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

War on Terror RFD

Posts: 223
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/11/2015 6:48:35 AM
Posted: 2 years ago

This is my RFD for a debate on whether the War on Terror is good or not.

I'll start out by saying that my basis for deciding who wins the debate is whether based on who debated the best. So this means who made the smartest arguments, was clear, was strategic...ect.

I voted for CON very easily in this round. Now I'll explain exactly why:

In this debate PRO accepts the BoP and then in his arguments makes 3 contentions. The first is that Terror is a real threat and thus it must be stopped, second is that we have an obligation to allies, and third is that there are economic impacts to terror which makes it desirable to erase. Con effectively makes two arguments at the beginning. CON states that the WOT is ineffective and costs a ton of money. These were very smart arguments to make strategically because the former invalidates PRO's first and second contention. (we can't help national security if we are actually increasing the amount of terrorism, nor could we be helping our allies). He also, very easily, takes out PROs terror-cost argument because he proves the WOT is much much more expensive.

CON made much better strategic arguments, because he challenged PRO's assumption that the war on terror actually reduces terrorism and completely nullified his econ adv in one foul swoop. What's sad is that the debate stays this way. Which makes my decision easier. CON way out debated PRO here.

Here's where yall F-d up: Neither of you actually cite your sources in the debate round. I mean you HAVE sources, they just don't seem to apply anywhere. How is your opponent or the judge supposed to know which site relates to which claim? You need to put number your sources and then put a little box with brackets indicating which source relates to which claim...aka: "socialism bad[3]" indicating that your evidence that socialism is bad is in source three, which should also be numbered below.

In CON's first argumentative speech he makes a subpoint that the terror threat is high now. This was unnecessary because PRO literally already argued this. He said terror threat high now, well the war on terror is also going on right now so he proves you're point that the WOT is not working. Next time just say, 'we concede their argument that the threat of terror is high now which prove our arg that the WOT isn't working'. It makes them look bad and proves your point w/out you having to do any real work. But keep in mind, CON, that this argument is probably the most important and least developed in the round. I need you to explain how the correlation of terrorism going up means that there is causation with that correlation. PRO never calls u on this but it makes a stronger arg. you also need to explain from the outset that if this argument is true, it kills two of his three arguments. In general yall need to do more explaining of what your arguments mean in terms of who wins and who loses. I needed CON to show evidence as well to support that WOT causes terrorism, CON you should have called him out on this lack of evidence.

THen PRO, you argument on how we can't stop an ideology isn't developed enough either. You need to show me sources, empirical cases, and explain the simple point that when we kill terrorists we only create a cycle of hatred which propagates more terrorism. Don't just blandly say 'WOT doesn't work bc we can't kill the ideology'. Go further. PRO you should have pointed out how just because we can't fully kill the ideology we can reduce its impacts. CON cites NAzism and stalinism but even though they never fully died, at least the holocaust is over and we can dramatically reduce the damage those people cause right?

NExt: so the next speech given by PRO was terrible. each point conceded a CON argument. FOr instance you said that the only reason terrorists got stronger was because we left creating a power vacuum, but if we never joined the WOT then we wouldn't have even BEEN THERE to cause a power vacuum when we left right? Not a smart argument to make PRO. You need to support all of your case a bunch more.

That's all for sepcifics but here is general advice. You guys need to explain why you are winning. CON you should have pointed out that you have turned all of his arguments against him and that the best way to protect the nation is to NOT have the WOT. And the res is vague so try and be more specific, also be more clear on what the WOT even is. They weren't problems in THIS round but in others they will be.

Good job, CON wins.