Warr on Terror

Wow. For a lax debate, you sure went all out. Anyway, lets get right into this! Introduction: For my argument, I will attack my opponent's case, state my case, and then enter into the "fooling around" my opponent stated in his first round. You will all enjoy it! First, my opponents case. C1: My opponent states that the idea for this war on terror is deadly, for that is his the title for his first contention. But my opponent ignores the fact that every single war is deadly. In WWII, 60 million people died[1]. In the Vietnam War, over 2 million died[2].The Napoleonic Wars had from 3 million to 7 million estimated deaths. I could just name off 3 wars that happened with way more casualties, and 2 out of the three were several years shorter (I assume it has been 11 years, since my opponent called this "post 9/11 security measures"). Of course there is going to be more casualties if there is more years that the year has happened. So in breif, war on terror sí es bueno...My opponent goes on to say that because of this war, more terrorism is happening. There is no denying that, but in WWII, when Hitler was killing the Jews, did the death toll go down during the war? Of course not! It went up. When in a war, more acts of violence will indeed occure.Makes sense, people are less likely to hate us when we keep to ourselves, hate us more when we invade them and kill their freinds in the name of safety. Makes sense. From the beginning, they hated us. They started this post 9/11 terror war by causing the 9/11 bombing themselves. If we kept to ourselves, and didn't act, they would continue to bomb us and bomb us and bomb us untill we were so weak, that we would be an easy target to destroy.C2: My opponent's arguments are based on contridictions within the amendments and laws passed by our 2 latest presidents. The reason for this is because when circumstances change, our actions must as well. If we looked at every contridiction within our government, we would have books after books after books describing them. In the 8th ammendment, it says how you will not expereince cruel and unusual punishment by the government[4]. But then it says in the 13 that one will not expereience slavery except as a punishable crime[5]. The slaves were treated like crap, to say the least, and one is issued a crime by the government, correct? So if one is sent to work for someone as a slave or servent, and the person that that slave is issued to expereinces cruel and/or unusual punishment, then isn't that going against itself? Another fault of the 8th ammendment is that the government controls the FBI[6], and the FBI often has to do interrogations on people that have information that they need. When interrogated, if they don't comply, they will be subjected to CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT. What i'm trying to say is that often the U.S.A. has to change around things in order to make things work. If we had to break an ammendment or defend ourselves if there is a 3rd world war that requires us to break an ammendment to win, we will obviously break the ammendment. We must defend ourselves, lest we be destroyed by the terrorists. The war on terror is liberty eating and unconstitutional. Liberty eating? The war is saving lives! We are defending ourselves from terrorists! There is nothing wrong with defending ourselves! If a bully is beating you up, and you just sit there and not defend youself, you will be left scarred, hurt, in a lot of pain, vulnerable, and crushed. The same would happen with America if we just let the terrorist have there way and bomb us to the point of no return. ====================================================================================Now, onto my points.C1: It is an act of self defense.My called this war "post 9/11 security measures", so I assume that this means that the Terrorist's started this war as a result of 9/11. My argument for this is in rebutle for his 2nd contention in the 3rd paragraph. So basically, we need to defend ourselves or else the terrorists will continue to act until we are all but rubble.C2:.....actually, C1 is my main case, and I had more, but I covered them in my rebutles on my opponent. Except for my next contention.....Now, for the moment you've all been waiting for.........................................................C2: The battle on WARR. My opponent stated in the resolution the WARR (with two "R"s.). I saw the resolution, so I typed WARR into google, and it came up as this: http://en.wikipedia.org...SourcesDon't be shy, click on the source. Warr, is in fact, a GUITAR company, that makes Guitars that have more strings and requires less action. Then, I typed in "terrorist" and "warr", and this came up. http://i.ytimg.com...Ok, so the point to all of this is that if people killed eachother with guitars, this world will be incredibally chaotic, and all of us will not see guitars anymore as acoustic art makers, but death metal destroyers. On the topic of death metal, because of the violence that will occur because of guitars, death metal will be the only music we listen to that includes guitars.Conclusion: War is bad. Warr is worse. Freedom wins.Thank you[1]"http://www.bbc.co.uk... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org... [3] http://www.historyofwar.org... [4] http://en.wikipedia.org...[5] http://en.wikipedia.org...[6] http://en.wikipedia.org...