The Instigator
Fogofwar
Pro (for)
Losing
5 Points
The Contender
lddebater540
Con (against)
Winning
8 Points

Was the mission in Afghanistan necessary?

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 - Required
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/26/2011 Category: Politics
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,082 times Debate No: 17283
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (6)
Votes (3)

 

Fogofwar

Pro

The purpose of this will be to determine if our intervention in Afghanistan was necessary or not.
lddebater540

Con

I accept the challenge and negate the resolution.
Debate Round No. 1
Fogofwar

Pro

I will start by saying this: While I do intend to use facts on this subject; and not opinion; I will not be calling upon online sources to verify these facts; as my knowledge on this subject comes from years of scrutinizing; researching, and experience within the Canadian Forces; so I will not be providing links. If you have any questions about the authenticity of my claims; feel free to voice your concerns in the comments by stating which facts you would like to see verification from. This will avoid losing rounds to questioning each others' content. With that; good luck.

I propose to show that the United Nations resolution for Afghanistan was necessary; and that as such; our current mission was needed. For this; I will turn to the past of the nation; to where it all began.

On April 28, 1978, the People's Democratic Party of Afghanistan took to the airwaves to announce that the nation was "in the hands of the people"; and that the days of tyranny were over. A few short hours passed by; and the PDPA issued another announcement on the airwaves: Join the revolutionary army or die. Those who refused to serve under the red flag of communism would be viewed as anti-revolutionary; and be arrested. The PDPA outlawed religion in it's atheist state; and murdered thousands in religious prosecution. This began a 33 year struggle of civil war in Afghanistan.

In 1993, al Qaeda attempted a bombing of the World Trade Centre. Intelligence intercepted the plan; and prevented it from being successful. Continual attacks on US embassies; striking a US ship in 2000; and plans from Osama bin Laden to assassinate Bill Clinton during his presidency all culminated in the US seeking the UN to sanction Afghanistan. The UN did. Constant international unrest at the hands of Afghanistan's radical movements; as well as the constant and violent revolts against the Taliban rule spilling into other nations; led the UN to several sanctions. Afghanistan was on the table for mediation in the earliest years of the 1990s. This nation needed to be dealt with. I propose we consider the following reasons for why this mission was necessary:

1. Radical religious schools were infecting the Islamic nations with movements of recruits joining international terrorist organizations intent on global 'purification' of Allah's way. This idealism that was being spread was not only the death and destruction of all things non Muslim; but also called for the death and destruction of all things Muslim; if they were not in adherence to al Qaeda and the Taliban's interpretation of Islam; as this was considered false Islam; and is seen as the worst of all. We can see evidence of this in the Taliban using helicopters to launch missile attacks on Buddha statues carved into the mountains of Afghanistan; a nation before the civil war that was made up of 3 dominant religions; Buddhism included; because it was, as the Taliban stated: "Offensive to Islam".

2. Increasing opium production that contributes, not only to the drug trade; but to funding terrorism; providing a means to launch devastating attacks; and carry out small arms assaults with military grade weapons. This has also contributed to the increase in drug trafficking in neighbouring nations that has caused increases in violence even outside the borders. To date; the Taliban receives up to $400 million per year in taxes on the opium trade from Afghanistan.

3. The growing organization and structure of terrorist organizations, under protection of the governing body of the nation, allowed for nations with similar agendas to contribute to a force that could inflict severe damage on us and our allies; without having to do it themselves. Iran's Qods Force provided training to the Taliban in Afghanistan on small unit tactics, small arms, explosives, and indirect fire weapons, according to a U.S. State Department terror report. Since at least 2006, Iran has arranged arms shipments to select Taliban members, including small arms and associated ammunition, rocket propelled grenades, mortar rounds, 107mm rockets, and C4 and other plastic explosives, and surface-to-air missiles.

4. Because the Taliban was not the legitimate government of Afghanistan; and at it's peak in 1996; only controlled less than 90% of the country; continued fighting with the democratic government from which the Taliban seized control; who formed, together with Ahmed Massoud; the Northern Alliance (a militant coalition force of virtually all Afghan political parties other than the Taliban) created instability in the region. Afghanistan is central for the trade routes from Central Asia and the Middle East; and also contains land required to transport needed natural gas from the Caspian Sea to many regions of Central Asia. The instability in Afghanistan made it an impossibility for the nations that depended on these trade routes and gas supply to sustain an economy due to the unrest and instability in Afghanistan. Afghanistan was crippling the economy of the entire Central Asian region.

5. International terrorist attacks that resulted in the death of numerous civilians; including over 3000 lives lost on the infamous day of September 11, 2001; a day in which most of us can remember as if it were yesterday.

I propose to conclude that the actions from Afghanistan were infecting the rest of the world; and the talks of intervening in Afghanistan in the 1990s were justified when the twin towers fell and the world was pushed too far.
lddebater540

Con

As a brief overview, I would like to point out that my opponent explicitly stated that he needs to prove that the invasion was necessary, and not just desirable. This means that he must prove that if the U.S. had not invaded Afghanistan, it would have collapsed as a state and would not exist. Please prefer this interpretation over my opponent's objections because he worded the resolution in a manner that gives him this burden. He might claim that it was "necessary to promote our interests", but first, this is unfair because it is extremely vague and allows him to give any justification he wants, and second, in the international arena, the standard definition of necessary action implies that the state's vitality is threatened.

As a second overview, I would like to point out that my opponent must prove that his impacts occurred BEFORE the U.S. invasion because it cannot be necessary to take action against things that have not yet occurred. This will become relevant later on in the debate.

Negative case: The war in Afghanistan was unnecessary because the conflict in the area was between rival factions, and not between the United States and Islamic leaders.

In his book "The Guantanamo Files", historian Andy Worthington contends that the conflicts in Afghanistan were between the Taliban, or the ruling party, and the Northern Alliance, a group of rebels who sought to establish their warlords as the leaders of the nation. Although radical footsoldiers did enter Afghanistan, as Worthington notes, this was to help the Taliban succeed in its conflict with the Northern Alliance, and was not for the purpose of clashing with the United States and other Western republics. In fact, evidence suggests that the Taliban was not even linked to Al Qaeda; a senior intelligence official who was interviewed by David Ross in 2004 conceded that in 1996, no members of the the Taliban belonged to Al Qaeda, and in 2001, only 50 members did. This means that the two groups were unrelated, and there was no reason to enter Afghanistan because the invasion was not necessary to protect the vitality of the United States.

(Source: http://www.alternet.org... )

Moreover, evidence suggests that the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan created a link between the two rival groups. In 1998, Mullah Omar, the leader of the Taliban was on the brink of capturing Osama Bin Laden and releasing him to the custody of the United States, but after the U.S. began to launch missiles against Afghani citizens, the two leaders became close. Despite this, according to Worthington, the Taliban offered to grant the U.S. custody of Bin Laden after the 9/11 attacks if the U.S. provided concrete evidence that he had instigated them. The U.S. refused, causing the two rival organizations to become close. Thus, the United States caused the problem in Afghanistan after 9/11, so it was obviously unnecessary to invade because the problem did not exist until after the invasion.

(Source: http://www.alternet.org...)

Thus, you should negate because the Taliban was not even linked to Al Qaeda until the United States decided to launch its mission.

Let's take a look at my opponent's case.

He begins by discussing the the communist organization, PDPA, but fails to mention that the United States caused the 33-year resulting civil war by funding the Islamic freedom fighters and mujahadeen. This means that the United States understood the true nature of the resulting conflict, and thus had no reason to presume that a terrorist threat existed in Afghanistan. If this is true, then the war was entirely unnecessary.

He then discusses the sanctions that occurred because of Bin Laden's planned adventures, but fails to mention that Bin Laden was not sanctioned by the government of Afghanistan to fight the United States. He may claim that the state knew about Bin Laden's presence and did not eliminate him, but that is not equivalent to state endorsement of his goals. The United States currently has failed to eliminate the Ku Klux Klan and Neo-Nazi organizations, for example, yet we do not hold it accountable by claiming that it has endorsed them and thus has promoted violence against non-whites.

Next, go to his first point about religious schools. First, this does not prove that there was a direct security threat to the United States, and thus does not prove that it was necessary to create a war. Second, the radicalization was able to occur due to the imperialistic image that the U.S. had projected throughout the world. The way to solve this threat, then, was to mitigate this reputation by promoting human rights across the globe, and not by invading a country and radicalizing its people even further. The impact as that the war was both unnecessary and counterproductive because it fueled the terrorism that the U.S. feared in first place.

In his second point, he discussed the opium fields and how the trade was used to fund terrorism. Please cross-apply the Worthington analysis, which explicitly contends that the state did not endorse terrorism because it was in an internal conflict. The fact that the fields are used for that purpose now is irrelevant because the United States caused it to occur by invading and propping up Karzai's abusive regime; it was not used for that purpose before the invasion. The problem could easily have been fixed by promoting anti-drug awareness across the globe and promoting the war against drugs, meaning that other solutions were possible, so the war was unnecessary to solve this.

In his third point, he talks about how Iran has funded the Taliban since 2006. Keep in mind that the U.S. caused this situation through the invasion; it was not occurring before the mission commenced and was thus not a reason to invade. This point is nontopical and should not be considered in this round.

In his fourth point, he concedes the Worthington analysis about the civil war with the Northern Alliance. First, the United States funded the Taliban's takeover, so it must have concluded that it was the legitimate government of that nation. This means that my opponent's analysis about the Taliban being illegitimate is false. Since this is a premise for the rest of the point, the entire point falls based on this one contradiction. Second, the United States was not failing as a result of the crippled Central Asian economy, so it was not necessary to invade Afghanistan, meaning that the mission was false and that you should negate. Thirdly, alternate routes could have been established that avoided Afghanistan, meaning that even if the U.S. was dependent on Central Asia, other solutions existed so it was not necessary to invade.

Finally, he discusses 9/11. Remember that the invasion was not necessary to solve this because the Taliban was not a terrorist organization until the U.S. "mission" and because Afghanistan had offered to hand over Bin Laden, and thus cripple Al Qaeda, to the United States.

Thus, because the war was completely unnecessary, you should negate.
Debate Round No. 2
Fogofwar

Pro

Con challenges that I must prove had the US not invaded Afghanistan, it would have collapsed as a state and would not exist. This is an absurdity. No such claim has to be made. In order for it to be deemed necessary; all one must do is simply provide evidence that without action; it would have devastating effects upon the world; or the nations in question. Action is necessary if the lives of the civilians in the nation are at risk. Over 3000 lives were lost on September 11, 2001. Therefore; action WAS necessary in order to prevent further catastrophes from happening. Al Qaeda even made mention of more to come.

As well, my opponent states that in the international arena; necessary action implies that the state's vitality is threatened; yet this is based solely on his own opinion with not even a grain of truth. In the international arena; 'necessary action' is deemed that which is required to protect ANY sovereign, or large group of people. examples of internationally deemed "necessary action":

Rwanda: no threat existed outside the nation.
Iraq/Kuwait, 1990: no immediate threat existed to OUR state.
Congo
Sudan
Sierra Leon
Gaza Strip/West Bank/Golan Heights/Sinai Peninsula
Cambodia
Haiti
Georgia

The list continues.

Con states:
"Please prefer this interpretation over my opponent's objections…"

This again is another absurdity. To ask for preference over his interpretation over statistical analysis is illogical.

I propose to clarify for con; that we take a look at the definition of the word necessary:

Necessary: noun

1. Of an inevitable nature/logically unavoidable/that cannot be denied without contradiction/determined or produced by the previous condition of things/compulsory
2. absolutely needed/required.

(meriam-webster)

Please prefer the denotative definition of the word to my opponent's personal opinion of his interpretation.

To prove my point, therefore; I must prove that the mission's 'necessity' fits into at least one of these definitions laid out in the dictionary; and not in interpretation of one's mind.

"Of an inevitable nature"
After 9/11, and the failed attacks of 1993; it was clear that al Qaeda had intentions of attacking US soil. They aired broadcasts stating more would follow; and that they were planning additional attacks. This means that death of American citizens was in fact of an INEVITABLE nature.

"logically unavoidable"

After the 9/11 attacks; the collapse of stability in Afghanistan; the effected regions surrounding the nation; and the internationally growing violence at the hands of Afghan based terrorists; such an invasion was clearly logically unavoidable.

"determined or produced by the previous condition of things"

After 9/11; the UN decided that action needed to be taken to prevent further events happening. This is what was 'determined or produced' 'by the previous condition of things', 9/11.

I would ask that my opponent please take the time to address how these points do NOT fit into the definition provided from the meriam-webster dictionary.

"As a second overview, I would like to point out that my opponent must prove that his impacts occurred BEFORE the U.S. invasion because it cannot be necessary to take action against things that have not yet occurred. This will become relevant later on in the debate."

The impact that led to the invasion was the attack on September 11, 2001. The invasion began when president George W. Bush launched Operation Enduring Freedom on October 7, 2001. I would ask that my opponent provide evidence to the contrary if he would like to debate that the impacts did not occur before the invasion.

"Negative case: The war in Afghanistan was unnecessary because the conflict in the area was between rival factions, and not between the United States and Islamic leaders."

This is entirely untrue; as the 9/11 attacks were against the United States. The Embassy attacks were against the United States; as was the bin Laden assassination of Clinton plots. I propose to provide evidence that the impacts occurred before the invasion; and that the conflict did involve the US and Islamic leaders with the following Congressional Research Service document:

http://www.fas.org...

December 1992; al Qaeda bombings target US soldiers in Yemen.
1993; al Qaeda claims responsibility for shooting down US helicopters and killing servicemen in Somalia during Operation Restore Hope.
August 1998: al Qaeda reported conducting the bombings of US Embassies in Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. 301 personnel were killed.
12 October 2000: al Qaeda attacked the USS Cole in port in Yemen; killing 17 US Navy servicemen.

As well al Qaeda failed in their attacks:
1994; plotted assassination of Pope John Paul II in Manila.
1995: plotted assassination of President Bill Clinton in the Philippines; and to bomb a dozen US trans-Pacific airlines.
1999: attempted to bomb Los Angeles International Airport; as well as to carry out terrorist operations against US and Israeli tourists visiting Jordan.

So here we see that both; these impacts occurred BEFORE the US invasion; and that Afghanistan was involved in conflict with the United States citizens and government.

To claim al Qaeda had no ties with the Taliban is simply naive. The following is a list of UN resolutions that state otherwise.
"the fact that the Taliban continues to provide safe haven to Usama bin Laden and to allow him and others associated with him to operate a network of terrorist training camps from Taliban-controlled territory and to use Afghanistan as a base from which to sponsor international terrorist operations...for conspiring to kill American nationals outside the United States, and noting also the request of the United States of America to the Taliban to surrender them for trial"

taken from UN Resolution 1267:
http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org...
also noted in:
http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org...
http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org...
http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org...

As I have provided evidence from the United Nations security council pdf files; taken directly from the United Nations archive that discredit your claim of their being no link between al Qaeda and the Taliban; then this entire argument you made of the invasion strengthening ties, and suggesting they were rivals is entirely void; as it is completely inaccurate.

And so; in your defence of your claims which contradict the UN resolution findings; one must prove that your source is more reliable. I will leave it to those who judge this debate to decide whether or not they feel the United Nations archives are less reliable than alternet.org.

My opponent claims that the United States caused the 33 year year civil war in Afghanistan by funding Islamic freedom fighters known as the Mujahideen. However; this is irrelevant, as it does not negate the necessity to deal with the current situation that was faced in the 1990s and early 2000s. For the record; it should also be known that the US funding, Operation Cyclone, began in 1979, and ended in 1989. The timeframe in which the USSR was invading. The Civil War broke out as a result of the Saur Revolution; which occurred on April 28, 1978.

"The problem could easily have been fixed by promoting anti-drug awareness across the globe and promoting the war against drugs, meaning that other solutions were possible, so the war was unnecessary to solve this."

I do ask that my opponent consider the billions of dollars wasted in this attempt. Anyone who understands first hand what is going on there can tell you what a load of rubbish this is.

My opponent tries to state that Iran has funded the Taliban since 2006. That was the year the research was done; and says no mention of Iranian funding starting that year. It is quite the contrary actual
lddebater540

Con

Before I begin this round, I would like to point out that you should not look to my opponent's sources because his links are flukes-they don't actually point to the evidence he cites. This means that you cannot look to his sources over mine because my links actually provide you with documentation that prove that I am providing you with true information, whereas he can just make false claims and post fake links to "back them up." I will also address the U.N. later in the debate.

Now let's look to the definitional debate.

He tries to refute my definition with his dictionary version, but notice that my interpretation was a logical extension of his idea. His definiton was as follows:

I propose to clarify for con; that we take a look at the definition of the word necessary:

Necessary: noun

1. Of an inevitable nature/logically unavoidable/that cannot be denied without contradiction/determined or produced by the previous condition of things/compulsory
2. absolutely needed/required.

He convieniently skipped the part from HIS OWN SOURCE that said that the action had to be "absolutely required" in order to fulfill the definition of necessary. That does not mean that the action is desireable; rather, it means that there is no other choice available to the group pursuing the action. Also, it means that in the context of the international arena, the state's vitality must be threatened. Otherwise, it would not be "necessary" to perform the actions/invasions because there would be no lasting damage on the state.

He claims that the invasion was necessary because 3000 people died from 9/11. First, as I pointed out earlier, the invasion has not stopped future catastrophes because it has counterproductively radicalized the local population against the United States and has thus provided fertile ground for terrorist recruitment, which actually furthers the likelihood of future catastrophes. Second, please remember that although all deaths are to be condemned, 3000 is not enough to justify a state of "national catastrophe." According to the CDC, over 600,000 people died of heart disease in 2007, which is over 200 times the number of people killed by 9/11, yet we do not consider heart disease to be a national catastrophe. (Source: http://www.cdc.gov... ) This means that his justification for why it was necessary as a catastrophe to not invade falls due to lack of magnitude. This is enough to negate, but I would like to continue discussing his case.

He next sites a bunch of cases in which intervention occurred as a justification as to how such actions were necessary. The problem with this analysis is that it presumes that the United States and other nations only act when they must, but that is empirically denied. The United States did not need to give Haiti donations after the earthquake, for example, yet it did so because it wanted to help ease the suffering of the local populations. The action was not necessary, yet it was done by the United States. Please also note that his interpretation is abusive because it automatically shuts out the negative case; he can just claim that we obviously needed to invade Afghanistan because we did so. That prevents an actual debate from taking place, so this interpretation and the evidence he sites must be denied.

He also mentions that necessary action is needed to protect any large group. That is not true because the nation-state only has the obligation to protect its own citizen's rights and sovereignity. The other people have not agreed to follow the laws of the United States, so it has no obligation to protect their rights. It can do so if it wishes, but it is not necessary for it to help others.

He has no statistical analysis, so please disregard his objection to my observation and extend it in this round. The observation stands, meaning that he must prove that the United States would have been destroyed if it had not invaded Afghanistan. He has not done this, so you must negate.

Next, he gives the 9/11 analysis. Remember, this is taken out by the fact that Al Qaeda was not linked with the Taliban until after the invasion. This is a major point of contention, so I will discuss this later on.

Against my point that the war was unnecessary because the local conflict was between rival factions, he claims that the United States was attacked by Bin Laden. He then gives a document that says that Al Qaeda attacked the United States in 9/11 and that it target embassies. NOTICE THAT THE TEXT OF THE DOCUMENT SAYS "AL QAEDA", and NOT "THE TALIBAN." His own source does not provide a link that proves that The Taliban, which was Afghanistan's ruling party, was responsible for the attacks; it claims that an international terrorist network that is based in mutliple middle-eastern nations, including Libya, Oman, etc. was responsible for the attack. Al Qaeda is not the Taliban, so this is not a reason to invade. I will concede that Al Qaeda was responsible for all of the despicable actions that he lists, but Al Qaeda was not linked to the Taliban at that moment in time, so all of the information is irrelevant.

He then cites the faulty, unlinked U.N. resolutions to counter my Worthington analysis. First, his links are fake, so it would be unfair to look to them in this round because we do not even know what the content of the links says. Second, the United Nations is a political body, and any of its resolutions and actions can be dictated by the UNITED STATES which is a member of the Security Council. Just because the United Nations passed a resolution that the U.S. forced it to does not mean that the resolution is true. Moreover, this point was already addressed in my case when I discussed how the Taliban's leader had offered to turn over Osama Bin Laden to the United States; the U.S. chose to invade Afghanistan instead of listening to him. This means that the U.N. evidence is obviously false. Finally, you should accept my Worthington analysis over his U.N. evidence because Worthington's work is derived from an interview with senior intelligence officials, who are obviously in a better position to understand the truth behind such allegations than a body of U.S.-controlled diplomats. If the SENIOR INTELLIGENCE OFFICIALS CONCEDED that there was no link, then we should trust that information over the information that he gives.

He claims that my point about the U.S. funding the Islamic leaders is irrelevant, but I would like you to examine the text more closely. The actual contention says that "This means that the United States understood the true nature of the resulting conflict, and thus had no reason to presume that a terrorist threat existed in Afghanistan. If this is true, then the war was entirely unnecessary." He completely dropped this part of the analysis and chose to focus on the first line. However, he conceded that the first line was true, so its impact must be true as well. This is sufficient to negate.

He dropped my responses to his point about "radicalization schools", my point about how Bin Laden was an independent criminal, not a Afghani warrior, which means that Afghanistan was not endorsing him (I gave you the idea that the U.S. has been unable to eliminate white supremacist groups like the Neo-Nazis, but that does not mean that the government is accountable for the racial violence that occurs in the United States because it did not commission those groups.), and the argument that the Iran has funded the Taliban since 2006, which was well after the invasion in 2001. Please extend all of these because they deligitimize the affirmative case by proving that alternative actions could have been taken, meaning that the invasion was not necessary.

His only response to the anti-drug programs was that it would cost billions. The problem with this is that the war in Afghnistan has cost trillions and has failed.

Vote negative based on evidence and logic.

Thank you
Debate Round No. 3
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by Fogofwar 5 years ago
Fogofwar
Go to the United Nations webpage, UN.org. simply type in resolution 1267. There's your proof pal. ;) The Taliban never offered to hand bin Laden over. Your 'facts' are beyond laughable. Apparently the entire United Nations and the citizens of Afghanistan are lying according to you. ;)

You can also look up any UN resolution ever written by going to UN.org; and searching 'resolution'. It brings them up by year. You can look at the resolutions from 1994 until 2001 to see the UN resolutions in Afghanistan.

You can also read extensive books from actual Afghans; who knew members of both al Qaeda and the Taliban personally. One Neamatollah Nojumi fought beside them as a mujahideen. He interviewed countless members of the organizations for his book "The Rise of the Taliban in Afghanistan". You can also research the Taliban's assassination of Ahmed Massoud at the request of al Qaeda.

The UN asked the Taliban repeatedly to hand over Osama; and they refused. Just like your 'facts' about the US funding the Taliban; your claim there was no link is pure error.
Posted by lddebater540 5 years ago
lddebater540
First, as I explained, your "UN board" links did not work. Second, I refuted your UN analysis with about 4 different arguments. Finally, senior UN intelligence officials conceded that the link did not exist until AFTER the invasion. The Taliban had even offered to hand Bin Laden over.
Posted by Fogofwar 5 years ago
Fogofwar
funny how there is evidence that shows there was connections between al Qaeda and the Taliban. Unless you are saying that the UN is wrong; and your alternet.com is more reliable than the United Nations board. ;) Ironic too how actual mujahideen warriors who personally knew members of both al Qaeda and the Taliban admit these connections. You showed no proof there was no link.
Posted by lddebater540 5 years ago
lddebater540
I just wanted to say that I addressed the issue through showing that there was NO LINK between the Taliban and Al Qaeda and through the evidence that proved that the Taliban were handing over Bin Laden to the U.S.
Posted by Nick2242 5 years ago
Nick2242
Fog of war...learn to use a comma
Posted by BennyW 5 years ago
BennyW
I might take this, I just need t make sure I will be able to commit to it.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Cliff.Stamp 5 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
Fogofwarlddebater540Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:25 
Reasons for voting decision: Very strong closing by Con, Pro was clearly on the defensive from the first rebuttal and his responses were weak to ineffectual such as advocating a war as less costly than other methods of combating drug use as they are "just rubbish", not really an argument. It is nice to see experience on DDO, but a debate can not be won on a genetic argument. 5:2 Con
Vote Placed by nerdykiller 5 years ago
nerdykiller
Fogofwarlddebater540Tied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Fog of war had more grammer mistake and con provided more reliable source because the some of Pro's didn't work.
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 5 years ago
RoyLatham
Fogofwarlddebater540Tied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Con barely addressed the main reason for the US invasion, to end the safe haven being afforded to al Qaeda. Pro didn't stay on that issue, but made the point. Con's claim bout preventing the collapse of the Afghan state came out of nowhere, and was not pertinent to the debate. How long the US had to stay is another debate, but the necessity was a response to 9/11. Poor use of references by both sides.