The Instigator
deamonomic
Con (against)
Winning
14 Points
The Contender
Diptesh
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points

should america take more extreme measures to win the war

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
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: 3/30/2009 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,152 times Debate No: 7513
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (8)
Votes (2)

 

deamonomic

Con

welcome to all whom read this. i was not very clear about the topic in my last one, so im opening another one, to give the topic the discussion i feel it deserves.

this topic is about whether or not america should take more extreme measures to win the wars it goes into in order to lessen the loss of soldiers.

to be clear, killing the guy who is shooting at you is NOT an extreme measure. killing that one guy with a sniper bullet to stop him from bombing a town, is NOT an extreme measure. being shot at and firing into a crowd of people whom have nothing to do with it, in an attempt to kill the guy shooting at you, IS an extreme measure. leveling a third of a city and killing 1000 civilians to get try to destroy the factory IS an extreme measure.

as I've said in my other one. America cannot take these "extreme measures." because of the fact that it will eventually lead to Americas down fall. There is a reason as to why America isn't already doing so. Remember world War 2? Remember the destruction? Remember how many cities were reduced to rubble? How many lives were lost because our bombers missed their target?

there are many reasons as to why these actions should not be taken. One Major reason is the fact that, taking more extreme measures, make America look bad. And that is something we want to avoid. We already look bad enough to the rest of the world, we don't need to make that image worse. Doing these actions will irreparably damage Americas image and influence with the rest of the world.

another reason is the fact that taking such extreme measures will not lessen the fighting at all. It will infact increase the number of casualties on both sides. Take Iraq for example, they have had so many die already, and that is WITH us holding back. How do you think they would react if those casualties were triple that because we were not holding back? Do you think they would want to cooperate to the point they have? Or turn to terrorist organizations such as Al-Qaeda for help in driving us out? We would give them a reason to keep fighting us, and a reason to call for help, thus dragging out the war far longer. We would give them a reason to continue attacking us and events like 9/11 will happen agian.

further more currently there are 4,186 US casualties in Iraq since the start of the war. there are from around 90,000 to 100,000 Civilian casualties due to the war. also keep in mind that it was WE who started the war not them. furthermore keep in mind here that there are over 90,000 dead and that is with us holding back and not going all out. if we were to go all out and not hold back the casualties would be significantly higher on both sides. tho, agian, more so for the civilians then us. ( source: http://www.globalsecurity.org...
and http://www.iraqbodycount.org... )

also i would like to mention the fact that america would be charged with War crimes. for a definition of warcrimes visit here: http://en.wikipedia.org...
Diptesh

Pro

I thank my friend to debate on such an intresting topic.
Now according to my friend's word
"to be clear, killing the guy who is shooting at you is NOT an extreme measure. killing that one guy with a sniper bullet to stop him from bombing a town, is NOT an extreme measure. being shot at and firing into a crowd of people whom have nothing to do with it, in an attempt to kill the guy shooting at you, IS an extreme measure. leveling a third of a city and killing 1000 civilians to get try to destroy the factory IS an extreme measure"
So viewers i would like to ask a question from you all that if you'll see a highly rated criminal seeking behind 100 people,
and if you didn't killed that highly rated criminal then may be tommorow,
he'll be before a 1000 people then, what,
will you again let him go.
For example if we take an example that if
Osama bin laden is seeking behind a thousand people and you have a sniper in your hand then would you not like to kill him because may be due to him you lost your loving ones, so at that time are you going to think about that 1000 or going to kill those 1000 to save 10000000 from being dead.
The choice is yours.
Other things i would like to share in next round i.e. i'll be back with Some more Strong points later so i wish a best of luck to my opponent.
Because its just the beigning as this whole debate consist of 4 rounds so i would like to spend the information very dimly.
thank you for reading.......
Debate Round No. 1
deamonomic

Con

ok first i would like to state, that there are not even 10 billion people on the planet for the "high rated criminal to kill". moreover there has NEVER been a situation where killing one man, would save billions. there has never been a situation close to that. to save a few thousand yes.

agian, this is not about killing the few to save the many, its about killing the many to save the few. people think that the US needs to stop restricting our soldiers. and stop being cautious. meaning there will be no stopping point.

ill give you an example of my own: "you see a guy whom you think might have a bomb, because he is running towards the embassy. hes running through a large crowd of innocent people. you open fire, killing everyone in the crowd. 200 dead... and it turns out that the guy wasnt a terrorist, it turns out he was delivering a package, and was only running because he was late." that could have been avoided with restrictions. and THAT is why we have restrictions on our soldiers.

as i stated above, there are only at most 4,300 US casualties in the war in Iraq. there are over 90,000 civilian casualties. some people think that the 4,000 that have died, died because they were having to hold back when civilians are around. this is not true. they died because they are in a war. they all sign up with the knowledge they may die.

if america were to take more extreme measures it would lead to the downfall of america as a world power.
Diptesh

Pro

Diptesh forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
deamonomic

Con

my arguement stands as is.
Diptesh

Pro

Diptesh forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
deamonomic

Con

my arguement stands as is. my opponent is not feeling well so dont hold his forfits agianst him.
Diptesh

Pro

Guys whosoever is reading i will be not able to continue as i am not well So refer to the above comments and vote.
Bye........
Debate Round No. 4
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by wjmelements 8 years ago
wjmelements
"the war"

Ooh!
I could have fun with this one:
-The war on drugs
-The Cold War
-The war on the coal companies
FUN FUN FUN.

Too bad someone already took it...
Posted by deamonomic 8 years ago
deamonomic
np man. get better :P
Posted by Diptesh 8 years ago
Diptesh
hey my health is not well enough that i can post my arguement as i have severe cold now, so i forfeit this round and will try my best that i do not forfeit the next round
bye..........
Posted by deamonomic 8 years ago
deamonomic
that, i did not know. can you provide a link to this info? (i enjoy learning :P)
Posted by I-am-a-panda 8 years ago
I-am-a-panda
Britain's older factories began to fail in the late 50's, and even had to loan from Germany to stay afloat.
Posted by deamonomic 8 years ago
deamonomic
thats after the war, and WE helped them rebuild. so it ended up costing us more. had they not started the war there is a good chance they would have been upgraded anyways.
Posted by Diptesh 8 years ago
Diptesh
man would have been accepted it but it consist of 5 round which should be not there try cancelling this debate and restart it with the same arguements.
'cuz i want to accept your challenge........
Posted by I-am-a-panda 8 years ago
I-am-a-panda
"Remember world War 2? Remember the destruction? Remember how many cities were reduced to rubble? How many lives were lost because our bombers missed their target?" - One of the results of this was the destruction of factories. When the factories were re-built, it was modern factories, therefore saving Germany and it becoming the "German miracle."
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by JakeF 8 years ago
JakeF
deamonomicDipteshTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 wjmelements 8 years ago
wjmelements
deamonomicDipteshTied
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