The united states should declare war on Iran

Ok, I'll go from countering the NC defense, then to mitigating NC offense. "should is used to soften a direct statement" --> Not necessarily. For example, I should eat my vegetables, however will I 100% do so? Obviously not, ergo linking to my possibility observation. "Declare means to formally state an intention. When we formally declare that we are going to go to war with Iran the fact of the matter is that they will not sit on their butts until we decide that we want to do something. Iran is a militarial nation and they will not hesitate to launch the first strike should we give them reason to." --> I have two responses: First, I can declare that I'm going to take out the garbage, but will I? Again, another definition that is not categorical. Second, Iran does not have the means at the moment to launch a strike agaisnt the US. That is why they pay terrorists to do their work. Furthermore, they will be able to launch an attack if they create a fully functioning nuclear weapon. This links directly to the AC case. We cannot permit Iran from archiving that state of power. "2. Now I would like to address my opponents attack on my quote that I use to open my case. The biggest part of that quote is that we should have the understanding and support of our people. United states citizens were all guns blazing when we first declared war on Iraq but the fact of the matter is that about after six months or so the war began to drastically loose support." --> She did not respond to any of my attacks (attack "a" and attack "b"). Extend them for the debate. "3. to contend his attack on Iran being a militarial nation: The size and training of an army does have an effect on what kind of war will be fought and how long that war will last. Iran may not be on the cutting edge of military technology but their biggest friend, Russia is. If we declare war on Iran Russia will most defiantly side with Iran, those intentions were made very clear by Vladimir Putin. As for my opponents third point under this attack when he talks about war not being man on man... I agree with this it is not man on man anymore. it would be better if it was, then the amount of innocent lives lost would be minimal" I have 2 responses: First, my opponent concedes my attack #1 and #2 Second, contends that Russia would help them. I argue this to be false on the following reasons: a. Past history: Russia said they would help Iraq if we invaded. They did not. b. Russia would never step into a conflict with us. We are their biggest oil market, and if they help Iran we would cut buying Russian oil. c. Russia joining would make the EU join the fight and side with us. Russia does not want that. Third, as I stated before Iran would crumble from an air and naval assault. "4. As for his attack about troops they are an issue we need to bring them home because already as it it we are leaving our troops overseas for longer periods of time and not giving them enough time at home. We have had a sharp increase in the number of troops coming home with mental problems in the last three years. Not to mention that we cannot just withdraw our troops out of Iraq as my opponent is suggesting. It has been proposed by many people Democrats and Republicans alike and they all agree that it will take time and patience so that we do it right." --> I have 2 responses: First, she ignores my above logic. I.e. troops would be necessary to stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons. Second, for premise #1 we would not need to increase troop levels. "I have already attacked the would should, it does not mean an positive impact, it does not mean possibility" --> I have 2 responses: First, I have already shown the possibility part. I.e. I should eat vegetables, but that doesn't mean I am going to. Second, I should eat my vegetables, because I will be healthier. I.e. it has a positive impact. Thus, it implies a positive impact. "If you accept the Affirmation's argument about an "on balance" burden of proof.. on balance means to take everything, absolutely everything into consideration. the con has offered far more reasons with far more further reached impacts." --> I have two responses: First, on balance simply means about 50%. So 51% or more. Second, the negative has the categorical burden on the fact of the word should. I, the affirmative, has the on balance burden of proof. She did respond to this, thus she has conceded this burden. She must prove the resolution 100% true. "As for his contention one about nuclear proliferation, there are other ways of going about this such as promoting the CTBT. Dropping bombs will not stop nuclear proliferation in Iran, that would be like eating cheeseburgers everyday and expecting to loose weight." --> This offense presented by the negative is completely nonsensical for the following reasons: First, the CTBT is restricted by international precedence. And one of the international precedents is "Respect of International Sovereignty." Therefore, the UN is paralyzed by their own laws. Basically since international law is subordinate to it;s own ends, it has no solvency. Second, following from my premise 1, it is necessary for the US to take charge because no one else can do it for us. Third, the only tried and true way of ending aggression and nuclear proliferation is to sue hard methods, i.e. military force or the threat of military force. Soft methods have no solvent impacts. Thank you ladies and gentlemen.