Instigator / Con
21
1677
rating
24
debates
93.75%
won
Topic
#534

Resolved: The US government should end the War on Terror

Status
Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
9
3
Better sources
6
6
Better legibility
3
3
Better conduct
3
3

After 3 votes and with 6 points ahead, the winner is...

blamonkey
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
4
Time for argument
Three days
Max argument characters
30,000
Voting period
Two weeks
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Pro
15
1496
rating
2
debates
50.0%
won
Description

Round structure:

Con skips first post
Pro posts constructive

Con posts constructive
Pro rebuts

Con rebuts
Pro crystallizes

Con crystallizes
Pro waives last round

In my view both sides did better negating the others harms than supporting their own.

Important, the biggest harm from pro - that intervention causes more terrorism, in my view was countered by con.

Con showed specific examples of success attributed to the war (ISIS), and have specific examples of cases where the harms of ending the war are realized.

I’m going to count domestic terrorism as part of the war on terror in cons favour here too, as I felt con did better arguing this is part of the war due to definitions and being more than simply a law enforcement issue

As a result of all this, I feel the needle is pointing towards the status quo.

Arguments to con, all other points tied.

4.) We have lost the war.

Even if I grant that we have lost the war on terror by all metrics pro raises - I do not find this argument compelling as pro does not compare these metrics to the ongoing alternative.

IE, we could have lost the war, but if the consequences or metrics of losing the war is better than not fighting it, or continuing to fight it - “losing” or “lost” the war doesn’t make fighting it harmful.

However: I will note that con points out specific benefits of the war in reducing terrorist attacks, specifically using ISIS as an example.

5.) Economics.

Con offers a primary example of economic impact based on 4-5 million barrels of oil through a straight that could be controlled by terrorists.

Pro in my view devastates this argument by calculating this oil is worth $17bn: and compared this to the war on terrors cost of $320bn.

I am not buying cons complaint that pointing out the cost of the war on terror dwarfs the economic benefit, and that the money saved can offset this is “moving the goal posts”.

I think con could have done much more here to point out more substantial economic harms than he did, as such I will not consider this a harm of ending the war.

6.) Nuclear Terrorism.

Con argues that the war is necessary to eliminate the possibility of nuclear terrorism.

Pro argues the risk is minimal. And that con doesn’t explain how the war has reduced the impact of nuclear terror. Con also argues that stoking of tensions is not only in the affirmative world.

I feel con was more convincing here, arguing that the true chances of nuclear terrorism is unknown, and has to be defended against.

Given that was the only real harm I felt pro was able to show from this part, this is negated.

In addition: as in my view con shows there is a definitive harm in creating power vacuums, he also demonstrates a very weak harm (as pro has the fiat, Im not convinced the stock I should put into issues with ending the war - unless con shows avoidance is impossible)

2.) Bad investment

So pros argument was that the money could be better spent on other things, con argues that we could do both.

So, I actually thought pros argument was fairly good here as he tied the argument to chances of harm of different aspects.

As per the social contract or by cost benefit analysis, it appears pros argument holds water. Why invest in reducing something where the chances of harm are low vs investigation in something whether the chances of harm are high.

As a judge, I don’t feel it’s valid to assume there is infinite money to spend, and so while pro didn’t offer a specific plan of how better to spend the money: in my view he showed that there are likely more meaningful ways of spending the money in terms of both social contract and cost benefit.

I’m not going to give this substantial weight as there is no specific plan, but it’s definitely a point that counts in pros favour here.

3.) Death, morality.

Pro argues there’s been lots of deaths. Con counters that considering the size, there have been relatively few American deaths, and they should be focused on.

While I obviously want a reason to view the high death count as a harm, I don’t feel that there is enough to put the death count in context to allow me to weigh it.

Values. There was an amount of back and forth on the way I should judge the debate. The important aspects here, is that I side with Con that this policy that I should vote con if ending it is worse than keeping it.

In terms of social contract, vs cost analysis: I don’t see much of a difference between the two, so will wait till I have looked at how these factor in within arguments first.

1.) Ill defined enemy.

Pro starts by arguing that the enemy is ill defined, and that intervention is counter productive due to causing extra terrorism. Moreover, he raises the idea that it’s a tactic, and the ideology behind terrorism is the bigger problem.

Con raises issues with this, in that withdrawing at this point will only make matters worse (regional influence), that there is no empirical connection between recruitment and intervention, and that recruitment is also dependent on politics and other factors, that winning the war isn’t necessary, but mediating the consequences of terrorism is important. Con also points to success locally.

With recruitment - pros argument is intuitive, but con is correct that no direct causal link is provided by pro. Cons counter, that political and poverty situations are responsible in my view was sufficient for me to overturn this point in his favour. Pro needed to have more causatitive evidence here. I did not find all of cons arguments convincing, but the last round helped push me over the head by showing the complexity, and exposing causation.

so, I'm not gonna vote as this is something I am so furiously Pro-on and it has affected people in ways that are unforgivable, in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

I am so utterly Pro on this topic I don't think I can remove mental rage and bias when I read it. Con's case screams 'slave to Illuminati, moron' even though he's just doing his best probably debating the opposite side of what he really thinks.

-->
@blamonkey

Np

-->
@Vader

Thanks for the vote

-->
@blamonkey

Not sure where to place it in my rebuttal so I'll leave it here instead, but I like the Florida joke haha

-->
@Alec

Yep

You said in the short description that this was for Virt's tournament. Is this the championship debate?

-->
@Alec

Summarize previous points and explain to the judges why you won the round.

-->
@blamonkey

What does it mean to crystallize?