We should not attack Iran

I will begin by pointing out major flaws in you arguments, and then point out my new improved argument of why we should not attack Iran. Refutations 1. You are right about one thing. Those are the two things that the debate is centered around, but the later does not matter if there is no reason to go to war. This is a point I will prove across this round. 2 and 3. Your first error was a logic quantity mistake. You said that the judges should subtract one argument, and this is true. The thing is, it matters the sum of the arguments together, not how many I have. You went on to say that by agreeing that Iran has a nuclear weapon, it justifies an attack. I have been stating reasons why this not true throughout the debate. Many of these have been left untouched by Con. Also, you stated that a strike would wipe out a nuclear program based on your sources. What sources? Judges, take note. My opponent has forgotten to post sources. This is a major reason to vote Pro. A strike would not stop a program, and I will post my sources. Even if it did, Iran would simply try again. Finally, you stated that we don't want Iran to be able to retaliate. This is hugely illogical. A country has the right to defend itself. This argument is on my side unless Con can prove that Iran does not have the right to defend itself. 4. Your contradiction had one HUGE FLAW! The flaw is that you only used part of my argument. I said that cold war is not desirable, but after that I said that war is even worse. My opponent has ignored my full argument, which is HUGE! This is another reason to vote Pro. 5. The truth is, I do understand the goal. The thing is, it is only worthwhile if it will keep Iran from making a nuclear weapon. I will show why it will not work later on. Extension There is a reason it I'm jumping left and right. I do it to prove why in many different situations it is still wrong. You then claim that I have no ground. The thing is, you have not attacked my basic core of why Iran is not a threat. Con has simply stated that Iran is volatile nation, while I have gone into detail of why it will not attack. Judges, take note. My opponent has jumped to conclusions and not given reasons throughout round 3. Underview 1. I am arguing now that Iran is making a nuclear weapon, but it does not matter if it will not use it. I will state why it won't use it later in my new argument. 2. I thank you for pointing out why the second paragraph matters. The thing I realized that matters is that you said that Iran's capabilities make it a threat. Just because a country can make a bomb does not make it a threat. You did not include your argument that Iran is to volatile for a nuclear weapon. This is even another reason to vote Pro. Three through five will be covered from my new argument. New Argument Here are the points of my new argument. 1. The only valid reason for an attack would be if it were a threat with a nuclear weapon. 2. We want to avoid a war. 3. A preemptive strike will cause a retaliation by Iran. 4. It is just for a country to defend itself. 5. Iran is not a threat. 6. A strike on Iran would not work fully. 7. A war could risk another recession 8. How would we feel in it was the opposite? Conclusion: We must not attack Iran. 1. This one is very obvious. Many of the people pushing for war want Iran for corporate reasons. 2. We absolutely want to avoid a war. Many people don't realize what a war would mean. Some people think we simply invade them, eliminate their leaders, and leave a democracy. How did that work in Iraq and Afghanistan? People don't like their country being dominated by foreign nations. Here is what would happen if we were to attack Iran. They would immediately retaliate, causing us to have to invade them. The people would not like being dominated, and would try to defend themselves. This would lead to bloodshed on both sides, which would lead to an Afghanistan like situation where we have to suppress them. This is what happened to Iraq and is happening to Afghanistan. We are becoming the police force of the world. This is not our job while we have so many problems at home. 3. This one is very simple. Iran will retaliate against a strike on its own soil, just like Israel would if Iran were to attack it. 4. This one just makes plain sense. Just like if any country were to attack us, Iran has the right to attack any country that attacks it. 5.And now for the moment we've all been waiting for. Why is Iran not a threat? There are many reasons. For example, nuclear weapons prevent war because using them would cause nuclear war. It is surrounded by U.S. Bases. It is sophisticated country that knows that a strike would be inviting destruction. It's leaders are portrayed as volatile, but they are smart. The leaders are Muslim, but they know a nuclear war would cause millions of Muslims to die. In the face of this, even a volatile nation would not attack. In order for this to be on my opponent's side, Con would have to show why Iran would use a nuclear weapon in face of nuclear war. Unfortunately, this could mean a cold war with Iran, but this is a better option than a 10 year war adding more instability to the region. 6. In order for a strike to fully work, we would have to blow up almost all their nuclear bases and kill many of their scientists. This is almost an impossible task. It is hard to blow up 60 different bases, not to mention killing the scientists. Even if we were able to accomplish this, they would simply try again. This defeats the main reason of a strike. We have spent 4 years in a devastating recession. We slowly recovering, but anything involving a major product could cause disaster. One of these products is oil. A war in Iran could cause disruption in the straight of Hormuz. Twenty percent of the World's oil flows through the straight, and a disruption there is believed to cause a price increase in oil. This would have impacts on many markets, not to mention the immediate price increase of gas on Americans. This is a possible situation that we do not want to risk. 7. As a test of fairness, watch this video from 8:00. http://www.youtube.com... Conclusion The truth is, war is not the best option. We have spent ten years in Afghanistan for 9/11, which was actually caused by the U.S. interfering with what was going on in the Middle East. We cannot be the police force of the world due to the cost in money, lives, and opinions of our country. I fully support an attack on Iran if it attacks first, but a preemptive strike would be unprovoked. We must stop being the police force of the world and open ourselves up to friendship and diplomacy. This is the foreign policy of the future, and the best policy to prevent an undesirable cold war. It may seem easy to take the route of stopping all our enemies, but this is not the right path. We must be open to letting other countries have power, not keeping it to ourselves. Throughout the debate, my opponent has jumped to conclusions and pointed out fake contradictions. I urge the judges to vote Pro off this and the arguments I have made. I thank my opponent for an interesting debate. The following sources are divided into two categories. The first are references from the debate, and the second are videos that I would like voters and Con to watch. Thank you for taking the time to read my argument. Sources http://www.timesofisrael.com... http://news.yahoo.com... http://rehmat2.wordpress.com... Videos http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com...