The Instigator
16kadams
Con (against)
Winning
3 Points
The Contender
cheesedingo1
Pro (for)
Losing
1 Points

Warr on Terror

Do you like this debate?NoYes-3
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 1 vote the winner is...
16kadams
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/30/2012 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,007 times Debate No: 23283
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (30)
Votes (1)

 

16kadams

Con

War on terror - The governments war on terror in attempt to curb terrorism. Also known as post 9/11 security measures.

My opponent affirms it, I negate it.

BOP even.

1st round acceptance.

This debate is lax, so dont vote on S/G. Other then that it is fairly formal, though a little bit of fooling around is ok, just no trolling.
cheesedingo1

Pro


I'm ready. This war on terror is meant to curb terrorism.


CHEESEDINGO1 ACCEPTS.
Debate Round No. 1
16kadams

Con

C1: The war on terror is deadly

The reason for the war on terror is good, save lives and protect people, [1] but thats NOT its outcome. Iraq has had one million deaths, and 100 thousand innocent [civilian] lives lost. [2] Afghanistan (war on terror too) killed 1800 US coalition troops. [3] And here is a nifty graph on civilian deaths in afghanistan:



http://www.guardian.co.uk...

So in breif, war on terror no es bueno..

Further it leads to more terrosism.
"It found that the number killed in jihadist attacks around the world has risen dramatically since the Iraq war began in March 2003. The study compared the period between 11 September 2001 and the invasion of Iraq with the period since the invasion. The count -- excluding the Arab-Israel conflict -- shows the number of deaths due to terrorism rose from 729 to 5,420. As well as strikes in Europe, attacks have also increased in Chechnya and Kashmir since the invasion. The research was carried out by the Centre on Law and Security at the NYU Foundation for Mother Jones magazine." [4]
= increased terrorism!!

Makes sense, people are less likely to hate us when we keep to ourselves, hate us more when we invade them and kill their freinds in the name of safety. Makes sense.

C2: Loss of liberty!!

Lazy so let me quote!!

"The USA PATRIOT Act (commonly known as the Patriot Act) is an Act of the U.S. Congress that was signed into law by President George W. Bush on October 26, 2001. The title of the act is a ten letter backronym (USA PATRIOT) that stands for Uniting (and) Strengthening America (by) Providing Appropriate Tools Required (to) Intercept (and) Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001."[5]

Sounds great, but the underlined part is easily abused.

"Just six weeks after the September 11 attacks, a panicked Congress passed the "USA/Patriot Act," an overnight revision of the nation's surveillance laws that vastly expanded the government's authority to spy on its own citizens, while simultaneously reducing checks and balances on those powers like judicial oversight, public accountability, and the ability to challenge government searches in court." [6]

4th amdendment:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."[7]

Guess what the patrios infringes in that! The italicised part!!!

"On December 31, 2011, President Obama signed the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), codifying indefinite military detention without charge or trial into law for the first time in American history." [8]

Ok, no trials jail forever if I piss them off, no biggie. NO HUGE BIGGIE

5th amendment:
"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." [9]

National Defense Authorization Act does:
  • Trial is not guarentreed
  • No due process
  • Deprived liberty

The 5th amendment states:

  • right to trial
  • due process
  • liberty

See the problems? Plus:

"The Obama administration is making the unprecedented claim that it has the unilateral authority to kill any American it deems to pose a threat to the country. " [10]

THAT IS THE WAR ON TERROR, YOU LOOK MUSLIM? BAG HIM AND SHOOT HIM!!! No, that is the war on terror, killing and arresting people that look muslim or suspicios. But:

"The clauses incorporated within the Fifth Amendment outline basic constitutional limits on police procedure. The Framers derived the Grand Juries Clause and the Due Process Clause from the Magna Carta, dating back to 1215. Scholars consider the Fifth Amendment as capable of breaking down into the following five distinct constitutional rights: grand juries for capital crimes, a prohibition on double jeopardy, a prohibition against required self-incrimination, a guarantee that all criminal defendants will have a fair trial, and a promise that the government will not seize private property without paying market value." [9]

So killing or arresting without a trial is ok? No, its not. The war on terror is liberty eating and unconstitutional.

CONCLUSION:

Really my last sentence is the most important, it eats our liberties and is unconstitutional. It increases terrorism etc. War on terror? No thanks.



[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[4] http://www.alternet.org...
[5] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[6] http://www.aclu.org...
[7] http://www.law.cornell.edu...
[8] https://www.aclu.org...
[9] http://www.law.cornell.edu...
[10] http://www.usatoday.com...
cheesedingo1

Pro

Wow. For a lax debate, you sure went all out. Anyway, lets get right into this!

Introduction: For my argument, I will attack my opponent's case, state my case, and then enter into the "fooling around" my opponent stated in his first round. You will all enjoy it!

First, my opponents case.

C1: My opponent states that the idea for this war on terror is deadly, for that is his the title for his first contention. But my opponent ignores the fact that every single war is deadly. In WWII, 60 million people died[1]. In the Vietnam War, over 2 million died[2].The Napoleonic Wars had from 3 million to 7 million estimated deaths. I could just name off 3 wars that happened with way more casualties, and 2 out of the three were several years shorter (I assume it has been 11 years, since my opponent called this "post 9/11 security measures"). Of course there is going to be more casualties if there is more years that the year has happened.

So in breif, war on terror sí es bueno...

My opponent goes on to say that because of this war, more terrorism is happening. There is no denying that, but in WWII, when Hitler was killing the Jews, did the death toll go down during the war? Of course not! It went up. When in a war, more acts of violence will indeed occure.

Makes sense, people are less likely to hate us when we keep to ourselves, hate us more when we invade them and kill their freinds in the name of safety. Makes sense.

From the beginning, they hated us. They started this post 9/11 terror war by causing the 9/11 bombing themselves. If we kept to ourselves, and didn't act, they would continue to bomb us and bomb us and bomb us untill we were so weak, that we would be an easy target to destroy.

C2: My opponent's arguments are based on contridictions within the amendments and laws passed by our 2 latest presidents. The reason for this is because when circumstances change, our actions must as well. If we looked at every contridiction within our government, we would have books after books after books describing them. In the 8th ammendment, it says how you will not expereince cruel and unusual punishment by the government[4]. But then it says in the 13 that one will not expereience slavery except as a punishable crime[5]. The slaves were treated like crap, to say the least, and one is issued a crime by the government, correct? So if one is sent to work for someone as a slave or servent, and the person that that slave is issued to expereinces cruel and/or unusual punishment, then isn't that going against itself? Another fault of the 8th ammendment is that the government controls the FBI[6], and the FBI often has to do interrogations on people that have information that they need. When interrogated, if they don't comply, they will be subjected to CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT. What i'm trying to say is that often the U.S.A. has to change around things in order to make things work. If we had to break an ammendment or defend ourselves if there is a 3rd world war that requires us to break an ammendment to win, we will obviously break the ammendment. We must defend ourselves, lest we be destroyed by the terrorists.

The war on terror is liberty eating and unconstitutional.
Liberty eating? The war is saving lives! We are defending ourselves from terrorists! There is nothing wrong with defending ourselves! If a bully is beating you up, and you just sit there and not defend youself, you will be left scarred, hurt, in a lot of pain, vulnerable, and crushed. The same would happen with America if we just let the terrorist have there way and bomb us to the point of no return.

====================================================================================
Now, onto my points.

C1: It is an act of self defense.
My called this war "post 9/11 security measures", so I assume that this means that the Terrorist's started this war as a result of 9/11. My argument for this is in rebutle for his 2nd contention in the 3rd paragraph. So basically, we need to defend ourselves or else the terrorists will continue to act until we are all but rubble.

C2:.....actually, C1 is my main case, and I had more, but I covered them in my rebutles on my opponent. Except for my next contention.....


Now, for the moment you've all been waiting for......
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
C2: The battle on WARR.
My opponent stated in the resolution the WARR (with two "R"s.). I saw the resolution, so I typed WARR into google, and it came up as this: http://en.wikipedia.org...Sources

Don't be shy, click on the source. Warr, is in fact, a GUITAR company, that makes Guitars that have more strings and requires less action. Then, I typed in "terrorist" and "warr", and this came up.
http://i.ytimg.com...

Ok, so the point to all of this is that if people killed eachother with guitars, this world will be incredibally chaotic, and all of us will not see guitars anymore as acoustic art makers, but death metal destroyers. On the topic of death metal, because of the violence that will occur because of guitars, death metal will be the only music we listen to that includes guitars.

Conclusion: War is bad. Warr is worse. Freedom wins.

Thank you



[1]"http://www.bbc.co.uk...

[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...

[3] http://www.historyofwar.org...

[4] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[5] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[6] http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 2
16kadams

Con

C1: The war on Terror is deadly

My opponent concedes the point by saying every war is deadly, but the wars he cited (well WWII) was justified, the others are debatable. But we must ask, is the war on terror justified? The fact that all wars are deadly is irrelevant, we must ask if the loss of life is justifiable. If (throughout this debate) I prove is unjustified, then it is a waste of life and the point stands. So really this contention now relies on your overall arguments as well as mine.

My opponent then concedes the whole debate: "So in breif, war on terror sí es bueno..."

And then my opponent takes a step further saying invading their country does mean they will be more aggressive, you claim acts of violence will increase. So in all reality so far you are just handing me the arguments in C1, I guess I can appreciate that.

Then my opponent says they already hated us, etc. Now, I will not deny they pre hated us, but I contend the war on terror made it WORSE. Its like someone hates you, if you hit their face they will likely hate you more. There are many anger related angers, so to speak, but one of them is called sudden or hasty anger. This anger is made on decisions that are meant for SELF PRESERVATION. [1] Now, being invaded threatens your feeling, it makes you worried, and you will likely be meaner to the invaders then before they decided to flatten a few towns. This type anger happens when they are tormented or trapped. Many might feel trapped if invaded. The second type of anger is settled and deliberate. This action is perceived from deliberate harms taken against you or loved ones.[1] This is a large component of terrorism, and us invading them is a way for terrorists to use the new anger (this anger will be used to gain new members) as the invasion[s] will trigger this emotion. Then the last type of anger is due to personality types. Your argument is correct, they already hated us, but the basic types of anger[1] made it escalate. You must now refute psychology.

So let me linger on the beginning of my opponents refutation to this on all wars are bad, and I argued this does not matter unless he proves this specifics wars death justified. "The non-aggression principle (also called the non-aggression axiom, the anti-coercion principle, the zero aggression principle, the non-initiation of force), or NAP for short, is a moral stance which asserts that aggression is inherently illegitimate."[2]
Note the part where aggression is unjustified. Now, my opponents case is it is justified as it is in defense, they killed 2000 of us. The war on terror (as stated) kills even more of us and also kills innocent civilians. As defense is, in my opinion, NOT justified if there are foreseeable harms that will likely occur to innocent people (wars always hurt innocents). As this is the case it is still unjustifiable, and it is harder to justify as it has bad effects on freedom.

C2: Freedom

My opponent here (not to be rude) actually shows constitution illiteracy, as my opponents arguments fail to see the things he claimed save his argument: circumstances. It was always unconstitutional to have slaves, but when you have half of the country owning slaves it is nearly impossible to do anything without enforcing it. Based on the courts, slavery always unconstitutional (once they defined the 8th amendment). [3] But this fails to prove his point, as circumstances DO NOT trump the constitution. Also, my opponent argument fails as it needs to define punishment. Punishment is defined as retribution towards poor behavior. [4] So, really slavery is constitutional under 8th amendment purposes, BUT is unconstitutional under other parts of the amendments. So really, circumstances should not dictate the constitution, hence your argument mainly dodges my point.

Then you show FBI interrogations. The FBI does non coercive interrogations (so you can say no) and actually cant torture you based on constitutional grounds. [5] Hence your argument fails on a factual basis, the constitution trumps interrogation no matter the circumstance. Hence the "law of the land" trumps all. SO the argument fails.

And yes, I have already proven the war on terror liberty eating, it erodes freedom. It essentially burns the 5th amendment, and it eats and poops out the 4th amendment, that is liberty eating. Also "saving lives" has nothing to do with liberty, and the war on terror cant even accomplish that goal either.

“As can be seen, annual terrorism fatality risks, particularly for areas outside of war zones, are less than one in one million and therefore generally lie within the range regulators deem safe or acceptable, requiring no further regulations, particularly those likely to be expensive. They are similar to the risks of using home appliances (200 deaths per year in the United States) or of commercial aviation (103 deaths per year). Compared with dying at the hands of a terrorist, Americans are twice as likely to perish in a natural disaster and nearly a thousand times more likely to be killed in some type of accident. The same general conclusion holds when the full damage inflicted by terrorists — not only the loss of life but direct and indirect economic costs — is aggregated. As a hazard, terrorism, at least outside of war zones, does not inflict enough damage to justify substantially increasing expenditures to deal with it.”

Indeed, while 9/11 was undoubtedly a terrible tragedy, so are thousands of other deaths throughout the country every year. Further, pre-9/11 terrorism was actually in a decline and even today terrorism has still not reached its all-time high."[6] [7]
***

Rc1: Defense

I refuted this above.

Rc2: WARR

My opponent then uses semantics, but it does not matter as this does not help his case. As I mispelt the resolution, lets see if it makes sense using the actual definition of warr:

Guitar company on terror[ism]

That makes no sense, hence the semantics dont work. Also having a war over guitars means people die over nothing, hence the semantics is a red herring.

CONCLUSION

My opponent conceded a second time in his conclusion: "War is bad" Then made an ironic statement of: "Freedom wins". Now, the funny thing is I showed the war on terror ate freedom and stepped on our constitution, a docunment that protects our rights. So, really, here is my conclusion:

- War on Terror is liberty eating
- UNCONSTITUTIONAL
- KILLS MORE PEOPLE THEN IT "SAVES"
- Terrorism is a false threat
- You cant fight an "ism", it will therefore never end.

For these reasons it it pretty clear who should win this debate, so far the answer is CON. This quote (common, but contra reminded me to use it by showing it in the comments) presented this:

"Those who sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither."
- Benjamin Franklin



___________
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[4] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[5] http://www.fbi.gov...
[6] Brian Michael Jenkins [Senior Advisor to the President at the RAND Corporation]. Would-Be Warriors: Incidents of Jihadist Terrorist Radicalization in the United States Since September 11, 2001. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation . 2010. p. 8.
[7] (here is where I found the quote) http://www.debate.org...
cheesedingo1

Pro

C1:My opponent concedes the point by saying every war is deadly
I can't concede this point, for it is pure fact. There can't be a way that war isn't deadly. Deadly is defined as "causing or tending to cause death; fatal; lethal"[1]. There is no war that had a death toll of less than one.

But we must ask, is the war on terror justified? The fact that all wars are deadly is irrelevant, we must ask if the loss of life is justifiable
This war is completely justified! As I have said, Al Qaeda bombed the twin towers. They expected it to institute a massive amount of fear into the American's hearts. If we went along as they planned and didn't act, they would be bombing America continuously as we speak. letting them destroy America is in no way justified! Us acting, and retaliating after 9/11 is justified. I would like my opponent to clarify how letting them bomb us and not acting would be justified.

My opponent then concedes the whole debate: "So in breif, war on terror sí es bueno..."
"si es bueno" translated means "yes it's good". I was contradicting my opponent when he said "no es bueno". So if i'm conceding somehow, I would like clarification on how it is, and if I somehow am, and I did the opposite of my opponent, he too conceded this whole debate.

And then my opponent takes a step further saying invading their country does mean they will be more aggressive, you claim acts of violence will increase. So in all reality so far you are just handing me the arguments in C1, I guess I can appreciate that.
My opponent did a somewhat unfair point in his first argument by stating that the war on terror is deadly. I cannot go against that, but my opponent must show a single war that wasn't deadly. Hm? Anyone? Bueler? Bueler? The war is of course deadly, but if we didn't participate, the result would also be deadly (read my first paragraph).

Now, I will not deny they pre hated us, but I contend the war on terror made it WORSE. Its like someone hates you, if you hit their face they will likely hate you more.
First of all, I win the point on pre-hating. Secondly, my opponent uses a bully analogy. To strengthen my first argument, when someone punches you, won't you want to hit back? Of course. Now, back to this analogy. If the bully punches us, are they going to be satisfied with one punch? Of course not! They will hit you and hit you and hit you, and in this case, bomb us and bomb us and bomb us. They are not going to let up. As for the rest of his argument on this point, he is only strengthening my argument. He talks about anger, revenge, and fighting back, which is what I'm saying how it was right for America to do this, and how it is justified.

NAP for short, is a moral stance which asserts that aggression is inherently illegitimate
My opponent says that aggression is illegitimate, so my opponent is saying we should just do nothing and and let Al Qaeda bomb us and bomb us? My opponent throughout his entire argument is stating on and on about how violence and aggression is bad. My opponent is saying we should just allow ourselves to be bombed and not do anything, because reaction would go against the "NAP". Wow. Just wow.

kills even more of us and also kills innocent civilians
Umm, sorry to say, in every war innocent civilians are killed. WWII(the jews). Civil war(people that didn't act had their houses burned by enemy soldiers). Revolutionary War(britain attacked and took over civilain's houses and often killed many of them just so that they could have a peaceful 10 minute resting stop). Every war has innocent civilians killed.


C2)
First of all, it was kind of rude. I went to my bed and cried after reading this. Anyways, my opponent is showing flaws in my argument about the constitution and the ammendments and all that. Well, the Constitution and the Ammendments were made by mere men. Humanity has flaws, as you can see, there is war. The government is flawed. If it was perfect, then we wouldn't be in debt, we would all have jobs, and cheese would reign from the sky (not really, but you get what I mean). If something in government somehow enraged every single person in the U.S., they would take it out. They would not like to get overthrown.

I have already proven the war on terror liberty eating, it erodes freedom
Hm. freedon eroding. Liberty eating. So, again, just taking it and allowing ourselves to be destroyed is not liberty eating and freedom eroding? Seems like dying takes away our freedom.

My opponent then chatters on with lots of fancy numbers and death tolls and all that to try and make it seem like non-action is the way to go, because continuing on with this would just continue death tolls. Well, I think i've explained my case on how non-action isn't justified thuroughly enough so that we can move on.

RC1: Refuted above.

RC2:
That makes no sense, hence the semantics dont work. Also having a war over guitars means people die over nothing, hence the semantics is a red herring.
Well, if people have a war over guitars, I said how guitars would be seen as weapons, and people would die by guitars. It is not a red herring, instead of battling with guns and knives, we would beat eachother with guitars. This does make sense.

Also on this topic, my opponent in the comments shows lots of hate to this topic, so if he wants to concede this point to me, i'm all for it....

My opponent conceded a second time in his conclusion: "War is bad" Then made an ironic statement of: "Freedom wins". Now, the funny thing is I showed the war on terror ate freedom and stepped on our constitution, a docunment that protects our rights.
So, I will clarify my points. War is bad: All war is bad. Death is bad. There is death in war. No getting around it. Freedom wins: Reaction is better than surrender. Surrender takes away our freedom more than fighting back.

Then he goes on to quote old Benjy.

"Those who sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither."
- Benjamin Franklin

I'm tired of having to keep saying this, but surrender takes away our liberty more than fighting back. And by quoting this, he is only helping my argument by talking about security. Answer me this, Riddler. If we fight back, are we losing more security than surrendering? Isn't surrending giving up our security once and for all? Of course. Thank you for agreeing with me.

Conclusion: My conclusion is simple: Reaction is better than surrender.

Thank you.
___________________________________________________
[1]http://dictionary.reference.com...


Woah, only one source? Sorry, everyone. If it is necessary, I will get more next argument.
Debate Round No. 3
16kadams

Con

C1: War on terror is deadly

My opponent thinks I conceded this, well of course I did it bolsters my position! He actually (in his argument) essentially concedes C1, thinking it may help him dodge the question. war: "a conflict carried on by force of arms, as between nations or between parties within a nation; warfare, as by land, sea, or air. " [1] So yes, all war inevitably leads to bloodshed, thats kinda my point. All wars are bad due to that reasoning...

My opponents claims are it is justified as in defense, but we MUST look at the other things the war has killed, not just the soldiers. Now, more civilians where killed in the war on terror (stated earlier) then soldiers, these civilians where innocent. Killing civilians is justified? As thett3 argued (I trust his math more then mine) he got[2] a 6.4:1 ratio. Civilians are killed over 6 times more then military troops. Also as stated, the war on terror increases terrorism,[2] hence the war on terror is still not justified.
“ ..a strong correlation exists between U.S. involvement in international situations and an increase in terrorist attacks against the United States.”[2, 3]
My opponent has failed to justify the loss of life.

Sorry, you never conceded, I read it wrong :P. It was not even relating to the argument anyway.

"My opponent did a somewhat unfair point in his first argument by stating that the war on terror is deadly. I cannot go against that, but my opponent must show a single war that wasn't deadly. [irrelevant, all wars are bad due to that reason] Hm? Anyone? Bueler? Bueler? [good movie] The war is of course deadly, but if we didn't participate, the result would also be deadly (read my first paragraph)."

Bold = concedes most of C1. Italics = irrelevant, death is always a downside in war, and has no bearing on the war on terror.
My opponent claims if we had no action, it would be deadly, so POST 9/11. Iraq war = 24k dead. [4] Now, we cannot use 9/11 in our kill count data as we are arguing post 9/11 procedures. I could throw on many other wars onto this, but lets stick with iraq. no terrorist attack has made to 24k, and the terrorist attepmts in the US (very few) would not have killed many people. (mainly bombs) The war on terror, as we can easily see, would logically increase the body count.

Now, if someone hit me I might hit them back, but once again this falls under the point outlined last round. Depending on the circumstance, can they hit back will it come back etc. The war on terror comes back harder (increasig body count) and increases acts of violence. [3]


"My opponent says that aggression is illegitimate, so my opponent is saying we should just do nothing and and let Al Qaeda bomb us and bomb us? My opponent throughout his entire argument is stating on and on about how violence and aggression is bad. My opponent is saying we should just allow ourselves to be bombed and not do anything, because reaction would go against the "NAP". Wow. Just wow."

Yes, that is my stance, you have failed to argue in justificsation as I have shown war on terror increases deat tolls and causes more acts of terrorism. Simple argunmentation which you have avoided.

My opponent cites many wars, in different circimstances. First the reason we entered WWII was not for the jews, it was mainly to save britans a**. SO they can rule the waves again. Further, the downside to that war was also the death tolls, but the innocent argunment I use it totally different then yours. Mine it OUR troops KILLING their people, the WWII analogy fails as it is a government killing its own people, not others. (it is technically theirs, conquers can impose what they want on the vanquished according to caesar). And the civil war could have been avoided if my distant relative james buchanan haden't been a bump on the log.

Basically, your analogies fail to refute C1. The war on terror kills inncocent civilians AND increases the death count. All wars (well most) have this downside, C1 stands.

C2: Liberty!!

What was rude? The constitution is the law of the land, we have to change it to allow the war on terror, we have not, so even if they "made mistakes" while writing it thats irrelevant as it is well the law!

My opponent claims being killed is liberty eating, this is false as I have done a few things this debate which he has ignored:
1) war on terror = more terrorist attacks (proven a lot)
2) terrorism is a false threat (lets do it again)

"What it proves is that terrorist attacks are very rare, and maybe our reaction wasn't worth the enormous expense, loss of liberty, attacks on our Constitution and damage to our credibility on the world stage. "[5]

Simple as that, no war on terror would have any effect, but the war is linked to more deaths. [3]

My opponent has still not refuted the key to this debate:
National Defense Authorization Act does:
  • Trial is not guarentreed
  • No due process
  • Deprived liberty

The 5th amendment states:

  • right to trial
  • due process
  • liberty

Patriot act:

  • Government can spy on us now
  • reduce checks and blances
  • Because of this ^ makes it harder to block unreasonable searches.

4th amendment:

  • Cann be spyed upon, things taken away etc without due process

Clear violations of 4 and 5. This here is enough to vote con.

Rc1: above :D

Rc2: Warr -_-

I concede this point, as it is mainy semantics I hope it has no/little effect. Although the resolution states "warr" it is obvious I meant war. Instead of countering this point I will drop it. My opponent and I agree this is NOT the resolution concesion (as it is obvious what I meant) but rather a simple drop of one minor point. My opponent will affirm this too next round.
***

End summary war:

" I will clarify my points. War is bad: All war is bad. Death is bad. There is death in war. No getting around it. Freedom wins: Reaction is better than surrender. Surrender takes away our freedom more than fighting back."

I recomend all voters read the bolded part. For italics read on:

War on terror as I have stated 100 times this round is unjustifiabe. Surender takes away no freedom, not at all. Analysis above. If anything this darn war takes it all away. *cries*

Benjamin franklin was right, surrender does not take away freedom, you never proved this, reaction = people dying (more of them) and loss of freedom.

CONCLUSION

"Those who sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither."
- Benjamin Franklin


And people (more people) die[d] because of our "reaction".

That is all.




references:
_________
[1] http://dictionary.reference.com...
[2] http://www.debate.org...
[3] Ivan Eland, "DOES U.S. INTERVENTION OVERSEAS BREED TERRORISM? The Historical Record" CATO, CATO foreign policy, December 17, 1998
[4] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[5] http://www.schneier.com...
cheesedingo1

Pro

Ah. So, we reach the final argument on this War(r) on terror. I start off by thanking pro for his arguments. Now, let us begin!

C1: So yes, all war inevitably leads to bloodshed, thats kinda my point. All wars are bad due to that reasoning...

This is a neutral point. If we didn't attack them, we would have bloodshed from being attacked. If we attack them, there is going to be obvious bloodshed. When there is conflict amongst nations, there is going to bloodshed. This point can go to both of us.

Killing civilians is justified? As thett3 argued (I trust his math more then mine) he got[2] a 6.4:1 ratio. Civilians are killed over 6 times more then military troops.

Well, think of it this way. If we didn't fight back, would we be using any troops at all? NO! If my opponent wants ratios, which has a higher ratio: 6:4:1 or 1:0? There is no troop death, so that will remain 0. 1 over 0 is a ratio of of civilian deaths way higher than 6:4:1. My opponent uses fancy numbers, so I will explain this better.

1:0
1x6=6
0x6=0

Ratio also equals 6:0. If you want to get even more in depth, it can go all the way to "Infinity:0"!

Now, lets compare.

6:0 compared to 6:4:1......I win. My opponent bringing up death ratios only helps my case even more.

My opponent has failed to justify the loss of life.

Wow. You want to be like that? My opponent doesn't either! If we don't fight back, we will be killed. Can my opponent justify THAT?

"My opponent did a somewhat unfair point in his first argument by stating that the war on terror is deadly. I cannot go against that, but my opponent must show a single war that wasn't deadly. [irrelevant, all wars are bad due to that reason] Hm? Anyone? Bueler? Bueler? [good movie] The war is of course deadly, but if we didn't participate, the result would also be deadly (read my first paragraph)."

Bold = concedes most of C1. Italics = irrelevant, death is always a downside in war, and has no bearing on the war on terror.

My opponent claims if we had no action, it would be deadly, so POST 9/11. Iraq war = 24k dead. [4] Now, we cannot use 9/11 in our kill count data as we are arguing post 9/11 procedures. I could throw on many other wars onto this, but lets stick with iraq. no terrorist attack has made to 24k, and the terrorist attepmts in the US (very few) would not have killed many people. (mainly bombs) The war on terror, as we can easily see, would logically increase the body count.

Bold = concedes most of C1.
I already explained, death is always in war. Death is inevitable in surrender as well. I did not concede.

Italics = irrelevant, death is always a downside in war, and has no bearing on the war on terror.

Tsk tsk. Even the great 16kadams loses his conduct in this debate. My opponent is picking bits and peices, and calling vital peices of information "irrelevant".

Anyway, my opponent is contradicting himself. Death has no bearing on the war on terror?! Isn't that exactly what his entire first contention is about?!?!?! That is what the rest of his argument is about: the death of this war. He completely contradicts himself, and no matter what, one way side that he sticks to, it is contradicting himself.

Now, if someone hit me I might hit them back, but once again this falls under the point outlined last round. Depending on the circumstance, can they hit back will it come back etc. The war on terror comes back harder (increasig body count) and increases acts of violence. [3]
My opponent must really enjoy this bully analogy. Anyway, when someone hits someone, they hit back, eventually causing a huge fight (war, in this case). This won't stop until either:

1. someone runs away to their mother (surrender)

or

2. Someone loses (winning the war).

My opponent thinks we should run away to our mother liberty. I say we fight back. Again, America is better than this.


Yes, that is my stance, you have failed to argue in justificsation as I have shown war on terror increases deat tolls and causes more acts of terrorism. Simple argunmentation which you have avoided.

My opponent, again, acts as though if we don't act, we will all be happy. THAT IS NOT THE CASE. If we don't do anything, they will bomb us. Now, I provide this graph:
http://www.google.com...


It shows here that Iraq has 32 million as of today. It shows that we have 309 million. If we kill them all (which we won't), that is a death toll of 40 million (i added 8 million for my estimate of the death of American troops). Then, if we got bombed until we were all dead, that would reach a death toll of 200 million (I took away 100 million, because I'm sure lots would try to evacuate).

Now, for the math:

200million or 40 million? .... I rest my case.

C2: Liberty!!

1) war on terror = more terrorist attacks (proven a lot)
2) terrorism is a false threat (lets do it again)

Oh HELL NO! You did NOT just say that! Terrorism is a false threat?!?! I am genuinly pissed right now. Your talking about all of the deaths because of it, but now your saying it's not a threat? It obviously is, i mean look at your own argument! Your contradicting yourself right and left.

As for my opponent's arguments on finding contradictions in the constitution, I find no point in saying how it contradict's itself. This does not have to do with the war on terror.

Rc1: Above for me too! :D

Rc2: Warr
-_-
Everyone reading this, I first apoligize for using semantics. I shouldn't have done so. Me and my opponent agreed on dropping this case. Please, no voting based on this point.


End summary war:

" I will clarify my points. War is bad: All war is bad. Death is bad. There is death in war. No getting around it. Freedom wins:Reaction is better than surrender. Surrender takes away our freedom more than fighting back."

I recomend all voters read the bolded part. For italics read on:

War on terror as I have stated 100 times this round is unjustifiabe. Surender takes away no freedom, not at all. Analysis above. If anything this darn war takes it all away. *cries*

AHA. Yet another contradiction.

Allow me to define Surrender.

Surrender:to give (oneself) up into the power of another especially as a prisoner [1]

When you are a prisoner, you have no freedom. My opponent does completely take away freedom. My opponent loses this point.


Conclusion:

"Those who sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither."
- Benjamin Franklin


And people (more people) LIVE because of our "reaction".

I thank my opponent for this great debate. I learned lots from this debate on terror. I also thank the voters for reading this debate.

VOTE FOR CON!

Thank you.





[1]http://www.merriam-webster.com...

Debate Round No. 4
30 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by cheesedingo1 4 years ago
cheesedingo1
I see nothing...
Posted by K.GKevinGeary 4 years ago
K.GKevinGeary
http://i.ytimg.com......

that is a great pic
Posted by lannan13 4 years ago
lannan13
No the most used quote is. "Domestic policy can win you an election, while forgien policy can kill us all." JFK
Posted by 16kadams 4 years ago
16kadams
I need to respond soon, as I am going to be without a computer tomorrow on, lol. Only my phone for a while :(
Posted by Stephen_Hawkins 4 years ago
Stephen_Hawkins
To be perfectly honest, 16kadams is using semantics by semantically changing "warr" to "war" so...
Posted by vmpire321 4 years ago
vmpire321
lmao semantics
Posted by Wallstreetatheist 4 years ago
Wallstreetatheist
That is probably the most used quote in Student Congress debate.
Posted by 16kadams 4 years ago
16kadams
"Those who sacrifice liberty for security lose both and deserve neither."

- Benjamin Franklin

I though that was the quote/
Posted by Contra 4 years ago
Contra
"Those who sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither."

- Benjamin Franklin
Posted by cheesedingo1 4 years ago
cheesedingo1
I'm not an idiot. Im just a guy that naturally pokes fun at things when I have the chance.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by 1dustpelt 4 years ago
1dustpelt
16kadamscheesedingo1Tied
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:31 
Reasons for voting decision: sp is obvious. con spelled war and misspelled wrong. lol "Warr" "Mispelt" Con was very good at refuting Pro's contentions and showed that the War on Terror is harming liberty.