The Instigator
bonebreaker60
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Apollo.11
Pro (for)
Winning
10 Points

Was the war in Iraq justified?

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
Apollo.11
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/19/2012 Category: Politics
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 893 times Debate No: 22152
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (5)
Votes (2)

 

bonebreaker60

Con

Just want to hear your argument. I say no because it was not even proven who the attackers of 9/11 were. Some speculations even say it was the government because they can enter Iraq. Discovery Channel (i think) interviewed the people who made the towers and they said, there is no way a simple plane crash could have leveled the building since the temperature was not hot enough to melt the beams unless something under the building was done, like C4's. Also, know WMD were found so why did we just stay.
Apollo.11

Pro

Definitions:
War in Iraq is the United States involvement in the war, not that of other countries.
Justified: having, done for, or marked by a good or legitimate reason. (Oxford) This will be from the perspective of what was known at the time of the decision.

You can give your arguments in the next round. I will rebut and give mind.

Resolution:
United States involvement in the War in Iraq was not justified.
You are Pro. I am Con.
Debate Round No. 1
bonebreaker60

Con

bonebreaker60 forfeited this round.
Apollo.11

Pro

looks like he FF'ed. I'll just post this to fulfill be BOP.



1. We got Sadaam. That's about it, really. [1]
2. We killed Al Queda leaders, crippling the orgnization. [2]
3. They were a threat to the region.
4. It was believed that Sadaam was linked to Al-Queda. [3]

Sources
1. http://en.wikipedia.org...;
2. http://en.wikipedia.org...
3. http://en.wikipedia.org...;
Debate Round No. 2
bonebreaker60

Con

So sorry, I totally forgot. Anyway. Yes w killed Osama and Saddam. Did we cripple their organization, Al-qaeda, no, Osama has many children that will take his position even after the sucesser dies, so we have to destroy a whole family line no a leader. Was it weakened, No, Al-Qaueda is all around the world, not just Iraq, and every single one ran by a different leader. Saddam and Osama linked, No, this was proven that they both were rivals even if they were both Shea. Did we rebuild Iraq, No, we got our asses handed to us and had to withdraw leaving Iraq in the same state it was in before.
Apollo.11

Pro

No problem...i'll just respond to you argument now.

Conceded Points

1. Deposement of Sadaam Hussein's muderous regime.

2. Death of Osama bin Laden and 25 other Al Queda heads.

3. Iraq was a threat to the Region.



Defenses

1. "Did we cripple their organization, Al-qaeda, no, Osama has many children that will take his position even after the sucesser dies, so we have to destroy a whole family line no a leader. Was it weakened, No, Al-Qaueda is all around the world, not just Iraq, and every single one ran by a different leader."

This is a) completely unjustified and b) quite frankly BS. Osama's family was not an integral oart of the organization. In fact, after his death, NO power or position was passed onto his sons. So my opponent's claims are wrong.

Bin Laden's death crippled the organization. [1]


2. "Saddam and Osama linked, No, this was proven that they both were rivals even if they were both Shea."

Completely unjustified. Con does not refute my statement.


3. " Did we rebuild Iraq, No, we got our asses handed to us and had to withdraw leaving Iraq in the same state it was in before."

We did indeed rebuild much of the infrastructure in Iraq as well as school, establish a democratic governmet, etc. And we left Iraq in a MUCH better state than it was when we entered. See my arguments about Sadaam.




Sources

1. http://www.navytimes.com...;
Debate Round No. 3
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by 16kadams 5 years ago
16kadams
Apollo you are pro
Posted by bonebreaker60 5 years ago
bonebreaker60
Lol good luck.
Posted by Apollo.11 5 years ago
Apollo.11
I know that. But usually, you agree with the side you are arguing and disagree with your opponent. I agree that it wasn't justified but I'll try arguing the opposite.
Posted by bonebreaker60 5 years ago
bonebreaker60
That's how a debate is conducted, two opposing sides.
Posted by Apollo.11 5 years ago
Apollo.11
Yet another debate where I don't agree with the side I am arguing...
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by TUF 5 years ago
TUF
bonebreaker60Apollo.11Tied
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 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 didn't really argue, merely states an opinion.
Vote Placed by vmpire321 5 years ago
vmpire321
bonebreaker60Apollo.11Tied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: FF Better arguments