CreateDebate


Debate Info

11
14
Yes No
Debate Score:25
Arguments:20
Total Votes:32
Ended:06/15/12
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Yes (9)
 
 No (9)

Debate Creator

Rosesown(34) pic



This debate has ended. You can no longer add arguments or vote in this debate.

U.S. vs. Terror/Middle East. Should we be at war?

Should we be at war, of should we just let them battle it out themselves?

Yes

Side Score: 11
VS.

No

Side Score: 14
Winning Side!
1 point

I don't understand CD's tags anymore. As of writing this all but this argument says "No" yet the score (as of writing this) is "Yes" 3 and "No" 4.

It's senseless. So I'm testing a theory by putting this over here.

Side: Yes
iamdavidh(4856) Disputed
1 point

Ef it, I give up trying to figure it out.

The minimum length for an argument is 50 characters. The purpose of this restriction is to cut down on the amount of dumb jokes, so we can keep the quality of debate and discourse as high as possible.

Side: No
Rosesown(34) Clarified
1 point

Lol, the site seems to be glitched...? Well, I just logged on... :P

Side: Yes
1 point

Yeah, we should kill all those bloody chinese and bone them till they scream bonafide. so hell yeah

Side: Yes
0 points

Yes I believe the united states should be at war because it we were not at war then our enemies would be attacking our homeland.

Side: Yes
2 points

I think the U.S. Should pull out. Like the person above me has stated about poking noses in to peoples business, you shouldn't! Hundreds of soldiers are being killed there, and them dying is doing no one any good!

Side: No
2 points

The US shouldn't be sending soldiers and military units over to the Middle East and should continue withdrawing forces.

First of all, many Arabs don't like US military assets in the Middle East, and it is because of US forces in this area that most of the Arab countries don't have good relationships with the US. It is commonly agreed by many Arabs that the US relations could be greatly improved if US armed forces would leave.

Also, the funding used to support US soldiers over in the Middle East is draining the economy, putting the country further into debt.

This doesn't mean that terrorism will go unchallenged. Multiple nearby countries such as India, Israel, and Saudi Arabia have promised and have been making efforts to help end terrorism in the Middle East.

Side: No
1 point

I think we, United States, keep poking our nose into to everyone else's business. Pretty soon we will irritate everyone to the point where no one likes us. I know we need to help people, but is it necessary to run right into this kind of things. Maybe if we had people backing us up or helping us. This is like a one man protest, or a one country versus many. We should fix our own problems before we go helping everyone else out, because when we fall, we can't help anyone anyways.

Side: No
iamdavidh(4856) Disputed
1 point

The U.S. way of life is everywhere, and in everyone's face, and that is inevitable due to globalization and it is going to continue to increase so long as the U.S. is the dominant nation.

Our lifestyle and other Western nation's is an easy target for those who wish to use the impoverished and uneducated for their own power. They will always use us as a rallying cry, a great satan to be defeated, so long as they are poor and dumb and Wester nations (by comparison) are rich and intelligent.

So to an extent, sure, we put Osama there for instance. However even in places where we've not had a hand, our name and hatred toward us and European nations is a way of recruiting for these few.

You are correct that warring with these groups is poor policy though. But for the wrong reason.

Side: Yes
1 point

No.

Terrorism is a law issue, to be pursued on a case-by-case basis by agencies like the FBI locally and the CIA globally. They are better equipped for it, better at it, and less likely to make the problem worse by approacing it with too-heavy a hand.

The U.S. declaring war on a terrorist group is like a giant bear declaring war on a hive of bees. The bear will break a lot of shit, even kill a lot of bees, but they're too small and the bear's too big and they'll just fly somewhere else and build a new hive.

Side: No
Inkwell(328) Clarified
2 points

Al Quaeda declared war on US in 1996. We ignored them. They bombed the USS Cole, two of our embassies in Africa and executed the first WTC bombing. Our response was to kill a night watchman in a bombing of a pill factory and to prevent our intelligence agencies from sharing information with each other. At some point, I am gonna buy a can of raid and soak that beehive with insecticide. And if we didn't say "No thank you" to Sudan when they offered us the queen bee (bin Laden) on a silver platter, it would have been more difficult to move the hive and rebuild the colony, since that queen bee was the source of all the honey (funding). And all of this, the attacks on US property and sovereignty as well as the lives of US servicemen abd citizens was before we even get to 9/11. IMO there is no question we should declare war on Al Quaeda, Hezbollah and Hamas and other terrorists who have either declared war or committed acts of war against us. How those wars should be conducted is open to discussion. Increasingly the use of drones and improved intelligence in the area is minimizing the need for tens of thousands of boots on the ground.

Side: Yes
garry77777(1796) Disputed
1 point

"The U.S. declaring war on a terrorist group is like a giant bear declaring war on a hive of bees. The bear will break a lot of shit, even kill a lot of bees, but they're too small and the bear's too big and they'll just fly somewhere else and build a new hive."

This idea of the US being a big benevolent (but somehow very clumsy) creature is one that has been fed to you and most other Americans (of above average intelligence) who need a bit more of a sophisticated lie before they can believe their nation has the best of intentions overseas, as usual the reality of the situation is completely different, but as long as you believe it, and as long most other Americans who have the some kind of power to influence policy believe it, it really doesn't matter.

Let me fix your analogy so it represents reality to some degree:

*"The US declaring war on a tactic so they can justifiably destroy any resistance group that uses that tactic (despite the fact that they routinly use it and with far more devastating effects in terms of damage done and lives lost) against their unending and brutal hegemony overseas is a like a bear who tries to control a hive, because the honey in the hive is mankind's greatest material asset and whoever controls the flow of honey (i.e. oil) occupies an unrivaled position of power in the world, but these crazy bees somehow think its their honey, why, because they were born in the hive, but the bear just kills any bees it cannot control with soft power, the bear doesn't give a fuck a about the bees (never has, never will), it just wants their honey and power that comes with it, the bear gladly destroys entire hives in pursuit of its honey, but it tells all the other bears back at home that its acting in the best interests of the bees, and it only wants to promote democracy and freedom within the hives.

There, now its a little bit closer to reality. If that sounded really cheesy its because I'm exceptionally drunk.

Side: Yes
Inkwell(328) Disputed
2 points

what a load. The bear analogy made no mention or inference of benevolence. You intentionally took it out of context and spun your own interpretation of what he said in order to make an opening for your anti US rant.

Side: No
1 point

Upvote and support for being drunk.

As for the rest, as usual as much as I may have inadvertently overstated the U.S.' benevolence, you I believe are overstating it's evil secret schemes to control the world oil supply... I mean, if we really wanted to surpress the world and take the oil for ourselves it is not as if we couldn't. It seems if it were a continuous purposeful goal we'd be doing a far better job of it.

Side: Yes
1 point

No, we shouldn't be at war because we are already having problems of our own and, for example, my uncle (who has a family of 4 kids and a wife) is being sent back to Iraq (again...) so I think we should keep withdrawing our soldiers and get them back home.

Side: No