The Instigator
Pro (for)
2 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
3 Points

We should not attack Iran

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 4 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/22/2012 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,499 times Debate No: 22250
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (21)
Votes (4)




First round is acceptance. I look forward to an interesting debate. Also, try to keep arguments short and to the point.


I accept. Pro's BOP just to clarify will be to present a case and refute cons arguments against Pro's case. If everything is in order let us begin! I wish the best of luck to my opponent!
Debate Round No. 1


Here are the main points of my argument.
1. Our own officials say Iran is not building a Nuclear bomb.
2. Nuclear war is not reasonable.
3. Nuclear weapons are used to prevent war.
4. We should try to avoid a war.
5. An attack would show Iran it needs a bomb.
Argument 1: Our own defense officials are saying that there is no major evidence of Iran building a nuclear bomb. Here are some examples.
Our 16 intelligence agencies are saying that Iran abandoned plans for a nuclear bombs years ago.
James R. Clapper, the national director of intelligence says that Iran has the option but hasn't decided.
Leon Panetta, our defense sectary, says Iran is not decided to build a bomb
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who is Israel's former head of intelligence, says that Iran is acting rationally.
Argument 2: There is a reason that the Cold War didn't end with nuclear war. That is because it is not reasonable to use a nuclear bomb if your opponent can strike back. Nuclear weapons our the symbol of mass destruction, and will be seen as a cause for full blown war. This will result in millions of deaths (which very few leaders would want). If Iran were to use a bomb, it would be bombed, invaded, and probably have soldiers in it for years. This is not something Iranian leaders would want to see.
Argument 3: There is another reason their hasn't been nuclear war yet. If both sides have nuclear weapons, then they prevent war. If one side attacks, the other side will retaliate. No matter what the situation is, no country wants to get blown off the map.
Argument 4: War is horrible. We have spent the last 10 years in Afghanistan andIraq. War should be only a last resort.
Argument 5: Now lets say the U.S. Attacks Iran and delays their nuclear program. This would show Iran that we want to stop it from protecting itself. This would prove to it that it needs a nuclear bomb. They would begin building it. This would happen without really knowing that they made a bomb.
Conclusion: In the end, nuclear weapons are rational because they prevent war. This would allow Iran to make sure it will not be attacked. Also, their has been no major evidence that Iran is building a nuclear bomb. This is an important issue, but war is not the answer.



I thank my opponent for a nicely structured case. As con, i will proceed to refute all arguments. Con's argumentation structure will be attacking each and every Argument seperately, while addressing the main point argument at the top of Pro's Case.

1. It has been proven that Iran has nuclear capabilities, this was proven through an investigation by the European Union and attempts by the EU to blockade technological advancements by Iran which ended in failure due to advanced technology already posessed by Iran. A nuclear bomb is one thing, however access to it is another, just as equal danger. The fact that Iran has nuclear capabilities immediately makes it a threat to the United States. [1]

2. My opponent states nuclear war is not reasonable. This in itself is true, but why allow a nation to attain nuclear weapons that can be used to counter another? This debate argues for the United States, and Iran's nuclear capabilities make it an impending threat none the less, one that can challenge the United States. Why allow this to happen? A Pre-Emptive Strike will immediately eradicate Iran's nuclear capabilities BEFORE it achieves nuclear weapons. [2]

3. This argument is the exact same as argument two judges. Just cross apply my refutation of argument 2 to his argument 3 as well, because he is stating in both points nuclear war is unreasonable because it reaches an immedate standoff. [2]

4. I completely agree about one thing, no war is good, for both sides at least. The purpose of war itself was to protect one nation from another threat. This is entirely justified by the United States, as we do not want to reach a Standoff with Iran, where we begin another Cold War. The United States has been down that path before, the fact of the matter is, eliminate the threat before it grows. All argumentation in this debate was centered around my opponent saying Iran has no nuclear weapons, and then my opponent states even if they did we shouldn't attack. This makes no sense judge, it's either one or the other. Clearly my opponent is doubting himself by stating this. The Imminent threat is still there, a threat should be eradicated for the good of the United States. [2] [3]

5. A Pre-Emptive strike eradicates the possibility of Iran completing a Nuclear Weapon. The war is a pre-emptive strike on Iran. Also judges, notice a major contradiction in this argument. My opponents argument is stating they will create a bomb from this, however, wouldn't this affect my opponents own arguments 2 and 3? If Iran does create a nuclear weapon, nothing will occur from the standstill, or the Cold War replica, stated in my opponent Arguments 2 and 3. This is contradictory as well, as now my opponent has switched focus to saying to not allow Iran to create weapons at all, and that war will make them create weapons. My opponent is constantly switching sides in this debate, giving no clear reason because each of my opponents arguments clash with another of my opponents arguments. Does Iran have nuclear weapons or does it not? Do we want Iran to reach a standstill with the U.S (Arguments 2 and 3) or not (Argument 5)? [1] [2] [3] [4]


First let's address the whole of Pros contradictory arguments. Pro goes left and right to determine whether Iran has nuclear capabilities, and even justifies allowing it, the unjustifies Iran possessing Nuclear weapons once again. This constant motion accross this debate is clear ground for Con, who is sticking to one side of Iran- Possessing nuclear capabilties that make an immediate threat to the United States. Clearly we do NOT WANT ANOTHER COLD WAR. This would then give Iran more power than many of the other countries that do not contain nuclear weapons, allowing Iran to take advantage while both Americans and many other states live in constant fear of a nuclear assault, which may very well be the case.

Secondly, This entire debate is based around nuclear weapons. The problem is, my opponent's arguments are circling around the truth, not that Iran has nuclear weapons or does not, but rather, they have the capabilities, which are an immediate threat, developed through intelligence all over the world. Nuclear capabilities are not found in every state, few states even openly admit to Nuclear research. Iran is one of the Nations that has openly admitted it has nuclear capabilities through it's constant nuclear research, as well as the vast capability of nuclear weapons available to it.

Thirdly, According to Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, the only way to stop Iran from getting a nuclear weapon is through war, which is exactly why Obama, with careful consideration stated that he will indeed go to war with Iran, because there is no evidence showing it will halt it's nuclear expeditions. [6]

Fourth, Immenency threas have already occured between the United States and Iran through Israel. Israel has had many hostilities with Iran, and because the United States and Israel are allianced together, the Iranian government has stated any lash out or attack by Israel will result in an attack on the United States by Iran. America has tried to stop Israel from launching attacks on Iran, but they refuse to cooperate, and we cannot simply terminate our alliance as Israel is a valuable asset in the Middle East. Therefore if we do not strike first, there is an extremely high possibility Iran will. [7]

Fifth, Iran is a very volatile nation. Just as Israel has threatened it, it to has threatened many middle eastern nations, not just Israel. The militiary leader of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was quoted in 2005 saying "We should wipe Israel off the map." There goes a simple reason for why Iran would want nuclear weapons,and Israel is in an alliance with us, any threat against Israel would force us to attack Iran, making this Nuclear Standstill worthless. [8]


This debate is very biased, judges please vote off what is in the debate, and not arguments not said in the debate. Thank you all for taking the time to read this debate, thank you to my opponent as well for creating an intellectually stimulating debate. I wish him the best of luck.

Debate Round No. 2


I will begin by countering my opponents counter arguments.
1. I have done some more research, and I now agree that Iran is making a nuclear bomb. But why does having a nuclear weapon make it a threat to the United States? This like saying that China or Pakistan is a threat because it has nuclear capabilities. Now a counter argument would be to say that Iran is to unstable to have a nuclear weapon. There is a flaw in this argument. Since nuclear war is unreasonable, Iran would not use it. This leads us into argument 2.
2 and 3. In your counter-argument, you state that we should not allow Iran to get weapons that could be used to counter. You are saying that Iran should not have the ability to retaliate. This goes against the reasoning of preventing nuclear war. If only one country has a nuclear weapon, it can be used as a threat against a country. If both countries have them, they will not attack each other. A country should have the ability to defend itself. Also, you say a strike would eradicate Iran's nuclear program. This may be true, but it not fully work. Iran would not stop its nuclear program. It would continue it. The goal of an attack would be stop Iran from making a weapon, not to delay it.
4. So many flaws in your counter-argument. I will begin with you saying that we do not want to reach Cold War conditions. The truth is, the cold war prevented nuclear war because both sides had weapons.
You also said to eliminate a threat before it grows. I have already proved that Iran is not a threat. The contradiction is also non-existent because I have said that Iran is making a bomb.
5. Your first statement is false. A strike does not eliminate the possibility that Iran will create a bomb. It may try to build one again. This is still justified because it would prove that Iran needed a weapon for self-defense. Also, their was no contradiction. This is because I was not saying that we should attack Iran.
I will now refute your underview.
You talked about my contradiction in the first paragraph. There was no contradiction because I never said that Iran shouldn't have a nuclear bomb. Even if I did, you failed to point out where. You are very right on another point. WE DO NOT WANT ANOTHER COLD WAR! The problem is, does fear justify a war where thousands of lives could be lost. Is it more important to stop fear or to save lives. I have also proved why their wouldn't be war, so the fear would be unjustified.
The second paragraph does not matter because I agree that Iran is making a bomb. You're also right on the third paragraph. Iran will not stop on its own.
In the fourth and fifth paragraphs you said that Iran is threatening other countries. The thing is, almost every country threatens. The threats do not matter in the face of a devastating war.
In the end, I have refuted con's argument and kept many of my own points.


Cons format of arguments will be as followed-
1) Refutations
2) Extensions
3) Underview


1. Concession- Iran has nuclear capabilities. This will be the metric for the entire round.
My opponents only refutation on this argument was a question- Why does having a nucear weapon make it a threat to the United States? Well, clearly Nuclear weapons cannot be trusted to small nations that may have ties with terrorist organizations, that are proven volatile, and that may force us to go to war. My opponent failed to address the underview arguments of why nuclear weapons in Iran are bad FOR THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. This debate's metric is centered around two things- 1) The reasons for going to war (Benefitting the U.S, other allies etc.) and 2) Iran has nuclear capabilities, which is a gigantic concession in the first argument. Clearly con has all the ground on Iran's nuclear capabilities.

2 and 3- Judges I asked you to group these two arguments together, my oppenent conceded that both of these arguments are the same, basically subtract 1 argument from my opponents case because pro only refuted my refutation as a whole for BOTH Arguments. Now onto the actual refutation, the problem with my opponents arguments are that they are not looking towards beneffiting the United States. My opponent is essentially saying we should let them have Nuclear Weapons and create a small scale Cold War, but this time Israel will be in between and may force us to go to war with Iran. The Pre- Emptive Strikes, Targeted Killings, and going to war, are all justified by intelligence which my opponent concedes to, and only if we eradicate the problem or the nuclear capabilities of Iran at the source will we be eliminating Iran's Nuclear capabilities. The goal of the attack would be to ERADICATE any possibility of Iran completing a Nuclear weapon, my opponents only refutation is that it would continue, but through my sources i show the United States will make sure Iran's Nuclear Capabilities are eradicated.We do not want Iran to retaliate against the United States or any of our allies, we do not want another Cold War, plain and simple. My opponent is advocating both, as you can see through my Underview of Israel and Iran's relations.

4. MAJOR CONTRADICTION- Look at my opponents first point that quote "the truth is, the cold war prevented nuclear wa because both sides had weapons." So my opponent is advocating the Cold War. Then skip to Pro's argument 5, stating in all Capital Letters quote "You (Con) are very right on another point. WE DO NOT WANT ANOTHER COLD WAR!" This is contradictory, my opponent is both for and against a nuclear standoff instilling fear. I am strictly against such a standoff, and thus you can see con is still being constant in his argumentation. My opponents only refutation aside from that was Iran is not a threat, according to pro's case, but where exactly in pro's case does it state this? Through Con's arguments 4 and 5 in the second round we can see Iran is a threat, then proceed to Con's Underview, showing Iran is an IMMINENT THREAT EVEN WITHOUT NUCLEAR WEAPONS because of the relations with Israel.

5.My opponent does not understand my pre-emptive strike ideology, Con is saying the war in itself, along with constant attacks against Iran would eradicate any Nuclear possibiities, that could be used to gain vast amounts of power for Iran, which as we both agreed, cannot be allowed.


Extend Refutation one from Round 2- Concession that Iran has clear nuclear capabilities.
Impact in the round- Knowing Iran as a volatile nation, nuclear capabilities would allow a seemingly "Rogue" state to achieve power that it cannot be trusted with.

Extend the Contradiction arguments, all of which still stand.
Impact- My opponent keeps jumping left and right determining why we should not attack Iran, but has failed to give any clear reasoning because each argument clashes with another argument Pro makes. This contradiction is not in any way helping Pro's side, because now both con and the judges can weigh these contradictions and see that Pro has no ground, even before con's refutations.


Extend the Underview Points as follows-

1-Contradictions still exist, not all refutations by pro linked to his own contradictions, thus you use the extension of contradictions by con, the perfect example is the entirety of my opponents arguments in round 2 and 3. In round 2, my opponent argued Iran has NO NUCLEAR CAPABILITIES. While Con argued they do. Now Pro is saying IRAN HAS NUCLEAR CAPABILITIES, while con completely agrees, justifying con's arguments and diminishing pro's.

2- My opponents refutation- "The Second Paragraph does not matter because i agree that Iran is making a bomb. Well, extend 2, because this now works for Con, stating Iran is an IMMEDIATE THREAT. Untouched by Pro. Thus you Negate from this point.

3- Concession- "Iran will not stop on it's own" Pro states in Round 3. This means somone MUST stop it before it becomes an even bigger threat. Never touched in the round.

4- Countries threaten each other. That was my opponents refutation against 4, however this first of all was the wrong argument against my point 4, as con is stating we DO NOT WANT A STANDOFF WITH IRAN, a volatile nation that cannot be trusted with nuclear weapons.

5- My opponent attempted to group Points 4 and 5 together, however the two points talked about two different thing. My opponents argument is only weighable on point 5, which actually talks about threats and imminency. The quote i gave, and the source i gave off point 5 still resonate in the round. This Proves Iran is a volatile nation that has the intent of harming other nations. Nextly, Israel and Iran once again are at extemelyhigh hostilities, where both sides are willing to launch attacks against one another, and both sides have already been proven to attack each other frequently, Israel using Targeted Killing and Iran using Assassinations. If this secret war were to escalate any further, the United States would be FORCED to intervene because it cannot terminate it's alliance with Israel, on top of that Iran has already stated it considers America Israel's ally no matter what, even if we do not attack it, and Iran would proceed to attack the United States if Provoked BY ISRAEL. Thus you can see these "Threats" my opponent talks of and the imminent danger i talk of are two completely different things.

Conclusion- Extend the Entire Underview, this gives the truth behind the entire debate, because my opponent failed to attack any of the point correctly. Extend all refutations, Pro's BOP was to refute all argumentation, but instead Pro concedes to many different arguments, and brings up contradictory arguments that still clash with other arguments pro has said. You can't vote pro until pro makes a decision on such arguments and refutes all arguments against Pro including the Underview which was left UNTOUCHED.

Vote Con based off all arguments and refutations made.
Debate Round No. 3


I will begin by pointing out major flaws in you arguments, and then point out my new improved argument of why we should not attack Iran.
1. You are right about one thing. Those are the two things that the debate is centered around, but the later does not matter if there is no reason to go to war. This is a point I will prove across this round.
2 and 3. Your first error was a logic quantity mistake. You said that the judges should subtract one argument, and this is true. The thing is, it matters the sum of the arguments together, not how many I have. You went on to say that by agreeing that Iran has a nuclear weapon, it justifies an attack. I have been stating reasons why this not true throughout the debate. Many of these have been left untouched by Con. Also, you stated that a strike would wipe out a nuclear program based on your sources. What sources? Judges, take note. My opponent has forgotten to post sources. This is a major reason to vote Pro. A strike would not stop a program, and I will post my sources. Even if it did, Iran would simply try again. Finally, you stated that we don't want Iran to be able to retaliate. This is hugely illogical. A country has the right to defend itself. This argument is on my side unless Con can prove that Iran does not have the right to defend itself.
4. Your contradiction had one HUGE FLAW! The flaw is that you only used part of my argument. I said that cold war is not desirable, but after that I said that war is even worse. My opponent has ignored my full argument, which is HUGE! This is another reason to vote Pro.
5. The truth is, I do understand the goal. The thing is, it is only worthwhile if it will keep Iran from making a nuclear weapon. I will show why it will not work later on.
There is a reason it I'm jumping left and right. I do it to prove why in many different situations it is still wrong. You then claim that I have no ground. The thing is, you have not attacked my basic core of why Iran is not a threat. Con has simply stated that Iran is volatile nation, while I have gone into detail of why it will not attack. Judges, take note. My opponent has jumped to conclusions and not given reasons throughout round 3.
1. I am arguing now that Iran is making a nuclear weapon, but it does not matter if it will not use it. I will state why it won't use it later in my new argument.
2. I thank you for pointing out why the second paragraph matters. The thing I realized that matters is that you said that Iran's capabilities make it a threat. Just because a country can make a bomb does not make it a threat. You did not include your argument that Iran is to volatile for a nuclear weapon. This is even another reason to vote Pro.
Three through five will be covered from my new argument.
New Argument
Here are the points of my new argument.
1. The only valid reason for an attack would be if it were a threat with a nuclear weapon.
2. We want to avoid a war.
3. A preemptive strike will cause a retaliation by Iran.
4. It is just for a country to defend itself.
5. Iran is not a threat.
6. A strike on Iran would not work fully.
7. A war could risk another recession
8. How would we feel in it was the opposite?
Conclusion: We must not attack Iran.
1. This one is very obvious. Many of the people pushing for war want Iran for corporate reasons.
2. We absolutely want to avoid a war. Many people don't realize what a war would mean. Some people think we simply invade them, eliminate their leaders, and leave a democracy. How did that work in Iraq and Afghanistan? People don't like their country being dominated by foreign nations. Here is what would happen if we were to attack Iran. They would immediately retaliate, causing us to have to invade them. The people would not like being dominated, and would try to defend themselves. This would lead to bloodshed on both sides, which would lead to an Afghanistan like situation where we have to suppress them. This is what happened to Iraq and is happening to Afghanistan. We are becoming the police force of the world. This is not our job while we have so many problems at home.
3. This one is very simple. Iran will retaliate against a strike on its own soil, just like Israel would if Iran were to attack it.
4. This one just makes plain sense. Just like if any country were to attack us, Iran has the right to attack any country that attacks it.
5.And now for the moment we've all been waiting for. Why is Iran not a threat? There are many reasons. For example, nuclear weapons prevent war because using them would cause nuclear war. It is surrounded by U.S. Bases. It is sophisticated country that knows that a strike would be inviting destruction. It's leaders are portrayed as volatile, but they are smart. The leaders are Muslim, but they know a nuclear war would cause millions of Muslims to die. In the face of this, even a volatile nation would not attack. In order for this to be on my opponent's side, Con would have to show why Iran would use a nuclear weapon in face of nuclear war. Unfortunately, this could mean a cold war with Iran, but this is a better option than a 10 year war adding more instability to the region.
6. In order for a strike to fully work, we would have to blow up almost all their nuclear bases and kill many of their scientists. This is almost an impossible task. It is hard to blow up 60 different bases, not to mention killing the scientists. Even if we were able to accomplish this, they would simply try again. This defeats the main reason of a strike.
We have spent 4 years in a devastating recession. We slowly recovering, but anything involving a major product could cause disaster. One of these products is oil. A war in Iran could cause disruption in the straight of Hormuz. Twenty percent of the World's oil flows through the straight, and a disruption there is believed to cause a price increase in oil. This would have impacts on many markets, not to mention the immediate price increase of gas on Americans. This is a possible situation that we do not want to risk.
7. As a test of fairness, watch this video from 8:00.

The truth is, war is not the best option. We have spent ten years in Afghanistan for 9/11, which was actually caused by the U.S. interfering with what was going on in the Middle East. We cannot be the police force of the world due to the cost in money, lives, and opinions of our country. I fully support an attack on Iran if it attacks first, but a preemptive strike would be unprovoked. We must stop being the police force of the world and open ourselves up to friendship and diplomacy. This is the foreign policy of the future, and the best policy to prevent an undesirable cold war. It may seem easy to take the route of stopping all our enemies, but this is not the right path. We must be open to letting other countries have power, not keeping it to ourselves. Throughout the debate, my opponent has jumped to conclusions and pointed out fake contradictions. I urge the judges to vote Pro off this and the arguments I have made. I thank my opponent for an interesting debate.
The following sources are divided into two categories. The first are references from the debate, and the second are videos that I would like voters and Con to watch. Thank you for taking the time to read my argument.



Hello everyone, if you've made it this far your almost done! Just a reminder, NO NEW ARGUMENTATION MAY BE BROUGHT UP IN REBUTTALS IN THE VERY LAST ROUND. The Con Argumentation will be as follows:
1st- Extensions
2nd- Refutations
3rd-Voters + Impacts


Point 1-
Extend this argument once again, Pro Concedes throughout the debate round time and time again Iran has nuclear capablities, pro also concedes this a metric for the entire round, so pro cannot stand up and say Iran is not a threat because it has nuclear capabilities, and if you scroll up to the last round, you can see pro's concession and second concession this round.

Point 4- My refutations stand judges, my opponents argument- Pro stated war (not defined) is worse than the Cold War. Where exactly does pro state this other than in this round? Judges once again, i apologize for asking, but please scroll up to rounds 3 and 2 and look at point 4 for Pro's side. Where does he state the Cold War is better than war itself and how am i only utilizing half of an argument if so?

Point 5- "The truth is, I do understand the goal." That was Pro's refutation, yet apparently he quotes afterward "It is only worthwhile if it will keep Iran from making a nuclear weapon." Then adds that he will show you why this is true later. However, Pro is skimming an argument, which cannot be allowed as the poins Con addressed through the round were PROS (Scroll up to Round 2 Pro). This means pro has dropped this argument because it was not addressed AS ARGUMENT 5.

Extend the Underview- According to Pro I just brough up in the last round Iran was Volatile. Scroll back to Round 2. The 5 point underview is huge in this debate, and completely untouched and thoroughly misinterpreted by Pro.


Points 2 and 3- My opponent only refutation is against a possible pre-emptive strike, regardless, war itself was not touched by pro from this point after the first round. After my pre-emptive strike argument, Con still brings up war itself, whereas pro seems to be stuck like glue to the whole Pre-Emptive Strike. Con decides to use this to his advantage, and it appears to have payed off, now you can see pro isn't being topical anymore and not affirming through points 2 and 3. Also, a number of offensive arguments are offensive to con, as they show a disinterest in this debate.
1) Sources- Con Posted 8 perfectly cited sources throughout Con's refutations and case.
2) Scroll up to rounds 2 and 3 for Con's argumentation. We agreed after round 2, that "We" as the United States have to have to show benefits or harms. The harms are the possible retalition by Iran, Pro misinterprets this and is siding with Iran, however this goes against the entire debate. Con shows that it is in the best interest of The United States of Amerca to go to war because Iran can retaliate from possible Israeli attacks. Con thoroughly misinterprets this.
3) "This argument is on my side unless Con can prove that Iran does not have the right to defend itself." Once again Pro misinterprets this argumentation. Iran has a right to DEFEND ITSELF FROM AN AGGRESSOR. BUT IT CANNOT BE ALLOWED TO RETALIATE on the United States if ISRAEL was the state that attacked.


New argumentation in the last round of a debate is meaningless, the side videos are as well, Rebuttals are used to extend, strengthen, and refute ongoing arguments throughout the debate, not to bring in new ones. Judges do not look anywhere past my opponents speech where it says "New Argument" The videos also do not convey any evidence or information, Judges don't vote off of a video, vote off of actual argumentation not taken from another person's mouth.

I WILL proceed to refute the new argumentation, however this is not required, as new argumentation has no room in a rebuttal.

1. Nuclear Threat- Extend all refutations and the Point 1 Concession and cross apply it to this point, simple as that, Pro concedes Iran is a threat with nuclear capabilities once again throughout the entire debate.

2. War is not something Con would advocate without evidence, without a NEED to go to war, without an imminency that is required to go to war. Pro completely drops all imminency arguments, as such, Pro concedes Iran is an immininent threat that only war can solve for.

3. Cross apply 4th round refutations made on arguments 2 and 3. The pre-emptive strike sidetracked Pro completely, and does not impact the round in any way, pro has stopped being topical and stopped talking about WAR.

4. IT IS JUST FOR A COUNTRY TO DEFEND ITSELF AGAINST THE AGGRESSOR, NOT AN ALLY TO THE AGGRESSOR. Israel is the problem, Israel attacks Iran, and Iran retaliates on the UNITED STATES. This major argument goes completely untouched throughout the entire debate.

5. Does this really even need a refutation? Look at all of Cons arguments and Pro's concession of imminent threats by Iran that has nuclear capabilities.

6. A STRIKE may not work, but WAR will. (Topicality Argument)


8. Emotional Argument not tied to the United States. No evidence, no argument, nothing.


1- Concessions
Impact- 1- Iran HAS NUCLEAR CAPABILITIES and is an IMMINENT THREAT- Throughout the debate, reasonin has come into play. Why go to war? My opponent brings up arguments such as - Iran is not a threat and Iran has no nuclear weapons. Con immediately disproves this and these arguments then go untouched throughout the rounds. Thus you see IRAN IS A THREAT WITH NUCLEAR WEAPONS. Clearly the imminent threat is proven, WAR is justified.

2- Extensions
Impact-2- Without knowing for Certain Iran's intentions, we cannot say it is not just to attack a proven VOLATILE nation, and a nation proven to have nuclear capabilities, that threatens both Israel and the United States if Israel does not stop attackng, can be trusted. The war itself is justified to stop a retaliation by Iran against the United States for Israel's Actions.

3- Refutations
Impact-3- Contradiction arguments and admitting to "Jumping left and right" Meaning Pro's argumentation is not constant. Secondly, the Pre- Emptive Strike seems to have sidetracked pro to a new direction, whereas con argues through war. Next, Pro does not successfully refute A SINGLE ARGUMENT and even drops his own case for new argumentation, which was a bunch of videos that should not be weighed in the round.

4-Utilization of Sources
Impact-4- Going into the first round Pro stated Iran does not have any nuclear capabilities. In the next round, Pro states Iran does indeed have nuclear capabiltiies and concedes this. The Final round, Pro agrees they have nuclear capabilties, then states they need to have a weapon. Con successfully utilizes all 8 sources and does not drop his case. Your going to look and vote for con because of Pro's misunderstanding of argumentation.

Conclusion- While Pro jumps around facts, Con stands right on point. Con never shifts in any other direction but negation, gives viable evidence and sources that are brought up throughout the round, and never once drops his case, whereas pro in the final round scratches all evidence to promote videos, which are essentially plagiarized because
A) There may be a copyright
B) These arguments are not in the words of Pro nor were they Cited or quoted.
So Judges, please vote con based off all argumentaton made in this entire debate.

Thank you all for taking the time to read this, and I thank my opponent for a great debate.
Debate Round No. 4
21 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by PolitcsMaster 4 years ago
Sorry. I did not know that rule. I will stop imediately.
Posted by Yep 4 years ago
Excuse me, COMMENTS ARE NOT FOR POSTING ARGUMENTATION. This is a fallacy, please stop before conduct is revoked and given to con.
Posted by PolitcsMaster 4 years ago
Read it some more. The videos were meant as just some interesting points to be presented. They were actually an attempt to convince you that i was right.
Posted by PolitcsMaster 4 years ago
You ignored the fact that I said that jumping left and right was to prove a variety of points. Throughout the debate you ignored my points are talked about yours.
Posted by PolitcsMaster 4 years ago
The videos were meant to be watched, but nothing else after that.
Posted by PolitcsMaster 4 years ago
You went off topic. We were talking about the U.S., not Israel.
Posted by PolitcsMaster 4 years ago
By not being able to retaliate against the United States, you would also be denying that it could be retaliating against any country.
Posted by PolitcsMaster 4 years ago
Did you really say that Iran shouldn't be able to defend itself? This is like saying America shouldn't be able to defend itself against China in the situation it was able to attack. You also said to ignore my videos, which had many interesting points. You also ignored many pf my points, which I would like you to take the time to find.
Posted by PolitcsMaster 4 years ago
You did not post it with your argument.....
Posted by Yep 4 years ago
Scroll to round 2....
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by 16kadams 4 years ago
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:02 
Reasons for voting decision: um didn't pro plagiarize? (conduct) Also the last 2 S/G points where screwy. 1duspelt, really?
Vote Placed by 1dustpelt 4 years ago
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: Counter Zaradi (That's something I rarely do!) Con did not capitalize "I" in the second round.
Vote Placed by Zaradi 4 years ago
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Counter Randolph. Both had perfectly fine spelling.
Vote Placed by randolph7 4 years ago
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10