Total Posts:3|Showing Posts:1-3
Jump to topic:

RFD for The US should abandon the WOT

tajshar2k
Posts: 2,385
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/23/2015 2:25:39 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
My RFD

I will be using a point system, where I will award points for each argument, based on how strong it is. Rebuttals will be awarded based on how effectively it weakens the argument, and counter rebuttals will be awarded on how they strengthen the arguments.

Pro"s arguments

First argument

In this argument Pro shows that the WOT has been largely ineffective, and shows this by giving examples of terrorist attacks that still occur even after the WOT. This argument is strong, because it gives empirical evidence which shows that the WOT was not successful in it"s goal.

3/4

First argument rebuttal

For this rebuttal, Con shows that Pro"s examples were instances where the U.S was not involved, which frankly I"m buying. All pro had to do was show instances of terrorists attacks in Iraq Afghanistan, or other places with U.S involvement and his argument would not been able to be refuted. So I have to say this argument is successfully refuted. Pro could have just said that the WOT didn"t discourage these terrorist attacks, but he didn"t.

-3/4

Counter-Rebutall

Never expected this, but Pro makes a strong comeback by showing that evidence of the U.S unable to declare war on groups such as Boko Haram, is practically why the WOT is ineffective because there are too many groups. Pro shows examples of other countries such as Iraq, but I won"t count this, since Con never had a choice to refute this. Nevertheless, the first point was very effective.

3/4

2nd argument

In this argument Pro shows that the WOT has caused the U.S to justify the use of torture, which can be counter-intutitive. Especially since terrorists are condemned for torturous and inhumane acts. I find this argument to have some substance, but perhaps Pro could have expanded on that and shown why it"s bad for America. It"s not that compelling that it would convince me that we should abandon fighting the war altogether

2/4

Rebutall

Con explains how the Obama administration has made efforts to limit torture, in which he also points out that such argument is not strong enough to abandon the War on Terror itself.

-2/4

Counter Rebutall

Pro doesn"t provide a strong counter rebuttal, but simply states terrorism is immoral. Although most would agree, Pro should expand on that, but doesn"t do that. Overall this was disappointing and Pro overall fails to defend this.

0/4

Argument 3

Pro"s argument about defining terror is indeed strong. He shows that terrorism isn"t just once group, so we can"t just classify it. To prove this point he lists 95 different groups, and says that it"s impractical, to declare war on 95 different groups. Very strong argument and I"m buying this.

3/4

Rebutall

Con completely forfeits this point, as I see no rebutall for this argument
0/4

Argument 4

Pro shows evidence that the majority of Americans oppose the WOT. There isn"t really any oppurtunity for Pro to expand on this, so I can only give him one point. This point isn"t too compelling as to why we should abandon it. The poll numbers aren"t horribly one sided, so it"s sort of weak.

1/4

Rebutall

Con does make a strong case here. He states that getting votes from an unspecified amount of doesn"t give us any reason to abandon the war on terror, and states that the U.S has financial support. Although that was irrelevant.

-1/4

Counter Rebutall

Pro manages to make a comeback by showing the governments duty, and showing that the U.S should do what it can to protect and please it"s people.

1/4

Argument 5

I found this to be the strongest argument on the side of Pro. He gives examples of how much money the U.S has spent, and gives domestic examples to make comparisons, and this is very very compelling. Good Job !

4/4

Rebutall

Con states that the U.S sends more on it"s military than any other country and that other external factors such as the 2008 financial crisis lead to this. Con attempts to show that the spending is not that much, but doesn"t realize that the military spending was also contributing to the declining economy in 2008. Also, the fact that Pro shows that the U.S cannot declare war on all terrorist groups, indicates that if it were to do so, the spending would only increase, which would harm the economy. So, Con makes some little impact, but it"s not enough to steer Pro"s argument.

-2/4

Counter Rebutall

Basically what I explained above is what Pro said, so I give him 1 point.

1/4

Argument 7

Pro tries to explain that other solutions can be used to stop terrorism, but doesn"t really expand on the point. He does give one example, but It doesn"t seem compelling enough. If we had given more examples of this been used in real life, or other sources, this would be more convincing.

1/4

Con seems to be focusing more on the flaws of what Pro said in his first arguments, however this wasn"t in the rules. So, this was a wasteful rebuttal, and Con could have actually said something, especially since Pro"s argument was a bit weak.

0/4

Tally for Pro

3/4
0/4
3/4
1/4
3/4
1/4

Total Tally: 14/20
"In Guns We Trust" Tajshar2k
tajshar2k
Posts: 2,385
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/23/2015 2:25:51 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
5 instead of 4.

RFD for Con

Con"s argument is about 9/11, and how state security was threatened. These attacks would lead to the Afghanistan War, so Con does a good job justifying it. However, the Afghanistan War was just one part of the WOT, so what about everything else? This argument only argues for one war, not the whole thing. Also, Con could have expanded on how the WOT prevented more attacks on this scale, because he doesn"t explain a direct corelation. Still, it was a good argument

4/5

Rebutall

Pro argues that 9/11 has a lot of contreversy, and that 1 in 7 Americans believe that the government caused it. This isn"t convincing in any way, because why should we believe some random guy? Pro"s then argues about how the U.S government had to commit war crimes, and there was no point in an attempt. Pro gives us some statistics that showed the deaths of million of troops, but he concedes that the War on Terror did prevent any mass scale attacks from happening, after 9/11

1/5

Counter Rebutall

Con further defends his case, by proving the WOT prevented mass scale attacks on U.S soil.

2/5

Argument 2

Con gives evidence of the U.N resolution, citing that the resolution itself gives the U.S credibility to pursue the War on Terror, because terrorists threaten the security of nations. He also gives examples of the Paris Attacks, and how it brought countries together due to tragic events. This is a good argument, and I like how he brought examples of France and Russia being involved in taking down ISIS. However, it is worth mentioning the U.N resolution Con provided doesn"t necessarily say war is needed, so lets see what Pro says

4/5

Rebutall

So, Pro says exactly what I thought he would say, saying that other approaches could be used. He insists that the money that is used overbroad can be used to strengthen national security, and events such as the San Bernadino shooting prove this. However, Pro doesn"t really explain how he planned on doing this, just saying we should focus more on it.

1/5

Counter rebutall

For his rebuttal Con jumps on Pro for asserting that we should throw away international peace and security, which is sort what Pro is trying to say.He also states that the San Bernadino shooters pleading allegiance to isis doesn"t make them members, so the u.s would not have known about this. The last point isn"t very convincing to me. Why would have the U.S known? Con should have explained a bit more.

1/5

Effectiveness of the War

So, this point was basically irrelevant to this debate. Because Con argues about the Sri Lankan civil war, which was not part of the WOT. Con asserts that the U.S funding of the LTTE helped defeat terrorism in Sri Lanka, but doesn"t really show how the LTTE were terrorists in the first place. Regardless, the U.S was not involved in this war militarily so this point falls flat, because it doesn"t show that the WOT was effective, just that the Sri Lankan government was effective in defeating the LTTE.

0/5

Bosnia

Con argues that there is no other solution to the WOT, and successfully is able to show and provide examples of where intervening was the only solution to prevent genocide. The point itself does make sense, but Con could have expanded more on how this directly relates to the War on Terror. Especially since this was before the WOT was declared.

2/5

Pro's rebutall

Pro seems to have merged their rebuttals, but it doesn"t really address Con"s argument about Bosnia. Pro"s main focus was more on other factors such as Civilians deaths, and how they are ineffective. He also is able to show the negativity in the cost, but could have expanded a bit more on that.

1/5

Counter rebutall

Not too happy with this counter by Con. He just states he has successfully refuted his arguments. Wouldd have liked to see some more effort put towards this point.

Tally

5/5
4/5
0/5
1/5

10/20
"In Guns We Trust" Tajshar2k
tajshar2k
Posts: 2,385
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/23/2015 2:29:43 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
Overall, Pro wins this debate, because he is able to show that the negative impacts of the War on Terror, especially on a fiscal point. This was his strong point, and it helped him win. Con's strong points were about the U.N, and how the WOT prevented mass terror attacks from occurring on home soil. I felt Con's point on Sri Lanka was a huge letdown, and I'm not sure why we decided to use that as an argument.

Final Tally:

Pro:14
Con:10

Sources are tied, but Pro source about 1 and 7 Americans was a bit hilarious and very inaccurate, but since this was his main argument, and his other sources were accurate, I won't penalize him for this.

Spelling and Conduct were tied.
"In Guns We Trust" Tajshar2k