Warr on Terror

C1: The war on Terror is deadly My opponent concedes the point by saying every war is deadly, but the wars he cited (well WWII) was justified, the others are debatable. 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 justifiable. If (throughout this debate) I prove is unjustified, then it is a waste of life and the point stands. So really this contention now relies on your overall arguments as well as mine. My opponent then concedes the whole debate: "So in breif, war on terror sÃ­ es bueno..." 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. Then my opponent says they already hated us, etc. 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. There are many anger related angers, so to speak, but one of them is called sudden or hasty anger. This anger is made on decisions that are meant for SELF PRESERVATION. [1] Now, being invaded threatens your feeling, it makes you worried, and you will likely be meaner to the invaders then before they decided to flatten a few towns. This type anger happens when they are tormented or trapped. Many might feel trapped if invaded. The second type of anger is settled and deliberate. This action is perceived from deliberate harms taken against you or loved ones.[1] This is a large component of terrorism, and us invading them is a way for terrorists to use the new anger (this anger will be used to gain new members) as the invasion[s] will trigger this emotion. Then the last type of anger is due to personality types. Your argument is correct, they already hated us, but the basic types of anger[1] made it escalate. You must now refute psychology. So let me linger on the beginning of my opponents refutation to this on all wars are bad, and I argued this does not matter unless he proves this specifics wars death justified. "The non-aggression principle (also called the non-aggression axiom, the anti-coercion principle, the zero aggression principle, the non-initiation of force), or NAP for short, is a moral stance which asserts that aggression is inherently illegitimate."[2]Note the part where aggression is unjustified. Now, my opponents case is it is justified as it is in defense, they killed 2000 of us. The war on terror (as stated) kills even more of us and also kills innocent civilians. As defense is, in my opinion, NOT justified if there are foreseeable harms that will likely occur to innocent people (wars always hurt innocents). As this is the case it is still unjustifiable, and it is harder to justify as it has bad effects on freedom. C2: FreedomMy opponent here (not to be rude) actually shows constitution illiteracy, as my opponents arguments fail to see the things he claimed save his argument: circumstances. It was always unconstitutional to have slaves, but when you have half of the country owning slaves it is nearly impossible to do anything without enforcing it. Based on the courts, slavery always unconstitutional (once they defined the 8th amendment). [3] But this fails to prove his point, as circumstances DO NOT trump the constitution. Also, my opponent argument fails as it needs to define punishment. Punishment is defined as retribution towards poor behavior. [4] So, really slavery is constitutional under 8th amendment purposes, BUT is unconstitutional under other parts of the amendments. So really, circumstances should not dictate the constitution, hence your argument mainly dodges my point. Then you show FBI interrogations. The FBI does non coercive interrogations (so you can say no) and actually cant torture you based on constitutional grounds. [5] Hence your argument fails on a factual basis, the constitution trumps interrogation no matter the circumstance. Hence the "law of the land" trumps all. SO the argument fails. And yes, I have already proven the war on terror liberty eating, it erodes freedom. It essentially burns the 5th amendment, and it eats and poops out the 4th amendment, that is liberty eating. Also "saving lives" has nothing to do with liberty, and the war on terror cant even accomplish that goal either. “As can be seen, annual terrorism fatality risks, particularly for areas outside of war zones, are less than one in one million and therefore generally lie within the range regulators deem safe or acceptable, requiring no further regulations, particularly those likely to be expensive. They are similar to the risks of using home appliances (200 deaths per year in the United States) or of commercial aviation (103 deaths per year). Compared with dying at the hands of a terrorist, Americans are twice as likely to perish in a natural disaster and nearly a thousand times more likely to be killed in some type of accident. The same general conclusion holds when the full damage inflicted by terrorists — not only the loss of life but direct and indirect economic costs — is aggregated. As a hazard, terrorism, at least outside of war zones, does not inflict enough damage to justify substantially increasing expenditures to deal with it.” Indeed, while 9/11 was undoubtedly a terrible tragedy, so are thousands of other deaths throughout the country every year. Further, pre-9/11 terrorism was actually in a decline and even today terrorism has still not reached its all-time high."[6] [7] ***Rc1: DefenseI refuted this above. Rc2: WARRMy opponent then uses semantics, but it does not matter as this does not help his case. As I mispelt the resolution, lets see if it makes sense using the actual definition of warr:Guitar company on terror[ism] 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. CONCLUSIONMy 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, really, here is my conclusion:- War on Terror is liberty eating- UNCONSTITUTIONAL- KILLS MORE PEOPLE THEN IT "SAVES"- Terrorism is a false threat- You cant fight an "ism", it will therefore never end.For these reasons it it pretty clear who should win this debate, so far the answer is CON. This quote (common, but contra reminded me to use it by showing it in the comments) presented this:"Those who sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither." - Benjamin Franklin___________[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...[3] http://en.wikipedia.org... [4] http://en.wikipedia.org... [5] http://www.fbi.gov...[6] Brian Michael Jenkins [Senior Advisor to the President at the RAND Corporation]. Would-Be Warriors: Incidents of Jihadist Terrorist Radicalization in the United States Since September 11, 2001. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation . 2010. p. 8. [7] (here is where I found the quote) http://www.debate.org...