The Instigator
blatheny
Pro (for)
Winning
36 Points
The Contender
oregonfella
Con (against)
Losing
33 Points

Failed Nations are a greater threat to the US than stable nations

Do you like this debate?NoYes+4
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/5/2009 Category: Politics
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 6,312 times Debate No: 9954
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (7)
Votes (12)

 

blatheny

Pro

I stand here in the firmest affirmation that failed nations are a greater threat to the U.S. than stable nations.

First I'd like to define some key terms. According to the 2009 fund for peace a failing nation has charicteristics such as
-loss of physical control of its own territory
-inability to make collective decisions
-inability to provide reasonable public services
-extensive corruption
-un even development
-demographic pressures

and many more

A stable nation is not the exact opposite of a failed nation but quite close, therefore:
-having control of its territory
-a strong government that can make collective decisions
-provides reasonable public services
and so on

I would also like to point out that it is nearly impossible to define every nation as either a failed nation or a stable nation. There are so many factors that go into describing failed vs stable. But of course there are the obvious nations that can be catagorized. Nations like Somalia, and America.

I'm pro on this resolution because of terrorism, piracy and power obtained by corrupt dictators.

Terrorism has been prevelent for many years and is still in effect today. The most well know act of terrorism was 9/11 the whole crime was organized in Afghanistan, a failed nation. Al qaeda may not be a nation or a state but they do control a large portion of Pakistan. Also nations like pakistan are a great breeding ground for terrorism because government has such little control it is easier for terrorist groups to plot attacks against their democratic enemies, like the U.S. Their reasons to attack is based off hatred of Democracy. Failed nations are not only an easy breeding ground for groups like the taliban and al Qaeda they also hold many modern day pirates.

Piracy has become far more prevelant in today's society. Fox News reports on the most recent act of piracy in April 2009. Captain Richard Phillips was held hostage by somalian pirates. The pirates were armed with pistols and AK 47's. Luckily the hostage was saved but Jamac Habab a 30 year old somalian pirate stated "from now on if we capture foreign ships and their respective countires try to attack us we will kill the hostages" This has made it extremely dangerous for America to send ships to the eastern coast of Africa safely. These pirates have dozens of ships and hundreds of crew members. Sine somalia is a failing state and is inable to proviede their citizens with basic commodaties for the social welfare of the people in order to survive, citizens become pirates in order to survive.

North Korea is an arguably failed state, they are the 17th most failed nation out of a list of 177 and it is a great threat to the U.S. Its not just stable nations that have nuclear weapons North Korea has weapons too and they are more likely to use them unlike stable nations. North Korea often launces test missles in order to threaten the rest of the world their country is run by an unstable dictator who is upset easily. Corrupt dictators dont come into power unless a nation is failed or at risk of failing. This has been showed many times throughout history in countries like, Russia, Germany and now North Korea.

Stable nations may have more nuclear weapons but they do not have any reason to attack the United States. Nations like France have many nuclear weapons yet they have no reason to attack us because they are a peaceful stable nation, Great Brittan has many nuclear weapons as well but they do not use them, nor do they plan to use them because they choose to be peaceful methods. Many of the Stable nations are democratic nations therefore they would not want to attack us because of hatred of Democracy. Stable nations also have access to social welfare and have many resources so they have no reason to attack us for resources

Therefore stable nations do not pose much of a threat and failed nations pose a great threat.
oregonfella

Con

I would like to thank my opponent for hosting this debate and for anyone reading, comment, or voting on it.

My opponent did not define "threat" from the resolution and therefore I will define it as the ability to inflict damage.

I will start with the rebuttal of my opponent's contentions and then move on to my negative position.

~Rebuttal~

My opponent's first point was that terrorism is a threat to the United States. I agree with this statement, however, just because terrorism is a threat does not mean it is a greater threat than others. My opponent offers no facts or statistics to prove that terrorism is a greater threat than a stable nation. And therefore, this contention should not flow across.

My opponent's second contention states that piracy is a threat to the United States. However, pirates are rogue groups that are able to inflict little damage relative to what stable nations are capable and a threat of doing. Even Sweden or Norway, peaceful stable countries, poses a greater ability to inflict damage (my definition of threat) than Somalian pirates. And therefore this contention is invalidated.

The third point was that North Korea poses a great threat to the US. According to my opponent's definition of stable nations, North Korea qualifies for all the characteristics. North Korea has control of its territory, has a strong government that makes collective decisions, and a definition of reasonable public services is vague and should not be applied. In addition, my opponent's definition of a failed nation includes loss of physical control of its own territory which obviously cannot apply to North Korea as their borders are enforced by their military and they have complete physical control of it. Therefore, this should not flow.

My opponent's fourth contention was that stable nations have no reason to attack the United States. This may be true for some countries but this is not true for all countries. Also, according to the definition of threat, there is no reference to motive just a country's ability to inflict damage. Since this contention does not address the resolution it should not flow.

~Contentions~

Contention 1
Stable nations are a greater military threat to the United States. Russia, a stable nation, embodies a tremendous military threat to the United States. In 2007, Joe Katz of the University of Chicago reported that Russia's military contained one million men at arms and held seven thousand active nuclear warheads at its disposal. In addition, their potential military force was 20 million citizens. No failing nation has this manpower and ability to destruct. Therefore, stable nations are greater military threat to the United States.

Contention 2
Stable nations have a larger threat on the economy of the United States. According to the BBC, China holds more US government debt than any other country in the world. In fact, China held $696.2 billion of American debt. Also, the United States' economy is reliant on China as the US imports their largest percentage of products from China. China holds the majority of the United States' debt and has become the most important trading partner for the US. This kind of reliance on a single country cannot be a good thing for the United States. History has shown that if one country relies on another so heavily for economic support that country is can be easily manipulated and controlled.
Debate Round No. 1
blatheny

Pro

when is the last time switzerland or denmark attacked the US? exactly these stable nations have never attacked America nor do they have any incentive to do so. Impovershed nations such as Afghanistan dont have a central government therefore they can attack us at anytime they'd like. If you'd like statistics lets refer to one of the most talked about events 9/11 thousands of people died in one day and it also weakened our government. Luckily another nation or afghanistan once again did not attack us because it would have hurt our country in drastic ways. It would make americans feel weak and paranoid, our country can not run efficiently with paranoid people. We may begin to isolate ourselves from the world, therefore hurting our trade which hurts our economy.

Secondly I'd like to Argue that North Korea is a Failed nation, they have a large economic decline. the whole country is based on funding for the war, and leaves their citizens starving. (look up North Korea on Google Maps at night time, you can see a dramatic line from north korea to south korea based on the lights. North Korea does not have the funding to pay for their citizens lighting) Also in North Korea they have limited rights, they must love and obey everything their dictator tell them to. They also have a high rate in demographic pressure and group grievence. North Korea may be a stable state in some aspects, but i believe that over all it is a failed nation. As i've said before it is number 17 of 177 of failed nations (the lower the number the more failed it is)

Thrid, id like to state that maybe soley pirates attacks have little effect they still strongly guard the eastern oceans of Africa, therefore we can not effectively trade there. This hurts our economy we are un able to send ships there to trade with them. It is also hurts our military we are unable to send war ships over there in case we need to protect ourselves from other nations attacking us.

Anyone would agree that Russia was a threat to the United states but is that one nation a greater threat? They are under strict watch by many other countries, and they are surrounded by countries that support democracy and don't support arming of nuclear weapons. the cold war has ended and we no longer have a tension between Russia therefore they have no reason to attack and they know if they did many countries in europe and japan would be on our side, so they know that by attacking us it would harm them more. THerefore Russia has no reason to attack America.

America being "dependent" on China is not a threat to our economy, infact China is stimulating our economy, and will keep doing so. China, a stable nation is helping out our country more than it is troubling it. Even if we didnt have china we would have other countries like india to depend on so that excludes china from being a threat. America has learned in the past after the depression not to rely on countries so heavily so we are able to be an efficient country even if China chooses (very unlikely) to turn against America. And even if their economy fails they will be looking for american jobs to stimulate their economy once again.

Lastly a peaceful nation like norway and sweeden is peaceful therfore has no reason not to attack us.

Thank you
oregonfella

Con

My opponent claims that "impovershed nations such as Afghanistan dont have a central government therefore they can attack us at anytime they'd like". I would like to point out the many holes in this statement. One of the keys to organization and effectiveness in an attack lies in the central government. The United States' central government is in charge of all military affairs and without it our defense and military capabilities would be greatly diminished. This is true for other countries as well. A failing state that has no power to make "collective decisions" (according to definition) poses a very small threat compared to an organized country such as Russia with terrifying military capabilities.

Also, my opponent claims that the 9/11 attacks by a terrorist group located in Afghanistan made the United States' government weaker. I would refute this with the fact that after this surprising attacking the government became alert, heightened security, and bolstered their military making them more powerful than they had been in recent years.

My opponent still claims that North Korea is a failing nation even though it does not fit her own definition and therefore anything she says on the matter cannot be considered.

I still hold to my statement that Somalian pirates are small threat to the United States and though they may seize ships and hurt the economy in a very small way, they are no where close to the extent of other threats that I have outlined in my debate.

Lastly, I referred to Sweden and Norway as peaceful stable nations whose ABILITY to inflict damage to the US is greater than any Somalian pirates. Which directly supports the resolution. I agree they are peaceful nations and it is highly unlikely they would ever attack the US. But it is their ABILITY which is what I was making a point on.

Next, I would like to return to the definition of threat for this debate. My opponent did not offer a definition, so I defined it as "the ability to inflict damage".

Thus my contentions are Russia has the ABILITY TO INFLICT MORE DAMAGE to the US with their military than any failing nation and also China has the ABILITY TO INFLICT MORE DAMAGE to the US economically than any failing nation.

Russia is the greatest threat to the United States. If they decided to attack, the severity of the results could never be matched by any failing nation. Russia is considered a stable nation. Therefore, a stable nation poses a greater threat to the United States than a failing nation.

Thank you. Vote neg.
Debate Round No. 2
blatheny

Pro

My opponent has not countered the fact that Stable nations like Russia have no reason to attack us, and they wont because they know that if they were to attack us Japan, most european countries and China will defend us. China has no reason to attack us either because they rely heavily on our economy, us paying them for labor is a huge factor to their economy and them to defend Russia, if Russia attacked, would hurt them far more in the long run. that is why China would be on the defense of America if Russia were to attack. Unstable nations like Afghanistan and Somalia have very small ties with other strong countries.

And I'd like to stand by my statement that North Korea is a failed nation. You can not deny the facts, according to the National Forensic league the 17th most failed nation is North Korea and this list is out of a list of 177. They may be stable in some ways but overall they are a failed nation.

since Afghanistan is unable to make collective desicions they are unable to prevent the terrorists in their country to attack us. and it is seen in the past through attacks like the 9/11. Sweden,France, Great Brittan... have strong central governments so if unstable gangs or terrorists were to come in it would be stopped immidately by their police force.

Norway and Sweden may have an "ability" to attack us but they know quite clearly if they do attack us it will affect their country in drastic terrible ways. Also why would a country that has everything they have (i.e. a stable nation) attack the U.S. you are completely correct that stable nations have the "ability" to attack us and any logical person would agree with you but my point is that it is a very slim chance of happening

I stand in the firmest affirmation that "Stable Nations are a greater threat to the U.S. than Failed nations"

Thank you, once again
oregonfella

Con

My opponent says that I have refused to counter that stable nations like Russia have no reason to attack the US. However, I reiterate again that just because most stable nations have no reason or intention of attacking the United States, the debate is over whether or not stable nations are a greater threat to the US than failed nations. My opponent has failed to give in reasons throughout this entire debate to make us believe that any failed nations are a greater threat to the US than Russia.

I agree also that China has no reason to manipulate our economy. But this does not take away the fact that they are the largest threat to manipulate us by means of economic pressure. The US is so reliant on China if the case ever did arise that they decide to manipulate us, then China could easily do so. However, this is not a two way road. China is not reliant enough on the US economy that the US could make demands of them. They export most of their goods to the US, but they import most of their goods from countries other than the US. My opponent has failed to refute that their is any other country that is a greater threat, meaning has the ability to inflict damage, economically to the US other than China.

The National Forensics League may have classified North Korea has the 17th most failing nation, but according to the definitions of this present debate, I remain firm that North Korea is not a failed nation because they have physical control over their own territory. And therefore any reference to North Korea has a failed nation is invalid.

My opponent is correct that terrorism is able to exist more prosperously in failed nations. But has still made no arguments that terrorists are a larger threat to the US than stable dangerous nations such as Russia. Any largescale attack by a terrorist group would be substantially smaller than any largescale attack by a stable nation. Again, I cite Norway and Sweden has having the ability to inflict more damage if they chose to but I agree they have no motive to and it would indeed have drastic consequences for their respective countries.

Thank you, vote neg.
Debate Round No. 3
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by 10lipicht1292 7 years ago
10lipicht1292
It was not fair for con to make a rebuttle for China and russia after the drop was pointed out. I vote Pro!
Posted by 10lipicht1292 7 years ago
10lipicht1292
That first rebuttal was brutal
Posted by lelanatty 7 years ago
lelanatty
Thanks for having this debate. I am a newcomer to PF debate and am excited to see that our topis for this month is being debated so thoroughly.
Posted by flyingfrenchman 7 years ago
flyingfrenchman
hey I'll go up against you whenever, BRING IT!!! no one calls me a chicken
Posted by blatheny 7 years ago
blatheny
most other debates on these topics the people failed and are rather "radical" like America, a stable nation, is our greater threat. interesting view but not something I'd use in my public forum debate.
Posted by Eris 7 years ago
Eris
This is like the 20th debate with this topic I've seen. It's not that were scared, rather were just a little bored with it.
Posted by blatheny 7 years ago
blatheny
geeeze! no one wants to go up against me? ya'll are chicken! oooh!
12 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by comoncents 7 years ago
comoncents
blathenyoregonfellaTied
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 Mathwiz25 7 years ago
Mathwiz25
blathenyoregonfellaTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by twsurber 7 years ago
twsurber
blathenyoregonfellaTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:15 
Vote Placed by NightLane 7 years ago
NightLane
blathenyoregonfellaTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Vote Placed by wonderwoman 7 years ago
wonderwoman
blathenyoregonfellaTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by blatheny 7 years ago
blatheny
blathenyoregonfellaTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:52 
Vote Placed by lelanatty 7 years ago
lelanatty
blathenyoregonfellaTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:31 
Vote Placed by waitthisisntdeca 7 years ago
waitthisisntdeca
blathenyoregonfellaTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by Catmapson 7 years ago
Catmapson
blathenyoregonfellaTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Vote Placed by Jasonrl4991 7 years ago
Jasonrl4991
blathenyoregonfellaTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:25