CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
Obviously we need to counter a military threat accordingly, but that does not preclude simultaneously pursuing peaceful options such as food aid, medical assistance, etc. to sway local and regional demographics to our favor. To be fair, perhaps you just got pulled into the false dichotomy of the debate framework?
If only it were that simple. Your somewhat naive question implies that all we have to do is choose peace and it will magically sweep across the troubled countries of the world.
When we say peace we are exclaiming out loud we are weak, we need to attack those who attack us.
Debate 1: When dealing with Muslims
Muslims will forever hate America because we helped Israel after World War 2 to give them a home after the Nazis destroyed it. We helped Israel to stay alive when the Muslims (Who in their Koran say to kill all Christians, Jews etc) They are also jealous of our wealth. So when 9/11 occurred we had full right to attack because if we kept at peace then they would have attacked again. The Muslims will forever hate America and we can't do anything about it besides to keep taking down the Extremists that want our America to be taken down. They also attack themselves by causing explosions within Israel, Syria, Aphganistah, Pakistan etc.
Debate 2: Communists
Even though they haven't been a extreme threat since the USSR dissolved. We need to protect our freedom before it is taken by a bunch of Socialist Police State Lovers
Debate 3: Anything else
They chose to attack us for a reason and knowing mankind, they will not stop until they get what they want, surrender, or die.
Not all Muslims hate America. Those Muslims who do hate America do so for more reasons than our support of Israel. I am fairly certain our long standing military, firearms dealing, and financial interventions in the predominantly Muslim Middle-East have also had an effect. It is fairly apparent that the U.S. has exploited and controlled the region to benefit from its resources, and were it not for the present fallout from those actions those actions were arguably defensible and even justifiable. It does leave us in a predicament of at least partially earned resentment compounded by popular religious radicalism (which, let's be fair, other faiths have had their fair share of). While it is necessary to defend ourselves through military intervention at present, it is hardly a long term solution in and of itself unless you intend to nuke the entire region and slaughter millions of non-militant people. That radical Muslims also attack people in the Middle-East is something we should and to a very limited extent have been taking advantage of; it is an opportunity for us to insert ourselves as a productive rather than opportunistic and/or destructive force in the region. Providing aid to the common, non-combatant in the form of food, medical, water, and other assistance is in our own interest because it fosters less resentment and cuts off the feed which radical Islam relies upon to acquire its fighters.
Debate 2
Domestic communists have never posed any significant threat to the U.S.; there is a reason your sentiment has been commonly relegated in history as "The Red Scare". Yes, we had national enemies who were communist but that hardly makes every communist individual or even nation an inherent threat. We have had and continue to have allies who are more communistic than free market; economic philosophy alone does not make an inherent enemy.
Debate 3
You treat enemies like they are totally finite and act like our own actions cannot create more enemies. Exclusively throwing our military at everything is not going to make us safer in the long run.
Muslims will forever hate America because we helped Israel after World War 2 to give them a home after the Nazis destroyed it. We helped Israel to stay alive when the Muslims (Who in their Koran say to kill all Christians, Jews etc) They are also jealous of our wealth. So when 9/11 occurred we had full right to attack because if we kept at peace then they would have attacked again. The Muslims will forever hate America and we can't do anything about it besides to keep taking down the Extremists that want our America to be taken down. They also attack themselves by causing explosions within Israel, Syria, Aphganistah, Pakistan etc.
- The evidence is true... BUT, you are being racist by grouping ALL the muslims as one.. Not all muslims have guns and become terrorist.. I have Muslim friends and I don't see them burning down my school or killing people.. Everyone is at war because everyone thinks differently. If everyone thought the same, we would ALL be robots with NO life.
No matter what race you are, you can't follow everything that your religion says. Then you might as well, quite your job and work permanently in the area of your religion.. Even pastors in a church aren't perfect and follow the bible 100%
Islam is a religion, a Muslim is a person of any race following that religion.......though if I recall correctly, the Krapan teaches that only an Arab can truly be Muslim..... Islam teaches that there must be a worldwide bloodbath to usher in the coming of the Muslim messiah, and the real leaders of Islam in all of it's sects are pushing for it through terrorism and supporting terrorists, aligning themselves with communists, all gearing up for the Battle of Armageddon exactly as foretold by the Bible thousands of years ago.
Yes, I am serious. We go to war only if someone starts it.. Example: Boy A and boy B are at peace.. If boy A punched boy B, of course boy B will hit back in self- defence!!! Duh
Right, which is why in the Vietnam war, nobody hit us. And in the Korean war, nobody hit us. And in the invasion of Iraq, someone else entirely hit us.
And in WW1, nobody hit us. And....you know, I am sensing a trend.
That is not what you were saying. We are already fighting ISIS, regardless of who threw the first punch. Your argument is that if Boy A and Boy B are already fighting and one just stops the other will too; that does not follow.
Except that this incredibly naive utopia does not and never has existed in the entire history of humanity. Access to resources, ideological differences, greed, fear, far reaching historical disagreements, and etc. have always been ample reason to be the first person to "hit" the other party.
Ok then why don't we still fight North Korea, Or Vietnam, or any other nations we ended with an armistice if there isn't peace. A side doesn't have to win for there to be peace.
We are not involved in every single war. The Korean war has never ended, which is why you have the DMZ and the difficulties they have there every day (such as the South Korean troops that were just killed by land mines, obviously placed by the north).
The Vietnam war was officially ended by the Paris Peace Accord, which you'll notice is not simply an armistice.
What if we cannot catch them? What if catching them instead of killing them means invading another country that will not turn them over to us or cannot catch them itself? What if we lose more of our own nationals trying to catch them than it would cost to kill them? Do you really think capturing and imprisoning an entire army is viable? Do you think we could do it, and if we did could we sustain the financial toll? Do you think we could survive the diplomatic fallout of sentencing large numbers of foreign nationals under our domestic laws which hold no jurisprudence over them?
Fighting militarized groups that are attacking us or our interests is not giving in to them. Letting ourselves be attacked or invaded would be. Being ruled by our fear would be a concession as well.
According to the U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS), 2,266,800 adults were incarcerated in U.S. federal and state prisons, and county jails at year-end 2011
I was not referring exclusively to incarceration costs, although those too would be higher than you account for. The majority prison population does not serve lengthy sentences at super max facilities (which have higher operational costs), and additional super max facilities would need to be constructed to adequately disperse the ISIS militants to prevent collusion. Incarceration aside, capturing an entire military would be vastly more complicated and protracted - and thus more expensive - than other alternatives making it financially irresponsible at best. But even if we assume we can and should take on these costs...
.. there are still five other points you completely neglected to address. As a reminder:
1. What if we simply cannot take ISIS militants alive?
2. What if we have to violate the sovereignty of other nations to capture them?
3. What if capturing them instead of killing them costs more American or allied lives?
4. What if it is not viable to capture an entire army that we are not even close to defeating?
5. What about the probable international backlash against our arresting and incarcerating foreign nationals who do not fall under our legal jurisprudence?
And a few other come to mind:
6. What if local governments do not want to cooperate with our capture rather than kill objective?
7. What if we set a precedent for other nations to also violate extradition policy of sovereign nations such as our own?
8. Do you propose to charge them en mass? If so were is the justice in that, and how can we condemn other nations doing this as we have done in the past? And if not, how do you propose to not violate their right to a speedy trial with 20+K in the queue?
9. What if their nations of origin wish to try them instead?
10. What if there is popular backlash against the U.S. for actions which fuels sentiment in favor of radical Islam in the region?
I really could go on but I suspect this will suffice for the time, if you even bother to actually begin addressing these objections.
That may not be a terrible idea, but it is also not your original proposition. Your original argument was that we should ourselves arrest, detain, prosecute, and imprison the entire ISIS combatant force. Your drastic shift in advocacy is a concession to just how indefensible that proposition was, rendering my work here done since that was my original counterpoint.
That was your position. You were also the first person to mention the U.S. explicitly. Prior to your referencing American incarceration my statements did not identify the U.S. in any way. I suggest you refresh yourself on your own statements and opinions before falsely accusing others of your own errors.
At this point you have not only thoroughly lost the debate but demonstrated your desperate inability to acknowledge that reality, instead falling back upon denial and misrepresentation. I doubt your behavior is likely to change in the course of this thread, and having already won the counter I am disinclined to persist in this vein.
P.S. Go ahead and "drop the mic" again if it makes you feel better about yourself; just remember that you lost that debate as well.
one would think that someone who considers themselves to be SO good at debate would understand the logical fallacy of inference, and the blind alleys it lead one down.
.
you inferred something that i did not say and therefore went down this long rabbit hole for nothing.
.
it also has be obvious to anyone paying attention that you have offered NOTHING by way of solution to how to handle the problem of terrorists.
.
instead you choose to argue with me over something that you WANTED me to have said ... presumably so you could continue to argue.
.
you seem to enjoy it, and far be it from me to deprive you of your joy.
I find it interesting that when you get offended, you decide to create straw men out of those around you. I never said or demonstrated that I consider myself to be "so good at debate", I never "wanted" you to have said anything, and I get no "joy" out of it.
Jace pointed out a problem with what you initially said, you decided to claim you hadn't actually said it, and I simply provided the quote of what you said to demonstrate his point. If you did not mean what you actually said, then that is understandable as we all make mistakes, but you could just say that.
If you don't want people to take you at your word when you employ such vague terminology, you should be more specific. I also recommend you stop being so combative to everyone around you on this website. It isn't constructive.
for someone who claims to have never claimed they are good at debate... you sure have a lot of "advise".
.
perhaps if you put forward you own ideas instead of simply attacking others... then you would be less concerned with the debate decorum trivialities of my postings.
.
of course, if you did do that, there are plenty of others here who will pounce on your posting like you do to mine.
.
.
.
its all about choices i guess.
.
.
my choice is to keep posting whatever i want and watch you guys flail over it... it's rather amusing.
for someone who claims to have never claimed they are good at debate... you sure have a lot of "advise".
What's wrong with giving advice? In this case, it is from mistakes that I have previously made, as I used to be combative to everyone around me when debating.
perhaps if you put forward you own ideas instead of simply attacking others... then you would be less concerned with the debate decorum trivialities of my postings.
I put forward my own ideas all the time. Perhaps you should research the validity of a claim when employing it as a deflection before employing it?
of course, if you did do that, there are plenty of others here who will pounce on your posting like you do to mine.
I would hope so, that is kind of the point of this website.
my choice is to keep posting whatever i want and watch you guys flail over it... it's rather amusing.
if anything, it's mild frustration with ppl who would rather shit all over someone else's idea than come up with one of their own.
As I said before, look at my comment history and you will find me posting plenty of my own ideas. I don't flip out when someone has the audacity to challenge them, however.
How do you put thousands of people in prison? At last count I believe nine countries were bombing ISIS and still they can't be brought to their knees. So how do you even catch them to put them in prison?
You establish peace by winning the war and making it clear that anybody who wants to fight with you is going to lose big time....it seems like people don't have the brains or the guts anymore to stand up for freedom. I am for peace, but until it is forever undeniably established on Earth by Jesus Christ Himself as the KING OF KINGS on His throne of Mt. Zion, there is going to be war and if you don't say "give me liberty or give me death" you do not deserve liberty....but I'll still fight to protect your liberty if I can.
