The Instigator
laurentgenerd
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
1337Hal
Con (against)
Winning
14 Points

America should send troops into Darfur

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
1337Hal
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/24/2009 Category: Society
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,892 times Debate No: 7544
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (5)
Votes (2)

 

laurentgenerd

Pro

Be it resolved that America send a fair amount of troops to darfur for restoration of peace.

"The conflict in Darfur could escalate to where we are seeing 100,000 victims a month"
-Nicholas D Kristof; American Writer.

I believe that if we can take the time to destroy the middle east on terms that the u.s.a.fails to disclose we should be able to send some troops to darfur.

I also would like to mention the fact that women and children are dying everyday and we will simply sit back' and let them have it when stated in the United Nations Policies "America and every other necessary country must provide aid to other countries when needed and or called upon.
1337Hal

Con

Thanks to my opponent for posting this debate. As this is a 4-round debate, I will refrain from putting my own arguments forth for now and just respond to my opponent's.

PRO:
"I believe that if we can take the time to destroy the middle east on terms that the u.s.a.fails to disclose we should be able to send some troops to darfur."

REBUTTAL:
1. The fact that we are "able" to send troops to Darfur doesn't mean we should do it. You are talking about a group of human beings like they are currency, throw a little over there, a bit over there, wherever it's needed, we got plenty. You need to show why American troops should be sent to possibly die for a conflict they probably don't know exists.
2. My opponent has (correctly, IMHO) criticized the U.S.'s actions in the Middle-East, but she's done so in the same sentence as a suggestion that we do it again, this time in Darfur. America's track-record of invading places in the last 50 years is pretty terrible, for us and for the civilians of the countries we invade.

PRO:
"I also would like to mention the fact that women and children are dying everyday and we will simply sit back' and let them have it when stated in the United Nations Policies "America and every other necessary country must provide aid to other countries when needed and or called upon."

REBUTTAL:
I ask my opponent to state a source for this U.N. quote, because I couldn't find it.

Even if the quote is authentic, it's ridiculous and shouldn't be adhered to for the following reasons:

1. Why is America named, and the other few hundred countries on Earth get lumped in the "every other necessary country" category? These are all human beings we're talking about.
2. What does "every other necessary country" even mean? How is one country any more "necessary" for the cause than the next?
3. How about we give China a go as the school-yard bully for a while, huh? Russia man, I don't know. Why does every single conflict on Earth need to be solved by the good ol' U.S of A for?

I'll leave it there for this round, thanks again to my opponent.
Debate Round No. 1
laurentgenerd

Pro

Rebuttal:
"The fact that we are "able" to send troops to Darfur doesn't mean we should do it. You are talking about a group of human beings like they are currency, throw a little over there, a bit over there, wherever it's needed, we got plenty. You need to show why American troops should be sent to possibly die for a conflict they probably don't know exists."

-I find that definiton of terms used is irrelevent to helping the cause in general and in fact is useless in the solvency of this problem.
-On the basis of the fact that we are "able to send troops to Darfur doesnt mean we should do it", leads me to a single question for you to ponder; Do you find that we should lead a continued revenge in Iraq as we have for the past eight years while women are getting raped and fathers are leaving and not returning while his heart broken children are 'waiting up' for him? or Would you like to leave Iraq (where we already have proposed an uproar) and save some of the 500 and counting people that die each day in Darfur? You Decide.

"My opponent has (correctly, IMHO) criticized the U.S.'s actions in the Middle-East, but she's done so in the same sentence as a suggestion that we do it again, this time in Darfur. America's track-record of invading places in the last 50 years is pretty terrible, for us and for the civilians of the countries we invade."

-I was stating that America is not disclosing any information on the Iraq War giving the Americans a unknown idea of the actions and obviously showing that nothing is major is going on, therefor we should leave and help the people of Darfur.
-Your second sentence was more of an opinion than a fact.

"Why is America named, and the other few hundred countries on Earth get lumped in the "every other necessary country" category? These are all human beings we're talking about."

-This has abosultly nothing to do with the solvency of the problem, merely complaining
-If you must know, I specifically named America because that is the topic country and that i really didnt find that we need to name each of the "few hundred countries on Earth".

"What does "every other necessary country" even mean? How is one country any more "necessary" for the cause than the next?"

-Meaning any other country that we believe may need to help. Such as certain countries may hold a specific item that "the people that will help" will need to stop this genocide.

-No country is more necessary than the next, just maybe America needs to be the bigger and more powerful person and help these people.

"How about we give China a go as the school-yard bully for a while, huh? Russia man, I don't know. Why does every single conflict on Earth need to be solved by the good ol' U.S of A for?"

-Because we are stronger, more equipt, and although not perfect, more stable than some countries to help. We are also the bigger person.
1337Hal

Con

PRO:
"I find that definiton of terms used is irrelevent to helping the cause in general and in fact is useless in the solvency of this problem."

REBUTTAL:
What are you talking about? You said "I believe that if we can take the time to destroy the middle east on terms that the u.s.a.fails to disclose we should be able to send some troops to darfur." I said, correctly, that just because we are "able" to do it, doesn't mean it should be done. If you want your words understood, say what you mean.

PRO:
"-On the basis of the fact that we are "able to send troops to Darfur doesnt mean we should do it", leads me to a single question for you to ponder; Do you find that we should lead a continued revenge in Iraq as we have for the past eight years while women are getting raped and fathers are leaving and not returning while his heart broken children are 'waiting up' for him? or Would you like to leave Iraq (where we already have proposed an uproar) and save some of the 500 and counting people that die each day in Darfur? You Decide"

REBUTTAL:
My opponent has presented a false dichotomy. She has demanded I make the choice between staying in Iraq and helping Darfur. To that I would answer 'neither', because the two are not mutually exclusive.

PRO:
"I was stating that America is not disclosing any information on the Iraq War giving the Americans a unknown idea of the actions and obviously showing that nothing is major is going on, therefor we should leave and help the people of Darfur."

REBUTTAL:
Iraq has nothing to do with Darfur! Nothing at all. I agree totally that we should leave Iraq, I believe we should have done that a long time ago, if we ever should have went there at all. But this has nothing to do with Darfur, so stop pretending it does. The two are NOT mutually exclusive events.

PRO:
"If you must know, I specifically named America because that is the topic country and that i really didnt find that we need to name each of the "few hundred countries on Earth"."

REBUTTAL:
So you are admitting what I suspected in Round 1; you made that supposed U.N. quote up, and passed it off as official U.N. charter. Not cool.

PRO:
"Meaning any other country that we believe may need to help. Such as certain countries may hold a specific item that "the people that will help" will need to stop this genocide."

REBUTTAL:
Dig this wording! "That WE believe should help". Who the f*ck died and made America boss of the world? We should have no more a bearing on international affairs than China, Australia, Sweden. There is nothing inherent to America which puts us above any other country.

PRO:
"No country is more necessary than the next, just maybe America needs to be the bigger and more powerful person and help these people."

REBUTTAL:
Please show why American men's lives are more expendible than men from other countries. Your argument rests on this information, and you have done nothing to show it thus far.

PRO:
"Because we are stronger, more equipt, and although not perfect, more stable than some countries to help. We are also the bigger person."

REBUTTAL:
China has a larger army than the U.S., which completely quashes your argument here. Please show why America must be the country to stand up to terrorists the world-over, when there are larger armies than ours. It doesn't make sense.
Debate Round No. 2
laurentgenerd

Pro

laurentgenerd forfeited this round.
1337Hal

Con

My opponent has forfeited her 3rd round, leaving only one round left in the debate.

I would like to remind my opponent that I have successfully rebutted her arguments thus far and made my own which have gone unchallenged. I hope my opponent can return for Round 4 and defend her position.
Debate Round No. 3
laurentgenerd

Pro

laurentgenerd forfeited this round.
1337Hal

Con

Another round forfeited from my opponent.

Please note, voters, that I rebutted all of my opponent's arguments and put forth my own which have gone unchallenged. Vote CON.
Debate Round No. 4
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by Epicism 7 years ago
Epicism
We are sort of in a war right now...
Posted by 1337Hal 7 years ago
1337Hal
Lauren, the quote I was asking for a source for was the supposed U.N. quote:

"America and every other necessary country must provide aid to other countries when needed and or called upon."

I believe you made this up.
Posted by Alex 7 years ago
Alex
Then i am curious as to why you wrote "writer"

Kind of misleading..
Posted by laurentgenerd 7 years ago
laurentgenerd
It was spoken-
Does it really need a source if said from mouth?
Posted by Alex 7 years ago
Alex
Yeah i was gonna say.."-american writer" does not constitute citing sources
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Maikuru 7 years ago
Maikuru
laurentgenerd1337HalTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 s0m31john 7 years ago
s0m31john
laurentgenerd1337HalTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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