The Instigator
Johnicle
Pro (for)
Winning
24 Points
The Contender
badger
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

CBA Debate: Sparta taking over the world in order to prevent loss of sovereignty.

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: 3/6/2010 Category: Society
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,102 times Debate No: 11343
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (1)
Votes (4)

 

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.

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

Scenario: The United Nations has finally obtained power and demands that all nations combine into a singular nation. Failure to join will result in trade sanctions with the rest of the world and will be an enemy remainder of Earth. Every other nation has agreed to sign on to the open trading and a universal treaty. "Country X" (for convenience shall be referred to as Sparta) has the strongest military in the world and the most advanced nuclear and biological arsenal in the world. There is not a piece of military weapon that Sparta does not own in abundant supply. Furthermore, Sparta has 30 million highly trained military soldiers to defend their 70 million population. What is the most net-beneficial option for Sparta?

PRO: Initiate World War III , completing the following two objectives:
-Objective A: Enslave a necessary percentage of the population of the world to make Sparta have the highest quality of life to date.
-Objective B: Kill the remainder of humans.
CON: Complete the objective for world peace and join the United Nations.

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

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.

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

Good luck to my opponent. And may this debate be enjoyable for both sides.
badger

Con

Let's step outside.
Debate Round No. 1
Johnicle

Pro

Thank you for accepting my challenge. Let's have some fun!

I am in support of the following:

Initiate World War III , completing the following two objectives:
-Objective A: Enslave a necessary percentage of the population of the world to make Sparta have the highest quality of life to date.
-Objective B: Kill the remainder of humans.

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

CONTENTION I: ANALYSIS OF THE RESOLUTION
---The resolution asks for the net-benefits for the country of Sparta. Nowhere does it require moral implications of Sparta, nor does it require that we analyze the harm given to other nations. All that I have to show, in order to win, is that Sparta itself has more benefits than costs.

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

CONTENTION II: IMPLEMENTATION METHOD

PHASE A: Tactical EMP known enemy nuclear bases.

A. Launch EMP's at nuclear bases and nuclear locations to maintain a fluent shut down of enemy electronic devices

PHASE B: Operation Destruction Part 1

A. Immediately launch Nuclear Weapons in order to destroy the following nations:

-United States
-Russia
-United Kingdom
-France
-China
-India
-Pakistan
-North Korea
-Israel
-Russia
-Iran
-Belgium
-Germany
-Italy
-Netherlands
-Turkey
-Canada
-Greece
-Belarus
-Kazakhstan
-Ukraine
-Greece
-Brazil
-Mexico

B. Each bomb shall have impact approximately 30 seconds apart.

PHASE C: Operation Enslavement

A. Disperse 20 million soldiers to the following countries to enslave the citizens:

-Uganda
-Niger
-Chad
-Mali
-Mauritania
-Gabon
-Sierra Leone

B. Lethal force is authorized if necessary. All decisions will be made by the commanding officer.

C. Mating of citizens of this nation will continue to provide Sparta with slaves for the future.

D. Any unnecessary slaves shall be killed. Preferring the less valuable determined by cost of keeping the slave alive, work ability, and retribution attempts.

E. If it is deemed that more slaves are needed, then additional countries, not yet destroyed, shall be chosen based on army size (smaller preferred), and population size.

F. All people, including Spartans, will be tested for diseases. Any disease infested individual will be killed.

PHASE D: World Domination

A. Deploy additional nuclear weapons towards highly populated areas (approximately more than 4 people per square mile), unless it is in conflict with the goals of PHASE E.

B. Man Hunt with troops.

-Authorization is given to steal any sort of materials needed to complete the goal of world domination.

-I reserve the right to prudence while deploying the implementation method. War is unpredictable, this is the skeleton of strategy and nothing more. 10 million troops are reserved for defensive, and alternative operations.

PHASE E: Stabilization

A. Troops will be dispersed to conflicts easily solved with troops rather than nukes.

B. Troops will be dispersed to areas, not already nuked, where land is needed to farm to make food capable of supporting at least 200 million people.

C. Troops will be sent to places, not already nuked, that are rich in food products that can stabilize Sparta and slaves during current operations.

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

CONTENTION III: BENEFITS

1. Economic Benefits

A. Economic Benefits from slavery
- http://www.nathanielturner.com...
- "Slavery raises a host of negative images for Black people; so much so, they fail to realize the tremendous economic contributions they made, albeit forced, to the development of the United States into a world power. This lack of realization stems from the national shame of slavery and the concomitant national denial, which in reality has become a weak defense mechanism."
- (continued) "The results of the economic value of this free labor are, when inflated conservatively at 3% to 2006 dollars, a staggering value of 20.3 trillion dollars or to put this number in a more visual perspective; it amounts to $563,450 per African American currently living in the US."
--- There is hardly a better economic boost that can even begin to be compared to slavery. It costs us next to nothing to support each slave, yet they provide us with a substantial work force.

B. The 7 nations chosen would be enough work force to support every industry lost through nuclear war.
- http://www.worldatlas.com...
-Uganda Population: 27,269,500
-Niger Population: 11,665,900
-Chad Population: 9,826,400
-Mali Population: 12,291,500
-Mauritania Population: 3,086,900
-Gabon Population: 1,389,200
-Sierra Leone: 6,017,600
---Casualties can of course be expected, but over 50 million slaves can easily be obtained.

C. The 7 nations chosen have weak armies.
- http://www.nationmaster.com...
-Uganda: 50,000
-Niger: 5,000
-Chad: 30,000
-Mali: 7,000
-Mauritania: 16,000
-Gabon: 5,000
-Sierra Leone: 3,000
---116,000 verses 20,000,000 highly trained soldiers is no competition.

D. Having such control makes future economic flourishing promising.
-When the government owns half of the working force, economics becomes easily controlled, and therefore benefited.

E. Future land to be owned by Sparta.
-After all of the fall out has been cleared, the world is Sparta's to own. Practically unlimited land further benefits the economy.

2. Peace Benefits

A. With one government, war would be minimized to rare civil wars.
-In the long run, having only one country would eliminate the idea of war. Therefore, in the long run, fewer deaths would result from taking over of the world. It is really unlikely that world peace would ever result from the current population and current governments.

B. Most diseases eliminated
-On top of the lives saved from war in the long run, you have the lives saved due to the elimination of AID's, Type 1 Diabetes, and any other disease that is passed from human to human.

C. Preventing the Carrying Capacity of Humans
- http://serendip.brynmawr.edu...
- "All organisms require resources such as water and nutrients to grow and reproduce. The environment where a population is growing has only a limited amount of resources. As the population gets larger, there will not be enough resources to support continued rapid growth of the population. The rate of growth of the population will slow down, and finally the population will reach a maximum size which is called the carrying capacity of the environment."

D. Effects of Carrying Capacity prevented.
- http://www.thefreelibrary.com...
- "The already fragile environment has been pushed well beyond its carrying capacity carrying capacity... Areas around several of Chad's northern camps have hardly enough water to support both refugees and the local population. "Receiving 200,000 people has had a significant impact on the ability of the water ta-bles to come back up to their regular level," says Jessica Hyba, assistant country director of CARE, an international nonprofit group working on environmental issues in Chad."
---Naturally, violence results from such situations. The implementation method of PRO prevents all of this violence. No one, after this conflict, will ever go without eating. No one will ever again die from war. Peace will be obtained and economic equality will be achieved, dreams that the current population can't even begin to dream of.

-I reserve the right to add more benefits and clarify my intent. I look forward to your case.

Thanks
badger

Con

CON: Complete the objective for world peace and join the United Nations.

IMPLEMENTATION METHOD

A. Agree to join the United Nations as long as we get to govern our own country. It's likely that they'll accept these terms, given that we have the strongest military in the world and the most advanced nuclear and biological arsenal in the world, and who would want to mess with that?

B. Sign whatever needs to be signed.

BENEFITS

1. World Peace... Sweet.

COSTS...

1. The ink needed to sign whatever needed to be signed.

-I also reserve the right to add more benefits and clarify my intent. I'd say my case probably disappointed you after all the work you put in, but my objective was, in fairness, fairly simple.
Debate Round No. 2
Johnicle

Pro

COST I: INEFFECTIVENESS

A. CON did not guarantee that the United Nations would be joined.
--- "Agree to join the United Nations AS LONG AS WE GET TO GOVERN OUR OWN COUNTRY."

B. Such a stance is abusive.
--- The CON has 2 burdens to meet in the implementation method:
1. Join the United Nations
2. Get World Peace
--- With such an argument, CON does not guarantee that the United Nations will be joined. Therefore, there is no guarantee that the CON burden will be met.

C. Sparta would not join under the CON implementation method.
--- In order to get world peace, you have to give up at least a bit of governing power. For example, no longer would you be able to invade another country. That gives up governing power, and if the U.N. was interested in world peace, they would not allow that, therefore, CON would not join under the implementation method.
--- Furthermore, internal affairs, such as torture, or certain Judicial workings, under world peace would seize to exist. The U.N. enforcing Sparta to seize such operations, even if they are not practicing them, would not allow a self governing nation. Once again, this would lead to Sparta not joining the U.N.

-Face it, if you are joining any sort of international establishment that has power, you will lose self-governing control. This contradiction in the implementation method makes it so the CON does not join the U.N., does not get world peace, and fails the entire point of the CON side of the debate.

D. Under "world peace", no more nuclear, or biological weapons would exist making CON's supporting claim useless.
--- The reason that CON argues that he would be allowed to join the U.N. anyway was supported by basically blackmailing the U.N. through power. Do you really think an organization with the goal of world peace would allow such weapons to exist? It is unlikely at best. Joining such an establishment would demand that the military lose some of its power. Therefore, by following CON's own implementation method, we could not join, leaving the ONLY option left on the table to nuke and kill everyone, which is the PRO's option in the first place.

COST II: Loss of Sovereignty

--- If we were to join the United Nations, it would simply lead to another situation similar to ‘taxation without representation'. We would no longer get to use our military that takes up 43% of our population, nor would we be able to make any use out of our weapons. We immediately, therefore, go from a country that has all sorts of power, to a useless country.
--- Furthermore, some of our own internal decisions would be affected (torture, death penalty, etc.). Face it, world peace is like having parents that won't let you do what you want, and it simply isn't any fun!

COST III: Economic Disaster
COST IV: Internationally Powerless

A. 43% of Sparta is the military. It would become useless after achieving world peace.
--- The implementation method provided by CON doesn't show where the members of ‘New Sparta' would get jobs. How can you truly justify paying 43% of your population without them doing anything (military useless during ‘world peace'). Furthermore, HOW would you actually pay them? Your implementation method is vague and foolishly selfless. It looks to the benefits of others and leaves Sparta to be internationally powerless, and economically destroyed.

B. We would have nothing to offer the international trade community that they could use.
--- There are really 2 types of power. Power that is obtained by offering service to others, and power obtained by force. Sparta was purely one that obtains power through force. In this new society, the power that is obtained by offering service will truly be the only thing left, leaving Sparta without any possibility of importing goods, and once again leaves them powerless.

Argument V: The ONLY benefit presented by CON is achieved with fewer costs to Sparta on the PRO side.
--- The only benefit (of world peace) presented by CON, is achieved on PRO. But not only is it achieved, but it is actually conceivable. Furthermore, the world peace presented by CON has carrying capacity burdens to deal with, diseases to deal with, civil wars to deal with, and numerous sovereignty issues. Quite simply, it's a worse world to live in.

The CON case either:

A) Does not meet the burden presented in their resolution (and PRO wins), or,
B) A bunch of costs and no benefits are obtained.

Vote PRO!

Thanks and good luck!
badger

Con

badger forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
Johnicle

Pro

My opponent gave me an offer in the comment section which I have accepted.

I give no arguments in my round 4.
He gives his final speech in round 4.
I give my final speech in round 5.
He says good round or something in round 5.

Good luck!
badger

Con

badger forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
Johnicle

Pro

This is quite disappointing. Perhaps I will re-challenge. If anyone is interested let me know.

-Besides that the only thing that my opponent ever posted was his benefits case. The only benefit he claimed was not only won on the PRO side as well, but won in a much more legitimate and meaningful way (world peace).

-My opponent posted no costs to my case.
-My opponent posted a case that did not even link to guarantee his objective. In fact, I proved how his objective would certainly not be met by his implementation method.
-My opponent has yet to refute ANY of my points whatsoever.

The forfeits have made it literally impossible for CON to win this debate. I do, however, thank him for the effort. It is always difficult trying out a new format of debate. Especially one with so loose of rules, and so unfamiliar to anyone.

Perhaps we will get to debate again in the future.
badger

Con

badger forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by badger 6 years ago
badger
Sorry. I put that off a bit too long. I tried to get something in so it wouldn't be a forfeit but my computer fvcked me over. Any chance you would skip the next round and I'll do both your costs and my rebuttal and I'll skip the last round?
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by philosphical 6 years ago
philosphical
JohniclebadgerTied
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 
Vote Placed by LakevilleNorthJT 6 years ago
LakevilleNorthJT
JohniclebadgerTied
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 Koopin 6 years ago
Koopin
JohniclebadgerTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Vote Placed by Johnicle 6 years ago
Johnicle
JohniclebadgerTied
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