Resolved: The US government should end the War on Terror
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 3 votes and with 6 points ahead, the winner is...
- 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
Round structure:
Con skips first post
Pro posts constructive
Con posts constructive
Pro rebuts
Con rebuts
Pro crystallizes
Con crystallizes
Pro waives last round
Neg’s source x says that bananas are the best fruit. However, the author bases this on the texture. [0] This is subjective, and many people actually dislike the texture of bananas.
Our support of Saudi-backed groups in Yemen is directly leading to civilian deaths. As of the article Neg uses as his second source, which is from October 2016, Saudi Arabia had killed an estimated 2,000 civilians. [12] For reference, this conflict began in January 2015, and Saudi Arabia became involved two months later, in March. That means that in only 19 months, Saudi airstrikes in this conflict (backed by and often paid for by the US) are responsible for the murder of 2,000. This averages out to over 1,200 annually, and nearly 3.5 civilians killed per day. This is simply unacceptable and not worth the potential for marginal economic benefits. Keep in mind that my opponent mentioned the hundred or so terrorists killed, and contrast that with the 2,000 civilians. I implore you to weigh this when judging. Is each terrorist worth the lives of 20 civilians? Especially when killing a terrorist leads to more being recruited, the answer is a resounding no.
Neg’s third source says that we import 19% of our oil. [13] However, according to the same source, the Energy Information Administration (EIA), the US will be a net exporter of oil by next year. [14] We don’t need to waste time, money, and resources protecting a source of oil on which we will not be dependent within a year. If there is any impact to this point, it is minimal since my opponent’s source argues against the relevance of oil imports in the very near future.
If we are going to evaluate the monetary value of this oil, we can base it off a few assumptions. If we take the average cost of an imported barrel of oil in 2018, which was $61.32 [14] and multiply it by the average number of barrels that pass through the Bab-el-Mandeb, which was 3-4 million [14] (we’ll assume 4), then multiply it by the 2017 rate of import (19%) given by my opponent [13] we get our spending on imported oil per day. (The numbers from source 14 are given on the right-hand side of the page in the tables)
According to the Harvard report used by my opponent, the most recent estimate had the probability of a nuclear terrorist attack at between one in a million and one in three billion. [15] The threat is pretty much nonexistent.
My opponent essentially lists all the reasons why nuclear terrorism is a threat. He doesn’t, however, provide any link to how our war on terror has reduced this threat other than ISIS’ loss of land. This is irrelevant when you consider the bigger picture: terrorists are gaining members and terrorist groups are becoming more numerous. [11] Refer back to my case. Terrorists are actually seeing these gains because of the war on terror. [4][5] It logically follows, then, that the link my opponent uses actually means that nuclear terrorism is a greater threat if we perpetuate the war on terror. Therefore, even if you don’t buy my previous argument about how the nuclear threat is nonexistent, you should still realize that Neg is actually making things worse. Flow this to the affirmative side of the debate.
The other logical problem with my opponent’s argument is that he offers no solution to the issue. Despite the fact we’ve been fighting this war since 2001, Neg has not indicated that the threat has been reduced or that the theft attempts have become less frequent. Therefore, even if you buy neither of my past two arguments, since Neg has not offered a real solution, this should be flowed out of the debate if not to my side.
Neg also talks about the frequent anti-Muslim rhetoric of politicians and how this damages our efforts by creating an us vs. them mentality and making people believe Islam is cannot coexist with western values. This is not exclusive to the affirmative world. It actually exists in the status quo, which is what my opponent is defending. There is no reason to assume this will worsen in the affirmative world, and my opponent has given no reason to do believe as much either.
When netted against the cost of the war as a whole, the soon to be irrelevant source of oil is not a relevant cost. Ending the war would allow us to buy that oil 19 times over. Nuclear terrorism is not a threat, and even if it were, Neg is making it worse. Neither of the negative contentions hold weight in this debate; we must affirm. Thank you.
I have 3 responses:
I already show how our withdrawals encouraged AQAP to expand. In Afghanistan as well, the Taliban capitalized on the temporary reprieve from US influence when we withdrew from Afghanistan in 2014. The transition eliminated half of a million jobs for young Afghanis, allowing the Taliban to offer positions as fighters to fill in the gap and offer more regular payments than the Afghani security forces, which is an attractive position for many who need work (4).
a. Civilian Casualties
The EIA card provided by Pro seems compelling, but recent evidence suggests that oil output might decrease. Oilprice reports in January of 2019 how shale companies have had trouble staying as productive as they previously were. The Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas found that companies slipped in their business activity index, measuring how active businesses were, from 43.3 in the third quarter to 2.3 in the fourth. Schlumberger and Haliburton both warned of “budget exhaustion” and well productivity problems in the third quarter of 2018 too (12). The EIA has been wrong before when it comes to their forecasts. In 2018, for example, they ended up changing their predictions to represent lower oil production because the Permian basin reaped less oil than expected (13). With the shale companies driving much of the oil production which the US consumes being slowed, the importance of oil imports cannot be understated.
Second, cross-apply my evidence suggesting that the shale boom is slowing. This could mean that imports become more important as our ability to produce oil is eroded, so the $17 billion may not sound like much to you now, but if shale continues to slow, we may need it more than ever.
“In 2006, John Mueller argued that the odds of any particular terrorist attempt at nuclear terrorism succeeding were between one in a million and one in three billion… But given that the actual chance of nuclear terrorism is unknown, it may be more helpful to assess whether or not the conditions necessary for nuclear terrorists to succeed exist, or may develop in the future, and if so, what can be done to redress them.”
Not only did the report cite other estimates suggesting that the chance was 50-50 per research done by Graham Allison, but the report emphasizes that the risk in unknown but anecdotal evidence suggests that the possibility of nuclear terrorism still exists.
As the report points out, even if the risk is small:
“…given the scale of the consequences—which would be almost unimaginably catastrophic—even a small risk of the occurrence should be mitigated.”
I already gave anecdotal evidence showing events which should show how easy it is to acquire fissile material, so cross-apply that here. Also, cross-apply evidence suggesting that Al Qaeda can make a nuke.
By limiting their land and continuing the War on Terror, we starve ISIS of funds so that they can’t make a nuke. The solution, then, is continuing the efforts to starve them of money so that they eventually dissolve. Withdrawing would have the inverse effect: ISIS gets stronger and acquires a nuke.
Sources
4. https://landinfo.no/asset/3588/1/3588_1.pdf
My opponent has conceded that our drone strikes are at least partially responsible for increased recruitment, we are a large part of the reason the reason is politically unstable, and his final argument, poverty, is simply false.
As far as deaths, my opponent is cherry-picking data. First, we’ve still seen a massive net increase in terrorist attacks and deaths due to such attacks. Second, Neg is now using global data despite previously disregarding civilian deaths caused by the War on Terror. Neg cannot have it both ways.
My comparison of climate change to terrorism is a rhetorical device which I used to prove that just because we will never eradicate either, it does not mean that we surrender to either. Pro suggests that giving up the War on Terror we would not cause as many casualties as would pulling out on our fight against C02. Their expansion puts the US at risk due to nuclear desires, which could still cause casualties for the US.
Both debaters did a good job.
RfD from comment: https://www.debateart.com/debates/534?open_tab=comments&comments_page=1&comment_number=10
I vote CON for framing of the debate and the impacts of the debate.
It was a fairly good case debate overall and executed fairly well. I don't have ground to prefer any team here in this scenario. I will break down all of the advantages
Death and Moral: I don't vote on a moral right. FMPOV, 224K+ is not substantial enough to allow the judge to prefer the interp of the PRO to be favored in this debate. This is a paradigm of mine. I don't care about the moral right when it effects little. CON extends it well enough, but could be done better. It is a sufficent enough argument here
We LOST: Pro has a point here. I value his evidence over the CONs saying how the troops have died more than any other war and as of now, currently are drawing back. I believe we have lost more troops and more lifes, a costly toll on the military, which outweigh his argument saying soldiers still fight no matter what. This is a term very broad and unclear and the PRO does a sufficent enough job here to prefer args here.
I don't get a clear ballot for the rest.
My issue starts with the PRO and the Framework.
PRO assumes he implied the framework. However, I need more than "application." Tell me it straight up and tell it to my face what it is. CON says, they condeded framework, which I am more inclined to believe. Why should I fish through your impacts to find your framework? I shouldn't as a judge. The framework turns some of the case stuff, but not enough to allow me to vote CON yet.
The impact is the nail in the coffin. I weigh the economy impact over anything the PRO says in this debate. The oil prices will clearly spike and that is clearly a huge ripple effect on the economy because everyone knows about US and oil here. I need strong cards saying why this doesn't impact, and I am not persuaded by the PRO to vote.
This is a good statement by CON: "Also, weaning off nearly 1/5 of our oil supply will take time. If AQAP were able to shut down the strait, the economic impact would be felt almost immediately. "
There is no virtual answer here and no real args that make prefer it. Therefore I am inclined to prefer CON. Good debate
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.
Np
Thanks for the vote
Not sure where to place it in my rebuttal so I'll leave it here instead, but I like the Florida joke haha
Yep
You said in the short description that this was for Virt's tournament. Is this the championship debate?
Summarize previous points and explain to the judges why you won the round.
What does it mean to crystallize?