and the U.S. is already considering on offering Israel an ABM system [5], which we undoubtedly will if there is enough evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Iran has a nuclear missile.

In conclusion Iran is not currently a serious military threat since Israel has a stronger military and a decent supply of nuclear missiles, and the U.S. is willing to give an ABM system to Israel designed to shoot down incoming ICBM's.

I acknowledge that Iran has a terrible human rights record and does violate the rights of their people.

That is not a good reason for the U.S. to launch a preimptive strike on a power since many countries do the same. North Korea and China also violate the rights of their people, but going to war with those nations would result in costly wars where potentially millions of people will die. It is not the U.S.'s obligation to launch attacks around the world on any country that violates the rights of their people. It is too costly and too much of a burden for the U.S. to bear.

When Hitler came to power the UK and French forces should have not started a policy of appeasement and allowed Hitler to take the Rhineland, Czechoslovakia, and Austria, they should have attacked immediately after Nazi Germany began annexing territory, not after Germany began enacting anti-jewish laws.

We should attack Iran after they begin to show that they are willing and able to threaten the U.S. and U.S. allies, not simply because they make hollow threats and violate human rights.

The Pros of such a war do not outweigh the Cons.

Israel is already well defended against Iran.
Violations of human rights in foreign nations are not the U.S.'s responsibility to solve.

[1] http://www.mda.mil...
(U.S. ABM System)

[2] http://www.globalfirepower.com...
(Military of Israel)

[3] http://www.globalfirepower.com...
(Military of Iran)

[4] http://www.fas.org...
(Description of Israeli nuclear aresnal)

[5] http://theasiandefence.blogspot.com...
(U.S. offering ABM system)
Debate Round No. 1
CrazyRepublican

Pro

While you are correct that shouldn't attack every nation that threatens our allies, Iran has threatened the U.S. itself and has made alliances with our most mortal enemies, and has begun and is being quite successful in preparing to start a violent conflict with the U.S. our allies.

1) It is true that we have developed a ABM system that can effectively shoot developed a ABM system that can effectively shoot down certain missiles that could be aimed at us, but the curtain systems that we have are incapable of taking out an ICBM. These are the preferred type of missile that are used in detonating nuclear warheads by most nations including Russia, which is the nation that is equipping Iran with the means to make nuclear weapons. Therefore, ABMs are ineffective at preventing a nuclear attack on our soil.

2) Furthermore Israel does indeed have a far more advanced arsenal than Iran, but they are badly out numbered. Iran and its Allies completely surround the tiny nation, and the current riots in the Arab countries has put leaders in power that have sworn to wage violent jihad on Israel and those who would come to her aid.

3) Iran and all her allies are funding radical Islamic terrorists through out the world. This has cost the lives of thousands of our soldiers and citizens, and other innocent people around the the world. They are posing a threat to U.S. interests in the Mid-East.

4) Again, ABMs can not neutralize ICBMs. Once more, Israel is to badly out number by Iran and her allies. By the time we get there to Israels aid our bases in the the Mid-East will be over rand and Israel annexed by Iran. Thus, we must attack them before we have a second Pearl Harbor where we know there is a threat and we do nothing and we get attacked.

5) It is always the obligation of the bigger countries to defend the people that can not defend themselves. The U.S. has done it in the past, and should do it in the future especially in Iran. I would like to share a quote most people has heard at least once. 'With great power, comes great responsibility.' The U.S. has the power and the reason to liberate those people. Therefore, it is our responsibility to help them. While it is true that China and North Korea are known for their human rights violations and a war with them would cost millions of lives, It is just to help those people as well. The fact is we can for China or North Korea, but we can for Iran and we must.

6) We should have attacked Germany when we saw Hitler building a giant war machine, and then maybe 40 million people might have not lost their lives. We should have attacked when it wasn't a matter of 'if they attack', but when it became a matter of 'when they would attack.' We are facing the same situation with Iran, and must not make the mistake of waiting till they attack us.

In conclusion we must neutralize Iran's threat, liberate the Iranian people, and finally deny radical Islam another chance to wage violent jihad against the free people of the world.

1&4) http://en.wikipedia.org... (look at Current tactical systems & United States)

2) http://theworldisshaking.blogspot.com...

3) http://www.zionismontheweb.org...
quarterexchange

Con

Iran's threats against the U.S. carry no water. The countries Iran allies itself with have weak conventional military forces and alliances with Russia and China are useless. Russia and China do not want to start a third World War over Iran

1) ICBM's are very hard to build and Iran will never obtain them. Even India, a long time nuclear state, does not have ICBM's. Russia has currently been aiding Iran's nuclear technology, not giving advanced long range missiles to Iran.
Russia is a very stable government and the Cold War is over. They know the consequences of Iran having an ICBM and nuclear weapons. If they don't want us giving nuclear technology and long range Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles to South Korea and Ukraine they won't do the same for Iran. You need to prove that Russia is actually willing to give an ICBM missile to Iran and not simply Intermediate or Short range missiles, or even missiles at all.

2) Israel has always been badly outnumbered such as was the case in the Yom Kippur War and the Six Day war [1][2].
They have always managed to come out on top with very low casualties and have inflicted serious defeats against their enemies. Back then one of the major combatants for the Arab nations was Egypt, they won't be fighting Israel again. Jordan, Syria, Palestine, and Iran combined do not have a capable military force that the Israeli's can't defeat. Israel is a first world nation and has superior weapons and technology from their western allies. Despite being outnumbered in previous conflicts Israel has always dealt crushing blows to its enemies. If Iran is shown to have nuclear weapons and the will to use them Israel will use its nuclear weapons in a pre-emptive strike negating the need for a U.S. intervention.

3. According to your source Iran has been funding Hamas to fight Israel, not the U.S. This is an Israeli issue, not a U.S. one. Israel is perfectly capable of defending herself from Hamas insurgents and is more than capable of destroying Iran. There is no need for the U.S. to get involved since Israel is already a much more powerful military compared to her opponents. Israel will fight Iran when it wants to. We didn't start wars with Egypt, Jordan and Syria when Israel was fighting for their soveirgnty and we don't need to start now. When Israel thinks that Iran, beyond a reasonable doubt has nuclear weapons, they will surely launch a preimptive attack themselves as they did in Iraq [3]

4a.Despite being outnumbered, Israel has always proven to overcome their enemies with superior weapons and training. (See Yom Kippur and Six Day War below)

4b. The U.S. has a very strong military presence in the Middle East. In the very unlikely event Israel does begin to become overrun, the U.S. can immediately send supplies, soldiers, and material to Israel in a matter of hours.
The U.S. has the capability to load large cargo planes with tanks, supplies and soldiers and we have such cargo planes all over the Middle East. It would take only a few hours to respond in the event of a war with Israel and other Arab powers and in a few hours it is very unlikely Israel would already become overrun.

4c. You have yet to prove Iran will be getting any missiles what so ever from their allies and if you prove that you have to prove that they will be getting ICBM's

5a. Israel is more than capable of defending themselves and much more, there is no war going existing between Iran and Israel

5b. "The U.S. has the power and the reason to liberate those people".

If we begin setting the precedant that the U.S. will go around attacking any nations that violates the rights of their people that only makes us look that world's policeman. That is not our occupation. Many U.S. allies are also notorious violaters of human rights. Egypt, Saudi Arabia, etc. Simply violating human rights is no reason to sacrifice thousands of U.S. lives and an enormous amount of U.S. resources. We cannot afford to go around the world waging large wars for the sake of the rights of people everywhere. We'd be at constant war for decades.

6. We can't attack every enemy country that builds up a military either. Again, we'd be in constant hard fought wars for decades.
40 million would not have died if England and France intervened immediately when Germany began annexing countries without opposition. We will intervene as soon as Iran makes similar movements. Currently it is a matter of whether or not Iran will even attack, currently they don't have nuclear weapons, they don't have a powerful military, and you need to prove that they have missiles that can't be shot down.

When Iran has a decent military, then we'll be more concerned.

In conclusion,
Israel is a capable military power and has fought many wars while being outnumbered and has won.
The U.S. can intervene militarily quickly in the event a conventional war breaks out.
Iran does not posses nuclear weapons.
Iran does not posses missiles that can't be shot down by U.S. ABM systems.
Many countries including U.S. allies violate human rights and the U.S. does not have the manpower or resources to afford to wage wars against nations that do violate human rights or wage a 3rd large war in the middle East when currently, Iran does not pose a threat. We can't afford to wage wars for no good reason and currently there is no good reason to go to war with Iran

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
(Yom Kippur War)

[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...
(Six Day War)

[3] http://en.wikipedia.org...
(Israeli attack on Iraq)
Debate Round No. 2
CrazyRepublican

Pro

While it is true that China doesn't want to start a third great war over Iran the Russian Federation wants to challenge U.S. influence. That Russia hates the U.S. even after the Cold War has ended, and they want to rebuild their empire status that they lost after the disintegration of the Soviet Union in 1991. Vladamir Putin said that the break up of the Soviet Union was the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the 20th Century. Russia has the reason to help Iran. It is doing it in the form of giving them ICBM conponits for a so called 'space program', and is giving ran nuclear material.[1]

1) Iran has been working on developing a ICBM ever since the overthrow of the Shah in the 1970s. They have had a long time. Russia has also given Iran ICBM parts a side from the nuclear technology. Russia has also signed a contract with Iran to sell them S-300 air-defense systems to protect their equipment from Israeli and American air strikes, and even nuclear warheads. Russia, now that the Cols War is over wants their empire status back that they lost after the end of the Cold War. They also like i said before want to challenge U.S. influence in the world especially in the Middle-East. India does not have any important role in the Middle-East. Therefore, Russia has no reason to give India ICBMs.[2]

2) While it is true that Israel has always been outnumbered and came up top every time. The tiny nation has never been as badly outnumbered as if all or even most of the Arab nations stormed across their border. The Arab nations the amount of trained troops to put hundreds of thousands if not millions of well trained soldiers into the fight, also during the past wars such as the Six days war and the Yom Kippur war the Arab nations were not as well equipped as the Israelis. The Arab nations especially Egypt and Iran have equipped their troops with effective modern equipment. Egypt has recently had a change of government, and a radical Islamic group known as the Muslim Brotherhood has taken over the government in Egypt, and has completed Israels encirclement by her enemies. If we wait it will be too late, Iran and Israel will have had a nuclear exchange thus killing thousands of innocent civilians. It would be in the best interest of both our country the U.S. and Israel to neutralize the threat now so we can prevent massive losses of life on both sides from nuclear war.[3]

3) The President of Iran has called for the death of America, and that are long time ally Israel be blown off the map. When Iran gets nuclear weapons they will also launch them at the U.S. We should have backed up Israel and attacked the allied Arab nations at the time, because even though Israel drove them out of their country the enemy is still alive, getting stronger and plotting its revenge

4a) Quality doesn't always prevail against quantity. Vladamir Lenin(the mastermind behind the Soviet Union) once said 'quantity has a quality of its own.' Even though the Israelis are well equipped and well trained they are too badly outnumbered. A similar conerio happened during WW2. The Germans were equipped and better trained then the Soviets, but they were crushed by the Soviets vast numbers of troops.[4]

4b) This is not true. Since we have currently withdrawn from Iraq completely the only bases we have left in the Middle-East are in Afghanistan. The cargo planes that we do have would most likely be shot down by the swarms of Arab fighter jets or S-300 air defense systems in the are.

5) I see your point about my human rights premise, but that this still does not change anything. Iran is still making alliances with our worst enemies, it is still assisting radical Islamic revolts, it is still pursuing nuclear weapons, and it still wants to wage violent jihad against the U.S. and Israel. These are good excuses for going to war.

6) Though it is true that we can not attack every hostile country that builds up it's military, because we would be in a war for decades. Iran and her neighbors(minus Saudi Arabia) have made their intentions clear on what they are going to do with their new armies. They will attack Israel, and if they have nuclear weapons such as the ICBM(it is estimated that they will have them by 2015) they will fire them at Israel and the U.S. Therefore,we must stop them now before it is too late and we get nuked. Germany at the time that it was annexing countries was done with its military build up even if France and Britain attack Germany would have fought off the invasion, which is why it is better to attack your enemy when he is weak rather than when he is strong.[5]

In Conclusion,

We must invade Iran and neutralize the threat before they get nuclear weapon.

Iran and the other Arab nations are strengthening their militaries to go to war against the U.S. and Israel.

Iran is receiving help from Russia to not only build nuclear warheads, but also ICBMs to strike both the U.S. homeland and Israel our long time ally.

To the voters I say vote pro.

[1] http://jia.sipa.columbia.edu...

[2] http://www.jcpa.org...

[3]
http://www.foxnews.com...

[4] http://en.wikipedia.org...(World_War_II)#Summer_1944

[5] http://www.fas.org...
quarterexchange

Con

1) U.S. ABM systems are able to shoot down ICBM's. In fact we already are prepared to shoot down North Korean ICBM's in the case of war with ABM missiles mounted on Aegis class missile cruisers. [1] So even in the very unlikely case Iran has the technology to develop an ICBM seeing as they've had 4 decades now, and even if Russia contributes to the Iranian cause so much so that Iran develops a nuclear warhead with an ICBM, we can shoot it down

My opponents own source states that the ICBM Iran is trying to develop is based off of the Taepodong-2, which is the missile our ships can already shoot down. It will also have a shorter range than the Taepodong-2. When Iran has such a missile and such a warhead, and if Israel doesn't launch a preimptive strike, we can shoot it out of the sky.

2) You have provided no evidence to show why most of the Arab nations would even join in such a war. The Arab nations are not the military powers they once were. [2] They do not have millions of men and they aren't as well trained or as well armed as Israeli soldiers. Israel has a more powerful army and air force than those Arab nations [2].
You have not shown how several Arab countries would necessarily invade Israel.
I don't think they will and I will show why many countries won't fight.

Libya is currently in the middle of a civil war. [3]

The Arabian peninsula houses several U.S. military bases. [4]

There is a major U.S. occupation in Iraq, between Israel and Iran. [5]

There is a major U.S. occupation in Afghanistan, right next to Iran. [6]

So no country from the Arabian peninsula will fight since they are U.S. allies and allow us to house military installations in their territory, Libya has enough problems fighting rag tag rebels much less the proffesional forces of the IDF, Iran is essentially surrounded by U.S. military forces.

So I ask, how do you come up with hundreds of thousands of soldiers invading Israel when the U.S. and U.S. allies have such a strong military presence in the middle east and Israeli enemies are experiencing so much civil unrest.

Look at the globe, the only way for Iranian forces to reach Israel is to either go through Turkey, a member of NATO and a U.S. ally, or go through U.S. occupied Iraq where the U.S. has 50,000 armed soldiers as well as over U.S trained and equipped 800,000 Iraqi soldiers. [5]

Iranian forces will be torn apart whether they go through Turkey or Iraq

We also have a major military presence in Afghanistan where we can attack Iran from in the event they attack Israel. [6]

3a) Iran does not have nuclear weapons

3b) Iran does not have an ICBM

3c) If Iran manages to somehow get both we can shoot down their ICBM's down seeing as they will be based of the Taepodong-2 model and we are already prepared to shoot down North Korean Taepodong-2 missiles. [7][1]

The Iranian president's threats carry no water.

4a) You did not show how so many nations would join in such a war when I showed why many key nations you claim would participate in this conflict, like Iran for one, would not be able to get involved.

4b) We have not withdrawn completely from Iraq. We currently have 50,000 troops in Iraq according to wikipedia, and seeing that you have cited wikipedia on two separate occasions, you think it is a reputable source as well. [5]

I have also provided a source that states we do in fact have several military bases in Iraq, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, etc, effectively making your claim invalid. [4]

"The cargo planes that we do have would most likely be shot down by the swarms of Arab fighter jets or S-300 air defense systems in the are."

If the U.S. did not have stealth fighters and bombers capable of evading even the most advanced radar and AA systems then that would be a threat. [8][9]

You act as though the U.S. would have difficulty establishing air superiority over Iran, Jordan, and Syria.[2]

5) My opponent has conceded the Human Rights premise.

You need to show where Iran is assisting radical Islamic revolts. I haven't heard of any.

It's pursuit of nuclear weapons is irrelevant. We can shoot down their missiles and Israel can defend itself and attack preimptively.

It's threats of war carry no water. We have a strong military presence in the middle east, we have the most advanced planes in the world, and our enemies don't have the capacity to launch an attack capable of overrunning Israel.

6) The only way for Iranian forces to reach Israel is to march across the nation of Iraq which contains 50,000 U.S. soldiers and over 800,000 Iraqi soldiers. [5] Potential Israeli enemies also don't have powerful militaries. [2]
Iran can't attack Israel without facing nearly a million allied soldiers and your own source states that the Iranian missile will be based off of the Taepodong-2 and will have a range of 1500 miles. [7] It will not be able to reach the U.S. and we can easily shoot it down.[1]

No Germany was not. They were progressively building more military equipment as the war waged on. [10] They weren't militarily capable early on. For instance, when German soldiers invaded the Rhineland, they were given orders to retreat if the encountered allies. They did not. [11]
Germany came to power through appeasement and they would not able to hold onto their territories in the event France and Britain decided to fight them. Germany was not strong, they were simply fattening off of the policy of appeasement. We will not make the same mistake with Iran

In conclusion

Iranian missiles will be able to be shot down by the U.S. seeing as they will be based off of North Korea's Taepodong-2, which we are already prepared to shoot down, and have shorter ranges.

The U.S. has a strong military presence in the Middle East and I have the sources showing we do. We can easily stop an invasion.

Many Israeli enemies can't attack and the ones that can posses weak militaries. Iran is blocked, Libya is in a war of their own, and Egypt is next to the Arabian peninsula which houses several U.S. military bases. Syria, Jordan, etc don't have militaries comparable to Israel and I have sources for that as well.

For these reasons the U.S. has no reason to sacrifice the tremendous sacrifices of resources and men required in a war with Iran.

I therefore call on the voters to vote Con.

Sources:
[1] http://www.spacewar.com...
(U.S. is able to shoot down ICBM's from Aegis class missile cruisers.)

[2] http://www.globalfirepower.com...
(Listing of military strengths by each country, potential Israeli enemies are far below)

[3] http://en.wikipedia.org...
(Ongoing civil war in Libya where the Libyan government is fighting hard to put down inadequately trained and armed rebels)

[4] http://www.globemaster.de...
(list of U.S. military bases with several being located in Qatar, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, Iraq, Afghanistan etc)

[5] http://en.wikipedia.org...
(U.S. presence in Iraq and Iraqi military strength. 50,000 U.S. soldiers and 800,000+ Iraqi soldiers)

[6] http://en.wikipedia.org...(2001%E2%80%93present)
(Amount of U.S. soldiers in Afganistan, 90,000)

[7] http://www.jcpa.org...
(My opponents source which claims that the Iranian ICBM will be based of the North Korean Taepodong-2)

[8] http://en.wikipedia.org...
(U.S. F-22 Raptor. 5th generation stealth fighter. The U.S. is the only nation to have a 5th generation fighter)

[9] http://en.wikipedia.org...
(U.S. B-2 stealth bomber.)
Debate Round No. 3
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by F-16_Fighting_Falcon 5 years ago
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
(cont from below comment): SG to Con to cancel out Ryan_Thomas's votebomb.
Posted by F-16_Fighting_Falcon 5 years ago
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
cont from RFD: Con gave sources from more unbiased sources like global firepower and the US Department of defense. Pro actually gave blogs as sources! While Pro in later rounds fought back with .edu sources, they did not directly support his argument which was that the US must instigate a war with Iran. Con's sources on military strength on the other hand directly supported his arguments that the Iranian military is weaker than the US and Israeli military. I changed my vote on sources both because I hadn't examined them carefully earlier and also because ryan_thomas changed his vote for no reason at all and tried to get Con to lose.
Posted by quarterexchange 5 years ago
quarterexchange
Ryan, do you have something against me? The first time, you voted you gave my opponent sources and arguments. Arguments is fine, but why did you give him sources? Then with Falcon votes and the debates a tie, you come back and give my opponent conduct. You don't even give a reason.
Posted by quarterexchange 5 years ago
quarterexchange
Ryan, can you explain how my sources were somehow inferior or less reliable than my opponent's?
Posted by quarterexchange 5 years ago
quarterexchange
You also ignored the fact that Germany was allowed to become powerful from the European way of appeasement which allowed Hitler to conquer swathes of territory.
Posted by quarterexchange 5 years ago
quarterexchange
You didn't read the debate Medic. You completely ignored my argument that Iran geographically can't attack Israel, isn't able to build a rocket that we cannot shoot down, and has no militarily powerful allies.
Posted by quarterexchange 6 years ago
quarterexchange
We can shoot down any nuke Iran can build.
Posted by Djharlow 6 years ago
Djharlow
I do not think we should attack Iran, the last thing the U.S needs is another war. But I do think that we should do something about the nukes they have.
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by F-16_Fighting_Falcon 5 years ago
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
CrazyRepublicanquarterexchangeTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: To advocate making a pre-emptive strike against Iran, there must be a very good reason and Pro failed to give one that was convincing enough. Pro loses conduct for making claims that Iran sponsors terrorism, and portraying it in a way as to appeal to the emotions of the voters and make them afraid of Iran. Sources to Con because ryan_thomas votebombed him and actually changed his vote without explanation so that Con would lose and also because (see comments)
Vote Placed by ryan_thomas 5 years ago
ryan_thomas
CrazyRepublicanquarterexchangeTied
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:70 
Reasons for voting decision: CR had more convincing arguments, especially with the whole get them while their week attitude.
Vote Placed by medic0506 5 years ago
medic0506
CrazyRepublicanquarterexchangeTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: VRDTP
Vote Placed by askbob 5 years ago
askbob
CrazyRepublicanquarterexchangeTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: jar banned his vote removed
Vote Placed by liljohnny818 6 years ago
liljohnny818
CrazyRepublicanquarterexchangeTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:32 
Reasons for voting decision: I had to vote Pro because I was more convinced by the 'handling the issue now to prevent the future" rather than what I felt that Con was arguing. I felt con was arguing Iran isn't powerful now, but pro was arguing Iran will be powerful and we need to stop it now. Also, Con used a ton of sources, all credible, so he definitely gets the point there.
Vote Placed by detachment345 6 years ago
detachment345
CrazyRepublicanquarterexchangeTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Con had better arguments, and Pro never brought up terrorism at all. That point is irrelevant.
Vote Placed by Aaronroy 6 years ago
Aaronroy
CrazyRepublicanquarterexchangeTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:51 
Reasons for voting decision: The US Military stated that terrorism is the greatest threat to US national security, so I'd have to go with Pro, being that Iran is the global sponsor of terrorism.