Warr on Terror

C1:My opponent concedes the point by saying every war is deadlyI can't concede this point, for it is pure fact. There can't be a way that war isn't deadly. Deadly is defined as "causing or tending to cause death; fatal; lethal"[1]. There is no war that had a death toll of less than one. But we must ask, is the war on terror justified? The fact that all wars are deadly is irrelevant, we must ask if the loss of life is justifiableThis war is completely justified! As I have said, Al Qaeda bombed the twin towers. They expected it to institute a massive amount of fear into the American's hearts. If we went along as they planned and didn't act, they would be bombing America continuously as we speak. letting them destroy America is in no way justified! Us acting, and retaliating after 9/11 is justified. I would like my opponent to clarify how letting them bomb us and not acting would be justified.My opponent then concedes the whole debate: "So in breif, war on terror sÃ­ es bueno..." "si es bueno" translated means "yes it's good". I was contradicting my opponent when he said "no es bueno". So if i'm conceding somehow, I would like clarification on how it is, and if I somehow am, and I did the opposite of my opponent, he too conceded this whole debate.And then my opponent takes a step further saying invading their country does mean they will be more aggressive, you claim acts of violence will increase. So in all reality so far you are just handing me the arguments in C1, I guess I can appreciate that. 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. Hm? Anyone? Bueler? Bueler? The war is of course deadly, but if we didn't participate, the result would also be deadly (read my first paragraph). Now, I will not deny they pre hated us, but I contend the war on terror made it WORSE. Its like someone hates you, if you hit their face they will likely hate you more.First of all, I win the point on pre-hating. Secondly, my opponent uses a bully analogy. To strengthen my first argument, when someone punches you, won't you want to hit back? Of course. Now, back to this analogy. If the bully punches us, are they going to be satisfied with one punch? Of course not! They will hit you and hit you and hit you, and in this case, bomb us and bomb us and bomb us. They are not going to let up. As for the rest of his argument on this point, he is only strengthening my argument. He talks about anger, revenge, and fighting back, which is what I'm saying how it was right for America to do this, and how it is justified.NAP for short, is a moral stance which asserts that aggression is inherently illegitimateMy 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. kills even more of us and also kills innocent civiliansUmm, sorry to say, in every war innocent civilians are killed. WWII(the jews). Civil war(people that didn't act had their houses burned by enemy soldiers). Revolutionary War(britain attacked and took over civilain's houses and often killed many of them just so that they could have a peaceful 10 minute resting stop). Every war has innocent civilians killed.C2) First of all, it was kind of rude. I went to my bed and cried after reading this. Anyways, my opponent is showing flaws in my argument about the constitution and the ammendments and all that. Well, the Constitution and the Ammendments were made by mere men. Humanity has flaws, as you can see, there is war. The government is flawed. If it was perfect, then we wouldn't be in debt, we would all have jobs, and cheese would reign from the sky (not really, but you get what I mean). If something in government somehow enraged every single person in the U.S., they would take it out. They would not like to get overthrown. I have already proven the war on terror liberty eating, it erodes freedomHm. freedon eroding. Liberty eating. So, again, just taking it and allowing ourselves to be destroyed is not liberty eating and freedom eroding? Seems like dying takes away our freedom. My opponent then chatters on with lots of fancy numbers and death tolls and all that to try and make it seem like non-action is the way to go, because continuing on with this would just continue death tolls. Well, I think i've explained my case on how non-action isn't justified thuroughly enough so that we can move on.RC1: Refuted above.RC2: That makes no sense, hence the semantics dont work. Also having a war over guitars means people die over nothing, hence the semantics is a red herring. Well, if people have a war over guitars, I said how guitars would be seen as weapons, and people would die by guitars. It is not a red herring, instead of battling with guns and knives, we would beat eachother with guitars. This does make sense.Also on this topic, my opponent in the comments shows lots of hate to this topic, so if he wants to concede this point to me, i'm all for it....My opponent conceded a second time in his conclusion: "War is bad" Then made an ironic statement of: "Freedom wins". Now, the funny thing is I showed the war on terror ate freedom and stepped on our constitution, a docunment that protects our rights. So, 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.Then he goes on to quote old Benjy. "Those who sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither."- Benjamin FranklinI'm tired of having to keep saying this, but surrender takes away our liberty more than fighting back. And by quoting this, he is only helping my argument by talking about security. Answer me this, Riddler. If we fight back, are we losing more security than surrendering? Isn't surrending giving up our security once and for all? Of course. Thank you for agreeing with me.Conclusion: My conclusion is simple: Reaction is better than surrender.Thank you.___________________________________________________[1]http://dictionary.reference.com...Woah, only one source? Sorry, everyone. If it is necessary, I will get more next argument.