war on terrorism

First off, I am offended by your last statement about me copying and pasting. The only thing I copied and pasted was one news source's analysis on the Democratic study in my last point, and when I did that, I put it in quotes and cited the source with asterisks. The rest of my case was entirely my own work, and I am offended by even the implication that I would plagiarize. Secondly, most people believing in something (or a claim of such, whether correct or not) is not valid reasoning for its truth under any circumstances in logical debate. Debate is about formulating and defending a case for your side, not simply discussing which side more people agree with. 1. You ignored the actual claim I was making. You were on track in your first sentence on this point. ("If you believe that the best way to deal with these terrorists is by using moderate muslims then you need to rethink your foreign policy.") But then, instead of backing up this claim and giving me a reason why I ought to rethink my foreign policy, you sidestepped the point I made and acted like I said we need to ignore the threat and not deal with it. I never made such a claim in my entire case; all I said was that war is not the proper way of dealing with it. And in this particular point, my claim boiled down to saying that a backlash from moderate Muslims "would be a more powerful message against Islamic extremism than hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis due to American intervention", which you didn't address whatsoever. 2. Here, it is obvious that you either misunderstood my point or couldn't refute it. This point in my initial case was about the non-traditional nature of the threat of terrorism, and my claim that it can't be dealt with through war. You're not addressing this point if you don't address that claim. 3. Again, you missed and/or ignored my point. If you don't address the actual claim (that this is a battle of ideologies, not a traditional war between two definite sides), then you haven't offered a meaningful attack on this point. But I'll humor what you said here anyway, just for the sake of clarifying my point. Yes, I absolutely think we should talk to our enemies. It would be much more effective than invading nations that have at best an indirect connection to our enemies, because it would show these nations, and the world in general, that we and the rest of the democratic western world are open to peace and diplomacy, which would certainly be a positive development. This is a battle of ideologies, and ideologies cannot be forced through war, especially an ideology as inherently peaceful as democracy and freedom. 4. Yes, I'm saying we should focus on defense rather than offense. And yes, I realize you can't win a war through defense. But in case you forgot, I'm arguing that there shouldn't BE a war at all. And the claim that we're fighting them there so we don't have to fight them here is ridiculous. The fact that we're in Iraq or Afghanistan does not in any way stop a terrorist from coming to the United States. If you think it does, I'd love to hear why. 5. No, when I say the costs aren't worth it, I'm saying that an irrational war against a threat that cannot be faced through war is not worth the cost. Of course I think freedom, democracy, and America are worth fighting for; if I lived during World War II, I'd fully support the war effort, and I'd even consider enlisting. But I don't think the War on Terror is an effective way to deal with the threats we are facing today; and THAT's why I don't support it, not because I'm unpatriotic or cowardly. In your closing statement, you just restate something I've already agreed with: that terrorists and extremists are a legitimate threat. The whole "I wish you could realize..." statement is about something I've already realized, which would be clear if you were paying attention at all to my case. And you haven't adequately addressed the areas that we DO disagree on, so this is a pointless thing for you to spend your time trying to prove. My opponent, in his previous round, repeatedly sidestepped the central points I made against the use of war as a means to deal with terrorism. Most of his attacks missed my points entirely, and the claims that he made through them, he did not back up whatsoever.