An open debate.

1.My Opponent Feels that in this War, the Definition of a "Terrorist" is too undefined and can, therefore, be used as an excuse to go to war with other enemies of the US. I assert that no such situation occurs. My opponent himself defined terrorist. terrorism-1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes. 2. the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization. 3. a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government. terrorist-1. a person, usually a member of a group, who uses or advocates terrorism. 2. a person who terrorizes or frightens others. These definitions seem familiar. I would think that most people have seen them. The Truth is that everyone knows what a terrorist is. One who practices terrorism. There is a clear defined line. In order to be considered a terrorist, you must be attacking "using violence to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes." The American People would not be fooled by the governments Red Scare: Terrorist Edition. We know what terrorists are. We weren't fooled in Iraq, and we won't be fooled anywhere else. 2.My Opponent asserts that we are hypocritical in attacking the Terrorists and that the War on Terror is good in ensuring minimal violence within our borders, but is flawed and needs reform. First, my opponent said in his previous argument "Terrorists attack us for our way of living and thinking so we attack them for their way of living and thinking. Hypocritical right?" Absolutely not! There way of thinking involves mindless killing of innocent individuals. Their way of life is violently coercing people to believe what they believe. The United States is only defending itself. What you are calling a way of life and thinking is actually crime at its most atrocious level. This is not war between two nations. This is not even a war between two cultures. This is a war on a criminal organization that has and would continue to kill innocent Americans, even within our borders, if they get the chance. Secondly, I agree that the war is flawed. I believe that it is mostly flawed in its partnership with the War in Iraq. I agree that it needs reform. So give it reform! As long as we are waging war, and preventing mindless terrorist attacks on our homeland, then I am pleased. Just because its broken doesn't mean we need to throw it away. It simply means we need to fix it. 3.My Opponent asserts that the War on Terror is aiding in a depression because of excessive spending. A link is provided, showing the total amount of spending in simply Iraq. The cost of all he conflicts in the middle-east until 2008 was approximately 636 billion dollars. http://www.fas.org... The cost of operations in Afghanistan and the War on Terror was only 127 billion. http://www.afghanconflictmonitor.org... The War on Terror is a mere 20% of the amount of spending on War. Clearly Afghanistan is not much of the problem. If we were to end the war in Iraq, like I myself support, then the costs of war for the next seven years drops approx. 80% or 500 billion dollars. That's 500 billion dollars that can be thrown back into the economy. The War on Terror is a perfectly fundable and wageable war without the burden of the cost of Iraq. That is to say, that the War on Terror is not over-costing us. The War in IRAQ is over-costing us (dramatically I might add). The War on Terror is hardly aiding in depression. 4.Lastly, my opponent states that the War on Terror is an unwinnable War that will drag on forever. I myself agree that it is an impossible task to eradicate terrorism completely. Such a goal can never be accomplished, but that is hardly the point of the war. If we do not wage war, then they will bring it to us. They will blow up our buildings and our subways. They will bomb our churches and other places of worship. They will attack our schools and universities. We must keep them from getting too powerful, by pressing forward in our offensive. We need to fight them on their own soil, not ours. I liken it to cancer. Cancer has no cure just like Terrorism, but cancer can still kill. So we treat it. We fight it the best that we can and hope it goes away. We fight with everything we have, even though we know we don't have a real cure, to protect our lives and the lives of others. The War on Terror is the same way. We fight anyway. Not because we have a cure, but because we need to, to survive. We fight because its all we can do to protect ourselves and our way of life. If we don't fight them they will fight us. Lets not forget who struck the first blow.