The Instigator
John_Berlac
Con (against)
Winning
14 Points
The Contender
Narwal19
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points

Failed Nations are a bigger threat to the United States than Stable Nations

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
Con Tied Pro
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: 11/9/2009 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,812 times Debate No: 10026
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (0)
Votes (3)

 

John_Berlac

Con

Con
"America won the Cold War by protecting our strategic resources from the threat of foreign control. We must bring the same attitude to our trade relationship with China." – Jo Ann Emerson
I agree with this quote by Jo Ann Emerson because it proves that Stable Nations are a large threat to the United States. Resolved: Failed Nations are a greater threat to the United States than Stable Nations. My partner and I disagree with the resolution because we feel that Stable Nations are a bigger threat to the United States than Failed Nations. It is for these two reasons: Stable nations are an environmental and financial threat to the United States, that my partner and I negate the resolution.

Contention 1: Stable nations are a big environmental threat to the United States. Sub-point A: Chinas environmental degradation threatens the United States. According to a Green Peace study, "China is now by far the world's biggest driver of rainforest destruction. Nearly five out of every ten tropical hardwood logs shipped from the world's threatened rainforests are now heading for China - more than to any other destination." According to that same study "China is the world's leading consumer of four out of the five basic food, energy and industrial commodities - grain, meat, coal and steel. " That same study states, "If Chinas greenhouse gas emissions continue to remain uncontrolled, the growth of China's carbon dioxide emissions over the next 20 years will dwarf any cuts in CO2 that the rest of the world can make." According to a report by Volker Mrasek, "China's CO2 emissions will almost double in the next two decades compared with 2002 levels." Sub-point B: Russia is an environmental threat to the United States as well. According to the National Intelligence Council, "Over 200 cities exceed Russian pollution limits. The number of vehicles on the road has increased rapidly, and their emissions will offset reductions in industrial air pollution owing to reduced economic activity and greater reliance on natural gas." According to the same Council, "Hazardous waste disposal problems are extensive and growing. Russian officials estimate that about 200 metric tons of the most highly toxic and hazardous wastes are dumped illegally each year in locations that lack effective environmental or public health protections or oversight." Environmental problems such as air pollution, hazardous waste disposal, and deforestation caused by stable nations will cause a huge environmental threat to the United States. This is one way that Stable Nations are a bigger threat to the United States then Failed Nations.
Contention 2: Stable Nations are a bigger financial threat to the United States. Sub-point A: Trade with stable nations is much harder than in failed Nations. According to Foreign Trade Statistics by the U.S. Census Bureau, "So far in 2009, the United States has imported 184,915.5 million dollars worth of goods from China alone. The United States has only exported 41,215.7 million dollars of goods to China." This proves that China exports more to the United States then they import from the United States, which causes the United States more money. The same is true for Russia. According to the U.S. Census Bureau again, "So far in 2009, the United States has imported 12,186.3 million dollars worth of goods from Russia. The United States has only exported 3,462.7 million dollars worth of goods to Russia." Sub-point B: China owns a big portion of the United States treasury. According to Paul R. La Monica from CNN News, "As of the end of July 2009, China owns $800.5 billion in U.S. Treasuries. That's up $24.1 billion, or 3%, from the prior month and follows a slight dip in China's holdings from May to June. China surpassed Japan as the largest holder of Treasury securities in September 2008, and over the past year, it has increased its stake in U.S. debt by 45%. If China suddenly decides that its appetite for Treasuries is sated, or worse, decides to start dumping a significant portion of its holdings, a big sale of Treasuries could cause longer-term interest rates to shoot up since bond prices and yields move in opposite directions." This proves that financially, stable nations are a much bigger threat then failed nations, which is the biggest threat that the United States can have. This shows that the United States has a much bigger threat from Stable Nations then it does from Failed Nations.
Both environmentally and financially, stable nations are a bigger threat to the United States. For those reasons, I urge you to vote con.
Thank You.
Narwal19

Pro

I affirm. Good luck!

Definitions:
Failed Nations: Third World Countries or any country that is unstable.
threat: the possibility of completing ruining.
Stable Nations: Nations that are financially stable.
U.S: United States interests.

Clarifications:
1) Failed nations doesn't have fine line. A corrupt government or any form of instability in any government branches shall be taken into consideration as failed nations.

Contentions:
1) Failed nations are a greater threat to the U.S' spread of democracy. The U.S wishes to spread democracy, failed nations destroy this because their governments are unstable thus they will rely on dictatorship or communism; take Germany for example, after WW1 their economy & government failed and turned to Hitler and obviously that was a threat.

2) Failed nations are a bigger threat to the U.S' security. For example 9/11 attack supposedly headed by Al Queda, headquartered in Afghanistan, a politically and religiously unstable country, killed many. Therefore failed nations are a bigger threat the the U.S' security.

3) Failed nations brings immigrants, both legal and illegally. I am not advocating on the restricting immigration issue.
a)Citizens of a failed nation will immigrate into a better society, namely the U.S. As for the U.S government it must provide for low income families. This drains the U.S government of it's financial resources.
b) With a large "import" of immigrants our poverty levels begin to rise therefore crime rates will also increase. This renders our nation unsafe. Because crime rates rise, citizens turn to black markets and gangs, government power is threatened. Not only that but tourism will decline thus the government will lose a large income for public services.
Therefore failed nations are a bigger threat the the U.S, financially and in strength terms.

In conclusion failed nations are a bigger threat to the U.S' interests, government, financial, and citizens.

Rebuttals:
1) No impacts on how it affects the U.S. This argument is pointless.
1a) No link or how it threatens the U.S. Simply talks about how China's industry is a environmental haphazard.
1b) Russia is considered as a failed nation because of its unstable government, a corrupt economy, and houses illegal activities that proves Russia has failed.

2) Overall the U.S benefits from stable nations through stocks,taxing imports,sales tax etc. Here's one situation for stocks: Say China has a stable economy thus U.S stock-buyers buy China's company stocks, the U.S government is able to tax stock buyers' income through stocks thus we are not losing money.
2a) Although we do import quite a bit, don't forget that we also are taxing such imports. This ought to generate quite a sum. Although we do import more we are also acting as a retailer and selling them off at a higher price, thus we will reach a profit.
2b) "If China suddenly decides that its appetite for Treasuries is sated, or worse, decides to start dumping a significant portion of its holdings, a big sale of Treasuries could cause longer-term interest rates to shoot up since bond prices" So what you're saying here is that China owns a "stock" of the U.S government? That's absurd! We all know that the news can be unreliable and that's why Dan Rather, one of the Big 3, stepped down after giving a faulty news report.

Thank you for reading. I look forward to Con's arguments.
Debate Round No. 1
John_Berlac

Con

I would first like to say 2 things:

1. Thank you for debating
2. I agree with your definition

My rebuttle:

1. How exactly it is a threat to not spread the "democracy?" Not only that, but China is a much bigger threat to the U.S.'s spread of democracy. Many stable nations are the same. Failed Nations can do nothing but sit and "say" they wont be democratic. Nations such as China have a STRONG influence in getting nations to choose Communism over Democracy. With that being said, I dont see how ANY failed nations can be a bigger threat to the United States.

2. Obviously Terrorism is a threat. But we need to look at the effects this has, and compare it to my contentions. Obviously this terroristic attack had damages. But the United States was able to recover from this attack, and has since created a stronger security in witch will protect them from this in the future. An environemtnal threat and a financial threat would weaken the economy to a point in witch we would have an economic crisis that the United States would be unable to recover from. Those 3000 people dying would not compare as a threat to an economic crisis in witch could easily harm the United States. With that and a stronger security against Terrorist attacks, I dont exactly understand how that would cause a bigger threat. Not only that, but it was ONE terrorist attack. Nothing since that has happened, in witch we should not consider it as a big threat.

3. I see no harm in legal immigration. These people come here legally and have every right to live here.

a) The threat of immigration is not a threat. Immigrants COME to the United States. Because these immigrants CHOOSE to come to the United States, and the United States allows them too, this is not a threat. Not only that, but the government does not have to financially pay for these people. I would also argue that these people come here to get money and jobs. They can EASILY become succesful and not be in poverty.

b) As stated above, these immigrants can EASILY become succesful and not be in poverty. Crime can be caused by American Citizens. I am positive that theoir are more crimes due to AMERICANS than Immigrants. I would also argue that tourism FUNDS the United States. And because tourism FUNDS the United States, their is no harm in this.

We need to look at the effects of something occuring. I have PROVEN that the effects of an environemtnal or financial threat would be WAY more catastrophic that any terrorist threat. I would also like to point out the fact that my opponent used no evidence in his case. Because of that, I dont see how his points are even relevant.

Responce to opponents rebuttle:

1. This environmentla threat is HUGE. Because of Carbon Dioxide emiisions and such, the environemtn is being easily polluted BY STABLE NATIONS. Cancer is the second leading cause of death in the United States. Many forms of cancer are CAUSED by the Enviorneent. 1 in 4 people will die due to cardiovascular dieseases. Again, that disease can be CAUSED by the United States. 24% of diseases are caused by the environment and can easily be prevented. Their is PROOF that the environemtnal degradation hurts the United States both directly and indirectly. Because it effects us BOTH ways, these stable nations are a huge threat.

1a. I have stated above many ways the environmental threat stable nations pose is a HUGE threat.

1b. Russia has a stable government, a stable economy. Every single nation houses illegal activity. If you consider that a Failed Nation, then their would be no stable nations. The point of that is I dont want to debate if Russia is stable or unstable. I believe it is a STABLE nation. We can let the voters decide that.

2. The fact of the matter is not stocks. It is how stable Nations such as china pose a huge financial threat because of the debt we owe them.

2a. Even if we are taxing such imports, it clearly does not give the United States enough money to pay back the debt.

2b. You need to look at the EVIDENCE I have shown you through that contention. Just because you dont think China does, doesnt mean they dont. I have PROVEN THROUGH EVIDENCE that China does own 800.5 billion dollars of the United States Treasury. You fail to bring up any evidence against that, or any of my contentions for that matter.

I will be looking forward to your arguements against these points.
Narwal19

Pro

I am sorry to inform you that my rebuttal was typed in Microsoft Word and my computer crashed without saving it, so I'll need time to re-type up another rebuttal. Sorry for the coincidence. Please realize I did not forfeit this round. Thank you.
Debate Round No. 2
John_Berlac

Con

No problem
Narwal19

Pro

Again I apologize for such a coincidence. Thank you.

"Using evidence signifies flaws in logic."-James Morgan (Parli Cpt with 1435 NFL points in 2009)

http://www.fundforpeace.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...

For further clarifications: I will use examples in the past as "evidence." Stable and failed nations will be redefined as: Failed nations- anything below Warning including Warning in the evidence above. Stable-any country that is anything above Warning.

My case rebuttal:

1. First China is a socialist country, it's not communism because it has a growing middle class and is booming industrially (communism focuses on agriculture and doesn't have a middle class). Feel free to look it up on Wikipedia. Second failed nations are a threat because they stubbornly will not accept democracy. A large majority of the stable nations are democratic. Another example: N.Keorea is ,considered as a failed nation because they are very unstable and can't feed their people, a threat to democracy because: 1. They have nukes; 2. they support communism and dictatorship; 3. They are a threat to S.Keorea (a US interest and military base). Thus they are a threat to democracy.

2. "But the United States was able to recover from this attack" Bush spent millions of dollars to fight the war and later we are thrown into a economy crisis. We still have not recovered from this. Terrorist attacks are not just in the U.S but abroad; for example the past India hotel shooting where terrorists were questioning for American/British passports then executing whoever had them, that's a threat. Stronger security leads to more airport guards, more sophisticated equipment, funding money for the CIA to find suspects, etc. All of this leads to a financial drain. The causes? Failed nations that house such groups sends terrorists to create fear that then causes a tighter security that might even restrict US citizen's rights. Stable nations do not have to send killers to intimidate us, nor do they have to kill lives; thus failed nations do more damage.

Sir, are you suggesting human lives are less important than money? We can always slowly recover from a financial crisis (it took FDR 10 years!); but reviving a dead, that's impossible. Human lives are worth more than material goods.

3. The point here was on illegal immigration. Failed nations "export" many illegal immigrants. Illegal immigration leads to higher crime rates, increased dependency on black markets or government, etc.
a. Why would rich immigrants move to the U.S, they are happy with their environment? The government still has to provide for low income families. This is a financial threat. Now you also brought up another point about jobs. Currently jobs are tough to find the U.S, with a new wave of immigrants, they take away the easygoing jobs from U.S citizens due to some reasons such as working for lower pay.
b. Prove crimes are caused by U.S citizens. Immigrants are the cause of hatred among some resenting Americans (not me though:). For example during past strikes, citizens stopped working because of unfair conditions, they could have won if it wasn't for immigrants that worked for unfair wages. Now this: 1. Is unfair to immigrants and 2. Slows the process to reform labor.
With a high number of immigration that live in poverty, such as an increasing number of illegal southern border crossings, cities will become littered with garbage, disease, pickpockets, etc. Soon tourism numbers will decrease.

His case rebuttals:

1a. Environmental emissions are also being controlled in such countries.
Cancer was never mentioned in R1 nor were any evidence provide for it, those arguments must be dropped.
AIDS kill millions each year they are caused by failed nations that cannot obtained sanitary equipments.
b. According to the evidence in the beginning Russia is considered as a failed nation. All con arguments must be dropped.

2a. The U.S can always find other means to raise money to pay back the debts, through taxes, regulations to keep currency in the U.S, less reckless military spending, etc. A predator drone costs 5 million each and we have over 200! If the government can stop such reckless spending they may see a rise in revenue.
b. Even though China may own this much we can always find ways to pay it back in ways described above.

(This one novice girl in Congress once suggested using carnivals to pay off the debts:)

Thank you.
Debate Round No. 3
John_Berlac

Con

1. Wikipedia is not a valid source. Clearly, everyday humans can change this website. It is not factual or have any evidence. Any "evidence" found on wikipedia should be dropped. China is clearly, and still is, a communist nation. It is common knowledge to everyone. If you dont believe me, I can show you evidence. However, I see no need to when it is common knowledge. North Korea, I would argue, is a stable nation. We seem to be debating over what exactly a "failed" and "stable" nation is. North Korea has a stable government. Whether they can feed their people has nothing to do with how stable their government it. North Korea is clearly a stable nation. You then put many reasons how North Korea is a threat. Those arguements may be put on my side, because North Korea has a stable government.

2. Bush did not go into war with Iraq because of Terrorism. It was to look for "weapons of mass destruction." Bush's decision to go into war was not because of the 9/11 attacks. The united States was clearly allowed to recover from this incident. You say "Terrorist Attacks are not just in the U.S. but abroad." How exactly is a threat to the United States if it is against India. This attack doesnt really add up to your side of the case. How many Americans died in this attack? Not as many as people being killed by cancer, witch is caused by my first contention. I will go into that in a little bit.

I am not exactly saying that a human life is less important than money. However, the environmental threats that Stable Nations produce, creates diseases, witch then kills many AMERICANS each year. Cancer is caused from environmental pollution and is the second leading cause of death in the United States. Clearly, it kills people. And because of the finiancial threat stable nations pose, it would lead the united states into a financial crisis. This financial crisis would push many under the poverty line, raising deaths due to poverty dramatically. Clearly, a huge threat. Ontop of that, it also hurts the United States economy. It kills people, and the economy. A much bigger threat than terrorism.

Going back to the Enviornment: It is a much bigger threat than terrorism. According to Sean Aqul, "How much would you pay to avoid a 0.0000008% chance of dying? Its not an idle question. When allocating limited resources, the first step has to be defining the risk. We spend tons of money researching cancer cures because millions of Americans die from it each year. We spend almost no money researching mucopolysaccharidosis, witch kills its victims by age 25, but only kills 200 people each year. Since 1990, their have been four major terrorist attacks on the United States: Oklahoma City, the first attack on the World Trade center, the Olympic Bombing, and 9/11. Thats 4 attacks in 14 years; hardly a crisis. Now lets look at casualties. Those four attacks caused roughly 3,175 deaths over 14 years, in a population of 300 million. Thats an average of 230 deaths per year. Far closer to mucopolyacchidosis that cancer. Put another way, the average American has a 0.0000008% chance of dying from a terrorist attack"

This proves that terrorism is not a big threat, the environment kills more people than terrorism, witch makes the environment a bigger threat.

3a. If these immigrants are illegal, the government doesnt have to pay for anything, even if they are low income families. Jobs wont be given to illegal immigrants. It plain and simple, illegal immigration doesnt hurt us.

3b. Thats not proving anything. I have been given no facts throughout this whole debate.

1a. Whether cancer was mentioned in R1 or not, it can still be in this debate. If it isnt, than anything you states above cannot be used in the debate. These environmental issues are not being controlled. I have the proof in my case. Please look. How many AMERICANS does AIDS kill each year? And how does it exactly spread to Americans? I can assure you that more Americans die of cancer than AIDS. Not only that, but AIDS arent caused by Failed Nations.

b. Russia has a stable government. They are a stable nation.

2a. How is thew United States supposed to gain 800.5 billion dollars? Not only that, but you said we could tax people. That would still threaten the American People, and our economy. Even further proving that a finiacnial threat is a huge threat.

2b. How can we pay it back without hurting the American people or the economy?

We need to look at what is a bigger threat t the United States. If we were debating what is a bigger threat to the world, I would be on pro today. But when it comes down to the United States clearly Stable Nations are a bigger threat. Obviously terrorism is a threat. But when you compare it with an environmental and financial threat, it has no comparison. Con has certaintly won todays debate.
Narwal19

Pro

Narwal19 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
John_Berlac

Con

Seeing that my opponent forfeited this round, you must vote con in todays debate. I have proven several times that the probability and impact of an environmental and financial threat are much greater than any threat failed nations can pose. For these reasons, you must vote Con.
Narwal19

Pro

Narwal19 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
No comments have been posted on this debate.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Sniperjake1994 6 years ago
Sniperjake1994
John_BerlacNarwal19Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 dartmouthlder 7 years ago
dartmouthlder
John_BerlacNarwal19Tied
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 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 Grape 7 years ago
Grape
John_BerlacNarwal19Tied
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