The Instigator
flyingtuna420
Pro (for)
Losing
9 Points
The Contender
zarul
Con (against)
Winning
12 Points

the terrorists do not fight by our rules of war, but we still have to obey those same rules.

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: 2/1/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 986 times Debate No: 2356
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (6)
Votes (7)

 

flyingtuna420

Pro

simply because we should be better than that, we should be better than them. I have family in the war and from what they tell me I know how hard it is not to snap, but even so those who do must be prosucuted and punished to the fullest extent of the law.
zarul

Con

My opponent is yet to define what "our rules of war" are, and is yet to prove that we follow them. As well, they are yet to prove that terrorists do not follow these rules.

Since my opponent has not provided any rules, I shall assume that there are none. If there are no rules, then clearly we cannot follow them, and terrorists cannot break them. Therefore, you should vote Con.

As well, for future notice, the affirmative must be able to define what "our rules" are, and they must be able to prove that we follow ours, and that terrorists do not. If the affirmative is unable to do any of these three things, I should be voted for.

Assuming that the affirmative will prove the three things above (in a later round), I will address the second part of the resolution.

Establishing the stance that we must always obey rules is foolish. Ultimately, this defines a zero tolerance policy, which is ultimately a no thinking policy.

A. Zero tolerance policies are bad.

1. We would not allow for any mitigating factors.

2. Often, circumstances arise where a zero tolerance policy ends up hurting someone who has clearly done nothing wrong. From 1st graders kissing another 1st grader being suspended for sexual harassment to students losing scholarships and the ability to participate in graduation for having a steak knife in their car.

B. The policy adopted by the affirmative may not be a typical zero tolerance policy, however, it is equally bad.

1. We would be unable to handle unforseen circumstances that may require us to compromise these so-called "rules of war".

2. It would weaken the government if they were forced to follow unbreakable rules, governing is meant to be flexible, not rigid.

I reserve the ability to make new arguments in the following rounds seeing as the affirmative has only provided the skeleton of an argument.

Finally, if the affirmative does not answer my arguments in the next round, or post some evidence and define the three things discussed earlier, I clearly should receive your vote.
Debate Round No. 1
flyingtuna420

Pro

flyingtuna420 forfeited this round.
zarul

Con

My opponent has conceeded this round.

I have already raised reasons as to why I should be voted for unless the affirmative defines certain concepts and argues certain points, and as the affirmative is yet to do so, I should be voted for.

I await my opponent's return.
Debate Round No. 2
flyingtuna420

Pro

flyingtuna420 forfeited this round.
zarul

Con

My opponent has forfeited this debate, failing to show up for their last two rounds.

My arguments stand, unrefuted. I will say that it is unfortunate that my opponent has not responded, this could have been an interesting debate.
Debate Round No. 3
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by Mr_Khan 9 years ago
Mr_Khan
we do have rules of engagement and rules of war currently, but since our military is really not trained to fight urban guerrilla combat it is hard to define rules of war. and for the most part, a lot of our commanders and people in the field do not follow all the rules, it is impossible. for the most part the rules of combat are fire if fired upon.. that is the main rule that is being used in iraq and afghanistan
Posted by zarul 9 years ago
zarul
In real life I would argue that they should apply to so-called "terrorists". But that isn't really even relevant in this debate since no one has requested or said that the Geneva Convention should be used as a standard.
Posted by C-Mach 9 years ago
C-Mach
Ahem, the Geneva Convention, anyone? The Geneva Convention says that it's rules don't apply to terrorists.
Posted by zarul 9 years ago
zarul
Just wondering, what do you mean by ethos?
Posted by NietzSHE 9 years ago
NietzSHE
I'm torn here. Con has obviously presented better arguments, yet his ethos aren't that high for me.

Shall I vote CX style, or logically?
Posted by Richard89 9 years ago
Richard89
By "snap" I take it you mean atrocities. I don't think anyone could disagree with you on that.
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by Oolon_Colluphid 9 years ago
Oolon_Colluphid
flyingtuna420zarulTied
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 kels1123 9 years ago
kels1123
flyingtuna420zarulTied
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 Mr_Khan 9 years ago
Mr_Khan
flyingtuna420zarulTied
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 goldspurs 9 years ago
goldspurs
flyingtuna420zarulTied
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 ComradeJon1 9 years ago
ComradeJon1
flyingtuna420zarulTied
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 mrmazoo 9 years ago
mrmazoo
flyingtuna420zarulTied
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 bigbass3000 9 years ago
bigbass3000
flyingtuna420zarulTied
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