The Instigator
ournamestoolong
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Johnicle
Con (against)
Winning
10 Points

A f. s. Military operation to prevent the negative effects of genocide should be initiated by the US

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/24/2009 Category: Entertainment
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,351 times Debate No: 7524
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (7)
Votes (2)

 

ournamestoolong

Pro

Thank you for hosting this tournament johnicle, and I thank our able and judicious judges, HeedMyFeed and GregtheDestroyer

RESOLVED: A full scale military operation to prevent the negative effects of genocide ought to be initiated by the United States

DEFENITIONS
Military action - a military engagement (http://dictionary.reference.com...)
Negative - expressing or containing negation or denial (http://dictionary.reference.com...)
Genocide - the deliberate and systematic extermination of a national, racial, political, or cultural group. (http://dictionary.reference.com...)

VALUE: Equality

As a people, we must morally help people in need. In order to be moral, as a country, we have more opportunity than the victims of these genocides. In order to be fair, we must step in and save these people.

CASE:

C1: It is the most humane thing to do

Genocide is one of the most horrible atrocities that is carried out by our human race. Attempting to destroy a race of people is, quite simply, evil. If we do not stop this from happening, millions of innocent people could die. In the Holocaust, 2/3 of the Jewish population of Europe died. We simply cannot let this happen again.

C2: Genocide can increase dictators power

In WWII, Adolf Hitler gained power despite his homicidal message. People wanted a scapegoat, and they killed them. People accepted this because after WWI, they had been treated poorly by other nations. Hitler gained power, and took over a large portion of Europe. The US acted too late, and the entire Jewish population was nearly killed.

CRITERION: Equal benefit for victims

If we, as a country, step in when a genocide is occurring, we are giving the victims equal opportunity. We are giving them equal chance to succeed. We are helping them get past the event, so that they are on the same moral ground as anyone else.

Thank you to everyone involved in this tournament.
Johnicle

Con

Thanks and good luck

I negate, RESOLVED: A full scale military operation to prevent the negative effects of genocide ought to be initiated by the United States

Value- United States Welfare
Criterion- Pragmatism

CONTENTION 1: United States Welfare is lost.
---By going into another country, several negative effects actually backfire against us. Some of these include economic issues, livelihood of soldiers, livelihood of family, foreign relations in general, etc. All of these things will be significantly impacted if we go into another country, whether with good intentions or not. Furthermore, it distracts away from the attention that homeless people deserve. Why ‘ought' we initiate aid to others when aid is not even initiated for ourselves? It just doesn't make any sense.

CONTENTION 2: Guarantee vs. Chance
---There is a guarantee that value is lost with the initiation of a full scale military operation.
---There is a chance that genocide will be decreased.
-By using this analysis, it is clear that my opponent's value of equality is a maybe whereas my value of United States Welfare is a guarantee.

CONTENTION 3: View of Pragmatism
---I urge the judges to look at this pragmatically. Yes, we should in general help people. But if this were the case, then we would help people until we are the ones that need help. And this is what my value looks toward. Don't get in a situation where you simply change the person that needs help.

His Case

I'm fine with your definitions



1. Cross-Apply: Value is not guaranteed.
2. There is no equality for the soldier who dies fighting this war, nor his family.
3. There is no equality for the homeless man in the street, nor the woman who is beat by her husband every night.
4. There is no equality for the people who have to fund this operation.
---Overall, there will not be equality if we fail. But there STILL will not be equality even if we succeed. Where is the equality for us?
5. Equality does not ensure value.
---If we were to go into Darfur for instance and we failed. But this failure destroyed not only Darfur, but also destroyed the United States, we would be ‘equal', but we would not have value.


---Same arguments that were on the value. Nothing is certain on the pro side.


---This is where I urge you to weigh this pragmatically. Not only are we destroying their national sovereignty, but we are losing the welfare of our very own nation. Something that ought NOT be done. Furthermore, if something is humane, it doesn't mean that it should be done. Is it humane for me to try and stop a train from inevitably running over a man? Yes it is, but that train is much bigger than me. It is therefore not pragmatic to try and stop the train with my body (just like genocide) if I am just going to be run over.

(C2- Genocide can increase dictator's power>
---There is no direct link between increased dictator power and loss of value (in the U.S. as well as in equality). But moreover, there isn't a direct correlation between more genocide equaling more power anyway. They have power, and can create genocide. Not they decided to create genocide, and are now powerful.

For all these reasons, I urge the judges to vote con!

Thank you and good luck!
Debate Round No. 1
ournamestoolong

Pro

ournamestoolong forfeited this round.
Johnicle

Con

Johnicle forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
ournamestoolong

Pro

ournamestoolong forfeited this round.
Johnicle

Con

I win!

By the way, my internet wasn't working. That is why I forfeited.

Thanks for the debate anyway!
Debate Round No. 3
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by ournamestoolong 7 years ago
ournamestoolong
GAH, I was on vacation!
I got back to find I had forfeited all my debates!
Posted by ournamestoolong 7 years ago
ournamestoolong
I hope thats better. It's a weak criterion, but it's better.
Posted by ournamestoolong 7 years ago
ournamestoolong
No questions here, thank you!
Posted by Johnicle 7 years ago
Johnicle
(continued)

This is called Crystallization. After you refutate your opponents arguments, you must give the judge 2-4 arguments that makes you the winner. These often include the value/criterion but also important arguments that were brought up earlier in the round. No new arguments are allowed in your last speech and ESPECIALLY aren't allowed in Christallization.

Any Questions?
Posted by Johnicle 7 years ago
Johnicle
Wikipedia... or this is what I typed up in a forum some time:

Come one come all to the education of the LD (or Lincoln Douglas) debate format. LD is a format that does not debate what is, but rather, what ought to be. They do this, by proving who is more 'valuable'. Therefore, the debate revolves around a topic...

Examples:

-Resolved: In a democratic society, felons ought to retain the right to vote.
-Resolved: On balance, a corrupt government is better than no government.
-Resolved: On balance, violent revolution is a just response to political oppression.
-Resolved: The actions of corporations ought to be held to the same moral standards as the actions of individuals.

By using these resolutions, you try to prove that voting affirmative or negative (respectively) will lead to the greater moral ground. AKA: be more valuable. Therefore, you must have what is simply called a value. So if you were to use the resolution that Resolved: In a democratic society, felons ought to retain the right to vote. You could use the value of Democracy on affirmative, or simply the value of Societal Welfare. On negative, you could value Justice, or something of the like. Throughout the round, it is important that you try to uphold your value. And in some cases, it might be prudent to try to achieve your opponents value, OR you could say that your value is better than your opponents, or something. JUST MAKE SURE, you attack the value. This is important. Also, you must have a way to achieve the value. You do this through 1) Your Case and 2) Your Criterion. Your Criterion is a way to weigh the round and essentially uphold your value. So if you were to run a value of Societal Welfare on Affirmative on the Felon resolution, you could support it through a criterion of Justice, or even reintegration (EG integration of felons)... These two things are essentially required. But the last thing that sets LD apart from other forms of debate, is the final speech of each side. This is
Posted by ournamestoolong 7 years ago
ournamestoolong
Good point, could you reccomend an online guide?
Posted by Johnicle 7 years ago
Johnicle
Hey... you should probably learn how to 'officially' do LD debate. You should add a value and criterion.

Value is something good you achieve.
Criterion is the way you achieve it.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Johnicle 6 years ago
Johnicle
ournamestoolongJohnicleTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by grayron 7 years ago
grayron
ournamestoolongJohnicleTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03