Warr on Terror

C1: War on terror is deadly My opponent thinks I conceded this, well of course I did it bolsters my position! He actually (in his argument) essentially concedes C1, thinking it may help him dodge the question. war: "a conflict carried on by force of arms, as between nations or between parties within a nation; warfare, as by land, sea, or air. " [1] So yes, all war inevitably leads to bloodshed, thats kinda my point. All wars are bad due to that reasoning...My opponents claims are it is justified as in defense, but we MUST look at the other things the war has killed, not just the soldiers. Now, more civilians where killed in the war on terror (stated earlier) then soldiers, these civilians where innocent. Killing civilians is justified? As thett3 argued (I trust his math more then mine) he got[2] a 6.4:1 ratio. Civilians are killed over 6 times more then military troops. Also as stated, the war on terror increases terrorism,[2] hence the war on terror is still not justified. “ ..a strong correlation exists between U.S. involvement in international situations and an increase in terrorist attacks against the United States.”[2, 3]My opponent has failed to justify the loss of life. Sorry, you never conceded, I read it wrong :P. It was not even relating to the argument anyway. "My opponent did a somewhat unfair point in his first argument by stating that the war on terror is deadly. I cannot go against that, but my opponent must show a single war that wasn't deadly. [irrelevant, all wars are bad due to that reason] Hm? Anyone? Bueler? Bueler? [good movie] The war is of course deadly, but if we didn't participate, the result would also be deadly (read my first paragraph)."Bold = concedes most of C1. Italics = irrelevant, death is always a downside in war, and has no bearing on the war on terror. My opponent claims if we had no action, it would be deadly, so POST 9/11. Iraq war = 24k dead. [4] Now, we cannot use 9/11 in our kill count data as we are arguing post 9/11 procedures. I could throw on many other wars onto this, but lets stick with iraq. no terrorist attack has made to 24k, and the terrorist attepmts in the US (very few) would not have killed many people. (mainly bombs) The war on terror, as we can easily see, would logically increase the body count. Now, if someone hit me I might hit them back, but once again this falls under the point outlined last round. Depending on the circumstance, can they hit back will it come back etc. The war on terror comes back harder (increasig body count) and increases acts of violence. [3]"My opponent says that aggression is illegitimate, so my opponent is saying we should just do nothing and and let Al Qaeda bomb us and bomb us? My opponent throughout his entire argument is stating on and on about how violence and aggression is bad. My opponent is saying we should just allow ourselves to be bombed and not do anything, because reaction would go against the "NAP". Wow. Just wow." Yes, that is my stance, you have failed to argue in justificsation as I have shown war on terror increases deat tolls and causes more acts of terrorism. Simple argunmentation which you have avoided. My opponent cites many wars, in different circimstances. First the reason we entered WWII was not for the jews, it was mainly to save britans a**. SO they can rule the waves again. Further, the downside to that war was also the death tolls, but the innocent argunment I use it totally different then yours. Mine it OUR troops KILLING their people, the WWII analogy fails as it is a government killing its own people, not others. (it is technically theirs, conquers can impose what they want on the vanquished according to caesar). And the civil war could have been avoided if my distant relative james buchanan haden't been a bump on the log. Basically, your analogies fail to refute C1. The war on terror kills inncocent civilians AND increases the death count. All wars (well most) have this downside, C1 stands. C2: Liberty!!What was rude? The constitution is the law of the land, we have to change it to allow the war on terror, we have not, so even if they "made mistakes" while writing it thats irrelevant as it is well the law!My opponent claims being killed is liberty eating, this is false as I have done a few things this debate which he has ignored:1) war on terror = more terrorist attacks (proven a lot)2) terrorism is a false threat (lets do it again)"What it proves is that terrorist attacks are very rare, and maybe our reaction wasn't worth the enormous expense, loss of liberty, attacks on our Constitution and damage to our credibility on the world stage. "[5]Simple as that, no war on terror would have any effect, but the war is linked to more deaths. [3]My opponent has still not refuted the key to this debate:National Defense Authorization Act does: Trial is not guarentreed No due process Deprived liberty The 5th amendment states: right to trial due process liberty Patriot act: Government can spy on us now reduce checks and blances Because of this ^ makes it harder to block unreasonable searches. 4th amendment: Cann be spyed upon, things taken away etc without due process Clear violations of 4 and 5. This here is enough to vote con. Rc1: above :D Rc2: Warr -_- I concede this point, as it is mainy semantics I hope it has no/little effect. Although the resolution states "warr" it is obvious I meant war. Instead of countering this point I will drop it. My opponent and I agree this is NOT the resolution concesion (as it is obvious what I meant) but rather a simple drop of one minor point. My opponent will affirm this too next round. *** End summary war: " I will clarify my points. War is bad: All war is bad. Death is bad. There is death in war. No getting around it. Freedom wins: Reaction is better than surrender. Surrender takes away our freedom more than fighting back." I recomend all voters read the bolded part. For italics read on: War on terror as I have stated 100 times this round is unjustifiabe. Surender takes away no freedom, not at all. Analysis above. If anything this darn war takes it all away. *cries* Benjamin franklin was right, surrender does not take away freedom, you never proved this, reaction = people dying (more of them) and loss of freedom. CONCLUSION "Those who sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither."- Benjamin Franklin And people (more people) die[d] because of our "reaction". That is all. references:_________[1] http://dictionary.reference.com... [2] http://www.debate.org...[3] Ivan Eland, "DOES U.S. INTERVENTION OVERSEAS BREED TERRORISM? The Historical Record" CATO, CATO foreign policy, December 17, 1998[4] http://en.wikipedia.org...[5] http://www.schneier.com...