Total Posts:8|Showing Posts:1-8
Jump to topic:

Constructive critisim?

PublicForumFTW
Posts: 13
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/10/2010 7:54:07 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Ok. This is for January's Public Forum topic...
It feels messy and unorganized, like my thoughts are unorganized, so I thought I'd post for some feedback. It's under "News" because this is in the news and I dunno where else to put it. :P

By the way the resolution is: Resolved: President Obama's Plan for increasing troops in Afghanistan is in the United States' best interest.

This brings me to my first contention, stating, the stabilization of Afghanistan is of great importance to the United States. If the United States can stabilize Afghanistan, then our military can withdraw more quickly saving a lot of money and lives. Currently the cost to stay in Afghanistan is detrimental to the U.S. In a report done by the Congressional Research Service in October, it was estimated that about 3.6 billion dollars were being spent monthly in Afghanistan, at the time conducted. If we do not do anything different, we will stay in Afghanistan for several more years. For example, the Vietnam War raged for 16 years, and we have been in Afghanistan about nine. According to the White House's "Fact Sheet: The Way Forward in Afghanistan", "In July 2011, we will transfer lead security responsibility to Afghans and start to transfer our combat forces out of Afghanistan." When our troops begin vacate Afghanistan, we will not be spending near as much money. The money that would be being spent on this war, if nothing was done to speed the process, would continue to be spent for much longer than 18 month. This money will be able to go to other causes once we withdraw from Afghanistan. In addition, the sooner we leave Afghanistan, the less time is allowed for our troops to die. For instance, a suicide bomber attacked a CIA base December 30th, killing eight Americans in the process. The sooner the United States leaves Afghanistan, the less time allowed for such events to occur. It is quite obvious we can't do much with troops levels as low as they are. And Obama's plan is a 50% increase to the 68,000 U.S. troops stationed according to the White House. This is a substantial increase that is obviously needed to stabilize Afghanistan, a goal of the President's plan. If we are able to stabilize Afghanistan, we can withdraw much earlier, and not have to invade again in the future.

Please. Tell me if it sucks. Um.. I HAVE to write a contention about this, so don't suggest changing the entire contention, but anything to make it clearer, or anything I left out. Thanks. :) My brain just isn't working right.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/10/2010 8:01:50 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Interesting.

You've got a lot of interesting facts down, though I'd suggest maybe organizing it a little better, with points like "fiscal, military, political," and whatnot.

I'd also mention things about the Afghanistan government being propped up, what needs to happen with the state in order for it to increase legitimacy and control over territory (Obama has talked about it quite a bit), maybe some things about foreign support (for example: the fact that two major contributors to the mission, Canada and the Netherlands, will be bowing out by 2011) and how the troop surge will help support and/or cover duties alongside those foreign troops.

Another good thing to mention is about infrastructure spending, and the shift of American policy in Afghanistan from one of a mostly-military mission, to a more defined nation-building exercise. But overall, 'tis good.
PublicForumFTW
Posts: 13
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/10/2010 8:21:04 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Well.. Yeah. I wanted to write con. But my partner wanted to write con this time...
We have to have both cases written because your side isn't chosen until the coin flip before the round.

And THANK YOU! I'm actually beginning to remember what was going on in my notes, so I remember how I was going to originally structure it.
PublicForumFTW
Posts: 13
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2010 4:48:04 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
And Now... MY FINAL CASE... Ok.. So the third contention isn't finished, but I want to post this now, and I have to stop working on it for now.

Our President, Barack Obama, said in his Address on the War in Afghanistan, "It is in our vital national interest to send an additional 30,000 U.S. troops to Afghanistan. After 18 months, our troops will begin to come home. These are the resources that can allow for a responsible transition of our forces out of Afghanistan." Because of this, and because additional troops will bring a faster end to this war, the stabilization of Afghanistan is of great importance, and additional troops will aid in combating terrorism my partner and I stand in firm affirmation of today's resolutions which states:

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

Before I begin I'd like to define a few terms:
Interest: to be good or necessary for the safety or success of a country and its people according to the Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English

This brings me to my first contention, stating: additional troops will aid in concluding the war quickly. To be successful in Afghanistan, we obviously need more than 68,000 troops. President Obama has said, "Afghanistan is not lost, but for several years it has moved backwards. There is no imminent threat of the government being overthrown, but the Taliban has gained momentum." We need more troops to make progress. Currently the cost to stay in Afghanistan is detrimental to the U.S. In a report done by the Congressional Research Service in October, it was estimated that about 3.6 billion dollars were being spent monthly in Afghanistan, at the time conducted. If we do not do anything different, we will stay in Afghanistan for several more years. For example, the Vietnam War raged for 16 years, and we have been in Afghanistan about nine. According to the White House's "Fact Sheet: The Way Forward in Afghanistan", "In July 2011, we will transfer lead security responsibility to Afghans and start to transfer our combat forces out of Afghanistan." When our troops begin vacate Afghanistan, we will not be spending near as much money. The money that would be being spent, if nothing was done to speed the process, would continue to be spent for much longer than 18 months on this war. This money will be able to go to other causes once we withdraw from Afghanistan. In addition, the sooner we leave Afghanistan, the less time is allowed for our troops to die. For instance, a suicide bomber attacked a CIA base December 30th, killing eight Americans in the process. The sooner the United States leaves Afghanistan, the less time allowed for such events to occur. It is quite obvious we can't do much with troops levels as low as they are. And Obama's plan is a 50% increase to the 68,000 U.S. troops stationed according to the White House. This is a substantial increase that is obviously needed to be successful. We can withdraw much earlier if we have more men and women fighting for us.

Bringing me to my second contention, which states, the stabilization of Afghanistan is of great importance to the United States. If we leave Afghanistan in it's current state, we will only be forced to return a few years in the future. Without stabilization it is sure to continue to be a breeding ground for terrorism, which is one of the main reasons U.S. troops are in Afghanistan to begin with. President Obama plans to use many of these additional troops to train the Afghan military and police forces. Robert Diamond, Former Officer in the U.S. Navy said, "Thirty thousand troops will not be enough to permanently defeat the insurgency, and that is why training the Afghan Army is so critical to this. It will take a sizable number of Afghan military and police officers to ultimately defeat the insurgency. Therefore, President Obama is right to focus a major part of his surge on training and growing the country's military and police forces." Obviously it is very important to send additional troops to Afghanistan in order to train their military. Because if the Afghan Army and police forces are not properly trained, we will never be able to withdraw from Afghanistan, or if we do, we will be forced to return only a few years later because the government failed. This will drain our funds more, as well as cause the death of more troops in the long run.

Bringing me to my third and final contention, which states: these additional troops will reduce terrorism. President Obama said in his address that, "It is important to recall why America and our allies were compelled to fight a war in Afghanistan in the first place. We did not ask for this fight. On September 11, 2001, nineteen men hijacked four airplanes and used them to murder nearly 3,000 people." The sole reason for fighting this war is to combat terrorism.

Clearly I have shown you today, that President Obama's plan is not only in the United States's best interest, but vital to our economic state and national security. Because the additional troops will conclude the war more quickly, the stabilization of Afghanistan is vital, and additional troops will combat terrorism I see nothing but a pro ballot in today's debate.

Please.. Tell me if anything sounds stupid or confusing.. I kinda just pulled an all-nighter. X[
Sky_ace25
Posts: 190
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2010 4:27:24 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
First contention: Where do you prove that sending more troops will help speed up the process? You prove that if we delay it will not speed up; yet you never prove how sending troops will speed up the process, correct me if I'm wrong.

Third Contention: It's quite weak...to be honest...don't rely on the 9/11 argument your just going to get into a huge pointless debate over where and when terrorist came from. Further more somebody could argue that if you have a huge increase in troops Al-Quaeda (I know I spelled that wrong) will obviously notice this and will just retreat in hiding and then they will just regain power as we waste money and American lives to pointless encounters. That's just what I think though.
Seriously, Pluto is no longer a planet?
Sky_ace25
Posts: 190
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2010 4:29:37 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Further more somebody could argue that Afghanistan is not necessarily a huge threat. If anything North Korea is a bigger threat with their unstable gov. and their nuclear missile capabilities. We KNOW North Korea has nuclear capabilities. We do not know that Afghanistan has the same capabilities. Further more terrorist groups, especially more global ones, can easily just hide out in other places. Just sending a huge group of troops won't suddenly change this. If anything we should just pull out now and move to North Korea a bigger threat. (This is just a counter argument to think about).
Seriously, Pluto is no longer a planet?
Sky_ace25
Posts: 190
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2010 4:31:10 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Also, you contradict yourself. You say we want to pull out fast, yet you say we should send more troops. You need to make sure you prove that we can pull out fast by sending more troops. Else your first contention is a giant contradiction.
Seriously, Pluto is no longer a planet?