The Instigator
SPF
Pro (for)
Losing
10 Points
The Contender
CiRrO
Con (against)
Winning
21 Points

We should withdraw from Iraq.

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
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/26/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,340 times Debate No: 4796
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (9)

 

SPF

Pro

One moral arguement for staying in Iraq is that to leave Iraq would cause humanitarian issues for Iraqis.

1. This argument is flawed because according to one poll 82% of Iraqis are "strongly opposed" to the coalition's presence.
www.USliberals.about.com\od\homelandsecurit1\a\iraqnumbers.com.

The Iraqi people know what's best for their own self interests, and if both parties (Iraq and the U.S.) think that withdrawall is in their best interests, we should withdraw.

That brings me to my next point:

2. According to cnn.com, less than half of Americans say the Iraq War is winnable, and over seven out of ten think it's hurting the economy.

600 billion tax dollars have been spent on this war and, including post war costs, were at about 3 trillion.

3. Right after 9\11 it seemed as if the world was completely behind us.For example,memorial candles were being lit in Tehran,Iran. Then, we went to Iraq, and America lost it's international standing around the Globe. While we have allies, other countries are fervently Anti American, including Iran. Withdrawing from Iraq will help America regain it's international standing around the globe.

4. But international standing, or money lost is not nearly as costly as our troops. 4,124 American troops have died in Iraq. That number will continue to rise as we fight a war, that, according to cbs.com, 64% of Americans say wasn't worth starting.
CiRrO

Con

I negate: We should withdraw from Iraq.

[Definitions]

Withdraw: to set up an immediate timetable for departure from Iraq.

E.g. Obama wants to leave within 16 months of his possible presidency.

Observation: The resolution is in the present tense. Therefore, my opponent must prove why we should withdraw right now.
=================================================================================
I will present my own case, then refute my opponents.

Contention I: Humanitarian Reasons/Moral Reasons

A) According to the US State Department. Withdrawing from Iraq right now could potentially end up in the slaughtering of innocent Iraqis. Numbers can reach up to 1,000,000 civilians killed by militias, terrorists, and other regional countries. Leaving from Iraq would cause these massive amounts of death, who would be on our hands. E.g. When we left Vietnam, millions of innocent Vietnamese were killed by the communists.

B) The US got into this mess, and thus we ought to be the ones to fix it. Withdrawing without eradicating the problem only puts a moral stain on us. We need to take responsibility for the action we took by invading.

C) Our soldiers and the Iraqi force has seen casualties. Leaving now only puts their work in vain. The dead, would have died for nothing. We must finish what we have done.

Contention II: Success of the Surge

The Surge has worked. Sectarian violence has gone down 70% (NY TIMES, FOX NEWS, and CNN). This new adopted plan is creating victory within Iraq. Leaving now would destroy the success that this plan has made. Why should we leave when we are winning? We have the terrorists on the run, violence is down. NOW is the time to make the final push. NOW IS NOT THE TIME TO WITHDRAW.

Contention III: The Iranian Threat

Iran has numerous times called for domination over the middle east. Iraq, however always stood in that way. With Saddam Hussein down, only the US and the newly established government is blocking Iran's ambitions. If we leave, then Iran and her terrorist allies would easily take Iraq and stop all the progressive that has been made. If this happens, then the next President would have to send troops back in. Both McCain and Obama understand this. More people would die if we had to go back in and fight Iran, then if we would just stay there as protectors and force Iran to keep still. According to Politic.com: Leaving Iraq would lead to Iranian domination of the region, which would lead to above $7 gas prices, and more then 1,000,000 Iraqi civilian dead. If we go back, according to politico, American casualties could go into the tens of thousands. Therefore, we must stay and deter an Iranian move until we have made the country self-sufficient. Even then, according to both Presidential candidates, we will keep military basis there just in case.
===============================================================================
I'll attack my opponents case

1. This argument is flawed because according to one poll 82% of Iraqis are "strongly opposed" to the coalition's presence.
www.USliberals.about.com\od\homelandsecurit1\a\iraqnumbers.com.

My Response: I concede this point, a majority of Iraqis want us out. However, what the majority wants isn't always whats necessary and isn't always whats right. According to General Petraeus, he and the other Iraqi commanders believe that at this time American presence is necessary for the continuing progression of Iraqi stability.

The Iraqi people know what's best for their own self interests, and if both parties (Iraq and the U.S.) think that withdrawall is in their best interests, we should withdraw.

My Response: Keen point, however you have negated the resolution right here. Both the military parties of both states believe that now is not the time to withdraw. Therefore, it is now impossible to affirm the resolution.

2. According to cnn.com, less than half of Americans say the Iraq War is winnable, and over seven out of ten think it's hurting the economy.

600 billion tax dollars have been spent on this war and, including post war costs, were at about 3 trillion.

My Response: Ok, at one point the majority of Americans thought slavery was morally permissible. However we know it as not. The majority inst always right in it's decisions. We should listen to the generals on the field, who are actually there. And according to the generals, and 80% of the soldiers (According to a Qunnipiac Poll), we should stay for the time being. Now, you bring up cost. Cost is an issue, I agree. However, soft partition, the strategy I am advocating actually will end by cheaper then immediate timetable withdrawal. Why? Because soft partition helps end possible future regional conflicts, terrorist attacks, etc. So essentially cost helps my side.

3.Right after 9\11 it seemed as if the world was completely behind us.For example,memorial candles were being lit in Tehran,Iran. Then, we went to Iraq, and America lost it's international standing around the Globe. While we have allies, other countries are fervently Anti American, including Iran. Withdrawing from Iraq will help America regain it's international standing around the globe.

My Response: International standing at what cost? Should we sacrifice helping a country in need, pulling out of a war, and probably costing the lives of millions of people in the future? No. International standing should come second. We must do what is right, not what the world wants us to do. Also,l why should we appease countries like Iran, Cuba, and Venezuala. That is just appeasement. And as history teaches us, from WW2, appeasement is a failed and inefficient strategy, that only causes worse things to occur then the present problem you are trying to appease.

4. But international standing, or money lost is not nearly as costly as our troops. 4,124 American troops have died in Iraq. That number will continue to rise as we fight a war, that, according to cbs.com, 64% of Americans say wasn't worth starting.

My Response: Should we have let them die in vain, for a cause 80% of the military thinks we should continue? We, here on American soil don't understand what they go through. We try to, and we come to false conclusions like Code Pink. They think immediate withdrawal is what will help our troops. The majority of troops want to stay fighting. If that is what they believe is right, who are we to well them, the military that they are wrong. Also, more people died in one battle of WW2, then what they have died for 5 years in Iraq. Fighting for a good cause, is worth those that want to die for it. When people sign up for the military they know the consequences. And they risk it, for a safer America, and to uphold something greater then themselves.

Thank you ladies and gentlemen.
Debate Round No. 1
SPF

Pro

Thank you CiRrO for accepting my challenge for this debate.

One argument of my opponent's is that the millitary wants to stay in Iraq. So who do you agree more with General Patraeus, or the civilians,and now even Iraqi Prime Minister Malliki?

The words "strongly opposed" are strong, and indicate civilian misery. Is it moral to ignore a rate of 82% strong opposition?

Besides the argument of General Patraeus is equivalent to the argument of George W. Bush, and from the past, Lyndon B. Johnson. Offcourse the Millitary says they want to stay in Iraq, the Millitary leaders wanted to stay in Vietnam. My point is that the Millitary as the only supporter of Bush is a group that allways would like to stay at war.

As to the argument that those 4,124 troops would have died in vain, what would you prefer, the lives of their friends and comrads, or a cause that 64% of Americans say is lost?

I noticed CiRrO mentioned some of the stances on Iraq, Obama v McCain. So I will once again ask CiRrO and the judges, is it more expensive to withdraw immediatly, or stay in Iraq for one hundred years?

As I said earlier, including postwar costs were at about three trillion dollars of war debt in five years. 5,000 dollars a second is being spent. It costs the government tens of thousands of dollars to deploy one soldier.

Another of my opponents counter arguments is about Iraq being more important than our international standing. This seems to be the theme of my opponents argument: The morality of Iraq's best interests is more important than our own. This is why it's an obvious Pro ballot.
CiRrO

Con

"One argument of my opponent's is that the millitary wants to stay in Iraq. So who do you agree more with General Patraeus, or the civilians,and now even Iraqi Prime Minister Malliki?"

My Response: I agree with the military because they are the ones actually fighting. They know whats going on, they have the strategies. The US people and politicians don't know exactly what is hapeening. Therefore, I believe that the US its soldiers and it's commanders/generals should be the ones to say when we should withdraw or not.

"The words "strongly opposed" are strong, and indicate civilian misery. Is it moral to ignore a rate of 82% strong opposition?"

My Response: The words strongly oppsoe arent coming from the people themselves. Also, this argument is a logical fallacy. Specifically argumentum ad populum.

"Besides the argument of General Patraeus is equivalent to the argument of George W. Bush, and from the past, Lyndon B. Johnson. Of course the Millitary says they want to stay in Iraq, the Millitary leaders wanted to stay in Vietnam. My point is that the Millitary as the only supporter of Bush is a group that allways would like to stay at war."

My Response: Ok, and look what happened when we left Vietnam. More then 1,000,000 Vietnamese were killed by the Communists. It seems that the military knew when the time was right and wrong to withdraw.

"As to the argument that those 4,124 troops would have died in vain, what would you prefer, the lives of their friends and comrads, or a cause that 64% of Americans say is lost?"

My Response: you like to jump around in your arguments don't you? These 4,124 people would have died in vain if victory is not taken. The soldiers know about their own friends and comrads. And I see you like to throw American populous stats out. 80% of the SOLDIERS not jsut generals believe we should stay.

"I noticed CiRrO mentioned some of the stances on Iraq, Obama v McCain. So I will once again ask CiRrO and the judges, is it more expensive to withdraw immediatly, or stay in Iraq for one hundred years?"

My Response: My stance isn't that we stay a hundred years. It is gaining a victory and using soft partition.

"As I said earlier, including postwar costs were at about three trillion dollars of war debt in five years. 5,000 dollars a second is being spent. It costs the government tens of thousands of dollars to deploy one soldier"

My Response: I have already explained that withdrawing without soft partition would be more costly.

"Another of my opponents counter arguments is about Iraq being more important than our international standing. This seems to be the theme of my opponents argument: The morality of Iraq's best interests is more important than our own. This is why it's an obvious Pro ballot."

My Response: It is better for us that we stay. Our international standing really means nothing. My opponent is making unwarranted claims. Essentially, we must finish what we started.
==============================================================================
Extensions: Extend all these arguments since they went unrefuted/dropped by my opponent in his last round. Therefore, they extend for all remaining rounds.

1) Contention I: Humanitarian/Moral Reasons

A. Civilian deaths by withdrawing
B. Fix what we started
C. Soldiers die in vain

2) Contention II: The Success of the Surge

3) Contention III: Iranian Threat

4) *My opponent didn't neatly go down the flow so I can't see what else he dropped. If you the reader finds something he dropped just make a mental note.

Thank you ladies and gentlemen.
Debate Round No. 2
SPF

Pro

One interesting argument in this debate is whether we should listen to what our troops say, or the civilians.

As I predicted in round 1, one of Con's biggest arguments is the morality of the civilians best interests being wrecked by leaving Iraq at the moment.

I have two counter arguments:

1. Over eight out of ten Iraqi civilians are strongly opposed to the coalition's presence in Iraq. This means that allmost all Iraqi's are anxiouse to be independent of our troops. Iraq knows what's best for Iraq, not General Patreaus.

2. Even if CiRrO is right about our troops being best for Iraq, to prevent the slaughter of our troops is more important than preventing the slaughter of foreigners.

That brings me to my historical point. My opponent and I also are arguing with historical analogies to the Vietnam War. Durring that war, we lost 58,148 troops.

Just like Vietnam, we got into this war based on false evidence, and in our case, there isn't any yellow cake. We don't have a reason, for our best interests to stay, my opponent did not provide a reason for our best interest to stay except for a theory, without evidence, that leaving right now would only make us go back in, costing us more troops, and money. We didn't go back into Vietnam.

3. Money.
The fact is that the longer we stay in Iraq the more we spend, while my opponent says that leaving Iraq now would eventually make us go back in, costing more money. The spending and debt of this war has had it's hand in the reccession we are in. That debt is growing the longer we stay in Iraq, and it will stop growing when we leave. Not to make this a popularity contest, but seven out of ten Americans say that this war has had a negative effect on the economy.

Reminder, 4,124 troops have died. Staying will simply make that number go up.

Reminder, were at about three trillion dollars in debt thanks to this war, staying will simply make that number go up.

Reminder, America is less popular around the world. CiRrO says that fact is trivial, but in fact it is important. The more friends one has to fight his\her foes, the better off he\she is. One of the arguments Kennedy used durring the famous Kennedy v Nixon debates was his concern of how people abroad viewed America. World standing, it is fair to assert, is a critical issue. Those feelings will grow worse the longer we stay.

It is fair to assert therefore, that these issues of OUR best INTERESTS would be solved by withdrawal.

Now I leave it to the judges.

Are the lives of OUR troops more important than the lives of civilians?

Are the opinions of whether we should stay in Iraq more valid from troops or oppressed civilians?

Are our interests(including an economy in recession, deep in war debt) more important than finishing the job?

Were the lives of our troops in Vietnam more important than those of civilians?

These questions shouldn't be answered by the views of the judges, but by who they think had the edge on those topics.

Once again thank you CiRrO for accepting my challenge to debate.

I strongly urge a Pro ballot.
CiRrO

Con

"1. Over eight out of ten Iraqi civilians are strongly opposed to the coalition's presence in Iraq. This means that allmost all Iraqi's are anxiouse to be independent of our troops. Iraq knows what's best for Iraq, not General Patreaus."

My Response: My opponent keeps on repeating this same argument. He also hasn't refuted my rebuttal of this attack. This is a logical fallacy called: argumentum ad populum. I.e. Argument by the people. Essentially what the majority of people want doesn't make the action moral, right or justified. So what if 8 out of 10 Iraqis oppose troop involvement? I think they would care after Iran invades and Al Qaeda takes control. You must look at the long consequences of listening to such a call for withdrawal.

"Even if CiRrO is right about our troops being best for Iraq, to prevent the slaughter of our troops is more important than preventing the slaughter of foreigners."

My Response: There are 2 fallacies with my opponent's statement.

1. There would be even more killing of our troops if we have to go back in once we have left.
2. Universalize my opponents statement. He is saying we have the right to start a war, then leave to without finishing what we have started. Therefore, he has justified the creation of several unfinished conflicts, and thus leading to millions of foreign people dead. My opponent brought up our world image. What would our image look after that?

"Just like Vietnam, we got into this war based on false evidence, and in our case, there isn't any yellow cake. We don't have a reason, for our best interests to stay, my opponent did not provide a reason for our best interest to stay except for a theory, without evidence, that leaving right now would only make us go back in, costing us more troops, and money. We didn't go back into Vietnam."

My Response: My opponent says I only bring up theory. It is not theory. I have already claimed that that is the most likely thing that would happen if we leave. Therefore, drop this statement.

"The fact is that the longer we stay in Iraq the more we spend, while my opponent says that leaving Iraq now would eventually make us go back in, costing more money. The spending and debt of this war has had it's hand in the reccession we are in. That debt is growing the longer we stay in Iraq, and it will stop growing when we leave. Not to make this a popularity contest, but seven out of ten Americans say that this war has had a negative effect on the economy."

My Response: My opponent has dropped my point against this attack, it has gone unrefuted. Thus my opponent agrees with it. Soft Partition would be less expensive then immediate withdrawal. Extend this point.
===============================================================================
Extensions (My Case):

Contention I

A.
B.
C.

Contention II

Contention III

Extensions (my attacks):

1. Soft Partition
2. Argumentum ad Populum
3. Worse Consequences

*For all these extensions of my opponent, I urge a negation.

Thank you ladies and gentlemen.
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by A-ThiestSocialist 8 years ago
A-ThiestSocialist
Pro had the advantage in this topic yet due to carelessness and/or unwillingness to clash on arguments lost the round.
9 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Vote Placed by SPF 8 years ago
SPF
SPFCiRrOTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by sanghyunma 8 years ago
sanghyunma
SPFCiRrOTied
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:03 
Vote Placed by ladygirl 8 years ago
ladygirl
SPFCiRrOTied
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:03 
Vote Placed by SoutherngentFL 8 years ago
SoutherngentFL
SPFCiRrOTied
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:03 
Vote Placed by olivertheexpando 8 years ago
olivertheexpando
SPFCiRrOTied
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:03 
Vote Placed by A-ThiestSocialist 8 years ago
A-ThiestSocialist
SPFCiRrOTied
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:03 
Vote Placed by bthr004 8 years ago
bthr004
SPFCiRrOTied
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:03 
Vote Placed by Danielle 8 years ago
Danielle
SPFCiRrOTied
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 
Vote Placed by liberty 8 years ago
liberty
SPFCiRrOTied
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:03