Now, here’s how we do this bloody debate:

Every month, at least three issues will be thrown into the table. Everyone is free to argue on one or even all of those issues.

Everyone who would like to give his/her argument on an issue should previously decide his/her side before firing up the argument.

example:

CON

I extremely don’t agree with this issue because..blah..blaahh..blaahh

or

PRO

I definitely agree with this opinion because..blah..blaahh..blaahh

Always type Pro or Con on top of your argument every time you want to give your argument. This is to ease everybody to know on what side you actually stand. Not doing this will only makes the others wondering the direction of your argument (whether it is to support the issue or to oppose it). By the way, if you believe that you are a very good debater and does not afraid of any challenge, then you may try to pick a side that commonly won’t be picked by most people, see it yourself if you are able to give a killing argument on that controversial side or not.

Before you give your argument, make sure that you let us know what kind of aspect from that issue that you would like to argue. Example; if the issue is about Iraq War, then you probably would like to argue on political aspect, U.S national security aspect or humanity aspect.

The next person that would like to give his/her argument, should rebut and destroy the previous person’s argument first (not doing this will only makes the others assume that you agree with the previous person’s argument) and after that this person should also deliver his/her argument on some aspects that he/she believe related to that issue. Do not forget to always support and strengthen everyone else’s argument in the debate who have the same side as you and always attack everyone else’s argument in the debate who have the different side as you.

It is highly expected and recommended (but not a must) that the sequence of the debate could be run in a good order like:

Pro..Con…Pro...Con...(Pro always followed by Con and vise versa)

and not in a chaos order like: Pro…Pro…Pro…Con…Pro..Con…Con…Pro…

for this could surely be confusing to be followed by everyone. So example if the recent argument side is Pro but your side is also Pro, you could wait for your turn until there’s somebody else fill in the Con side argument, but if you feel that you are able and have no problem in giving (an equal killing) argument on either Pro or Con side, then you are free to change your mind to choose the opposite side.

If your argument is based on some experts’ opinion or some articles that you believe related to the issue and can strengthen your argument, then please provide the link to that site. So that the other debaters can all see whether or not your source is reliable and worthy enough to be used to strengthen your argument. So do not ever think of any possibility of surviving this debate by giving your argument recklessly without any strong backup. However if you (perhaps) want to test the strength of your argumentation ability you are welcome to give it a try.

The looser side is the side that can not reply the other side’s last argument. Or the side that hopelessly give an obviously weak argument that not even worthy fought back. Since everybody in the world is free to contribute, so yes, it going to be a long debate before the result can be seen. Or maybe it could be a very short debate, since there’s a possibility of the real expert on that issue to contribute and silence the other debaters.

Please do not use dirty words. Using that will only shows your real brain capacity to the whole world. If you want to humiliate other debater’s argument, then do it in civilized and educated way.

NOW

LET’S THE DEBATE BEGIN..!!

Is US President Obama's 2009 troop "surge" in Afghanistan a good idea?

Background and Context of Debate:

In 2007 and 2008, violence in Afghanistan steadily increased and the country became less stable, leading to calls for an increased US and NATO troop presence in the country, or a "surge".

During the 2008 presidential elections, both Barack Obama and John McCain called for a larger focus on the war in Afghanistan and some form of a troop "surge" in Afghanistan. After winning the election, Barack Obama followed through with his campaign promise, calling for 20,000 new troops to Afghanistan and authorizing the deployment of 17,000 troops to Afghanistan on February 17, 2009 and an extra 4,000 later in the year to supplement the training of Afghan security forces. The extra 20,000 troops will increase the US presence from 32,000 to 52,000, bringing the total international troop presence to roughly 60,000.

Throughout 2008 and into Barack Obama's presidency, debate was widespread surrounding the logic of a troop surge into Afghanistan.

The main question is whether more troops can help improve security, or it they are actually drawing in insurgents and increasing violence, civilian casualties, and instability in the country.

Also, players in the debate ask whether Afghanistan is the key front in the fight against terrorism and if a "surge" can help in this fight?

Can the "successful" surge in Iraq can be applied with positive effect in Afghanistan?

Does a troop surge escalate the conflict, or can it be temporary and limited?

Will a surge reduce or increase civilian casualties?

Will it improve, damage, or have no impact on the war in Iraq?

Will it increase or harm regional security? Can US forces sustain a troop surge?

Can the United States and NATO sustain the costs and opportunity costs to other domestic programs?

Where do the Afghan, American, and global publics stand?

What is the overall balance of pros and cons in this debate?

Is Obama's "surge" in Afghanistan justified?

Go head and deliver your argument in 10 major points of analysis:

Troops:

Can more troops help in the war in Afghanistan?

Terrorism:

Is the “surge” key to combating terrorism in Afghanistan?

Iraq analogy:

Would a “surge” in Afghanistan “succeed” like the surge in Iraq?

Escalation:

Is the “surge” temporary or does it escalate of conflict?

Civilian casualties:

Will “surge” help or hurt civilian casualties?

War in Iraq:

Will the “surge” help or hurt war in Iraq?

Region:

Does surge in Afghanistan help or hurt regional security?

Troop resources:

Are there sufficient troop resources for the “surge”?

Costs:

Are the cost of a “surge” reasonable?

Contractors:

Is the use of contractors in Afghanistan acceptable?

Afghan support:

Do Afghans support the “surge”