<p>Well the leader of my debate team just sprung on a debate on me out of nowhere, giving me 2 days to prepare. I have to argue that the Iraq war was NOT a mistake. Im trying to find some material to back me up but im coming up a little short, if anybody would like to chime in on the topic or have something I can quote to help me out with this one it'd be great. If youre going to argue the other side dont post please, im just looking for rationale why the war was justified.</p>
<p>just accuse whoever is debating against you of being anti-american and unpatriotic.</p>
<p>Look for all of the successes you can...Make it into a morals debate and argue that we must take action if necessary. Nothing can be achieved by looking back at the negative. Focus upon the good that has come out of it, and argue that it was necessary.</p>
<p>Thanks for the replies.</p>
<p>Well i will be able to help but i think you are going to have to first give a clear definition that you are going to use on the word mistake because that can change the debate into so many things.</p>
<p>Iraqi elections, end of dictatorship,</p>
<p>Indeed....</p>
<p>That we were justified to going to war and it was a good move rather than a waste of money/lives etc.</p>
<p>No help, but I'd like to offer lots of luck and my apologies <em>salutes</em></p>
<p>Thank you kind sir.</p>
<p>saddam was on death row in 1969, assassinated a politician, gassing kurds, iran-iraq war, gulf war, kicked un inspectors out of iraq in 90's in defiance of treaties... basically prove saddam is extremely dangerous and unpredictable.</p>
<p>argue on saddams history, try to stay away from the war itself; arguing instead the basis for it. absolutely stay away from arguing lives, money and the war's present condition.</p>
<p>good luck.</p>
<p>Well you can talk about how the basics of democracy has now been installed in a country that for so long was under one of the most oppresive dictatorships. The people now finally have a voice in the government. Also as que said above all of those things are very good to argue. I would stay away from the WMD's issue and also from the war on terror.</p>
<p>straight turn with soft power bad..
haha</p>
<p>no but seriously, plan text?</p>
<p>or try this forum instead</p>
<p><a href="http://www.cross-x.com%5B/url%5D">www.cross-x.com</a></p>
<p>you know what.. that wasn;'t the reason for war. The reason for war was to take out a madman who had weapons of mass destruction, not to have democracy in a society where democracy is pretty much not accepted throughout history. We are ****ing people off now because of our influence on Iraq. </p>
<p>Anyways... if you want to be for the war, ....there is nothing yo ucan really defend on. The people who are against will bombard you with facts after facts that will make your attempt to defend the war a waste. I am dead serious. In our school, we had a debate and the captain of the debate team in our school got creamed. major ownage (he was for the war). </p>
<p>well... americans were tricked to going into war. even republicans friend I have said when the war started was to take out Saddam because he was danger to society and had weapons of mass destruction. Now they say they want democracy in IRaq for the good of the IRaqis and to give then a voice. Please. Look at this, AMerican imperialism.</p>
<p>Thanks for the help guys Im gonna try and organize all this into something useful. Any more ideas are always welcome</p>
<p>Im really gonna kill my debate captain, all of a sudden he tells me that the other group gets to argue that it wasnt a mistake. So now I gotta argue that it WAS a mistake. THat is the much easier position and he gave me an extra day to prepare. UGH scrap all that was said yesterday and now I gotta start over. Any helpful things I should say?</p>
<p>Well...this thread wasn't a complete waste of time for you. Now you know some arguments for the other side, so you can deconstruct and be prepared for them, as well as introduce additional points of your own.</p>
<p>Thats true. Thanks.</p>
<p>YEs...I say...indeed....obviously......</p>
<p>ok well, ur new side isnt 2 bad. u probably know what 2 say, that there was no evidence of weapns of mass destruction, war's been raging on for three years already, lives lost, etc. and how we entered only for the oil, etc.</p>