The Instigator
Johnicle
Pro (for)
Winning
19 Points
The Contender
BlackNovice
Con (against)
Losing
14 Points

CBA Debate: Invasion of Iran.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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: 11/15/2010 Category: Politics
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,100 times Debate No: 13671
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (4)
Votes (7)

 

Johnicle

Pro

This is a CBA (Cost/Benefit Analysis) Debate with specific rules and format. If you intend to judge/compete in this debate, please read up on the general guidelines found in the tenth post here: http://www.debate.org... ... Use comment #10 (last one on the first page) as the updated guidelines to judge and/or compete in this debate.

Example Debate: http://www.debate.org...
---Feel free to vote on it and also realize that this debate is intended to be more realistic.

=========================================================

Instead of the 4 round format found in the tenth post, this will act as a 5 round debate. Round 1 is simply posting of the topic and accepting of the topic.

If you accept this debate, you also accept the format of how to debate it. Furthermore, you will not post any sort of argument in your first post. Just say good luck or something.

=========================================================

TOPIC:

SCENARIO: The United States finds itself in 2 major wars that many Americans are against. While at the same time, an enemy of the state's are developing nuclear technology that could very soon create nuclear weapons capable of many costs to the international community. What is the most net-beneficial option for the United States Government?

PRO: Invade Iran and its nuclear facilities
CON: Remain pacifist by using negotiations up to but not including military engagement.

=========================================================

Good luck to my opponent. May this debate be enjoyable for both sides.
BlackNovice

Con

I will argue that the USFG should take diplomatic action as well as, that the USGF should reduce its Military Presense in several countries. I accept your challange! Good Luck.
Debate Round No. 1
Johnicle

Pro

Thank you for accepting this debate and good luck!

I am in favor of invading Iran and its nuclear facilities.

CONTENTION ONE: IMPLEMENTATION METHOD

A. Immediately bomb known nuclear reactors.

B. Urge U.N. and foreign allies to assist in the stability operation. Send in as many soldiers as can be spared from both America and ally nations.

C. Appropriate withdraw when everything is stabilized.

CONTENTION TWO: BENEFITS

BENEFIT ONE: FEMINISM

A. Women are put to death for irrational reasons.
--- http://www.iran-press-service.com...
"The Islamic Republic is increasing brutal treatment of women in Iran despite calls from the European Union and international human rights organisations to pay more attention to the appalling human rights situation. The Islam-based Judiciary, a power that like all other important organs of the regime is directly controlled by the leader, Ayatollah Ali Khameneh'i, has ordered the death of at least four women in the last six months, all of them on charges of prostitution or "attitude contrary to the "Charia'a", or Islamic laws. Hajjiyeh Esma'ilvand, a thirty years-old woman from the northern city of Jolfa, on the borders with neighbouring Azerbaijan, is the latest victim of Islamic laws, was sentenced to death on accusation of having a sexual relationship with an Azeri man."

B. Women are forced to wear unindividualized clothing.
--- http://www.downtownexpress.com...
"In Iran, when a woman steps outside her house, she has two choices: She can wear the chador... Or she can chose the manteau... The Islamic dress code, called the hejab, imposed by the 1979 revolution, mandates that from the start of menses, a woman outside of her home or in the presence of an unrelated man must completely cover her hair and wear long, loose-fitting clothing to hide the contours of her body. Any woman found to be "badly veiled" can by arrested and jailed by the morality police."
--- It isn't so much that women are forced to wear certain clothes, but rather, the fact that women are not allowed to express themselves. The internal impact of this sort of behavior is unjustifiable even for cultural claims.

C. Gender apartheid must be stopped.
--- http://bostonreview.net...
"Iran's political-legal system is founded on apartheid, on unjust and untenable discrimination among members of society. Social opportunities and privileges are not distributed on the basis of merit, but according to such indefensible criteria as race, religion, and allegiance to the political regime... Unfortunately, gender apartheid has not drawn as much outrage around the world as racial apartheid has. The international community was rightly united in its opposition to the regime in South Africa that denied blacks equal rights with whites, and it rose up to topple that system. But it has voiced little opposition to many societies in which the rights of women are systematically trampled upon. Under the guise of cultural pluralism, or respect for religious freedom, some clerical leaders have even rationalized gender apartheid. In Iran, those in power justify gender apartheid with religious arguments and claim divine origins for it. They accuse internal critics of violating divine edicts, and through such intimidation they hope to silence defenders of women's rights."

D. Specific harms of women.
--- Same Source
"Here are some of the most important arenas in which the rights of women are disregarded in the name of religion...

1) Health and the value of life. Statistics show that Iranian women suffer more than men from hunger and malnutrition, and they have less access to health care...

2) Sanctity of the body. Women's rights to the sanctity of their bodies are freely violated in Iran. Women are, on a large scale, victims of rape, coerced sexual relations with their husbands, domestic violence, and all manner of insults and sexual violations in the public domain...

3) The most visible injustices are the humiliating physical punishments meted out to women who have broken the law or are convicted of crimes. For example, the punishment for a woman who engages in an extramarital sexual act is whipping or stoning. According to the law, these punishments must be carried out in public...

4) Work outside the home. One of the most important freedoms is the ability to safely seek employment outside the home, to choose one's work, to find employment without discrimination, and to receive fair pay. But Iranian women who work outside their homes must first gain the right to leave home when they wish...

5) Mobility and free assembly. If a woman is not entitled to leave her home to work without her husband's permission, neither can she leave it to buy groceries or visit her parents. In many Islamic countries, including Iran, women cannot leave the country without the written permission of their husbands...

6) Free expression and political participation. In a despotic society (such as racial apartheid), even men are deprived of the rights to free expression and political participation, but religion imposes especially strict limits on women in this area...

7) Marriage and family. Family law is the arena where women's rights are most trampled upon in the name of religion. Religious rules as well as traditional culture largely deny women the right to choose their husbands. Most often, men choose their mates, and, particularly in non-urban areas, girls must follow the wishes of their fathers; only a father's permission makes a marriage acceptable in both civil law and Shari'ah. In family life, most crucial decisions about children are made by the father...

8) Education. While women's access to education in Iranian society has improved, considerable obstacles remain. Women's entry into certain fields is either entirely barred or severely limited..."

---These atrocities against women must come to an end. Invading Iran would have a clear effect on the immoral norms of the society.

BENEFIT TWO: HEGEMONIC CONTROL

A. Iran needs to be controlled or else power could become uncontrollable.
--- http://www.issues.org...
"The world would be a more dangerous place with nuclear weapons in Iran. A Persian power with a keen sense of its 2,500-year history, Iran occupies a pivotal position straddling the Caspian Sea and the Persian Gulf. The country has the largest population in the Middle East, the world's third largest oil reserves, the second largest natural gas reserves, and aspirations to again become the region's major power. Add nuclear weapons, and this mixture become highly combustible... Iranian officials have justified this effort as part of an ambitious plan to build 20 nuclear reactors. Though controversial enough in and of itself, Iran's activities also include the pursuit of several nuclear material production technologies that, if mastered, could provide Tehran with the ability to enrich uranium for fuel rods and to process these fuel rods for disposal. If these facilities are completed, Iran would become only the sixth nation in the world able to convert uranium into gas commercially and only the ninth to be able to enrich that gas for fuel. These same facilities could be used to enrich uranium and to extract plutonium for weapons use... Within Iran, the program is now fused with passionate nationalism. Iran's program is a source of national pride across the political spectrum"

B. My implementation method clearly would be able to take out the nuclear facilities in Iran and overall set them back from taking over the deadly title of 'Middle East Hegemon". The United States needs to step up into it's own role as the world hegemon and take out this imminent threat.

-Good Luck! I have a lot planned for my next round so be ready!
BlackNovice

Con

BlackNovice forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
Johnicle

Pro

It's a shame that my opponent missed the deadline. Hopefully he will be able to make it up by posting both the benefits and the costs in his next speech. Nonetheless, there is one essential cost to the CON side of the debate that must be addressed.

COST ONE: NUCLEAR WAR

A. Iran will proliferate within the year, creating the most probable scenario for Middle Eastern war, widespread proliferation, terrorist attacks and Israel first strikes.
-Charles S. Robb, former Democratic senator from Virginia, Charles Wald, retired general and air commander in the initial stages of Operation Enduring Freedom, The Washington Post, A show of force for Iran, 7/9/2010

As Iran's stockpile of enriched uranium grows... two scenarios become increasingly likely in the coming months: First, current trends suggest that Iran could achieve nuclear weapons capability before the end of this year, posing a strategically untenable threat to the United States... a nuclear weapons-capable Iran... would set off a proliferation cascade across the Middle East, and Iran would gain the ability to transfer nuclear materials to its terrorist allies... An Iran emboldened by nuclear weapons clearly might overstep its boundaries, pulling the Middle East and the United States into a treacherous conflict.

B. The United States must interfere to prevent Iranian Proliferation
http://www.aei.org...

Should the Islamic Republic acquire nuclear weapons, it may become dangerously overconfident as it convinces itself that its conventional, irregular, or proxy forces can operate without fear of serious reprisal from the United States, Israel, or any other regional power. In order, therefore, to contain a nuclear Iran, the United States and its allies in the region will need to enhance their military capability to counter the likelihood of successful Iranian conventional action... If the Pentagon has pre-positioned enough equipment and munitions in the region, this might take three or four days; if not, it could take longer. If U.S. forces are to contain the Islamic Republic, they will require basing... Without a sizeable regional presence, the Pentagon will not be able to maintain the predeployed resources and equipment necessary to contain Iran...

C. Proliferation causes global nuclear war.
Utgoff 02 (Deputy Director of the Strategy, Forces, and Resources Division of the Institute for Defense Analyses., Survival, vol. 44, no. 2, Summer 2002, pp. 85–102 "Proliferation, Missile Defence and American Ambitions")

Widespread proliferation is likely to lead to an occasional shoot-out with nuclear weapons, and that such shoot-outs will have a substantial probability of escalating to the maximum destruction possible... Unless nuclear proliferation is stopped, we are headed toward a world that will mirror the American Wild West... With... nuclear ‘six-shooters'... we will all gather on a hill to bury the bodies of dead cities or even whole nations.

D. Nuclear war would devastate the region leaving millions dead.
http://coteret.com...

"The war could be long,"... "its length could be measured in years"... "(There will be) ongoing and massive rocket fire... which will cover most of the area of the country, disrupt the course of everyday life and cause casualties and property damage. The effect of such fire will greatly increase if the enemy fires chemical, biological or radiological ordnance… massive Iranian support... will help the organizations continue the fire over a period of indeterminate length… due to the long-range of the rockets held by Hizbullah... If the current tension between Turkey and Israel rises, Turkey may also permit, or turn a blind eye to, arms shipments and Iranian volunteers that will pass to Syria through its territory and airspace. Israel will find it very difficult, politically and militarily, to intercept the passage of forces through Iraq or Turkey. The participation of Iranian forces will make it very difficult for the IDF to occupy areas from which rockets are being fired. "Along with these steps, Iran may launch a massive terror campaign against Israeli targets within Israel and abroad... The Iranians will fire missiles at population centers in Israel, and will rebuild the nuclear facilities that were bombed, in such a way that will make it very difficult to bomb them again.... Half a million dead, a million wounded, two million refugees and displaced persons, economic damage estimated by the Iranian government at about $1-trillion—more than twice the value of all Iranian oil production in 70 years of pumping oil... "The ramifications are clear and harsh.

COST TWO: PROLIFERATION

A. Even without nuclear war, the devastation of a nuclear equipped Iran would be clear.
http://www.slate.com...

The whole emphasis on Israel's salience in this matter, and of the related idea of subcontracting a strike to the Israeli Defense Forces, is an evasion, somewhat ethnically tinged, of what is an international responsibility. If the Iranian dictatorship succeeds in "breaking out" and becoming a nuclear power, the following things will have happened:

1) International law and the stewardship of the United Nations will have been irretrievably ruined. The mullahs will have broken every solemn undertaking that they ever gave: to the International Atomic Energy Agency; to the European Union, which has been their main negotiating interlocutor up until now; and to the United Nations. (Tehran specifically rejects the right of the U.N. Security Council to have any say in this question.) Those who usually fetishize the role of the United Nations and of the international nuclear inspectors have a special responsibility to notice this appalling outcome.

2) The "Revolutionary Guards," who last year shot and raped their way to near-absolute power in Iran, are also the guardians of the underground weapons program. A successful consummation of that program would be an immeasurable enhancement of the most aggressive faction of the current dictatorship.

3) The power of the guards to project violence outside Iran's borders would likewise be increased. Any Hezbollah subversion of Lebanese democracy or missile attack on Israel; any Iranian collusion with the Taliban or with nihilist forces in Iraq would be harder to counter in that it would involve a confrontation with a nuclear godfather.

4) The same powerful strategic ambiguity would apply in the case of any Iranian move on a neighboring Sunni Arab Gulf state, such as Bahrain. The more extreme of Iran's theocratic newspapers already gloat at such a prospect, which is why so many Arab regimes hope—sometimes publicly—that this "existential" threat to them also be removed.

5) There will never be a settlement of the Israel-Palestine dispute, because the rejectionist Palestinians will be even more a proxy of a regime that calls for Israel's elimination, and the rejectionist Jews will be vindicated in their belief that concessions are a waste of time, if not worse.

6) The concept of "nonproliferation," so dear to the heart of the right-thinking, will go straight into the history books along with the League of Nations.

B. Unchecked nuclear Iran causes proliferation throughout the middle east.
http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil...

Iran's continued insistence that it acquired its nuclear capabilities legally under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) would, if unchallenged, encourage its neighbors (including Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Syria, Turkey, and Algeria) to develop nuclear options of their own by emulating Iran's example, by overtly declaring possession... Such announcements and efforts, in turn, would likely undermine nuclear nonproliferation restraints internationally and strain American relations with most of its key friends in the Middle East.
BlackNovice

Con

Sorry I missed deadline.

Fem Adv.: First, he must prove that women rights abuse are the root to all problems, and that Iranian invading is the ONLY thing that can solve that, if there is a risk the Status Quo can solve then you vote for me. And he also must justify that an invading I ran will not cause war. And that if in need it did that his Fem. Adv can solve for it and his evidence is non unique to Iran make him give you evidence that says that Iran invasion will halt womens rights abuse, and women rights abuse has been happening its sad but they aren't dying. We invade Iran and We die. CBA says I win because, the cost of killing soldiers isn't worth invading.

Heg. adv: US presence is a war on humanity – threatens all countries on earth
Polya 10 (Dr. Gideon Polya, professor at Cornell, environment expert, author, "4 July US Independence Day: US Imperialism, Terrorism & Genocide Deny Life, Liberty & Happiness to World," Bella Ciao, http://bellaciao.org...)

For a billions of people around the World July 4 means that day in 1776 on which the United States declared war on Humanity. For the United States of America the Fourth of July is US Independence Day, a US federal holiday commemorating the adoption of the Declaration of Independence on July 4, 1776, declaring independence from Great Britain. Ask yourself the question: what countries in Asia, Africa, the Pacific and the Americas has the US (a) threatened, (b) suborned, (c) invaded, (d) devastated or (e) occupied? The answers: (a) the US threatens all countries on earth; (b), the US suborns all countries on earth (read Philip Agee, "Inside the Company. CIA Diary" and John Perkins "Confessions of an Economic Hit Man"); (c), (d) and (e). the US has actually invaded, occupied and devastated about 30 countries in the 65 years since 1945 alone (read William Blum's book "Rogue State" and for an avoidable mortality-related history of genocidal US imperialism read my book "Body Count. Global avoidable mortality since 1950": The US has military forces in 156 countries and bases in about 63 countries. Its nuclear weapons-armed nuclear submarines spread a message of racist state terrorism and racist nuclear terrorism around the globe.

Exercises in military and economic power go hand-in-hand. Imperial power expands through the presentation of US goals as universally good.
MOHANTY in 6 (CHANDRA TALPADE, Department of Women's Studies, Syracuse
University, Gender, Place and Culture Vol. 13, No. 1, pp. 7–20, February 2006, US Empire and the Project of Women's Studies: Stories of citizenship, complicity and dissent, http://www.uccs.edu...)
In a May 2003 interview the writer and activist Arundhati Roy identifies the checkbook and the cruise missile as the tools of corporate led globalization. If the checkbook (read economic control) doesn't work, as in Argentina, then the cruise missile will—as in Iraq (Barsamian, 2004): an apt description of unilateral, corporatist, US empire. This combination of economic control and physical violence and destruction has a centuries old legacy of colonialism and imperialism. In 2006, however, it is important to specify how the colonial traffics in the imperial. Post-cold war, and post-1989, we enter an era of accelerated forms of corporate and militarized rule, with the US emerging as the lead bully on the block, ably assisted of course by the UK. If, as a rather incisive 1942 Fortune magazine editorial claimed, the representatives of the British empire were ‘salesmen and planters', and of the post-WWII American empire were ‘brains and Bulldozers, technicians and machine tools',1 the current representatives of US empire may be corporate executives and military and security personnel—those who wield the checkbook and the cruise missile. Each of these groups of imperial actors—the salesmen and planters, the brains and technicians, and the executives and military/security personnel tell very particular stories—not just of political economy and territorial control but also of the gender and color of empire, of racialized patriarchies and heteronormative sexualities of empire at different historical junctures. These stories (and others like them) necessitate mapping a landscape where corporate cultures of power, domination and surveillance coincide with a politics of complicity in the academy and elsewhere. One way to address the politics of complicity is to analyze the languages of imperialism and empire deployed explicitly by the US State, and sometimes adopted uncritically by progressive scholars and activists alike. In a provocative essay called ‘Imperial Language', Marilyn Young argues that the languages of imperialism and empire are distinct, even contradictory (Young, 2005). She distinguishes between the language of empire and the language of imperialism whereby the former is ‘benign, nurturing, polysyllabic', and the latter, the language of ‘the act of creating and sustaining empire. . .immediate. direct, often monosyllabic'. She goes on to claim that at this time both languages dovetail in the recreation of an Anglo-American ‘colonizing, warrior past' (p. 40)—a clear instance then of the colonial trafficking in the imperial. What role have US feminists who supported the Bush administration's war in the name of ‘rescuing' Afghan and Iraqi women played in this narrative of empire and imperialism? This is one of the questions we need to pose to address the politics of complicity and dissent within contemporary feminist projects.

Imperialism K:

A.) US imperialist practices result in racism, sexism, and violence on the population. This militarization of daily life is vital to the maintenance of empire.
MOHANTY '06

B.) US imperialist practices result in racism, sexism, and violence on the population. THIS TURNS HIS FEM ADV. This militarization of daily life is vital to the maintenance of empire.
MOHANTY in 6
The clearest effects of US empire building in the domestic arena are thus evident in the way citizenship has been restructured, civil rights violated and borders repoliced since the commencement of the war of drugs, and now the war on terrorism and the establishment of the homeland security regime. While the US imperial project calls for civilizing brown and black (and now Arab) men and rescuing their women outside its borders, the very same state engages in killing, imprisoning, and criminalizing black and brown and now Muslim and Arab peoples within its own borders. Former political prisoner Linda Evans (2005) calls the US a ‘global police state' one that has adopted a mass incarceration strategy of social control since the Reagan years. Analyzing the militarization of US society, Evans argues that the new definition of ‘domestic terrorism' heralds the now legal return of the Counter Intelligence Program (COINTELPRO) that conducted illegal covert operations in the 1960s and 1970s against the Black Panther party, the American Indian movement, the Puerto Rican Independence movement, and left/socialist organizations. Racial profiling, once illegal, is now legitimated as public policy, including a requirement that Arab and Muslim men from over 25 countries register and submit to INS interrogation. Similarly, Julia Sudbury analyzes the global crisis and rise in the mass incarceration of women, suggesting that we must be attentive to ‘the ways in which punishment regimes are shaped by global capitalism, dominant and subordinate patriarchies and neocolonial, racialized ideologies'. This prison industrial complex is supported by the militarization of domestic law enforcement.

Iran Prolif: New sanctions in the status quo strike down Iran's ability to acquire nuclear weapons
Smith '10

And, going into Iran will be the only thing to cause them to Proliferate this turns ur Advantage.
Debate Round No. 3
Johnicle

Pro

Thank you for posting something.

GROUP ARGUMENTS

1) My opponent did not follow th guidelines listed in the first round. Cross apply the statement that "If you accept this debate, you also accept the format of how to debate it." He never posted a specific implementation method making comparison impossible.

2)This is bad for debate and overall is a voting issue. If an agreed upon debate format is set, following it is essential.

3) By not setting the implementation method, my ground is restricted. I can no longer run specific links nor can I run arguments debating the topical-ness of the implementation method. Actually, the simple fact that he doesn't have one shows that he is not topical at all. Also a voting issue.

4) Flow through both the proliferation and nuclear war costs. Both of these go dropped. These alone outweigh everything mentioned in his last speech.

==============================================================

FEM ADV: He claims that I must uniquely solve for feminism.

1) I proved that I have a legitimate way of solving for feminism. If he thinks that the status quo will solve then it is his job to prove that.

2) Had he created a topical implementation method, he would not have solved for feminism.

3) My evidence discusses what is happening in the status quo. CON has not presented any reason as to why this would change.

Feminism Advantage stands.

==============================================================

Heg. adv: US presence is a war on humanity – threatens all countries on earth

1) Refusing to prefer my implementation method won't solve any of the problems mentioned in this evidence. One more country won't brink any impacts, and in fact, the more specific evidence to the problem, presented by me, indicates that refusing to act will in fact be the end of the earth.

2) We have been doing this for 50 years and no visible impacts have been seen. As the global hegemony, it is natural to secure the world.

3) Sure we may 'threaten' the other countries... because we own the hegemony title. However, there is no evidence suggesting that we will actually act on this threat. Just because there is a threat, doesn't mean that any harm will happen. We can very well occupy other countries AND threaten them (just with our massive power) while still harming no one.

4) This risk, overall, doesn't even come close to the impacts that I present. Preventing Iranian proliferation is key to preventing other countries from proliferating. I guarantee that the 'threat to other countries' will be exponentially increased if we let that happen.

==============================================================

Exercises in military and economic power go hand-in-hand. Imperial power expands through the presentation of US goals as universally good.

1) First of all, congrats on your quality copy and paste technique :D

2) How does this at all compare to proliferation, nuke war, and destruction of international treaties?

3) The evidence specifies feminism which I solve for.

4) U.S. intervention ("imperialism") is critical to world peace - there is no substitute.
---Elshtain, Laura Spelman Rockefeller Professor of Social and Political Ethics at the University of Chicago Divinity School, '03 (jean Bethke, "Just War Against Terrorism" pg. 169)

"The heavy burden being imposed on the US... does oblige the US to evaluate all claims and to make a determination as to whether it can intervene effectively and in a way that does more good than harm... This approach is better by far than those strategies of evasion and denial of the sort visible in Rwanda, [and] Bosnia... The possibility of international peace and stability premised on equal regard for all rests largely... on American power... this fact... is inescapable... America's fate is tied inextricably to the fates of states and societies around the world. If large pockets of the globe start to go bad... the drain on American power and treasure will reach a point where it can no longer be borne."

5) There is no specific link to imperialism.

==============================================================

Imperialism K:

1) I think what my opponent is trying to say is that we should sacrifice the security of the entire planet, perhaps sacrifice the planet entirely, in order to make a subjective society better. A worldly problem must be dealt with before an subjective issue.

2) His impacts are temporary. Extinction is forever.

3) PERM: There is no reason why we can't invade Iran and conform to the imperialism ideals if it is actually such a detrimental thing. At the very least I have shown how the minute amount of imperialism that I cause is well worth it.

4) CON causes just as much Imperialism in the status quo as I do. The only debate therefore is if the I increase it too much. There is no evidence showing that I push imperialism over the brink enough to cause a unique impact.

5) He has evidence but quotes nothing. Giving a name and a date doesn't allow you to say whatever you want.

6) Imperialism methods aren't always bad.
http://www.hoover.org...

"Even the mildest imperialism will be experienced by many as a humiliation. Yet imperialism as the midwife of democratic self-rule is an UNDENIABLE GOOD. Liberal imperialism is thus a moral and logical scandal, a simultaneous denial and affirmation of self-rule that is impossible either to fully accept or repudiate... If democracy did not depend on colonialism, we could confidently forswear empire."

---This shows that if the ends are good, even questionable means are reasonable.

But seriously... I'd take imperialism any day versus nuclear proliferation across the middle east region and ultimately nuke war.

==============================================================

Too many reasons to vote PRO to have a legitimate conclusion. My first group of arguments alone are reason enough to vote PRO.

Good luck in your next response.
BlackNovice

Con

1. I show CBA The cost of invasion is bad the K and the DA outweight. The benefit is to reject the affirmative this is not a voters issue.

FEM ADV:
1. The Affirmative has the burden of proof. He must prove to you that the only way to solve form feminism is to invade Iran. The problem is that womens rights are being abused all over the world and he doesn't solve for any of that which means that the impacts are all gonna happen and he causes them.

2. My implementation method is to reject the affirmative and accept the status quo.

3. We see that through out history women's rights have advanced so it will continue to do so as history proves status quo solves.

4. He concedes all of this, "And he also must justify that an invading I ran will not cause war. And that if in need it did that his Fem. Adv can solve for it and his evidence is non unique to Iran make him give you evidence that says that Iran invasion will halt womens rights abuse, and women rights abuse has been happening its sad but they aren't dying. We invade Iran and We die. CBA says I win because, the cost of killing soldiers isn't worth invading." Vote negative.

HEG ADV:
1. Extinction is will not happen because we don't invade Iran. Logic.
2. He says no visible impacts we hurt people with hegemony. We are causing tension were causing awful things to happen.

Trying to maintain hegemony destroys the economy—controlled descent from primacy is a preferable strategy.
Samuel A. Adamson, second-year MAIA candidate at the Johns Hopkins University SAIS Bologna Center and undergraduate degree in Oriental Studies from the University of Oxford, 10, Bolgona Journal of International Affairs, "Supreme Effort: A Lesson in British Decline" cp
\The aim of this essay is to demonstrate the extent to which the initial failure by British governments to recognize, accept and adapt to the country's new position in the post-war world had deep, painful and long-lasting effects on the domestic British political economy. Rather than being a time of reflection and re-evaluation of the world order, the post-war consensus amongst successive governments was that Britain's victory was a validation of the old, rather than a trigger for its removal. As such, sterling was expected to continue as the world's reserve currency and the preferred unit of exchange. From 1945 until the major devaluation of 1968, one after the other, British governments oriented economic policy towards the maintenance of sterling's international prestige, through the manipulation of the domestic economy. Using deflationary packages to curb demand and defend the pound against external pressure, the government indirectly (but repeatedly) inflicted punishing restrictions on British industry through a chronic underinvestment in capital. As Samuel Brittan has it, "The position of sterling as an international currency, with all the risks to which it exposed Britain, was regarded as desirable in itself, like a prisoner kissing the rod with which he is being beaten."39 In a desperate attempt to improve British competitiveness, British governments then began to intervene in industrial relations, to the detriment of the Welfare Compromise that had presided over a relatively stable period from 1945 –1960. Government-union cooperation worsened throughout the 1960s under a Labour government and reached exploding point following the election of Heath's conservative government. The British economy plumbed new depths in the 1970s, with factories being reduced to a three- day working week and with the entire population having to endure the infamous "Winter of Discontent." Such harsh times brought about harsh measures, to be administered by Margaret Thatcher. Her reshaping of the British political economy marks the beginning of the current era for Britain, for better or worse. With increased focus, she drew onto the City's financial services; however, at the moment it is difficult to see past the latter. Britain, still today, feels the pain of bone-breaking readjustment to the post-war world.
It should also be emphasized that the thesis put forward here is only one example of the way in which the British government failed to adapt properly to the nation's declining position in the post-war world. This paper could easily have taken as its topic of investigation the exuberant defense spending exhibited by an unbroken succession of British governments, characterized by the costly maintenance of an independent nuclear deterrent in obeisance to the "Top Table" argument or, as Churchill had it, "our badge to the Royal Enclosure."40
The wider lessons to be drawn from the British experience are complex and difficult to identify clearly, as each declining hegemon (of which there have been —and will be— many) faces a potentially different set of international and domestic conditions. However, there is a clear and universal warning to be taken from the illustration presented here — a world power that may be in decline needs, more than ever, to maintain a high level of vigilance and flexibility in its attitudes to its international position. Being prepossessed of pretensions of past glories serves for nothing; rather it inhibits a nation in its readjustment. Therefore, the attitudes put forward by E. Garten in his essay regarding American decline (as outlined at the beginning of this paper) should be regarded as, at best, unhelpful, and at worst severely damaging to the future of the United States. For reasons that will not be argued here, however, I find myself in complete agreement with Garten regarding the undesirable nature of American decline, particularly in light of the candidates currently waiting in the wings to take the crown. Indeed, it is for that reason that this paper argues that it is wrong to assess the methods of "how to remedy signs of decline" (as Garten does), but rather suggests that it is instead critical to accept the inevitability of its occurrence, allowing for a more controlled descent, thereby minimizing domestic damage and allowing declining powers to still exert a good deal of influence on the international stage — at least due in part to their masterfully orchestrated readjustment to their dethronement.

The pursuit of primacy causes global savage wars for peace – it makes conflict inevitable.
Christopher Layne, Associate Professor in the Bush School of Government and Public Service at Texas A&M University and Research Fellow with the Center on Peace and Liberty at The Independent Institute, 07,"The Case Against the American Empire," American Empire: A Debate, Published by Routledge, ISBN 0415952034, p. 54-55)

In this chapter, I argue that primacy and empire is a strategy that will lead to bad consequences for the United States. Rather than bringing the United States peace and security, the pursuit of primacy and empire will result in a geopolitical backlash against the United States. It already has. The 9/11 attacks were a violent reaction against America's primacy—and specifically against its imperial ambitions in the Middle East. Similarly, the quagmire in Iraq also is a direct consequence of U.S. imperial aspirations. And it will not end there. Because it is premised on the belief that the United States must embark on assertive policies to bring about regime change by imposing democracy abroad, the pursuit of primacy and empire will drag the United States into otherwise avoidable wars—what one proponent of the strategy has termed "savage wars for peace." Looking ahead, if the United States continues to follow its current strategy of primacy and empire, it almost certainly will find [end page 54] itself on a collision course with Iran (and possibly North Korea and Syria) and—more importantly—China.

He concede the Turns on the Fed Adv, and Heg Adv.

Impact Calc. He triggers his own impacts these things are not occurring in the status quo so vote neg.

Kicking all of cause Positions.
Debate Round No. 4
Johnicle

Pro

1>>> But you specifically did not follow the rules by posting an implementation method. This is a voting issue.

FEM ADV:

1>>> My opponents argument is that I must be the only way to solve feminism. As far as this debate goes, I am... He has given no evidence as to other methods that may solve it, nor has he attacked my claims that feminism rights are null in Iran currently and my implication that it won't be getting better.

2>>> Accepting the status quo would mean continuing to destroy feminism.

3>>> Even if you accept this argument (that women's rights will eventually improve), you must accept that passing my implementation method would at least solve better by time-frame. Passing my plan immediately will be able to solve for feminism NOW... Versus perhaps solving for feminism sometime in this century.

4>>> First of all, my evidence specifies that EVERY human (including ALL soldiers) will die if we don't pass the the PRO's position. This goes unrefuted, so even if I lose feminism I win the debate. Second of all, my C point of the implementation method specifies that we will leave when there is a stabilized country, meaning that we will solve for feminism before we leave due to the fact it is a major stability problem. Half the population is discriminated against. Finally, the U.S. has a history of invading countries for one reason, and helping them in other areas. Feminism will be a main area.

HEG ADV:

1. Extinction is will not happen because we don't invade Iran. Logic.>>>

Two things to note here:

a) Our hegemony will exist in the status quo. Meaning, voting con will not link to preventing impacts.

b) He presents no specific evidence that says that not invading will prevent Iranian proliferation and eventual detonation. If I happen to be missing evidence he posted somewhere in this round, my evidence is for sure more specific and better (since I can't even find it)

"Trying to maintain hegemony destroys the economy—controlled descent from primacy is a preferable strategy.">>>

1. Even if this is true, it does not outweigh my benefits nor his costs.

2. It cites one example and is not specific to the U.S. position OR the Iran conflict.

3. The evidence itself agrees...

"The wider lessons to be drawn from the British experience are complex and difficult to identify clearly, as each declining hegemon (of which there have been —and will be— many) faces a potentially different set of international and domestic conditions. However, there is a clear and universal warning to be taken from the illustration presented here."

---Therefore, we don't know if we are in the same boat anyway.

"The pursuit of primacy causes global savage wars for peace – it makes conflict inevitable.">>>

1. This evidence only links us into a conflict with Iran. Which my evidence says is a GOOD thing.

2. The biggest impact besides that is 'savage wars' like 9/11. Cross apply my Nuke War evidence as well as all of my proliferation evidence.

3. Finally, it would seem that this evidence is actually an example of the status quo. Which means that prefer my position since we can invade Iran on our terms and for the greater good of society.

"He concede the Turns on the Fed Adv, and Heg Adv.">>>

This is laughable. I had 3 points on the 'turn' which go dropped in his last speech. Furthermore, even the turn doesn't outweigh the biggest impact in this round which is nuke war and extinction.

The Heg turn is even more laughable. He tags a piece of evidence and puts a last name and a date on it and calls it a turn. Go back to my last speech where I said:

"5) He has evidence but quotes nothing. Giving a name and a date doesn't allow you to say whatever you want."

Finally, I had evidence that stated that this imperialism is actually a good thing in certain situations. One of which being prevention of nuclear extinction.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

IMPACT CALC:

In the end, don't let his games make you turn away from the real issue here. FLOW THROUGH my entire costs speech. That alone wins me the round. Go back and read it. My tags alone will show that it is the real issue in the round, and I am the only one who shows a way to solve it.

CON leads to nuke war and extinction, not to mention internationally destructive proliferation (which was cold dropped and alone outweighs his position)... Pro does not. The choice is clear.

Thanks for the debate!
BlackNovice

Con

1. I stress to you that the benefits of the status quo outweigh the affirmatives plan, I'm defending the status quo that's my implementation if you think this has been a good debate then, there is no abuse, and this is not a voters issue and also he doesn't even tell you exactly how in his opinion me not having an implementation actually harmed him, there is no abuse.

FEM ADV:

1. There is no impact to his feminism advantage, sure its bad but still it's logic that invading Iran will not solve Iran. He says that as far as this debate goes he is solving for feminism but, that's not true he doesn't solve for feminism all over the world which his harms evidence apply's too. And, he gives no evidence that says literally that the U.S. Military invading Iran will solve for feminism. The affirmative has the burden of proof, and the proof simply is not there. And he gives no threshold, what is the tipping point, when will we see the major impacts of feminism.

THE NEXT ARGUMENT IS THE BIGGEST VOTING ISSUE ON THE FLOW: Moving troops into Iran will only increase feminism. He says, "Sanctity of the body. Women's rights to the sanctity of their bodies are freely violated in Iran. Women are, on a large scale, victims of rape, coerced sexual relations with their husbands, domestic violence, and all manner of insults and sexual violations in the public domain..." Well US troops rape women Japan proves, this means he will only add to the conflict this alone is a voters issue he loses the round. If I even win 1 advantage I will win the round vote neg.

US TROOPS RAPE WOMEN - JAPAN PROVES
Simpson, a former U.S. ambassador, on 3-17
[Dan, "Let's draw down our forces in Japan", Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, http://www.postgazette....
com/pg/10076/1043306-374.stm#ixzz0ppZKrUC6]
U.S.-Japanese relations now are bedeviled by a number of problems. It is ironic that this is the case just as HBO
launches what will be a widely watched 10-week serial on World War II in the Pacific. The first episode on Sunday tried to tread a fine line between demonizing the Japanese for their approach to the war and presenting them as a fully human enemy, with wives and children at home. The proximate cause of the disruption in U.S.-Japanese relations was the replacement last year of the Liberal Democratic Party, which had ruled Japan almost continuously since 1955,
by the Japanese Democratic Party. It isn't that the JDP is anti-American. It is rather that, as a new party in power, it is quite normal for it to look sharply at some of the basic principles that governed Japanese policy during the 53 years of LDP rule. One of these was Japan's relationship with the United States. An integral part of that -- perhaps the central pole of it -- is the presence of the U.S. troops in Japan. That presence is the cornerstone of a sense on the part
of the Japanese that the United States remains fundamentally responsible for their national security. There is friction on an interpersonal basis. When I was stationed at the American Embassy in Reykjavik, Iceland, one of the issues between the United States and Iceland was the presence of some 5,000 U.S. troops at an airbase on the island. To avoid problems, the American service members were discouraged from traveling around the country. In Japan, most of the U.S. troops are on the island of Okinawa, where, from time to time they are involved in accidents; murders; rapes; air, water and noise pollution; and other sources of misunderstanding.

HEG ADV:

1. It's logic we are overstretched in many other nations, we have been tapping into are our Army reserves, were spending a lot of money and the economy is crucial to hegemony which he doesn't solve for, Extend my Anderson '10 evidence So the hegemony impacts are going to happen with a vote in affirmative, and he gives no threshold as to what is the tipping point of the impacts, he gives no time frame these are all burden of proof for the affirmative he doesn't do that vote him down.

CBA: He doesn't give you a clear implementation of when his plan will take action, how much it'll cost or who will carry it out. He says, " ...did not follow the rules by posting an implementation method. This is a voting issue." Vote negative because, he doesn't follow his own rules because, he doesn't specify when the plan will take place we can contend that the impacts will never happen. And even if they do happen tomorrow he doesn't solve for them because he gives no time in which he will carry out his plan these are all reasons to vote in negation.

If I win the Fem, advantage or the Heg adv, or even if any argument go uncontested or there's is a risk his plan doesn't solve I win the round vote negative. *And don't vote for yourself that's douchey and the only reason why your winning our last debate*
Debate Round No. 5
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by SuperRobotWars 6 years ago
SuperRobotWars
?!??!?!!?!?!?!!?!Whaaaaaa?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!!??
Posted by BlackNovice 6 years ago
BlackNovice
I said don't vote for your self, so why would u do it?
Posted by governments_kill 6 years ago
governments_kill
Anyone else find it amusing that pro just articulated feminism as a benefit for a massive invasion? Next affirmative advantage penis envy.
Posted by gavin.ogden 6 years ago
gavin.ogden
That's tough. I agree with pro, but this would be a really good debate...
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by ConservativePolitico 5 years ago
ConservativePolitico
JohnicleBlackNoviceTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: Great debate, everything is a tie except that Con dropped a round so conduct for Pro.
Vote Placed by Wallstreetatheist 5 years ago
Wallstreetatheist
JohnicleBlackNoviceTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: FF
Vote Placed by m93samman 6 years ago
m93samman
JohnicleBlackNoviceTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: balancing self-vote bomb
Vote Placed by BillBonJovi 6 years ago
BillBonJovi
JohnicleBlackNoviceTied
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:70 
Vote Placed by statedebater 6 years ago
statedebater
JohnicleBlackNoviceTied
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 SuperRobotWars 6 years ago
SuperRobotWars
JohnicleBlackNoviceTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Vote Placed by Johnicle 6 years ago
Johnicle
JohnicleBlackNoviceTied
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:70