Resolved: The US should abandon the War on Terror.

:)Ineffectiveness Our opponents make a pronged attack here by initially attacking our news articles referencing broad-scale and worldwide terrorism. They claim that, because we haven’t adequately funded Boko Haram, it is not a sufficient example. However, the War on Terror doesn’t preclude Boko Haram. If attacks against Boko Haram haven’t been funded, that is the fault of the War on Terror. Allow us to remind voters that the war is instigated upon all terrorist organizations. Again, Boko Haram is not excluded. Therefore, the War on Terror is ineffective simply because it cannot sufficiently fund support against Boko Haram. The ascension of this organization as a prominent terrorist group occurred long before the US sent troops in October of 2015. The job has been ineffective at reducing and preventing terrorist attacks in Africa. In fact, our opponents are the ones looking too narrowly, as they appear to believe it can only be judged by if funding has been provided. This is untrue. The War on Terror, to be effective, must be effective at reducing and preventing terror. As Boko Haram is still rampant with their attacks, and have barely been dissuaded, it has been ineffective. Another largely damaging component of this rebuttal is that is almost entirely bypasses the Islamic State. Only one small component is addressed, Bangladesh. In fact, it WAS the Islamic State that committed these barbarous attacks. [1] Our opponents seem to think that we advocate ALL terrorism has to be wiped off the face of the earth. This is a vague, and quite honestly, inaccurate representation and harsh misinterpretation of our advocacy. Obviously, completely eliminating terrorism can’t feasibly be possible. But, the biggest, most active, and deadly groups MUST be dealt with for it to be effective. In reality, it has done nearly nothing expel the attacks of the Islamic State and Boko Haram, the two most deadly terrorist organizations of our time. When we either don’t involve, or wait until atrocious acts have already happened, we aren’t effectively combating terrorism. That is why the War on Terror is inexplicably a failure. [16] Nowthen, with those semantics and such out of the way, I’ll go into a little more specifics. The War on Terror has facilitated an increase in terrorism. Terrorism deaths have risen significantly since the war was started. Terrorism has increased since the War began in the following areas: Iraq [4], Afghanistan [5], the Middle East [6], Africa [7], Asia [8], and globally. [9] Fatalities from terrorism have increased five-fold since 9/11 and the implementation of the War on Terror. [10] [15] The incidents themselves have also increased. “There were 982 terrorist incidents worldwide in 2002, resulting in 3,823 deaths. In 2011. .. there were 4,564 incidents resulting in 7,493 deaths. ” [2] Terror has only waxed worse since the War was started. Malaysia, an area that has trumped broad terrorism, asserts that the War on Terror is ineffective. [3] It is not the best way to fight terrorism. Morality This premise is one that is enveloped based on the previous one. It is immoral to continue to do something that involves torture and doesn’t achieve positive ends. Obviously, terrorism itself is immoral. *IF* the War on Terror can stop terrorism (it can’t) then it would be justifiable. If not, it wouldn’t be. Moreover, adding torture into the mix necessitates we abandon the war to prohibit two immoral things: (a) Torture, and (b) Increased Terrorism. Support The support of the War on Terror should be something that is quite weighted. A government’s duty is two-pronged, in the most basic classifications: to protect and please its people. The US should do what affirms protection as well as pleasing its people, if possible. In this scenario both are possible by affirming the resolution. For protection, the US ensure it doesn’t spread its troops abroad and leave the US more vulnerable to terrorism itself. For pleasing the people, it does that as well, per the poll numbers. By logical consequence, valuing utilitarianism, the US should do what it can to protect and please its people. Here are two breakdowns: Protect: prevent terrorism in the US, to be otherwise spread thin. (Fulfilled by affirming) Please: stop the costly war that people don’t like, being utilitarian. (Fulfilled by affirming) Essentially, by affirming the resolution, you value a couple of different values (utilitarianism, humanitarianism) and value a pragmatics over rhetoric. [18] Economy The figure of $1.7 billion only comes from the burden shifted to taxpayers. In reality, the war has cost roughly $5 trillion dollars, including the wars in Iraq, Iran, and Afghanistan (which, to be clear, are all part of the War on Terror). [11] Specifically, that’d equate to $16,000 per American, if we were to divide the costs that way. This is an unbearable burden for a plan that has NOT SEEN TERRORISM DECREASE, but rather has dramatically INCREASED terrorism both in specific areas and GLOBALLY since its implementation. Even if conservative estimates are more accurate, there is still a significant burden being placed on Americans for a war that has been demonstrably ineffective in achieving its goals. In regards to debt, our opponents claims that the debt increase was a result of the 2008 Recession. This is true, but the War on Terror did have a demonstrably LARGE and substantial effect. In fact, the debt, after having risen only slightly each year, began to jump up by larger margins each year following 9/11/01 and the War on Terror’s implementation. s://azizonomics. files. wordpress. com. .. ; alt="" /> [12] It also costs (and will continue to) more than WW2. [13] The costs are simply too much of a burden, and waste, when the war is entirely ineffective. It’s flat-out too expensive. [14] Per hour, $300,000 is spent fighting the Islamic State. [17] Our opponent’s assertion that poverty is not related is a little misguided. The only reason we brought that up is to exemplify where this money could (and could have) be better spent. Instead of funding a baseless and meaningless war, we could put the money toward more capable and positive areas, such as poverty reduction. Alternatives Our opponents misinterpret this point, and pragmatics as a whole. Our alternatives for a more home-based, political approach are more pragmatic because they don’t qualify as deserting our nation for rhetoric-based approaches to a problem that have been consistently proven faulty. They did not attack any of our approaches here, so they all stand. A political approach focused towards prevention rather than active military action against terrorism is a better solvency. Helping, politically, native dealings with terrorism, too, would ensure we don’t get involved in the conflict ourselves. Conclusion: Instead of again beating the same horse, we need to stray from the illogical and failed paths of old and find a better one, so we don’t repeat the same consequences we’ve already suffered. [19] I’ll once again highlight our six premises here: > Ineffective > Immoral > Ideological = Impossible (UNATTACKED) > Lacks Support > Economic Detriment > Superior Alternatives All of these have been successfully defended. For these reasons, being that all of our premises are upheld, the war is not utilitarian nor pragmatic, vote in affirmation for the US to abandon this ineffective, costly, and inhumane war on limitless opponents. \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ Sources: [1] . http://www.reuters.com... [2] . http://forward.com... [3] . https://www.ciaonet.org... [4] . http://www.start.umd.edu... [5] . http://www.start.umd.edu... [6] . http://www.start.umd.edu... [7] . http://www.start.umd.edu... [8] . http://www.start.umd.edu... [9] . http://tinyurl.com...[10] . http://www.theguardian.com... [11] . http://nation.time.com... [12] . https://azizonomics.files.wordpress.com... [13] . https://www.globalpolicy.org... [14] . https://news.brown.edu... [15] . http://cdn.theatlantic.com... [16] . http://cdn.theatlantic.com... [17] . http://www.theatlantic.com... [18] . http://www.bloombergview.com... [19] . http://www.huffingtonpost.com...