The Instigator
Johnicle
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Logician
Con (against)
Winning
3 Points

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

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: 6/15/2010 Category: Society
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,812 times Debate No: 12345
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (9)
Votes (2)

 

Johnicle

Pro

For as much work as I put into the format of this, and for as much work as I put into my case, I never really got a quality debate out of it. Hopefully that will change.

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.
Logician

Con

OK, why not. Go for it.
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
Logician

Con

Cool. I'd like to thank my opponent for a very thorough, interesting and detailed first round. I look very much forward to this debate, I'm sure it'll be a good one :-)

To re-iterate, I am in support of the following: Sparta should complete the objective for world peace and join the United Nations.

=== ANALYSIS OF THE RESOLUTION ===

I accept my opponent's analysis regarding our burdens in this debate. I will add two extra points of analysis:

1) "World peace", understood literally as there being no disagreements or conflicts anywhere in the world, is an overly-utopic impossibility. Given that the resolution does not specifically set us in a hypothetical world where everyone is in such a non-conflictual state (with the possible exception of Sparta being under debate) - and indeed does not even use the phrase "world peace" (or an equivalent) until the CON policy - this literal understanding is not the one that I shall use in this debate.

The more realistic understanding that I shall use is that the UN's ideal is this world peace, and that by creating a world government, tensions may be reduced and conflicts be diminished. This can perhaps be understood as a close sibling to the already-existing "democratic peace theory". http://en.wikipedia.org...

2) My opponent does not state in the resolution where Sparta is located in the world, geographically speaking. Given that he has not mentioned to the contrary, I would assume that it would be located somewhere on Earth, as currently constituted. I'd like to ask my opponent, therefore, to clarify this in the next round.

=== IMPLEMENTATION ===

Given the simpler nature of my policy, as compared to my opponent's, my implementation is not as complex as his. It does, however, come in three key parts:

1) Co-operate with the UN's goal for a world government. Push, during negotiations both before the merger and afterwards, for devolved or state powers for Sparta. This will NOT be a red line in the negotiations, but there is good reason to be confident - given near-unanimous (if not actually unanimous) precedent [1] - that this will be successful.

2) Offer our army to the UN as a civil-war peacekeeping force. Given that not everyone is in favour of the UN even as currently constituted [2], there will always be a need for an army ready to keep the peace, even under the UN's world government.

3) Propose to the UN that they consider options for population control, perhaps similar to China's one child policy. [3]

=== BENEFITS ===

I have three key benefits to present in this first round.

1) World peace, as understood in the resolutional analysis presented above. Fairly straightforward.

2) Goodwill from the rest of the world. By acting peacefully, and not killing almost everyone in sight, we will be in people's good books, which means that they are more likely to help us in our endeavours. Happy people are more productive people, and less likely to be rebellious people.

3) Billions of people still alive to feed back into a positive spiral of continuing prosperity. With more people in the world, there's a better chance of creativity, intelligence and general prosperity. Spartans can benefit from this spiral as much as everyone else, especially if we get foreign workers voluntarily in Sparta under the open trading agreement mentioned in the original scenario. Such a migration can be evidenced through the EU with similar policies: the classic example in the UK is of the influx of Polish workers coming to Britain. [4] If we want "cheap wage-slaves", there's no need to do it by force - history shows they'll come voluntarily :-)

- Like my opponent, I reserve the right to add more benefits and clarify my intent. I await my opponent's next round.

Footnotes / sources:

[1] This is due to the obvious size of the world government that will ensue. Every large country that I have investigated has some form of devolution or federal system in place - the USA, Canada, Australia, Russia (both Soviet and current), China and India being key examples. The UK, Germany and Mexico are smaller - yet also key - examples to back this up. There seems to very good precedent, therefore, for the idea that a world government would/should nonetheless have a degree of self-autonomy across the world.

[2] 1,093 people on this website are listed as being CON on the "Big Issue" of the United Nations: http://www.debate.org... How many more of this community would be against the resolution-hypothesised enlarged UN, and how much rebellion would there continue to be across the world? Enough for an army to be required, surely.

[3] This is partially in response to my opponent's concerns about the carrying capacity of humans. Overpopulation is bad, but that doesn't mean that we have to kill a vast proportion of the world population, as per my opponent's policy.

[4] See here http://www.telegraph.co.uk... for a brief detail on some of this.
Debate Round No. 2
Johnicle

Pro

Thank you for your response.

COST I: Sovereignty

A. Definition
http://dictionary.reference.com...
--- Supreme�and�independent�power�or�authority�in�government as possessed�or claimed by�a state or community.

B. Sparta would lose most sovereignty claims.
--- Once there is one government controlling the world, there would literally be no governmental freedom for Sparta, or for the rest of the world. We would simply be one vote amongst hundreds of other countries. We would simply have to bend over and "take it."

C. Harm of losing 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.)

--- It basically comes down to this: Loss of Sovereignty . . . Loss of Control.

COST II: Economy

A. Resolutional Clarification:
--- The Scenario specifies that a peace treaty will be agreed upon. Therefore, it is unlikely that section 2 of my opponents IMPLEMENTATION would be accepted by the U.N. After all, why would they need troops, if there is world peace?

B. Spartan troops would unlikely be picked anyway.
--- There are plenty of troops in the world. Why would the U.N. concern themselves with the last treaty signature in order to find them? I am certain, furthermore, that every country would be willing to submit their troops for consideration in order to stabilize their job market.

Therefore, it is unlikely the U.N. would need troops. The few that they PERHAPS may need would likely come from other countries who signed earlier.

C. Job Loss
--- Out of the 70 Million citizens in Sparta, 30 Million of them are militants. Therefore, Sparta would have to deal with 43% of their population losing their job in a worse case scenario. Such a percentage of unemployment destroys any economic foundation.

D. Negative Costs due to Unemployment
--- http://www.academon.com...
--- "Some of the other problems caused by unemployment include psychological harm, ill health, lack of motivation, loss of family life, and racial and gender inequality. Psychological harm comes from the perception that someone who cannot find work must not be good for anything (Danser & Laub, 1981). It can destroy the lives of the unemployed turning them to alcoholism, suicide, and other problems."

--- CON must answer where job replacement will come from. Without it, Sparta can have no hope of having any reputable quality of life.

COST III: Loss of International Power
--- 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.

COST IV: Continuous Conflict and Death
--- It seems, at first glance, that the most death would occur on my side (not Spartan death). However, if we continue to attempt to achieve world peace as the CON side, 6 billion people will unlikely agree to everything. Conflict will continue, and unnecessary death may be slowed, but it would still exist if only at the local level.

--- PRO's option, however, offers a control tactic that would surely decrease the death in the long run. Furthermore, the livelihood for Sparta (which is the point of the debate) would WITHOUT A DOUBT be better than this controlling idea offered by CON. We would have no power, no economy, and overall no quality of life.

It would be an inadequate life for everyone.

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

I have a few case points that I would like to discuss.

=== ANALYSIS OF THE RESOLUTION ===

1) I agree that a Utopia is impossible, which is why the resolution states that you would merely complete the objective for world peace, NOT that you would be completing world peace. In other words, offering an objective and meeting the objective are two different things. CON merely has to strive for the goal so to speak.

Also, I agree that conflict would be lessened, but I do not agree that they would be completely diminished. Local conflicts and civil war type conflict could still exist. For example, the problem is Israel would continue on.

2) Sparta is on Earth.

=== IMPLEMENTATION ===

1) Although I agree that some sovereignty would exist, I must stand strong that in order to obtain world peace, severe liberal government is needed. It does no good to say that we are under one nation of world peace if nothing is done about abusive sub-governments in Africa or the Middle East. Laws would have to be adopted to feed the hungry and protect the weak. To assume that this sort of legislation and enforcement would not reach Sparta is ridiculous. Submitting to such an aggressive objective requires obscure results.

2) I have already discussed the unemployment of soldiers. Please cross apply that point here.

3) Cross Apply my Loss of Sovereignty: Loss of Control argument. This is an ideal example as to why Sovereignty is so crucial.

=== BENEFITS ===

1) You get an okay version of world peace whereas PRO gets a much more ideal form. Imagine a world where you have control of everything and can do anything... That is the world that Sparta will live in under my context of the resolution. Therefore... not only do I get world peace, I get a realistic form of it.

2) Goodwill never gets anyone anywhere.

3) I doubt slavery would be allowed by the U.N. Maybe I would be wrong. But even if it was, could you show how these cheap wage slaves would be at least as good as (if not better) than my slaves?

Thank you again. I thoroughly look forward to the conclusion of this debate!
Logician

Con

I thank my opponent for his response. Firstly, I will detail the main costs that result from his proposal, before going on to clarify the places where he appeared to miss what I was arguing with the benefits of my case.

=== THE DOWNSIDE OF MY OPPONENT'S PROPOSAL ===

COST I: Nuclear War

My opponent has said that he would launch EMPs to neutralise enemy nuclear sites before nuking the countries in question. This seems to rather stretch the limits of possibility - countries technologically advanced enough (and interested enough in their own defence) to have nuclear weapons are bound to have systems in place that can detect incoming attacks, especially the five Non-Proliferation Treaty recognised nuclear powers.

The only way to stop word of EMP shutdown reaching countries before they are targeted, therefore, is to do it simultaneously. (For to do otherwise would be to risk nuclear retaliation before all the enemy sites had been shut down.) But the only way to do so, given the distances required across the Earth, would be to undergo a relatively complex set-up involving advancement towards each individual country beforehand. This would look very suspicious internationally, and failure to comply with UN demands to retreat would surely be seen as contrary to aims of world peace, an act of aggression and therefore reason for the UN to retaliate in kind.

There is thus very good reason to suppose that the consequence of trying to bomb the world is that Sparta would fail, and if continued would lead to nuclear retaliation by other countries upon Sparta. This leads to pretty much every Spartan either dead or dying, a massive cost that severely undermines the goals of Spartan peace.

COST II: Consequences of Slavery

But let's say that, by some miracle, the EMPs somehow take the world by surprise. We now have the majority of the world in ruin, and have somehow escaped the environmental impact of nuclear winter and the destruction - for example - of the Amazon Rainforests in Brazil. Have we then reached a perfect world for Sparta, where the benefits outweigh the costs?

No, we haven't. For there remains the problem of acquiring and keeping slaves from other countries. My opponent gave the list of 7 countries that would be invaded for enslavement, and the population numbers that he gave adds up to 71,547,000 people. (His figures date to 2006, and current figures are slightly more, but the principle stands nonetheless.) He claims that it should be easy to get 50 million+ slaves, but this is by no means certain. There are three things that will limit the amount of this population:

1) The number of people outside of good working age. If we take Uganda as an example, 50% of the population are under the age of 14, and 2% over the age of 65. https://www.cia.gov... This excludes the people in between these ages who are nonetheless unfit for work, maybe due to number 2 below.

2) The proportion of people with diseases who, according to my opponent's proposal, will be killed immediately to stop their spread. Sub-Saharan Africa is the worst region in the world for the spread of HIV/AIDS, to take just one such disease, with 67% of the world's sufferers living in the region - http://www.afro.who.int.... 4 of out the 7 countries my opponent listed for enslavement - Uganda, Chad, Mali and Gabon - lie directly in the region, with the other 3 nearby. Millions of potential slaves, therefore, will be wasted and killed under my opponent's own implementation strategy.

3) The number of people who will rebel against becoming slaves. Given that practically the rest of the world is now dead, people with whom they wanted to have world peace - and given also the African history of enslavement - there is very good reason that millions of ordinary people, beyond the army, will rise in rebellion against Sparta, both before enslavement and during enslavement. http://en.wikipedia.org...

This would mean that many potential, and actual, slaves would be killed by the Spartan military for insubordination. My opponent quickly dismissed my benefit of goodwill towards Sparta - saying that it "never gets anyone anywhere" - but it is clear that what it gets us is workers willing to work in Sparta, and notably not be killed in uprising. Dead slaves are not beneficial to Sparta, whereas good and happy workers are.

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

I will take this opportunity to clarify what I meant when I referred to "cheap wage slaves". The quotation marks indicated, contrary to my opponent's assumption, that I am not literally talking about slavery. I am talking about foreign workers voluntarily coming to work in Sparta and perhaps more likely to be hired at minimum wage, much like an increase in EU member states often leads to workers from those countries emigrating to other countries in order to find work - much like the Telegraph source I quoted in the last round showed.

=== CORRECTING THE UNDERSTANDING OF MY BENEFITS PRESENTED IN MY OPPONENT'S LAST ROUND ===

1. Sovereignty

My opponent asserts that Sparta would have no chance at keeping sovereignty - "We would simply be one vote amongst hundreds of other countries. We would simply have to bend over and "take it."" He provided no evidence for this at all, whereas in my last round I provided immense evidence through precedent that large countries require a small degree of self-rule - whether through devolution, federalism or, indeed, just local/district councils. My opponent seems to believe, with no reasoning thus far presented, that world peace necessarily entails a central government acting like a dictatorship, with literally no chance of devolved powers at all. I challenge this very strongly, for the reasons given in the last round and re-iterated here.

Also, it is a trivial point that some powers would be moved to the UN. But for this small point to tip the balance of the CBA to my opponent's side, he needs to show why such powers are a vital part of Sparta, and cannot possibly be compromised in the interests of world peace. He has not yet done so.

2. Likelihood of Spartan army being used by the UN

Firstly, my opponent questioned the need for the UN to have an army in the first place, going as far as to ask: "why would they need troops, if there is world peace?" This is despite my extensive argumentation in my benefits round as to why peacekeeping troops would be required, and despite my resolutional analysis regarding the concept of world peace - analysis, by the way, which my opponent explicitly accepted in its entirety. It is thus clear why a peacekeeping force is required.

Secondly, my opponent argued that Spartan troops would be unlikely to be picked. I disagree: historically, Sparta has always been a militaristic nation, with such traits inbuilt and trained literally from birth. As my opponent points out, 43% of Sparta is military. When any country spends such time and energy on creating such an army, it is bound to be an excellent force, unrivalled by other countries that see military development as secondary. http://en.wikipedia.org... The time of our treaty signature is irrelevant - Sparta is renowned for its army, and would surely be picked.

3. Alleged consequence of Spartan unemployment

But still, let's briefly entertain the idea that that doesn't happen. Even so, mass unemployment would not ensue. There would be the entire world - not annihilated by nuclear bombs - to move to and work; and when people move to Sparta, there would be extra demand for jobs there as well. And there's always the possibility of them living a self-sufficient lifestyle. No need for deep psychological depression. If they want work, it is there for them to find and to take.

Thank you for what is becoming a very enjoyable debate :-)
Debate Round No. 3
Johnicle

Pro

I thank my opponent for the response, and look forward to an enjoyable conclusion to this debate…

I'm going to start with arguing his costs…

COST I: Nuclear War

1) There is no set up Missile Defense System anywhere.
--- I do not contend that these countries would not sense the attack; however, I do contend that they have no systems in place to prevent such an attack. There has never been, and unlikely to be in the near future, a possibility of a successful missile defense system.

http://www.washingtonpost.com...
--- "Martin's demands would be seen by the U.S. administration as "arrogant and unrealistic." Public opinion polls in Canada have shown that joining the missile defense system is highly unpopular."

2) My Implementation Method clearly states that all countries with nuclear capabilities will be destroyed simultaneously.

--- "Each bomb shall have impact approximately 30 seconds apart."

It is therefore unlikely that any sort of counter strike could be successfully deployed in merely 30 seconds.

3) He gives no clear path from ‘attempting to nuke the world' … therefore leading to Sparta being destroyed. My Implementation method has prevention from such possibilities, and not only has he not said how Sparta would be destroyed, he hasn't even commented on how my Implementation would not be satisfactory. Nuking all countries with nukes clearly prevents the likelihood of a counter attack with substantial magnitude.

4) Therefore, I urge the judges to drop this cost against my case. It is irrelevant whether the other countries die (as my resolutional analysis stated). Furthermore, the likelihood of a counter nuclear strike is no where to be seen.

COST II: Consequences of Slavery

1) My Implementation prevents concerns risen by my opponent.

"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."

--- Now I am not claiming that I will know exactly how such a major operation will go step by step, which is why I put in the adjustments that may necessarily need to be made. Sure there will be some slaves that are not useful to Spart, thus they shall be killed. Perhaps my opponent makes a good point about their diseases, so they will be killed. At a worst case scenario, we are looking at 30-40 million slaves still. For a country of only 70 million, that is plenty. If more, however, are deemed necessary, at this point of the Implementation Method, there are still un-nuked countries that we can get more slaves from.

2) There has never been a slave rebellion of considerable effectiveness. Not to mention I have Implemented a measure of killing ones who do.

--- I doubt my opponent could prove otherwise.

3) Having minimum wage "slaves" (which really defeats the purpose) creates a decent economy. Having slaves that only need to be fed, clothed, and cheaply housed would create an economy of epic proportions. Not only that, but there is a real question of control that my opponent doesn't seem to realize. My case makes sure that these slaves will be acquired, whereas his case hopes for them. Even if he did get a considerable amount (say one million, which I think is pushing it), he still has to match up with my multi-million amount of FREE slaves. There's no contest.

---You can have your goodwill; I will keep my effective measures that actually get the job done.

Onto other arguments…

1) Sovereignty (and some economy)

A) Sovereignty is VITAL to Sparta. In fact, it is more important than any other countries sovereignty.
--- Sparta is a military nation. In a world peace society, the armies would be controlled by the U.N. Therefore 43% of Sparta's economic market is at the hands of a vote in which Sparta only has one of. If it doesn't go their way, it would be a DISASTER. That is why self-rule is not a very promising claim, and that is why Sparta should not join.

B) Basic claims, such as right to use/not use death penalty, torture techniques, etc. would likely be at the hands of the U.N. while under a society of world peace. Another considerable cost.

2) Likelihood of Spartan army being used.

A) Quote from "Scenario"
--- "[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."

B) Everything Sparta put into that is out the window once you accept my opponents premise. A huge abundance of economic wealth would go out the window at a substantial degree. Wasted time. . . Shut down weapon research facilities. To say that a "militaristic nation" (as my opponent puts it) would not take an economic hit during "world peace" is completely contradictory.

C) There is really 2 options here that the U.N. could take.

1) Split up the troop usage among the countries (more likely to be voted in than option 2)

Or

2) Strictly use Spartan troops (Remember, Sparta would only have one vote among hundreds of countries. Not to mention that 30 million troops wouldn't (probably) be all used)

Therefore, economic impact and job loss is imminent on the CON side of the debate.

3) Alleged consequence of Spartan unemployment.

--- I think if you accept this point (that Sparta could go to other parts of the world to work), then you MUST vote PRO. Think about it. The country would be broken up. No longer would they have any international power whatsoever. Their citizens would see family friendships destroyed as they move apart. I mean its sort of an option between having complete control. . . or handing you countries sovereignty over to an international power and see your country disperse.

--- Whether you accept the unemployment argument, or whether you accept this argument, you must vote PRO.

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

I would really like to see my opponent argue some of my following claims:

1) Economy (at least a more specific look into it)
2) COST III: Loss of International Power
3) COST IV: Continuous Conflict and Death
4) World Peace after the major conflict (If you vote PRO, there would be world peace at a controllable level. No more wars (besides perhaps civil wars). You would therefore be left with "world peace" with no control vs. realistic world peace with control)
5) Prevention of Carrying Capacity
6) Elimination of Disease

I look forward to a response from my opponent!
Logician

Con

I'd like to thank my opponent for his response. I will now respond to the points made in his last round, roughly in the order that he made them.

=== MAIN ARGUMENTS ===

1) Nuclear war

This is the MOST important part of my CBA. If his policy leads to the nuclear destruction of Sparta, then he loses. There are three aspects to my argument here:

a) My opponent "[does] not contend that these countries would not sense the attack..." They would see that Sparta is trying to attack nuclear stations, and retaliate in kind. The non-existence of a 'prevention' system is irrelevant to their ability to retaliate.

b) "All bombs will impact approximately 30 seconds apart" does not mean "all bombs will land within 30 seconds". My opponent cannot change his implementation policy retroactively.

c) My opponent: "Furthermore, the likelihood of a counter nuclear strike is no where to be seen." No: this is the very point of "Mutually Assured Destruction", a policy abided to by all relevant countries. There is EVERY reason to believe not just a likelihood, but a certainty, that nuclear action by Sparta would lead directly to nuclear action against Sparta.

Therefore, my opponent's policy results in every Spartan either dead, dying, seriously ill through e.g. radioactive poisoning, or (at very best) seriously psychologically damaged due to the death of the vast majority of their fellow citizens.

2) Slavery

The success rate (or otherwise) of slave rebellions is irrelevant; the only important fact is that they happen, constantly and in pretty much every society that has slaves. My opponent said that he'd kill all rebellious slaves, as if this were a point in his favour. On the contrary, it helps MY case, for dead slaves are no longer able to help the Spartan population. One of his own sources, by Nathaniel Turner http://www.nathanielturner.com... made it clear that black people still have a very negative view of slavery, given the history here. Re-enslavement is not something that they would take lying down.

My opponent still rubbishes the point of "goodwill"... and misses still the fact that Africans are still very sore over their slavery past. Indeed, leaders like Robert Mugabe use this anti-imperialist rhetoric in order to justify their hold on power. If we were to try and enslave them again, there is no reason to think that ANY of them would go without a fight, given this history. They would rebel against Spartan armies, and then my opponent's own implementation would have them killed. Congratulations: you've just killed the vast majority of your "slaves". I'll take my million-plus voluntary (and alive) foreign workers over your indeterminate number of compulsory (and dead) slaves any day.

3) "World peace", and Sparta's army

My opponent opened this by saying: "43% of Sparta's economic market is at the hands of a vote in which Sparta only has one of.... That is why self-rule is not a very promising claim, and that is why Sparta should not join."

The first section, about Sparta "only having one vote", implies that self-rule isn't in effect. But my opponent then uses this to rebut the concept of self-rule. This does not make sense. My opponent has not yet rebutted my arguments about the likelihood of the UN allowing a degree of self-rule, as I presented in my first round - and if self-rule were to exist to some extent, as I have argued is extremely likely, then Sparta's sovereignty in important matters would remain intact. No problems there.

My opponent also argues thus: "To say that a "militaristic nation" (as [I put] it) would not take an economic hit during "world peace" is completely contradictory."

No, it isn't. It's only contradictory if the idea of 'world peace' is that of a literal cessation of every conflict in the world. My resolutional analysis showed this to be a silly interpretation, and my opponent agreed. In a situation where millions of people disagree with the very existence of a world government, riots and rebellions will ensue. There is therefore EVERY need for a peace-keeping arm of the world government, and for the retainment of biological, chemical, etc. arsenal for this purpose.

And my opponent still hasn't given reasons why Sparta wouldn't be used for an army - he has merely asserted the contrary. Given that every country in the world wants peace, there is no reason why they would want their citizens to be put in harm's way in peace-keeping. The only country who doesn't mind this is Sparta, given its militaristic nature. In fact, it seems clear that every other country would positively welcome the opportunity to no longer be involved in fighting and warfare. Why wouldn't they?

4) Concept of Spartan unemployment

My opponent claims that, if Spartans would have to travel abroad to find work, then he wins. I have two responses to this:

1) It ignores the other viable option I mentioned, that of self-sufficiency. The existence of this other option alone makes travelling overseas entirely optional on Spartans' part, and something which they personally would have to weigh up against the people they "leave behind" (because apparently, phones and the internet doesn't exist in my opponent's scenario). People move abroad on their own free will all the time, and no country is the lesser for it. In order to win this point, my opponent would have to specifically address this.

2) Travelling overseas need not mean that the country is broken up. See France: http://en.wikipedia.org... Their overseas territories are still an integral part of French democracy, with representation in the French Parliament.

=== MISCELLANEOUS CLAIMS ===

My opponent provided a list of 6 points made by him, that he wanted me to specifically address. So, without further ado:

1) Economy

I have already done this, but will indeed go into more detail. As already argued, the Spartan military would still play a significant role under the UN government, with other countries likely to cede responsibility for this to Sparta. Furthermore, even when you get individuals leaving the military, they would be able to decide which career to transfer into. I've already argued how Sparta would likely get a significant number of foreign workers; this would give a boost to the Spartan economy, and provide job opportunities to match the increase in demand for goods and services. The economy is not harmed under my proposal.

2) Loss of International Power

I have already dealt with this, with the following arguments already made linking into this bigger point:

a) The likelihood of a degree of self-rule being granted

b) The likelihood of Sparta being given precedence on arming the military, given our enthusiasm (which other countries wouldn't share) and superior ability (given that, being a militaristic nation at heart, being good at it is practically Sparta's raison d'etre)

3) Continuous Conflict and Death
4) World Peace after the major conflict

For both of these, I cross-reference my point above about nuclear war. Even if 'continuous (and minor) conflict' were to happen under my proposal, my opponent's leads to outright nuclear destruction of Sparta itself. On balance, my side wins this CBA.

5) Carrying Capacity

I dealt with this in the third part of my implementation: "3) Propose to the UN that they consider options for population control, perhaps similar to China's one child policy."

If such a carrying capacity does lead to world peace being harmed, it's clear enough that the UN would seek to prevent this problem.

6) Elimination of Disease

The world can combine its scientific forces to investigate cures, and ways of making such diseases non-contagious. Such non-contagious individuals could thus continue to be productive workers; no need to kill them.

I very much look forward to the final round of this debate :-)
Debate Round No. 4
Johnicle

Pro

I thank my opponent for this very enjoyable debate!

1) Nuclear War

A) He agrees that they could not prevent the bomb from landing. There really was no argument here anyway, it was just me pointing out that a missile defense system is decades away from a successful protection system. These bombs WILL go off.

B) As far as the "ability to retaliate" goes, it is unlikely that any such action would be taken. Not because they wouldn't want to, but simply because they couldn't. The very first part of my Implementation method specifically cited detonating EMP's (or Electromagnetic Pulses) over nuclear facilities. This shuts down ALL electronic devices.

--- http://www.heritage.org...
--- "A nuclear weapon has detonated high over North America, an explosion so far up that neither the flash nor bang disturbed anyone slumbering in darkened bedrooms across the United States. Electrical systems and computers from New York City to San Francisco cease to function. City streets turn into chaos. Fires break out, and no communications are available to send trucks to fight them. The sick and injured perish in overwhelmed, energy-sapped hospitals. Survivors, unable to fill their gas tanks, slowly walk away from the dead zone, unsure where to go or what they will find. . . This scenario may sound like the plot of a science-fiction movie, but Bill Graham, former science adviser to President Reagan, says it's a realistic portrayal of what would happen to the United States after a massive electromagnetic pulse from a nuclear explosion."

The ability to knock out power to the United States from only one EMP, shows how easy it is to knock it out for everyone. Furthermore, even if they had the ability to retaliate, how is such an order going to be carried out if no devices can be operational. No phones to confirm the order, and no possibility to launch even if they wanted to.

This point falls.

2) Slavery

A) There is no chance that every slave would be killed. Let's say, for example, that 20% initially rebelled (and that is more than I would ever expect to rebel against trained military (especially since the people being enslaved have no weapons whatsoever)). Once the slaves saw the other people being shot down, do you really think that they would continue to rebel?

B) Even if 50% of the slaves are killed, there are still 35 million slaves for Sparta. That is likely to be plenty to support the economy thoroughly.

C) My Implementation Method clearly gives authority to go into other militarily weak nations to retrieve more slaves if necessary. This point goes unaddressed by my opponent.

D) The negative effect of slavery, that my opponent cited, does not mention the countries that I am advocating enslavement for. These countries are not educated, in fact, they probably don't even know about the slave trade of the 16th century. Not to mention, when they stare down the barrel of a gun, I doubt they will be noble. Especially if they have seen the men of Sparta willingly kill others. It is really a choice of ‘dying' or ‘not dying'. Good luck convincing the judges that any more than 50% (which is generous) would choose death over enslavement. Human's first instinct is always survival.

E) These Goodwill slaves do not outweigh the benefits of the free slaves whatsoever.

--- In his world, there is a massive spike in job loss. Why would Sparta then give the jobs to these good will workers in which they still have to pay? The more you accept the economic instability of CON's position, the more you must accept my slavery stance to be the superior of the two, especially considering these "other jobs" that he talked about Sparta leaving the country to fill. This is a major contradiction of my opponent.

3) World Peace and Spartan's Army/Economy

A) Self-Rule could be put into effect but only to a certain degree. Things like taxation would be run by Spara, but things like the military would not be (The U.N. already has those types of powers even in today's world, but it would be even more true under any form of world peace). Therefore, by joining the U.N. as CON supposes, we would be submitting at least 43% of our jobs and the welfare of our economy altogether.

B) Let's look at the likelihood of troop usage of Sparta.

I: Quotes from my opponent

From Resolutional Analysis
--- "The more realistic understanding that I shall use is that the UN's ideal is this world peace, and that by creating a world government, tensions may be reduced and conflicts be diminished."

From Round 4
--- "In a situation where millions of people disagree with the very existence of a world government, riots and rebellions will ensue."

II. These are slightly contradictory to one another.

III. My main argumentative goal is to show that it is unlikely that very many troops will be needed. I completely disagree that countries will want their citizens to be out of harms way (It is first and foremost an economic question. Not to mention that the citizens are on a voluntary basis). Warfare is just in people's nature.

IV. This therefore clearly gives the U.N. the 2 options from my last round:

1) Split up the troop usage among the countries (more likely to be voted in than option 2)

Or

2) Strictly use Spartan troops (Remember, Sparta would only have one vote among hundreds of countries. Not to mention that 30 million troops wouldn't (probably) be all used)

Economic Impact is inevitable on the CON side, whereas the economy on my side would be stronger than any country has ever achieved. How hard of a choice is it really?

4) Spartan Unemployment

A) Cross Apply HIS analysis against HIS argument of good will slaves. Obviously both can not stand. We can't have unemployment and paid workers imported at the same time.

B) A lot of military jobs would be lost world wide making those countries job markets shrink.

C) At the VERY least, research facilities on new weapons would seize.

D) What country wants to split up when they have a viable option of becoming the strongest nation in the world?

======

1) Economy
--- Having fewer jobs and more workers does not equal an increase in the Spartan economy.

2) Loss of International Power
--- CON misses the core meaning to this point. Even if we had self-rule, this point is VERY important. All nations need something to contribute in order to get a meaningful return of products and services (a fundamental economic idea). The ONLY thing that Sparta has to offer is its army. . . something that literally every nation also has. The fact that CON is willing to put his countries economic stability to a vote just goes to show how little benefit his case presents to Sparta as a whole.

3) Continuous Conflict and Death
4) PRO achieving World Peace

--- This is simple. On CON more death would pursue with disease and multiple conflicts until the end of the world. With PRO, however, World Peace would immediately follow the completion of my Implementation Method. Not only the weaker version of World Peace that CON is promoting, but a 100% of World Peace that substantially outweighs my opponents version.

5) Carrying Capacity

--- Although his third implementation method is only a suggestion, I agree that carrying capacity will probably not be reached. Instead, I'm only going to use this as an argument to back up the lack of control that we have.

6) Diseases

--- This is just another example of how CON sort of achieves benefit, whereas I completely achieve a cure of all diseases. Not to mention that this isn't mentioned in his implementation method, and even if it was it changes nothing from the system we have now.

I urge the judges to find a single benefit that I don't get better. Not to mention the benefits he does get are a maybe verses a guarantee on my side.

Thanks!
Logician

Con

In my summary, I'll set out the main areas of contention and outline the clash between me and my opponent on these areas. They're ordered with the importance that I place them, the most important coming first.

=== NUCLEAR WAR ===

I reiterate what I said in the last round. This is the single most important clash of this debate. Simply put, if PRO's policy leads to the nuclear destruction of Sparta, I win this debate hands-down. After all, any cost-benefit analysis scale for Sparta will find the continued existence of Sparta (as under my model) to be superior in every respect to the annihilation of Sparta (which is the unintended, but inevitable, consequence under PRO's model).

But in this key clash, PRO fundamentally misunderstood my argument here. In his final round, he argued that countries would be unable to respond to the nuclear attacks (even when foreseen) because of the EMP strikes. But this does not address my argument. I quote from round 3:

----------------------------
"My opponent has said that he would launch EMPs to neutralise enemy nuclear sites before nuking the countries in question. This seems to rather stretch the limits of possibility - countries technologically advanced enough (and interested enough in their own defence) to have nuclear weapons are bound to have systems in place that can detect incoming attacks, especially the five Non-Proliferation Treaty recognised nuclear powers.

The only way to stop word of EMP shutdown reaching countries before they are targeted, therefore, is to do it simultaneously.... But the only way to do so, given the distances required across the Earth, would be to undergo a relatively complex set-up involving advancement towards each individual country beforehand. This would look very suspicious internationally, and failure to comply with UN demands to retreat would surely be seen as contrary to aims of world peace, an act of aggression and therefore reason for the UN to retaliate in kind.

There is thus very good reason to suppose that the consequence of trying to bomb the world is that Sparta would fail, and if continued would lead to nuclear retaliation by other countries upon Sparta. This leads to pretty much every Spartan either dead or dying, a massive cost that severely undermines the goals of Spartan peace."
-----------------

Clearly, my argument was that Sparta's attempt to even send the EMP strikes would be discovered beforehand by the countries in question. They would then, once they realise what Sparta is planning, retaliate BEFORE THE EMP STRIKES TAKE PLACE. This is derived from the policy of Mutually Assured Destruction - the fact that Sparta's first strike would make it impossible for a second strike to take place, as per the policy, means that countries would feel compelled to pre-emptively strike against Sparta.

So maybe other countries would suffer the EMP strikes. Maybe Sparta would be able to send the bombs before their own nuclear facilities are destroyed. But even then, the bombs from every other country on Earth would have already been sent, and Sparta would already be doomed.

As already said, PRO's proposal leads to every Spartan either dead, dying, seriously ill through e.g. radioactive poisoning, or (at best) in severe psychological distress at the annihilation of Sparta. My policy guarantees that nothing like this will even come close to happening. Therefore, I win.

=== SPARTAN ARMY / ECONOMY ===

Two points:

1) PRO somehow believes there to be a contradiction in my position that a UN army would be required. Right from my resolutional analysis, I said that absolute world peace was impossible and would always remain an ideal only. I also said that riots and rebellions would ensue as a consequence of the single UN government. This is clearly not a contradiction. Conflict will be diminished, but it will not end.

Diminish: "to make less or cause to appear less; to lessen the authority, dignity, or reputation of; to cause to taper; to become gradually less" http://www.merriam-webster.com...

2) PRO argues that other countries will want to be involved in the UN's military efforts. He even says that "Warfare is just in people's nature." But he gave us a scenario in which every other country has signed up to world peace. Even if individual private armies wanted to get involved, their governments do not - otherwise, they wouldn't have signed for peace. One militaristic nation with a highly advanced army vs. governments who don't want to get involved and sparse and inferior private forces? It seems clear that the UN will choose the former, and Sparta will be the army of the world. Furthermore, millions of extra foreign people in Sparta will undoubtedly raise employment for Spartans. More people = more demand for supplies and services = more jobs to provide these services. This significantly reduces any "unemployment" and impact to the economy that my opponent perceives to happen under my policy.

=== SLAVERY ===

I have three things to say in relation to this point:

1) PRO said: "These countries are not educated, in fact, they probably don't even know about the slave trade of the 16th century."

The British Empire lasted through to the end of the Second World War, and in some places into the second half of the 20th Century. Not the 16th. It is this imperialist, "Africans-are-inferior-and-slaveworthy", attitude that fuels anti-Western rhetoric in Africa today. I mentioned the country of Zimbabwe as just one example, with Mugabe's hold on power coming largely from calling the MDC and other reformists "puppets of the West". Even the least-educated (and perhaps especially the least-educated, who don't know that white people don't always mean harm) people of Zimbabwe fall for this message. For them, it is not a remnant of the deep and distant past. It is an ever-present threat, and a Spartan invasion would only re-awaken old wounds.

2) Maybe not every African would rebel - but this misses the actual theme of my point. It only matters that a significant proportion of slaves would. Factor this in with the number of Africans who have diseases and so would be killed under my opponent's method (HIV/AIDS being the most obvious and drastic example), and the number of Africans who are too famine-stricken or old to be of any use in slavery, and you have a vast majority of Africans of no use to Sparta.

3) PRO's policy of nuclear bombing destroys pretty much every area of landmass except for Africa and Australia, and even then there are issues of worldwide environmental change - for example through nuclear winter or the destruction of the Amazonian rainforests in Brazil. Thus, even these continents will find their areas of habitation significantly reduced. In addition, almost every African country will face the same problems mentioned above.

=== DISEASE PREVENTION AND ABOLITION ===

I've included this one, not because I think it's important, but because PRO thinks it is. The idea of eradicating disease is incidental to the nuclear obliteration of the majority of Earth, and seems rather tacked-on to my opponent's case. Faced with the prospect of such nuclear action, plus a significant proportion of potential slaves being killed by this policy, the cost/benefit ratios are in my favour here.

=== CONCLUSION ===

Under my policy, Sparta's army will be used by the UN, for every other government of the world wants peace and for their citizens to be safe from warfare. Sparta can remain a militaristic nation, and its economy will not be affected. But most importantly, PRO's policy results in the nuclear annihilation of Sparta. Hopefully I don't need to say further why this is bad. Other, incidental, points made by PRO pale in comparison, and actually weaken his own case. In other words, PRO's attacks on my policy fall, and his policy is severely weakened. On a cost-benefit analysis, mine wins.

Vote CON!
Debate Round No. 5
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by Atheism 6 years ago
Atheism
Very well done debate. It truly is worthy of the number given to it.
Posted by Grape 6 years ago
Grape
Very good debate. I thought that Johnicle was clearly winning up until about Round 3, but I have to give it to Logician now. I do not see how Sparta's nuclear strategy could possibly end in success. It is extremely likely that at least one nation would be able to retailate and destory Sparta.
Posted by Johnicle 6 years ago
Johnicle
I am thoroughly going to enjoy the conclusion of this debate. Although I should warn you that my internet horrifically unreliable. However, I will go to the Public Library if I have to! Hopefully it will last while I'm writing it though b/c I'm not sure if the Library is open on Sunday's.
Posted by Logician 6 years ago
Logician
Sure. Can I also point out that there is zero chance of the UN actually gaining any real power whatsoever in the near future?

Meaning that who knows, by the time it does (if it does), maybe Sparta will have been re-founded. Who knows, anything could happen :-)
Posted by Strikeeagle84015 6 years ago
Strikeeagle84015
Could I point out Sparta isn't a country anymore
Posted by Cerebral_Narcissist 6 years ago
Cerebral_Narcissist
"Furthermore, Sparta has 30 million highly trained military soldiers to defend their 70 million population. What is the most net-beneficial option for Sparta?"

Urgent demobilisation to prevent economic collapse and civil unrest?
Posted by Atheism 6 years ago
Atheism
If someone takes this debate and just forfeits the rest, I will die of laughter.
Posted by Kinesis 6 years ago
Kinesis
Awesome debate, awesome debate number. This better be good.
Posted by Johnicle 6 years ago
Johnicle
haha debate number 12345 ...
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Atheism 6 years ago
Atheism
JohnicleLogicianTied
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 Grape 6 years ago
Grape
JohnicleLogicianTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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