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

Skip the first round by placing a single alphanumeric. We'll each get a position and 2 rebuttals.

my alphanumeric is admf,sadnfs ok begin with your case o0o and i will be negating the resolution.

I would like to thank Shelly for accepting this debate.

AFFIRMATIVE CONSTRUCTIVE

INTRODUCTION: I affirm the resolution as stated.

STATEMENT OF RESOLUTION: Resolved: Failed nations are a greater threat to the U.S. than stable nations.

DEFINITIONS:

Threat - an expression of intention to hurt, destroy, punish, etc., as in retaliation or intimidation an indication of imminent danger, harm, evil, etc. the threat of war (source: www.yourdictionary.com)

Failed nations – "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."

Included in the 38-nation "alert" list for failed states are Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, North Korea, Lebanon, Pakistan, and Sudan.

2. By stricter definition, a failed nation is also characterized as a people who share common customs, origins, history, and frequently language, but who lack the key component of a sovereign government (this definition would include significant terrorist organizations, revolutionary groups, etc.). (Source: Borrowed with permission from alto2osu / http://www.fundforpeace.org... )

Stable nations – Stable nations are in essence the antonym of failed nations.

Stable: firm in character, purpose, or resolution; steadfast reliable, dependable not likely to change or be affected adversely; lasting; enduring (source: www.your dictionary.com)

OVERVIEW: The question is this: who poses a greater threat to the United States?
A.Stable nations
B.Failed nations

POINT 1: Stable nations are more likely to remain at peace with the United States. Please review the list of states highlighted in green and yellow. The United States enjoys a harmonious and positive working relationship with many of the countries listed. Without an extreme motive for doing so, it is highly improbable that any of the stable nations would pose a threat to the United States.

POINT 2: Failed nations often have little to lose by attacking not only the United States, but also any nation. I now invite you to review the list of countries highlighted in orange and red. (http://www.fundforpeace.org... )
Nations such as these listed are far more likely to pose a threat to the United States. Many of them have had strained relations with the United States, indicating a motive.

POINT 3: Stable nations vs. failed nations.
Stable nations are fundamentally different from failed nations. Comparatively, the citizens of stable nations generally enjoy a better quality of life than those of failed nations. It doesn't pass the common sense test for a stable nation to initiate trouble with the United States. Remaining at peace is a strong deterrent. Failed nations, which include terrorist groups by definition, have attacked the United States. With radical or idealogical tendencies, it stands to reason that failed nations have the higher propensity toward violence directed at the United States.

SUMMARY: Given the aforementioned, there is no legitimate reason to believe that a stable nation would pose an unprovoked threat to the United States. Contrastly, failed nations, including terrorist organizations, not only have shown past aggression toward the United States, but have also indicated threats. Knowing this, the resolution is clearly affirmed as stated. Thank you.

Resolved: Failed nations are a greater threat to the United States than stable nations.

I would like to define some key terms

Nation: a territorial land mass (world book encyclopedia)

Stable: resistant to movement or change (world book encyclopedia)

Contention 1) Land Mass's cannot threaten each other
A nation as previously defined by World Book Encyclopedia is a territorial land mass. Al land mass refers to the total area of a country or geographical region. A continent is a landmass. Continents are understood to be large, continuous, discrete masses of land, ideally separated by expanses of water. Therefore, a failed landmass or a stable landmass does not pose a threat to one another. It is physically impossible for say Florida to get up and go punch Arabia in the face. Absurd? No, it is just reality.

Contention 2) Tectonic plates make EVERY nation unstable and therefore an equal threat
Once again I would like to bring in the definition of the word stable as defined by World Book Encyclopedia. Resistant to movement or change. Well, the Earth's surface is made up of a series of large plates. These plates control the outermost shell of the lithosphere or rocky planet. They are in constant motion traveling a few centimeters per year. Constant motion does not allow you to be resistant to movement because motion is a verb. That means it is happening now or it is an action occurring. The word movement however is a noun. So, if every tectonic plate is constantly moving than it cannot be stable because the word stable implies that there is a resistant to movement but if they are already moving how can they be resistant? This makes every nation an equal tat because every nation is moving.

Contention 3) Not the nation itself but the people living on the land mass are threats

If the affirmative and judge fail to see the truth in the first two contentions, then consider this. It is not the nation itself, but the corrupt groups within it, that pose any threat. Take for example Afghanistan and Pakistan. Many people point fingers at the entire nation, when in actuality, it's Al Qaeda that is threatening. It's not the nation, as a whole we fear, but the corrupt terrorist group within it. Al Qaeda is a very great threat against the US. However, Afghanistan or Pakistan or wherever they reside is unable to attack U.S. soil so therefore one can conclude it is not those nations, but the terrorist group within that provides the threat. Thus showing that it's not the nation itself but the distorted organizations within.

I wish to compliment Shelly on a very creative negative constructive, but I fear she has wasted a round of competition.

OBSERVATIONS:
If we accept the CON/AFF's definitions, then her 1st & 2nd contentions are virtually rock solid. In Contention 3, I would correct her in that it is the Taliban (largely funded by al Qaeda) in Afghanistan, not al Qaeda itself. (source: public radio international)

REBUTTAL:
Going by what is obviously implied by the NFL committee (people of failed nations) not a geology technicality, my argument remains valid, intact, and completely unchallenged which means my opponent has wasted a round on a wild goose chase.

SUMMARY:
Given the above I stand by my original Affirmative Constructive.

First I want to thank my opponent for responding so fast.

I must contend the case though now.

My definitions must snd as they were unrefuted Going off the own affs source of fundforpeace.com we can see that no nation is failed but rather listed in alert status. Meaning that they may fail or are a potential threat. Thus helping to ate the resolution.

To attack the my opponents points. Point 1) my case has proven that there are no stable nations through tectonic plate theory

point2) there own source shows how they are no failed nations only those listed as alert status and not failed. There source shows no failed nations.

point3) even if there were stable nations (there aren't if we remember tectonic plate theory correctly) This point help shows that it is the terrorists inhabiting the nation which is defined as a landmass hat are posing the threat of hostility toward the U.S. actually helping my case

The rebuttal of my points are completely dropped and said that if we accept my definitions they are rock solid arguments. We must accept my definitons as the aff has failed to extend theirs. I offer mine again Nation: a territorial land mass (world book encyclopedia) Stable: resistant to movement or change (world book encyclopedia).

The rebuttal against my point 3 doesn't change the point. Ok, so its the Taliban thatpose the threat not Al Qaeda but that furthers my case because it is the people that make up the Taliban that pose the threat and not the land mass they reside in.

Also, it obvisiouly was not implied as defining key terms as shown has become a very IMPORTANT FACTOR in this debate. we must see that my opponent did not extend his/her definitions and I have therefore we must use mine.

Onto my case.

My C1) land masses don't threaten each other

Under my definition which must be upheld because it was the only definition extended shows that the region known as the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA cannot physically attack another nation such as Nigeria because it cannot move.

My C2) tectonic plates

EVERY nation is moving and unstabe due to tectonic plate theory. So, in reality the only so called failed nation is Pangea because it broke apart.

My C3) It's the people not the land mass
See above points.

Thank you and remember vote neg

Shelly, thanks again!

FINAL REBUTTAL:
C-1 & C-2:
A. Theories are not facts and cannot be reagrded as such (ie: tectonic plate theory)
B. If the nations are indeed moving then they are not stable. Since unstable nations are unstable, they are able to collide into one another. These unstable nations do pose a greater threat because the non-existent stable nations cannot move. Thus, stable nations pose no threat.

C. My opponent's definition of nations. I took the liberty of actually looking up the word "nation" in the World Book Encyclopedia, 2007 edition. My opponent's definition was NOT stated as quoted. The definition I found read, "A nation is a large group of people united by a common language, ancestry, history, or culture. International law means a group of people exercising self government within a defined territory with the recognition of other nations". (source: 2007 World Book Encyclopedia)

Given the above information, my opponent's case is now full of holes, while my case remains undisputed through 3 1/2 rounds. Either way she goes, she is now in check mate! Further, I have provided the more credible sources as well as better spelling and grammar. VOTE PRO! Thank you!

He has dropped his entire case so it must be shown that it is irrelevant.

Once Again I will extend my definition as it is the only definition extended it must be the ONLY one used.
Nation - territorial land mass

My opponent claims, that my source is wrong however, I took the liberty of looking it up as well when I was writing my case and it defined it as a territoral land mass.

He weakly attempts to attack my contentions on tectonic plate theory saying theories aren't real.
If that is the case than gravity is a legitimate cause for why we are not floating right now.
What is a fact is that the nations are moving slowly several inches per year.

Since all nations are equal in moving and threat there is no greater threat.

Even if you choose not to accept my definition we must realize it is the people living in these problem areas that are causing threats and terrorist groups that are the threats not the nations themselves.

My c3 is essentially dropped in the final rebuttal. It showed how it was the terrorists groups like the Taliban or Al Qaeda who posed threats to the United States not Aghanistan or Iraq themselves.

His case is dropped in the final rebuttal completely and must not be flowed across and he failed to acknowledge my arguments against his case so they must be flowed across.

For the above reasons
I urge a negative ballot