The Instigator
Pro (for)
2 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
5 Points

War on Terror

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 2 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/19/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,267 times Debate No: 77858
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (15)
Votes (2)




I will be auging that the war on terror had to happen, and that it is the more logical, better choose. I have to prove that the war on terror, one had to happen, and two is the better more logical choose then not doing the war on terror.

Con will have to be auging against those two statements.

Round one will be accepting

Round two is posting your first augment

Round three will be rebuttal

Round four will be your closing augment

If you want to accept this debate then tell me in the comments.


I have accepted this debate challenge on the side of Con. I will be arguing that the United States' war on terror was and continues to be inefficient and poorly coordinated. I will be stating that this War on Terror destabilizes the collective economies of victimized Middle Eastern nations, creates a mutual exchange of hatred between the Muslim world and the West, and creates massive debt that we could do well without. For the most part, my argument will be based on economy, as I cannot find it within my heart to care for certain individuals.

Burden of proof is shared equally. Argument is expectantly going to be both subjective and objective in certain cases. Please keep opinions to a minimum, and only use factual data and evidence from respectable sources.

I await your initial response, and then I shall counter it with my own.
Debate Round No. 1


These terrorist groups have waged a global war of terror on us. They kill people all around the world, and kill anyone who dose not agree with them. Now many of you think that when people talk about the War on Terror, they are talking about lets fight the middle east. Now yes terrorist cells are in the middle east but they are much much bigger then just that. Terrorist cells are everywhere these days. That is why we need a global War on Terror. Terrorist cells are in the Middle East and in Africa. These terrorist, and so called "freedom fighters" kill not only troops but they kill people who have done nothing to them. They are people just trying to live a everyday life. They rap kids, and women, they kill innocents. I think it is about time we stand up for what is right, and set a standard for human rights. It is time we fix all the wrongs we have done and the past, and it is time for us to make a safer better world. Many have died, and many will die, but it is for the greater good. you may not understand what I am trying to say, but we need to start making this world a safer place. Other wise who knows what might happen to you, or your kids.

Let me start of with predefining some back story on the War on Terror. The main reason the USA finely started the War on Terror is the attacks on the twin towers. A group which is know as al-Qaeda attack the world trade center which was in New York City. This attack damaged the economy in new York and made it so there were changes in the global market. This was the first attack one US soil in sense the bombing of peal harbor in ww2. We had grow to think that we where safe , but then we saw many Americans die in just a few hours. Those people that died where not US troops, no they are people like you and me who live every day lives. Not to only did that happen to the twin towers, but it the Pentagon was also attacked, where we have some of our most impotent secrets. This terror group killed 2,982 Americans, on top of that 6,000+ where injured. Americans lost their lives that day, and we woke up and saw the would for what it is.

Now you may not understand why I want the War on Terror needs to happen. But I will try my best to explain why. I think it is time to better ourselfs. For far to long we kill each other for what? For religion, for fun, for expansion. They force children into their armies. I think we need to stamp out these terrorist cells the exist all across the globe. It is time we stop living in fear, and it is time to make a steep towards a untied, safer world. You may worry about our debate, but trust me our debt will away be high. Also shouldn't we make this would a better place. Everything that we have done in the middle east for the most part has been for the greater good. Some may die, but it is all for the greater good.


First off, let me mention that terrorists are not musicians. They do not "rap little kids". I hardly believe that any of the would listen to rap, as the profanity or imagery might upset their hypocritical religious stance. (I stated this because you misspelled a word. It is always good to double check your spelling.)

Let me begin by stating that all those arguments are based upon sympathy. Sympathy, while a great human trait, is one of weakness, and one of malignant nature when you are based in politics. If you start wars based on sympathy to a foreign nation, then you will be involved in every conflict there is.

I shall state that we need a plausible way of ending Islamic terrorism. Our current War on Terror, however, is not the way to go.

When George W. Bush, a greatly patriotic man, decided to plunge us into a war with the Middle East that cost us trillions in debt and thousands of lives, it was definitely one of the stupidest thing the United States could have done. Our current ideology to combat Islamic terrorism is to just plainly bomb them. Instead of sending in our very well equipped and highly trained soldiers, we give our advanced war machines to rebel groups, such as the Kurds.

I will give my word that the Kurds will become a major problem for either the United States or any Western nation if we continue to give them supplies and arms. This is what we did to Al Qaeda. We armed them, and now they are our enemies.

I am not particularly against a war with terrorist groups, but the debate focuses on the topic of the War on Terror, so I will assume it deals with the current War on Terror, which is very poorly executed. We need a strategic attack on these sorry excuses for humans. Instead of displacing thousands of people with bombs, destroying buildings and the economies of each country we invade, we should bomb strategic places that have few innocents and many radicals.

Our War on Terror has failed tremendously. These terrorists are like a hydra. We destroy one group, we oust one dictator, and another one, even worse then the previous one, takes its place. It cannot go on.

Debate Round No. 2


Okay I honestly agree that we have so far failed, and I agree that we should not help any reble groups. Heck those same kurds we help are listed as a terrorist group.

What we need to do is regroup, gather our allies and send troops to areas with terrorist cells. Once we do that we need to be prepared to fight that terrorist cell wherever they maybe, and who ever they are. Are troops may face child troops, and they will need to pull the trigger of they do not give up. Now yes we may be loseing at first, but we out number them and we are better equiped. Most terrorist groups use very old dated equipment. We will just need to be in it for the long hull, and we need will need allies. We can not fight this war on our own.

What weshould do once we do that is launch massive group/ air campaigns. Along with doing that attack pirateing routes and any routes that they use to ship drugs/oil to get money. That is what we should do for now.

I ague with you we need to stop funding these so called allies. They may help us right now but what happens when we pull out, and the war ends? We should make it so those nations are republics, this will ensure they do not have one man in charge.

You may wonder what happens if their government fails. Then we come back in, and we try even harder this time.

There are many terrotist cells, but they lack proper funding, and lack the strength to stop us. We out number them and out gun them. Plus if we get our allies together then we most likely will win. We need to lanch a total ground invasion.

Once we do all that we need to be in it for the long haul. This war may last a few years, it may last a few decades, hack it could last for centurys for all I know. But it is a war that we need to fight. They kill anyone who is in their way, they do not uphold basic human rights. This war is a step in the right direction, as long as we do not stop it, and he fix the promblems that have plagued it sense day one. Heck they should welcome us with open arms, of we do it right. That is my rebuttal now back to you.


You go on to agree with me that the War on Terror is a bad idea, and then you present a different War on Terror.

I will say holistically that a War on Terror does not work!

It destroys the infrastructure of a sovereign state, it completely makes the public lose trust in their own government, which in turn makes strife and chaos. Destruction of infrastructure ruins the real estate market and the industrial and commercial sector, which in turn ruins the economy.

You state that we need a different way of attacking the terrorists, but you state one that is exactly like the one before, just simpler.

What we need to do, is give back the economies of these nations. We should state that unless these nations make some drastic legal changes to stop human rights violations, we will not lift economic sanctions. If they do change, then we can invest into each respective nation.

By investing, it opens up opportunity and allows these people to combat the threat themselves.

I see ISIS to be a threat only because our spineless Muslim sympathizer of a president allows more of them in here.

We need to remove all Muslim immigrants, and restrict ANYONE of the Muslim faith to come here. That is what we need to do, and there is no way getting around it. There is absolutely no way that you can state this issue does not tie back to the vile teachings of Islam. If there was no Islam, there would be no ISIS.

We need to halt Islam to coming here, and that will halt ISIS as well. Also, cut off all contact with the Middle East.

If all else fails, bomb them continuously, but remove all ground troops as I will never be okay with the life of a good American soldier being traded with the life of some disgusting Muslim terrorist.

Need I remind you that our War on Terror created this issue? The Muslim world does not want to be subjected to Western ideals such as freedom of speech and no female oppression. They want to stay in tune to the peaceful religion of Islam!
By continuously sticking our noses in these nations affairs we create a disparity which makes them hate us even more. When we fund these radical groups to fight other radical groups, then who will the victor fight? They will fight America. And this is the result of our War on Terror beautifully orchestrated by Bush.
Debate Round No. 3
15 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by stargate 3 years ago
Good job.
Posted by Boesball 3 years ago
I would like to add to my voting comments that pro gets the points for sources because they used sources in each round unlike con. Also, their sources seemed a bit more formal.
Posted by Boesball 3 years ago
Extremely interesting debate that is currently going on within the republican party as we speak. It's the establishment majority verses the libertarians. This was so fun to read, and I hope you two feel proud of yourselves. You both did a fine job.
Posted by stargate 3 years ago
Well at lest I tried XD.
Posted by stargate 3 years ago
Yeah but we have freedom of religion. If we kick all people who fellow islam then it will make us no better then them.
Posted by stargate 3 years ago
Not really, it is not just a war about belief. It is bigger then that. Even if it was a war on beliefs, they would never forget there hatred for us. So the war will continue until those terrorist are wiped out.
Posted by canis 3 years ago
War on terror is a war on your belief.. Forget you belief, and there will be no wars...?
Posted by stargate 3 years ago
Opes I messed up I said "predefining" I meant to say providing. Also best of luck.
Posted by stargate 3 years ago
Open your eyes, it is time for us to make this world a safer place.
Posted by vi_spex 3 years ago
hm to remove the idea of there being countries, there would be no point of war, there is no invasion going on anywhere
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Boesball 3 years ago
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:21 
Reasons for voting decision: This debate was refreshing to read, as it is so evident in society today. You have the establishment conservatives verses the conservative leaning libertarians. The establishment has the control over the GOP as we speak, but it's probably not gonna always be that way. First off, I'm a hard-core libertarian across the board except on abortion, and this debate didn't change that. That didn't change how I viewed the debate, though. Conduct is a tie. Neither side did anything to lose this. Spelling goes to con. Pro had some spelling mistakes. The argument is very tough for me to decide. I'm gonna leave it as a tie. It was too close to call. I thought each side had some strengths and weaknesses. I would've liked to see con bring up more economic issues like the costs of the wars, and if they would've done that, I would've given the points to con. I'm leaving this part as a tie, though. Overall, it was a very close debate. Thanks for being good sports!
Vote Placed by PericIes 3 years ago
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Spelling and grammar easily go to Con. Pro had an error every sentence or so. It got better later in the debate, but it was absolutely terrible towards the beginning. Con had more convincing arguments because he focused on what was actually happening. Pro argued for what he thought we should do *later,* not for what the War on Terror actually is. Pro also gave a lot of arbitrary opinions that might have had a place in a politician's speech, but not a debate such as this.