Warr on Terror

Ah. So, we reach the final argument on this War(r) on terror. I start off by thanking pro for his arguments. Now, let us begin!C1: So yes, all war inevitably leads to bloodshed, thats kinda my point. All wars are bad due to that reasoning...This is a neutral point. If we didn't attack them, we would have bloodshed from being attacked. If we attack them, there is going to be obvious bloodshed. When there is conflict amongst nations, there is going to bloodshed. This point can go to both of us.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.Well, think of it this way. If we didn't fight back, would we be using any troops at all? NO! If my opponent wants ratios, which has a higher ratio: 6:4:1 or 1:0? There is no troop death, so that will remain 0. 1 over 0 is a ratio of of civilian deaths way higher than 6:4:1. My opponent uses fancy numbers, so I will explain this better. 1:01x6=60x6=0Ratio also equals 6:0. If you want to get even more in depth, it can go all the way to "Infinity:0"! Now, lets compare.6:0 compared to 6:4:1......I win. My opponent bringing up death ratios only helps my case even more.My opponent has failed to justify the loss of life. Wow. You want to be like that? My opponent doesn't either! If we don't fight back, we will be killed. Can my opponent justify 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. [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. Bold = concedes most of C1.I already explained, death is always in war. Death is inevitable in surrender as well. I did not concede.Italics = irrelevant, death is always a downside in war, and has no bearing on the war on terror.Tsk tsk. Even the great 16kadams loses his conduct in this debate. My opponent is picking bits and peices, and calling vital peices of information "irrelevant". Anyway, my opponent is contradicting himself. Death has no bearing on the war on terror?! Isn't that exactly what his entire first contention is about?!?!?! That is what the rest of his argument is about: the death of this war. He completely contradicts himself, and no matter what, one way side that he sticks to, it is contradicting himself. 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 must really enjoy this bully analogy. Anyway, when someone hits someone, they hit back, eventually causing a huge fight (war, in this case). This won't stop until either:1. someone runs away to their mother (surrender) or 2. Someone loses (winning the war).My opponent thinks we should run away to our mother liberty. I say we fight back. Again, America is better than this.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, again, acts as though if we don't act, we will all be happy. THAT IS NOT THE CASE. If we don't do anything, they will bomb us. Now, I provide this graph:http://www.google.com...It shows here that Iraq has 32 million as of today. It shows that we have 309 million. If we kill them all (which we won't), that is a death toll of 40 million (i added 8 million for my estimate of the death of American troops). Then, if we got bombed until we were all dead, that would reach a death toll of 200 million (I took away 100 million, because I'm sure lots would try to evacuate).Now, for the math:200million or 40 million? .... I rest my case. C2: Liberty!!1) war on terror = more terrorist attacks (proven a lot)2) terrorism is a false threat (lets do it again) Oh HELL NO! You did NOT just say that! Terrorism is a false threat?!?! I am genuinly pissed right now. Your talking about all of the deaths because of it, but now your saying it's not a threat? It obviously is, i mean look at your own argument! Your contradicting yourself right and left. As for my opponent's arguments on finding contradictions in the constitution, I find no point in saying how it contradict's itself. This does not have to do with the war on terror.Rc1: Above for me too! :DRc2: Warr -_-Everyone reading this, I first apoligize for using semantics. I shouldn't have done so. Me and my opponent agreed on dropping this case. Please, no voting based on this point.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* AHA. Yet another contradiction.Allow me to define Surrender.Surrender:to give (oneself) up into the power of another especially as a prisoner [1]When you are a prisoner, you have no freedom. My opponent does completely take away freedom. My opponent loses this point. Conclusion: "Those who sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither."- Benjamin Franklin And people (more people) LIVE because of our "reaction". I thank my opponent for this great debate. I learned lots from this debate on terror. I also thank the voters for reading this debate.VOTE FOR CON! Thank you. [1]http://www.merriam-webster.com...