The Instigator
Nscully
Pro (for)
Losing
1 Points
The Contender
Deathbeforedishonour
Con (against)
Winning
18 Points

the US 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 5 votes the winner is...
Deathbeforedishonour
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/12/2012 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,441 times Debate No: 21962
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (11)
Votes (5)

 

Nscully

Pro

This is a 5 round debate. only serious candidates willing to go all the way should accept. thanks.

Debate breakdown:
1. Acceptance; brief intro
2. Pro' s opening arguments/ Con's rebuttal
3. Pro's rebuttal/ Con's 2nd rebuttal.
4. Pro's 2nd rebuttal /con's 3rd rebuttal.
5. Closing arguments and final rebuttals

Brief Intro:
I am totally against any attack on Iran.
in this day and age any diplomatic solution is better than outright war.

Main reason for not going to war:
The economic perspective
war with Iran will adversely affect not only the US economy but the world's economy. some countries such as Greece are still recovering from the economic melt down. the US is also not totally out of the woods. the economy is improving however is not yet totally stable. war at this time will cripple the economy and slow any progress.
Many people are still unemployed, the housing market is still in the slum and the country has huge debt from the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. the country cannot afford another war at this time. the peoples money should be spent on the economic recovery that will benefit all Americans than on a war that will benefit just a few.
The US cannot afford a war at this time
Deathbeforedishonour

Con

I accept.
Debate Round No. 1
Nscully

Pro

War will affect the economy negatively

There is no doubt that the US involvement in the war on terror , namely the Iraq and Afghanistan wars had an adverse effect on the economy. The wars with Iraq and Afghanistan led to the devastation of the economy. The wars were a budget busting disaster for the US and led to a higher national debt, deficit spending and increased bond sales to Asian banks. The US dollar also fell considerable against the Euro and caused panic in the world's economy. Evidently The wars did not improve our economy, in fact it led to the crash we experienced , the worst since the great depression. we are still in recovery and trying to improve our economy. However we have not fully recovered. A war with Iran I believe will stall the recovery and hurt the economy.

The Iranians
With the recent protests in Iran last year it is evident that the citizens are at odds with their leaders. Attacking Iran would harm thousands of innocent citizens and destroy their society. I believe war will have an adverse effect on the Iranians as those who wanted to overthrow their government will come to its defense. The Iranians may hate their Ayatollah which we actually created due to our meddling known as the 1953 Iranian coup d'�tat, but I believe that the moment war is waged they will come together and fight against the invading army. The war like that of Iraq and Afghanistan would be very prolonged

Nuclear Weapons already in the region

It has been stated that we should attack Iran to stop them from building nuclear weapons and attacking Israel. Per the argument for war, Iran would give terrorist access to their weapons if developed and we should launch a preemptive attack to prevent any threat to Israel. I oppose this stance as Iran has insisted that their impending nuclear programme is for peaceful purposes. it should be noted that the region already has countries with nuclear weapons that are not sympathetic to Israel and infact may pose a bigger threat than Iran. Pakistan is one such country. Pakistan has nuclear weapons and is a very unstable country even more so than Iran. In fact Pakistan was were Osama Bin laden was living for years before we got him. Pakistan is also a breeding ground and home to terrorist groups such as Al queda.

Pakistan and India

Pakistan acquired their nuclear weapons in response to their neighbour India who had nuclear weapons. these two nations hate each other , however they have not obliterated each other with their nuclear weapons. In that same principle, with Israel having their nuclear weapons , I believe the Iranians have a right to acquire their own.

Dejavu'
The Iranian nuclear programme is clouded in doubts as not much is known about what they are doing. The united states has been down this road before, and is still feeling the consequences of actions based upon faulty information and rushed decisions. WMD anyone? I believe diplomacy and sanctions are best at this point. war is never the best policy when so many doubts exists.

In the words of Mahatma Gandhi - "I object to violence because when it appears to do good, the good is only temporary; the evil it does is permanent"
Deathbeforedishonour

Con

~~Rebuttals~~

My opponent has stated a rather interesting case. I will start by refutting her intro. She states that by attacking Iran we would be hurting our economy. However, I would rather disagree. It is because of our current economic situation that we should go to war with Iran. Unlike when we started the last two wars we would profit greatly from the vast resources that are in Iran. It has vast amounts of oil and natural gasses, and otherthings that we could tap into [1]. We already have a superior military [2], and allies such as Israel that would indeed help us in the war.


R1: The Iranians

There are ways of getting the people on our side. We have Special Forces who are trained to convince the people to join our side [3]. We can easily send propaganda to Iran that would convince many of the opponants of the Iranian government to come to their aid. Then there is the fact that unlike in Afganastan we would not be looking for one person (i.e. Osama Bin Laden). We would have clear objectives such as oil fields, military targets, and the Capital. Therefore, this not a very good reason not to go to war with Iran.

R2: Nuclear Weapons already in the region
The fact that there are nuclear weapons in the surrounding areas is irrelevant. As you stated in your argument India and Pakistan hate eachother and have nukes, yet they have not nuked eachother. Why is this? It's because no one wants to go to war besides Iran want to go to nuclear war, because they know the second they do we and our allies would have dozens of even bigger nukes there to wipe them completely off the map. As for my opponent saying: 'Iran has insisted that their impending nuclear program is for peaceful purposes'. Iran's leader's have called for the death of America and that Israel to be blown off the map [4]. The only weapons that are capable of doing this are nuclear weapons, and Iran are trying so hard to get nuclear power.

R3: Pakistan and India

This is irrelevant. We are talking about Iran and Israel, not India and Pakistan. Neither of those two nations have threatened to annihilate the other. Iran has to Israel and America. And they have also moved to get the capability to do so.

R4: Dejavu
It is not cloudy at all. The U.N. has made it perfectly clear that Iran is trying to get nukes [5]. This makes them a threat, and they should be stopped before they do exactly what they said they are going to do.



~~My Argument~~

C1: Ally surrounded

Our ally Israel is completely surrounded. To the east They have Jordan and the Palistinians. To the west they there is Egypt and Lybia. And finally to the north is Iran, Syria, and Lebanon. What do all these countries have in common? Well they are all ran but Islamic fundamentalists, and they all hate either one of two things: Israel and America [6]. If they were attacked then they would surely be destroyed within hours. It is not just to let our friends be ganged up on by a bunch of overly religious thugs.

C2: Popular Support.

According to the Jerusalem Post a poll was taken up earlier this year. The results have stated that 62% Americans support a war with Iran [6]. This would be very good if a war did break out. It would be a decisive factor in getting victory over this decades old enemy that wants us all under Sharia law.

C3: Economic Benefits

There is no doubt that Iran has a vast amount of natural resources. If were to invade and succeed in attaining victory we would gain considerable economic benefit from this. Iran is rich in many things including: oil, natural gas, coal, chromium, copper, iron ore, lead, manganese, zinc, and sulfur [1]. By attaining these natural recourses we could get our economy back in ship shape.

However, there is another way how to benefit economically from invading Iran. China get's most of their oil from Iran. So, if we were to attack Iran then large portion of oil would be cut off and would not reach China. When this happens it would hurt their economy since they like us depend on oil. This would hurt their job market and would bring the jobs back to America. And our economy would benefit from receiving jobs and such [7].



Conclusion

In conclusion, I have proven that the U.S. has a very good reason to go to war with the Islamic Republic of Iran. I have refuted all of my opponent's claims, and have stated sources that prove my case. I have proven that we could convince the already rebelling people of Iran to support us and that the majority of Americans do in fact support a war with the terrorist state. I have proven that the U.S. could gain tremendous wealth from this. All while coming to the aid of our ally Israel.

I will now await my opponent's rebuttals.

[1] https://www.cia.gov...

[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org...(United_States_Army)

[4] http://news.bbc.co.uk...

[5] http://www.nytimes.com...

[6] http://www.jpost.com...

[7] http://johnharding.com...
Debate Round No. 2
Nscully

Pro

Thank You.

My Rebuttals

Ally surrounded
It is this very reason why we should not attack Iran. Israel is surrounded by Islamic fundamentalists as you say. An attack on Iran would be the fuse that lights this powder keg. The fact that they have a common hate for Israel will see them coming together and waging prolonged war on that country and America as well. Our actions will reaffirm their views of the west. If we invade Iran because they are trying to get nuclear weapons, what guarantee do the other countries have that we won't invade them for whatever reasons? These countries would find the justification for their call to "jihad" . Israel will never be at peace. I therefore believe that a diplomatic approach is best for this situation.

Popular Support.
A poll taken today 3/14/2012 clearly shows that the American people oppose this war.
Only one in four Americans favors Israel conducting a military strike against Iran's nuclear program," according to a new University of Maryland poll released Tuesday evening. "Nearly seven in ten (69 percent) favor the United States and other major powers continuing to pursue negotiations with Iran, a position supported by majorities of Republicans (58 percent), Democrats (79 percent) and Independents (67 percent)."
Therefore whatever support this war had earlier in the year is dwindling fast.
Also within Israel they are divided on this issue. Only 19 percent of Israelis polled expressed support for an attack without U.S. backing, according to a poll I conducted — fielded by Israel's Dahaf Institute Feb. 22-26 — while 42 percent endorsed a strike only if there is at least U.S. support, and 32 percent opposed an attack regardless

therefore whatever support this war may have had earlier in the year is dwindling fast

Economic Benefits
In my opening arguments the Iraq war was used as an example of what actually occurred when we invaded their country. Reality and theory are two different things. Just like in Iraq we thought we would be greeted as liberators, when in reality our presence was resisted. We thought by having control of their lands would we have unlimited access to their oil. In reality their oil production decreased after the invasion and access to their oil did not benefit our economy greatly.

Threatening China's economy by restricting oil could have disastrous effects. China is already weary of the west. As clearly outlined in a recent report, Beijing is viewing the tumult across the Middle East as a western-backed exercise geared towards toppling governments and trying to replace them with new regimes that are more pro-western in outlook to give preferential access to energy supplies to western firms. Senior policymakers in Beijing may therefore feel that toppling yet another government in Iran and replacing it with one friendlier towards the United States and the EU is not in China's interest. I strongly believe china will come to the aid for Iran especially if a war will adversely affect their economy.

Additional Argument
Any preemptive attack on Iran will be a violation of the United Nations Charter VII which clearly states that The UN prohibits member states from attacking other UN member state. This is central to the purpose for which the UN was founded in the wake of the destruction of World War II . Iran and the US are both members of the UN and a war will clearly be in violation.

I await my Con's rebuttals and arguments

Sources
http://www.reuters.com...
http://en.wikipedia.org...

http://www.politico.com...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com...
Deathbeforedishonour

Con

~~Defense~~

D1: Ally Surrounded

My opponent is basically stating that we should just let Iran and it's allies go into Israel and start a second holocaust. She states we should just use diplomatic solutions with the Arabs. However, what my oppenent apparently doesn't know is that we have been seeking diplomatic solutions for a long time and we have know progress thus far. The UN has placed a number of sanctions on Iran [1], and all of them have failed [2] [3]. It is because of this that we should actually notice that Iran doesn't want peace. They have shown that they want both America and our ally Israel destroyed, and they are working aggressivily to attain the means to do so as I stated in the last round. Therefore, since we and the UN have tried so hard for yours to come up with a peaceful solution and have failed to attain any sort of peace, then we should use the considerable resources at our despossal and attack Iran while they do not have nukes. My contention still stands.

D2: Popular Support

Actually, according to a pole that was taken 3 days ago says that the majority of Americans do want a war with Iran [4]. While, fifty percent of the Americans that voted against a war say that they would support a war with Iran after all peaceful measures had been exhausted [5]. Even Obama himself is in support for a war with Iran if peaceful means had been used up [6].

Even though Israel is divided on the issue. If America does intervene over sixty percent of Israelis would support the attack. As I stated in my defense of my first contention we have used up all peaceful means and Iran is standing defiant against the UN. Therefore, we must attack. My second contention still stands.

D3: Economic Benefits

Yes but the situation in Iraq was different. The people of Iraq liked Suddam Hussein. However, in Iran the people have a fierce hatred for the regime. We saw this when then Iranians started protesting their last elections (side note: they were violently disperced) [7]. If we attack their government then they will surely see us as friends.

However, it doesn't even matter if they would want us there or not because we need something to stimulate our economy so we can get out of debt. David Broder from the Washington Post has this to say about this subject:

Look back at FDR and the Great Depression. What finally resolved that economic crisis? World War II.

Here is where Obama is likely to prevail. With strong Republican support in Congress for challenging Iran’s ambition to become a nuclear power, he can spend much of 2011 and 2012 orchestrating a showdown with the mullahs. This will help him politically because the opposition party will be urging him on. And as tensions rise and we accelerate preparations for war, the economy will improve.

“I am not suggesting, of course, that the president incite a war to get reelected,” Broder qualifies. “But the nation will rally around Obama because Iran is the greatest threat to the world in the young century.” [8].


Now notice that he mentions FDR and WW2. This is because back before WW2 we were in the worst economic depression we had ever experieced, but by the time WW2 was over our economy was the strongest in the world. So, it is logical to conclude that war can be used as an economic stimulate. Therefore, for yje sake of our economy we should attack Iran.

Also, even if China did back Iran up they would be no match for our battle tested troops state of the art equipment. We have better tanks, rifles, troops, aircraft, and missle technology. We would quickly defeat them [9] [10].

~~Rebuutal~~

Iran has already violated a number of UN imposed sanctions. I highly doubt that the UN could ever do anything if we intervened in Iran especially since Canada just announced that they would back Israel against Iran [11].

Also, note that my opponent has not defended one of her arguments. Which is basically admitting to defeat until she properly defends her claims.

I thank opponent for her response, and now I will await her reponse.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...

[2] http://news.nationalpost.com...

[3] http://jn1.tv...

[4] http://www.pollingreport.com...

[5] http://www.politico.com...

[6] http://www.jpost.com......

[7] http://en.wikipedia.org...

[8] http://www.rawstory.com...

[9] http://en.wikipedia.org...

[10] https://en.wikipedia.org...

[11] http://www.thestar.com...



Debate Round No. 3
Nscully

Pro

Thank you. I will now post additional Arguments and my Rebuttal

An Attack will not stop Iran's nuclear ambitions.
Attacking Iran's openly declared and safeguarded facilities won't stop Iran's nuclear program. It will simply drive the program underground while creating or hardening Iran's resolve to pursue nuclear weapons in secret.
Per Sec. of Defense Robert Gates (May 2009) - "A military attack will only buy us time and send the [Iranian nuclear] program deeper and more covert".

The Disadvantages of an Attack
Even those who favor the military option admit that a ground invasion is out of the question. But bombing Iran's nuclear facilities without a subsequent invasion would merely trigger rage in Iran, and solidify their intention to pursue nuclear weapons in secret. Nuclear capacity lies mostly in knowledge. Facilities can be hidden. If hit and destroyed they can be re-built. As Secretary of Defense Gates put it: "Even a military attack will only buy us time and send the program deeper and more covert."


Breach of International Law
Attacking Iran's facilities that are enriching uranium to low levels under full IAEA safeguards would constitute a lawless act of aggression that would isolate the United States and Israel, not Iran.
International law on the use of force is crystal clear: nations may use unilateral force only to defend themselves against attack or imminent threat of attack. more
In this case, even Israel's Mossad doesn't claim that Iran will be able to produce a bomb before 2014. U.S. intelligence agencies believe it will take until at least 2013. So there is not even a fig leaf argument that attacking Iran could be justified by self-defense. Attacking Iran under such circumstances would trample existing law, while perversely reinforcing the discredited doctrine of "preventive war" that President Bush invoked in justifying the war in Iraq: that notion that one country may attack another whenever the first country feels threatened by the second. This is not a prescription for peace and security. It is a formula for perpetual war.

The scope of Iran's nuclear facilities
Iran's nuclear facilities involve much more than a single reactor. There are dozens of nuclear facilities scattered in population centers around the country. Bombing these facilities would kill large numbers of Iranian civilians, with disastrous consequences not only for the victims and their loved ones, but for the United States.

Consequences of an attack
Despite a long history of conflict at the official level, the Iranian people are more pro-American than any population outside Israel. They held candle-light vigils for America in the streets of Tehran after 9/11. Bombing Iran would change all that. A population that is now largely pro-American and angry with their own government would be enraged against the United States, and would rally round the flag against a foreign enemy (just as we would in their shoes). It is hard to imagine a better way to play into the hands of hardliners in Iran.


The Region
Attacking Iran would unleash chaos throughout the region, putting our troops' lives at risk and undermine the war on terror. As part of its deterrent to a feared U.S./Israeli attack, Iran has assiduously developed close relationships with Hamas in Gaza, Hezbollah in Iran, militias in Iraq and warlord clans in Afghanistan. These groups are not puppets of Iran. They have their own agendas. Nonetheless, experts find it quite likely that some or all of these groups would retaliate against U.S. forces as a gesture of solidarity with Iran, particularly if they perceived Iran to have been attacked without just cause. Our troops' lives would be put at risk by any rash decision to attack Iran. Terrorists thrive on hate. They find their refuge and recruits in hostile populations. With Pakistan, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan and Egypt already hotbeds of anti-American feeling and terrorist recruiting, America cannot afford to be turning yet another large Muslim population against the United States.

The Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).
An Attack on Iran would undermine the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).
Bombing declared facilities operating under under International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspection would send a terrible signal about the costs of cooperating with the IAEA. It could well undermine the NPT and IAEA safeguards regime around the globe.

An Attack would be Premature
Attacking Iran would be premature. Iran is years away from having a nuclear weapon, if it is pursuing one at all. Meanwhile, the United States has squandered six years refusing to talk to Iran until it suspended enrichment. We owe it to ourselves and the world to give diplomacy a chance before resorting to violence or draconian sanctions that could well lead to violence.


The threat of Force
Threatening force while lacking a credible scenario for using it would be self-defeating.
The Iranian leadership is fully aware of all the factors just cited, and has publicly dismissed the threat of force as incredible. So any bluff in this area is highly likely to be called.
Moreover, threats of force poison the waters of diplomacy. They isolate the United States in world opinion. they also entrench hard liners in Tehran who already are predicting - hopefully - that this President will turn out to be no different from President Bush.


Rebuttal

Any preemptive strike, regardless of how advantageous it may seem would clearly violate international and US laws
I stand by all my arguments that I have put forward.

I will now await my con's response.


Sources.

http://americanforeignpolicy.org...

www.wikipedia.org


http://www.csmonitor.com...
Deathbeforedishonour

Con


Note: My opponent has not defended any of her original claims that I refuted.

~~Rebuttals~~

R1: An Attack will not stop Iran's nuclear ambitions.

I would beg to difer. Even tho it would push it underground, it would also also it down considerably, which would allow us and our allies to track them down till we neutralize the threat. We did the same thing with Osama Binladen. He went under ground but we eventually found him and neutralized him.

R2: The Disadvantages of an Attack

Actually acording to the polls in Israel and America that I submitted in my other rounds state that the majority of citizens favor an invasion of Iran. If we invade we would easily quell any resistence and would allow us to slow their nuclear program down and buy us time to find and destroy them.

R3: Breach of International Law

Actually, it is self-defense since Iran has already intitiated hostilities by providing weapons and supplies to known terrorist groups that we are fighting. These groups include: Al Qaeda, Hezbollah, Palestinian Islamic Jihad and Hamas. They have been named the biggest supporter of terrorism around the world [1] [2]. By providing arms to people that use them to aggress us, they them selves are also responsible for our casualties (this includes Israeli casualties). Thus it is in fact in accordance with international law.

R4: Consequences of an Attack.

Though my opponent may be right this does not change the fact that Iran has broken international law, Threatened us and our allies, supported our enemies ( causing the death of innocent civilians and troops alike), and are trying to get nukes as fast as they can. Even if the people don't like it they wouldn't win against us and our allies. It does not change the fact that the war would be a just war and a reasonable response to a country that has never once wanted to negotiate.

R5: Region

It would not undermind the war on terrorism rather it would be a contintuation of the war on terrorism since Iran is a terrorist state [3]. It does no change anything. It is not rash at all. Iran has supplied our enemies, imprisoned our citizens, violated internation sanctions, and is trying to get the means to strike us with nukes [4]. It does not matter how many terrorist groups get involved we are in a perfect position to defend against them. We have bases in almost every region of the Middle-East, and we have a stronger military with better supplies and weapons. We would ultimately win.

Also, my opponent states: 'putting our troops' lives at risk'

All U.S. troops accept the risk when they sign their contract of service. They swear to support and defend the U.S. therefore, this holds no water [5].

R6: The Non-Proliferation Treaty

No it wouldn't. It is justified under international law to defend oneself against aggression of any kind (including giving bombs to our enemies). It is also a premptive strike that would save more lives then if we just waited for them to attack with nukes. Also, In 2009 Iran violated rules set by the IAEA when they established a second uranium site in secret. Since Iran has violated international laws and have opened hostilities against us, then this makes my opponent's sixth claim refuted.

R7: An Attack would be Premature.

The IAEA has determined that Iran has been working on aquiring nuclear weapons since 2003. This is in their latest report [6]. Also, the Obama Administration has worked hard to reason with Iran, but Iran will not stop. They have even arrested U.S. Hikers and a American journalist [7]. With this and the fact that Iran has done other stuff to provoke us that I have stated earlier in this round, my opponent's seventh claim has been refuted.

R8: The Threat of Force

I would like to ask my opponent a question: What is a credible scenerio? Is the fact that they have violated international laws, given arms to our enemies, and have aggressively trying to come up with nuclear weapons to attack us not enough? Is the fact that we have for the last four years been seeking diplomatic solutions to this probem only to get no where not enough? The National Security of us and our allies are being threatened by Iran and the Terror cells that they fund everyday. We only have one option and that is war.

R9: It's not just a preimptive strike if Iran has threatened our nation security by giving weapons to the very people that perpitrated 9/11 and the people that launch rockets at civilians in Israel every single day. It would be a defensive war, and it would be a just war!

~~Final Conclusion~~

I have refuted all of my opponent's cases, and I have defended all of my contentions. I have given reasonable evidence that says that Iran is developing nukes. I have proven that by invading Iran our economy would be boosted, and that we have the support of most of our and Israel's citizens. I have proven that since Iran has opened hostilities against us by giving weapons to our enemies, it would be protected under international law as a defensive war. I encourage all of the voters to vote Con.

[1] http://www.theisraelproject.org...

[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...

[3] http://en.wikipedia.org...

[4] http://en.wikipedia.org...

[5] http://en.wikipedia.org...

[6] http://www.haaretz.co.il...

[7] http://en.wikipedia.org...

Debate Round No. 4
Nscully

Pro



Conclusion:


A recent Poll as of Mar 14, 2012 clearly states that 41 percent of the population supports a U.S. attack on Iran while 53 percent is opposed to such an attack.

voice from the region
Hezbollah Deputy Chief Sheikh Naim Qassem has stated that if Israel were to attack Iranian nuclear sites, the Middle East would be set ablaze setting off a conflict that is bound to get out of control. Per Hezbollah Deputy Chief Sheikh Naim Qassem "America knows that if there is a war on Iran, this means that the whole region will be set alight, with no limit to the fires,”.


In closing I would like to highlight the fact that According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, the United States has 8,500 nuclear weapons. Israel maintains a policy of nuclear ambiguity but is recognized as a nuclear state by friend and foe. The Natural Resources Defense Council’s Nuclear Notebook estimates Israel has between 75-200 nuclear weapons, at least as many as both India and Pakistan. Even if Iran had half that number , which they do not , there is no concrete proof that they would try to use them against Israel or America who have declared they are willing to strike first.
Earlier this year Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta admitted Iran is not trying to build nuclear weapons, the same conclusion reached by National Intelligence Director James Clapper and the Israeli intelligence community.
The oft-repeated concern that Iran’s pursuit of nuclear technology could trigger a Middle East arms race is therefore a flawed argument. That race began with Israel decades ago and continued when Pakistan tested their own nuclear weapon in 1998. Even if Iran tried to build nuclear weapons (a goal they have repeatedly renounced) they would not be starting an arms race, but reacting to it.
It is interesting to note that Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, has called nuclear weapons “un-Islamic” and gone so far as to issue a fatwa (religious decree) against them.


I am therefore firm in my resolve that the USA should not attack Iran.

I would like to thank my Con for engaging in such an interesting debate.


Sources
http://articles.latimes.com...
http://abcnews.go.com...
http://www.asianews.it...
http://www.civilbeat.com...
Deathbeforedishonour

Con

~~Correction heres my Final Conclusion~~

My points still stand. Iran has promised to blow us and Israel of the map. This should not be treated lightly since we have clearly seen in the past hat denying a threat could lead to horrible evens such as the attack on Pearl Harbor and 9/11. We have sefficiant reasons to attack them since they have armed our enemies and have cost our soldiers lives. We have great economic reasons for invading Iran, since in the past wars such as WW2 have greatly stimulated our economy and that Iran has a vast amount of natural resources that we cdould use. We also have a moral obligation to advance liberty into the region and end the horrible atrocities that the Iranian government is doing to it's people.

Note: not one of my cases have been refuted.

I enjoyed this debate.

I would like to encourage the voters to vote con.

Thank You for Reading. :)
Debate Round No. 5
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by dinokiller 4 years ago
dinokiller
Obviously, having a leader that claims that the Holocaust never happened will create alot of enemies for Iran.
Posted by Nscully 4 years ago
Nscully
OK. No problem
Posted by Deathbeforedishonour 4 years ago
Deathbeforedishonour
Yes, just been busy i'll have done in a few.
Posted by Nscully 4 years ago
Nscully
are you still interested in this case?
Posted by Nscully 4 years ago
Nscully
yes
Posted by Deathbeforedishonour 4 years ago
Deathbeforedishonour
Ok so I will refute your claims and then state my case and then it can be rebuttals from there.
Posted by Nscully 4 years ago
Nscully
do both. lets make it interesting.
I will post my position in detail and you can rebut that. then we can go from there.
Posted by Deathbeforedishonour 4 years ago
Deathbeforedishonour
Before I accept this do I just rebuttal you the entire debate or do I do contentions too?
Posted by Deathbeforedishonour 4 years ago
Deathbeforedishonour
Before I accept this do I just rebuttal you the entire debate or do I do contentions too?
Posted by Nscully 4 years ago
Nscully
just did. i need 5 rounds for a class. hope you can go all the way.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 4 years ago
RoyLatham
NscullyDeathbeforedishonourTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:15 
Reasons for voting decision: A sloppy debate. Pro had lower quality sources and didn't link them to arguments. Pro won the economic argument; Iraq is a valid counterexample. con should have noted wars are only $200B of the $1600B deficit. Pro had the BoP; Con's argument for sticking with Israel was convincing. Con wins close arguements. I'll give Pro the spelling point, pole > poll, etc. by con, though both sides made errors "deja vu."
Vote Placed by Yep 4 years ago
Yep
NscullyDeathbeforedishonourTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Horrid Show by pro, Con clearly refuted all argumentation
Vote Placed by imabench 4 years ago
imabench
NscullyDeathbeforedishonourTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:02 
Reasons for voting decision: the Pro only had two decent arguments, economic impact and the long duration the war would have, and she didnt go into them as much as she should have and wasted effort on other arguments instead. he con however didnt do much better becuase even though he quickly defeated the pro's lesser arguments, the references to china, taking Irans resources, etc didnt make him sound any more convincing. Round 4 the pro really had some good arguments but it was too late. arguments tied, sources to the con
Vote Placed by 1dustpelt 4 years ago
1dustpelt
NscullyDeathbeforedishonourTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Con had a poor argument and rebuttals.
Vote Placed by 16kadams 4 years ago
16kadams
NscullyDeathbeforedishonourTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro had a poor case and poor rebuttals. Con significantly proved iran was being highly aggressive and need to be dealt with. He proved Iran WAS making nuclear weapons at the same time threatening to cut off oil and destroy israel. It they get the bomb they will have more leverage and be a danger. His case was revolved around popular support, and ally surrounded. Pro proved iran had allies, she said ditch israel basically. Con points this out. He also proves other things in the arguments he had.