The Instigator
jingzhezhang
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
debaterbayne1
Pro (for)
Winning
10 Points

president obama's plan for increasing troops in afghanistan is in the u.s. best interest

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...
debaterbayne1
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/15/2010 Category: Education
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,498 times Debate No: 11529
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (10)
Votes (4)

 

jingzhezhang

Con

In an article about Obama's approach on Afghanistan Rebecca Griffin on March 27 2009 said that

President Obama was mistaken when he stated in his speech, "the United States of America did not choose to fight a war in Afghanistan." The United States did have to respond to the terrorist attacks on 9/11. There were, however, more effective alternatives to military force, but the debate was clouded in the heated response to the attack. Terrorists are criminals of the worst kind, but they are not warriors. Terrorist networks are not the same as armies at war with the United States, and they need to be dealt with differently. The RAND Corporation has demonstrated that military force is almost never effective against terrorist groups, and that policing and intelligence work does work. It would be impossible and unwise to occupy every country where terrorists may be plotting.

My partner and I stand in firm negation that President Obama's plan for increasing troops in Afghanistan is in the United States' best interest.

I would now like to provide a few key definitions within this debate.
Obama's plan for increasing troops in Afghanistan- Earlier this year at West Point New York, President Barack Obama ordered an additional 30,000 U.S. troops into the long war in Afghanistan, nearly tripling the force he inherited as commander in chief.
United States- can also be referred to as the people of the United States as a whole. Not just the government.

Best interest- producing the greatest satisfaction

Now for our arguments. My partner and I have created 3 contentions that indefinitely support the negation.
1) The war in Afghanistan is clearly unconstitutional.
2) The addition of 30,000 troops does not make sense.
3) We should be retreating out of Afghanistan like the Soviets did in the 1980's.

Contention One- The war in Afghanistan is clearly unconstitutional.
Under the constitution, Article 1 Section 10, "No State shall…engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay." We need to remember that the attack on the United States on September 11, 2001 was, according to the 9/11 Commission Report, largely planned in the United States by terrorists who were in our country legally. A draft of the war in Afghanistan has never been drafted, therefore, it is unconstitutional to go to war with Afghan. In his speech on November 18 of last year, Ron Paul states that, "Under the constitution, your supposed to declare the war, know who your enemy is, and know when you can declare victory, and bring the troops home." We did that up until World War II, but since then we must have forgotten.

Contention Two- The addition of 30,000 troops does not make sense.
The president's National Security Advisor, Gen. James Jones, said in a recent interview that less than 100 al-Qaeda remain in Afghanistan and that the chance they would reconstitute a significant presence there was slim. Are we to believe that 30,000 more troops are needed to defeat 100 al-Qaeda fighters? Remember that this debate focuses soley on the 30,000 troops being sent to Afghan.

Contention III- We should be retreating out of Afghanistan like the Soviets did in the 1980's. This 30,000 "surge" will bring US troop levels to approximately those of the Soviets when they occupied Afghanistan with disastrous result back in the 1980s. I fear the US military occupation of Afghanistan may end up similarly unsuccessful. In late 1986 Soviet armed forces commander, Marshal Sergei Akhromeev, told then-Soviet General Secretary Mikhail Gorbachev, "Military actions in Afghanistan will soon be seven years old. There is no single piece of land in this country which has not been occupied by a Soviet soldier. Nonetheless, the majority of the territory remains in the hands of rebels." Soon Gorbachev began the Soviet withdrawal from its Afghan misadventure. Thousands were dead on both sides, yet the occupation failed to produce a stable national Afghan government.

The United States government should take heed of the past and make the right decision.
debaterbayne1

Pro

First, I would like to thank my opponent for starting this debate and now I shall state the following resolution

My partner and I will be standing in firm affirmation of the following resolution:

Resolved: President Obama's plan for increasing troops in Afghanistan is in the u.s. best interest.

First I would like to state my following contentions.

1. The U.S. should finish the war in Afghanistan in order to have less deaths.
2. Sending troops can make the U.S. make more friends and allies
3. the 30,000 troops would be slowing down terrorist organizations.

Pro

1. The U.S. should finish the war in Afghanistan in order to have less deaths.

The USA obviously needs to send more troops into Afghanistan in order to destroy the Al Qaeda people so that they can stop killing innocent U.S. citizens as well as the Afghan citizens. Since we want to send more troops ( judging that this is in the United States best interest ) then obviously this would be a good idea. Clearly if we send more troops we can also finish the war so that people can return to there daily lives instead of killing off other people. Some people might think that this would cause more deaths but since like my opponent has clearly stated that there is only less than 100 Al Qaeda troops, this should not be much of a problem to end this war quicker and so we could also draw our troops back home to the U.S.

Now for my second point

2. Sending troops can make the U.S. make more friends and allies

Since we are sending troops to Afghanistan we are negotiating peace which would give us a chance to befriend the Afghans which would help us gain allies to corner and slow down the process of the terrorist of increasing considering the fact that unfortunately we can not destroy terrorists once and for all but this could help us improve things for them and to show the Afghans that this was all a mistake and that this would never happen again. Like my opponents said, that there are only less than 100 terrorists in there. We are not there just to destroy the remaining terrorists, we are also here to help improve their economy judging that their economy is in the toilets.

And finally I would like to add that the 30,000 troops would be slowing down terrorist organizations.
Terrorists are constantly growing. Unfortunately they can only be stopped but never destroyed. But since we are sending this 30,000 troops into Afghanistan and destroying the remaining terrorists, we would be destroying their mission of trying to take hold of Afghanistan. And if we stop them ( this may relate to point #1 ) then their will be a lesser chance that they will plot another attack on the U.S. similar like the twin tower incident which goes to less deaths. If we do not send the additional troops we might be able to win but the chances are very slim so I would say that sending the 30,000 troops would be in the United States best interest. And before I am done I would like to repeat the following resolution:

Resolved: President Obama's plan for increasing troops in Afghanistan is in the u.s. best interest.

With this said, please vote for Pro
Debate Round No. 1
jingzhezhang

Con

I thank my opponent for accepting my debate.

Resolved: President Obama's plan for increasing troops in Afghanistan is in the United States best interest.

My opponent's first point is that The U.S. should finish the war in Afghanistan in order to have less deaths.
But if we don't send in any more troops then Al Qaeda will think that they have won the war since we are retreating from them. Also it will just be like sending a message to them saying that we are afraid of you and that you can attack us all you like. So that will cause more destruction than sending troops and defending ourselves.

My opponent's second point is that Sending troops can make the U.S. make more friends and allies.
This point does not make sense, because what does befriending with the Afghans has to do with terrorist. And being friends with them has nothing to do with Obama's plan (as stated in the resolution) for increasing troops. And just to clarify it's not that there are 100 terrorists in Afghanistan, it is 100 troops and that is a lot. So if we don't do anything about it we will be under attack. And how does it improve our economy? Please explain.

My opponent's third point is that the 30,000 troops would be slowing down terrorist organizations.
Well, it is better than just doing nothing is it not? This is the only thing that the United States can do. We are slowing them down and it is better than nothing. Even if the chances of winning are very low it is better than doing nothing and let the terrorists grow.

My opponents have not yet rebutted my case, so my points stand strong, while his points are already attacked.

Thank you, and please vote for CON.
debaterbayne1

Pro

Ill shall now rebutt my opponents points

My opponents first point is that the war in Afghanistan is clearly unconstitutional.

First, this war is not the following resolution, I shall state it again Resolved: President Obama's plan for increasing troops in Afghanistan is in the United States best interest. This following resolution does not say anything about war, but simply just adding the additional troops. Like I said I believe in point number 2 that we are not just sending troops for the war, but also to help the Afghans rebuild after something we did that should never have happened.

My opponents second point was the addition of 30,000 troops does not make sense.

Why does it matter that the remaining Al Qaeda numbers is less than 100? We still do not know what they sustain and how powerful they are, if we do not send the troops and if they are very powerful then the troops there will have no back up and they might get all killed off, you do not want that do you? Also that my opponent has said that this debate focuses soley on the 30,000 troops being sent to Afghanistan which is true, then why would you bring up that there is only less than 100 terrorists in Afghanistan? Please state your proof.

And now my opponents last point is that we should be retreating out of Afghanistan like the Soviets did in the 1980's. This 30,000 "surge" will bring US troop levels to approximately those of the Soviets when they occupied Afghanistan with disastrous result back in the 1980s.

I would like to say that I think that the Soviets were fighting a different terrorist organization but how do you know that the Soviets have lost the war in the 1980's? State your proof and how will it end up similarly unsuccessful? Like I said earlier on that the Soviets may be fighting different terrorist organizations and perhaps the terrorist organization is alot stronger that of Al Qaeda.

And with this said, please vote for Pro
Debate Round No. 2
jingzhezhang

Con

I will now post the last round of this debate, and I thank my opponent again for this great debate.
I will now back up my case.

Now, my opponent attack my first point saying that this war is not the following resolution. But yet it does. Because you have to look closely and study the war in order to make any final judgements. The war is clearly unconsitutional so there for we should have never even joined the war and that we should retreat out of here.

And My opponent's second rebut was to my second point. Now, we can't just say that the Al Qaeta fighter are stronger than our military. I need to see proof that our troops are going to get killed off. My opponent stated the word "might" so he, himself, does not even know if this is going to happen or not, and his rebut really don't make any sense saying that the number of Al Qaeda fighters doesn't matter.

My opponent's third rebut was to my third point. My last point was just an example of how the other millitary groups have fought a war against terrisim and have lost terribly. Fighting terriosts is just like fight a thought you really can't stop terriosism.

Ithank my opponent for this awesome debate, please vote for CON.
debaterbayne1

Pro

I would like to first thank all the viewers and my opponent for starting this debate, which I shall now restate my points:

1. The U.S. should finish the war in Afghanistan in order to have less deaths.
2. Sending troops can make the U.S. make more friends and allies
3. the 30,000 troops would be slowing down terrorist organizations.

Pro

1. The U.S. should finish the war in Afghanistan in order to have less deaths.

The USA obviously needs to send more troops into Afghanistan in order to destroy the Al Qaeda people so that they can stop killing innocent U.S. citizens as well as the Afghan citizens. Since we want to send more troops ( judging that this is in the United States best interest ) then obviously this would be a good idea. Clearly if we send more troops we can also finish the war so that people can return to there daily lives instead of killing off other people. Some people might think that this would cause more deaths but since like my opponent has clearly stated that there is only less than 100 Al Qaeda troops, this should not be much of a problem to end this war quicker and so we could also draw our troops back home to the U.S.

Now for my second point

2. Sending troops can make the U.S. make more friends and allies

Since we are sending troops to Afghanistan we are negotiating peace which would give us a chance to befriend the Afghans which would help us gain allies to corner and slow down the process of the terrorist of increasing considering the fact that unfortunately we can not destroy terrorists once and for all but this could help us improve things for them and to show the Afghans that this was all a mistake and that this would never happen again. Like my opponents said, that there are only less than 100 terrorists in there. We are not there just to destroy the remaining terrorists, we are also here to help improve their economy judging that their economy is in the toilets.

And finally I would like to add that the 30,000 troops would be slowing down terrorist organizations.
Terrorists are constantly growing. Unfortunately they can only be stopped but never destroyed. But since we are sending this 30,000 troops into Afghanistan and destroying the remaining terrorists, we would be destroying their mission of trying to take hold of Afghanistan. And if we stop them ( this may relate to point #1 ) then their will be a lesser chance that they will plot another attack on the U.S. similar like the twin tower incident which goes to less deaths. If we do not send the additional troops we might be able to win but the chances are very slim so I would say that sending the 30,000 troops would be in the United States best interest. And before I am done I would like to repeat the following resolution:

Resolved: President Obama's plan for increasing troops in Afghanistan is in the u.s. best interest.

Thank you and please vote for Pro.
Debate Round No. 3
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by debaterbayne1 6 years ago
debaterbayne1
never!
Posted by jingzhezhang 6 years ago
jingzhezhang
Forgive me this once I forgot that I was CON.
Posted by jingzhezhang 6 years ago
jingzhezhang
I sorry I posted the pro arguments.
Posted by jingzhezhang 6 years ago
jingzhezhang
Ha..
That was a funny joke.........
Posted by debaterbayne1 6 years ago
debaterbayne1
you have to stop copying and pasting your points.
Posted by debaterbayne1 6 years ago
debaterbayne1
ok.....
Posted by jingzhezhang 6 years ago
jingzhezhang
You fell into my trap!!!
I coped and pasted for a purpose!!
And if you are a voter please just ignorethe comments, it is a private matter.
Posted by jingzhezhang 6 years ago
jingzhezhang
HaHa!!!!!!!
Posted by debaterbayne1 6 years ago
debaterbayne1
really, me? You just copied and pasted all of your points!, I was scanning around and saw the exact same points ad words!!!!!!!
Posted by jingzhezhang 6 years ago
jingzhezhang
really stone, REALLY!!!!!
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by WillMitchell 6 years ago
WillMitchell
jingzhezhangdebaterbayne1Tied
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 
Vote Placed by Comrade_Ulyanov 6 years ago
Comrade_Ulyanov
jingzhezhangdebaterbayne1Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Vote Placed by sidobagga 6 years ago
sidobagga
jingzhezhangdebaterbayne1Tied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by carman16 6 years ago
carman16
jingzhezhangdebaterbayne1Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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