The Instigator
asiandebater
Pro (for)
Losing
21 Points
The Contender
oceanix
Con (against)
Winning
69 Points

Failed nations are a greater threat to the U.S than stable nations

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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: 10/24/2009 Category: News
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 9,262 times Debate No: 9816
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (10)
Votes (14)

 

asiandebater

Pro

I'm pro on this resolution
I would like to thank my opponent and wish the best of luck
to better help you understand this topic we will be debating I will define some key terms
Failed state-characterized by the Fund for Peace, Their 2009 index characterizes failed states thoroughly "A state that is failing has several attributes. One of the most common is the loss of physical control of its territory or a monopoly on the legitimate use of force. Other attributes of state failure include the erosion of legitimate authority to make collective decisions, an inability to provide reasonable public services, and the inability to interact with other states as a full member of the international community. The 12 indicators cover a wide range of state failure risk elements such as extensive corruption and criminal behavior, inability to collect taxes or otherwise draw on citizen support, large-scale involuntary dislocation of the population, sharp economic decline, group-based inequality, institutionalized persecution or discrimination, severe demographic pressures, brain drain, and environmental decay. States can fail at varying rates through explosion, implosion, erosion, or invasion over different time periods."

stable nations- being the exact opposite meaning having control of its territory and its government, and also being able to interact with other countries as a whole

The term threat has several meanings but the one that most relates to our resolution would be a declaration of an intention or determination to inflict punishment, injury, etc., in retaliation for, or conditionally upon, some action or course.
oceanix

Con

I thank my opponent for hosting this debate. First off, I'd like to agree all definitions my opponent set forth. Since my opponent did not specify for certain which in the index of the Fund for Peace were failed states, I would like to supply that all states in the "Alert" status and only those states in the "Alert" status are to be considered failed states in this round. Also, although I highly doubt my opponent would do this, I would like to define the U.S. as the United States of America. My opponent didn't explicitly express this in her post, so I figured it couldn't hurt to say this.

Now look to my opponents definition of "threat." A threat is a "declaration of an intention to inflict punishment IN RETALIATION FOR or CONDITIONALLY UPON some course or action." Since it seems obvious that a country cannot be a declaration or intention, we must look to the declarations and intentions of countries. We must weigh the magnitude of the threat by the ultimate ends of the threats, or the changes resulting from these threats. We also need to see that actions can be declarations of deed. However, an action that is a declaration by deed cannot be the punishment that would result conditionally upon another's behavior.

First, if we look to the chart of the Fund for Peace, we see that the United States is not a failed state, but a stable state according to the definition for the round. If a threat is a declaration, and we judge the magnitude of a threat by the ultimate ends of a threat, we see that the only way the ultimate ends of a threat can even be resulted is if the United States takes some action or course that was warned against publicly. Thus, we need to see that ultimately the United States is the only one who can cause bad ends to itself in the case of threats. Since the United States is a stable nation, and essentially deciding to take some course of action is threatening themselves as they are aware of the consequences, the United States will be the largest threat to the United States. Another way to state this is to say that the United States will be declaring with its actions an intent to cause injury to themselves if they do indeed carry out the action.

This is supported by my opponent's definition of threat, and thus we must see that any threat by another country can only cause harm to the United States, which is the way we determine magnitude of threats in the round, if the United States threatens itself by deed. This shows that a stable nation is the greatest threat to the United States.

Moving on to my opponent's definition of Stable Nations, we see that she says that stable nations have "the exact opposite meaning" of failed nations, and that they are "able to interact with other countries as a whole." If stable nations are able to interact with other countries, and they are the exact opposite of failed nations, then we need to see that failed nations are not capable of interactions with other countries as a whole. This means that failed nations are not capable of communicating intentions and determinations with other nations, especially, for the purposes of the resolution, the United States. Given that a failed nation cannot interact with the United States through word or deed to impose a threat, we must see that according to the definitions set in place by my opponents, failed nations are simply not capable of being a threat to the United States.

Given that stable nations are able to communicate with the United States, we must see that they will eventually or currently impose a threat upon the United States, which will automatically make stable nations a greater threat than failed nations to the United States. When you throw in how I have shown that the United States is its own worst threat, we must see that we must negate.

Another reason that we must see that stable nations are a greater threat than failed nations is that stable nations have greater means and less internal conflict. Stable nations have greater means, greater money, greater weapons to utilize to back up any threat to the United States. They have the capability to make the United States suffer much more than do failed nations. Since we must judge a threat by its ends, we must see that this capability is ultimately a deciding factor in this round.

For an example of this, take a look at the amount of nuclear weapons all nations have (1). The only failed nations with nuclear missiles are Pakistan and possibly North Korea. This leaves less than one hundred nuclear weapons in the world in the possession of failed nations (2). Compare this with the 13865 nuclear weapons held by stable nations (noninclusive of the United States) and we see most definitely that the greater negative ends would be able to be put in place by stable nations. When you consider this, we must see that we must negate the resolution.

Now, compare the viability of attack by a failed nation versus that of a stable nation. In order to carry out a unified attack against the United States, surely we must see that there mustn't be massive internal conflict. If we look at the indicators of failed nations (2), we see that these indicators basically add up to internal conflict. It is simply not viable to form an offensive front when there exists this conflict.

Contrast that to stable nations, and we see that stable nations have fewer of the indicators of failed nations, and those they do have they possess in much smaller magnitude. Based on this, we see that stable nations are more capable of forming a threat against the United States.

Given that I have shown that the United States is its own greatest threat, that failed nations are incapable of being a threat to the United States, and that stable nations have both the capability of producing a threat and the means of carrying a threat out, we must see that there is no other option other than seeing that stable nations are a greater threat to the United States than failed nations.

(1) http://www.fas.org...
(2) http://www.fundforpeace.org...
Debate Round No. 1
asiandebater

Pro

we are not a threat to ourself
there are other nations that pose greater threats to us than our selves for example:
Al-Qaida and Sunni Extremism. Terrorism remains the most significant threat to our nation. Al-Qaida and its affiliated groups demonstrate adaptability in response to our Global War on Terrorism (GWOT). Al-Qaida leaders, Usama bin Ladin and Ayman al-Zawahiri, are relatively isolated and under pressure from counterterrorist operations. Once the central banker of the Sunni extremist movement, the al-Qaida leadership has resorted to seeking funds from al-Qaida in Iraq (AQI) to supplement its income.

Despite these problems, the al-Qaida leadership continues to follow both centralized and decentralized approaches to ensure its viability and that of the greater Sunni extremist movement. On the centralized track, the core leadership is attempting to maintain a level of control over strategic plans such as the war in Iraq and another major attack against the U.S. homeland. On the decentralized track, they are embracing and encouraging terrorist acts by like-minded groups and individuals that encompass the al-Qaida associated movement. These groups include the Jemmah Islamiyah in Southeast Asia, the Group for Salafist Preaching and Combat (GSPC) in Africa, and Ansar al-Islam, in addition to AQI, in Iraq.

In Iraq, al-Zarqawi and the AQI remains the major terrorist threat. He has been able to collaborate with disparate Sunni extremist groups, formalizing ties with some. He has increasingly attracted Iraqis into his organization, replacing foreign fighters with Iraqi nationals in many of AQI's leadership positions. Money, weapons and foreign fighters supporting terrorism move into Iraq, primarily through Syria and Iran. While responsible for less than 5% of the overall violence in Iraq, foreign terrorists are responsible for over 90% of suicide bombings. Coalition forces have dealt AQI serious blows, killing and capturing several of al-Zarqawi's closest associates, constricting the flow of personnel, money and material in and out of the country and degrading their operations. We are seeing divisions developing between AQI and some Sunni extremist groups

http://www.globalsecurity.org...
oceanix

Con

I would like to begin by noting that my opponent's statement that "we are not a threat to ourself" is not a valid reason to discard my arguments. My opponent declined to back this statement up with any logic, facts, or reason, so we must see that my point still stands. My opponent didn't attack any of my specific points, so we must see that these still stand, and my opponent can only win the round if her arguments outweigh mine.

On the whole of my opponent's argument about terrorists and terrorist groups, we need to see that this argument is irrelevant because terrorists and terrorist groups are not nations, and thus are not failed nations. The resolution regards failed nations, not failed groups (besides which, are terrorist groups really failed?), and thus we must not include this argument in consideration of the ballot.

On the subject of Iraq, we can again ignore the topic of the AQI, as it is not a nation. On the subject of al-Zarqawi, we need to note that he has been dead for two years (1).

Also, the document my opponent linked to in her argument (2) shows that out of 11 other countries that are a threat to the U.S., only 3 are failed nations, supporting the con side.

So, to recap on the arguments in my speech that were un-refuted or still stand, the US is its own greatest threat, failed nation are incapable of producing a threat under the definition of threat in the round, and stable nations are capable of both producing a threat and carrying it out. I have removed all arguments of my opponent, and as it currently stands, I see no ballot but one for the con.

(1) http://news.bbc.co.uk...
(2) http://www.globalsecurity.org...
Debate Round No. 2
asiandebater

Pro

My opponet keeps saying that we are our biggest threat yet he hasn't proved that we pose any type of threat to ourself,The US is #128 out of 146 on the list. That means there are 18 nations in the world that are less failed than the US. It also means there are 127 more failed,
yet these terrorist group that flourish in this failed are a great threat. These failed nation also affect our trade by having the U.S increase international security making it harder for us to interact with other countries.

these failed nations are a greater threat than stable nations and I believe I have proved my point
oceanix

Con

My opponent states that I have not proved that the United States is our biggest threat. However, in my first speech I showed how, due to her definition of threat, the only harm that could come to the U.S. would occur if the U.S. allowed it to occur. This is why the U.S. is our own greatest threat. My opponent did not dispute this in her previous speech with any amount of reason.

In her last speech, my opponent seems to be saying that the U.S. isn't a failed country. I agree with this, and due to this and my previous argument, we must negate the resolution.

On her argument the terrorist groups are a greater threat: We need to cross-apply my previous point that a terrorist group is not a failed nation and is thus not relevant.

As a final point of rebuttal, failed nations don't particularly affect our trade in a negative way. Since the War in Iraq started, our oil trade boomed. Iraq is a failed nation, mind you.

Still, in the end, I have more or less taken out all of my opponent's points. She never attempted to refute the point that under the definition of threat, failed nations can't be threats, or that stable nations are more capable of producing threats and have the means to carry them out. I have adequately proven how the U.S. is its own greatest threat, and my evidence has been more relevant and correct. With this I beg for a con ballot.
Debate Round No. 3
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by cbb314 7 years ago
cbb314
asiandebater had unconvincing arguments, didn't capitalize words or use proper sentence structure, and attempted to rebuke her opponents arguments by simply stating they were not true. No evidence was given. Oeanix is the obvious winner
Posted by thereal_yeti 7 years ago
thereal_yeti
"there are other nations that pose greater threats to us than our selves for example:
Al-Qaida and Sunni Extremism"

Ya..

I LOLED at that one....
Posted by draxxt 7 years ago
draxxt
Oh, and this debate is a failed nation...
Is it a threat?
Posted by draxxt 7 years ago
draxxt
"there are other nations that pose greater threats to us than our selves for example:
Al-Qaida and Sunni Extremism"

*Facepalm...*

And judges can judge on any criterion, Big Pimpin'. Grammar is, in fact, one of the sections under which one votes separate from the cases themselves.
Posted by asiandebater 7 years ago
asiandebater
haha thats why im good at it
because i cant get docted points for grammar
Posted by oceanix 7 years ago
oceanix
asiandebater, it takes a little practice to get into it. If you never try, then you will never succeed. Besides, when you debate verbally, no one notices the spelling.
Posted by asiandebater 7 years ago
asiandebater
haha so basically i suck
i should just stick with biast debating lol
im very convincing when i dont have
a topic i have to do a bunch of research
Posted by Xer 7 years ago
Xer
RFD:

B/A: Whatever.
CONDUCT: TIED - Everyone was nice.
S&G: CON - Pro was terrible, spelling and grammar.
CA: CON - Con's arguments were much more organized and coherent. Con effectively refuted all of Pro's arguments, which were mostly invalid to begin with.
RS: CON - Con used more and also turned Pro's lone source against her.
Posted by asiandebater 7 years ago
asiandebater
haha i know right and im still losing :D
Posted by mongeese 7 years ago
mongeese
Hey, you spelled the resolution correctly this time! :)
14 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by acer 6 years ago
acer
asiandebateroceanixTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Annbella 6 years ago
Annbella
asiandebateroceanixTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by cbb314 7 years ago
cbb314
asiandebateroceanixTied
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:07 
Vote Placed by Zeratul 7 years ago
Zeratul
asiandebateroceanixTied
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 Mathwiz25 7 years ago
Mathwiz25
asiandebateroceanixTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by ehspfer 7 years ago
ehspfer
asiandebateroceanixTied
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 meganwashere 7 years ago
meganwashere
asiandebateroceanixTied
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 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 Eros 7 years ago
Eros
asiandebateroceanixTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by nchovies 7 years ago
nchovies
asiandebateroceanixTied
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:06 
Vote Placed by Grey_Bennett 7 years ago
Grey_Bennett
asiandebateroceanixTied
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:07