The Instigator
tmoney226
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
stargateman
Pro (for)
Winning
6 Points

Failed nations are a greater threat to the united states than stable nations.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
stargateman
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/2/2010 Category: Politics
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,084 times Debate No: 12676
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (6)
Votes (1)

 

tmoney226

Con

For those of you reviewing this debate…
***PLEASE NOTE***
This debate is set in the following way.
Round 1: arguments presented.(contention form)
Round 2: cross x
Round 3: summary of arguments
Round 4: cross x
Round 5: Final focus (New arguments are not allowed)
----------------------------------------------------------------
The characteristics that make a nation ‘'failed' are…
•loss of physical control of its territory, or of the monopoly on the legitimate use of physical force therein,
•erosion of legitimate authority to make collective decisions,
•an inability to provide reasonable public services, and
•an inability to interact with other states as a full member of the international community.
The characteristics that make a nation, "stable"....
A) Not subject to sudden or extreme change or fluctuation;
B) Maintaining equilibrium; self-restoring;
C) Enduring or permanent.

With that in mind, because stable nations pose a greater economic threat, stable nations are the reason any failed nation is at any level of threat, and stable nations are organized, I stand con.

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

Contention 1: Stable nations often pose a greater economic treat to the United States.
By Ben Franklin and George Margolin
‘'In the past, Japan has taken our technology for the transistor radio, TV, steel, VCR, automobiles and many other products and has eliminated or severely damaged these industries in the U.S.'

Failed nations are failed because they either have little or no economy. Stable nations like Japan have quickly become world super-powers because of their secure and stable economies. These economies allow these nations to fund large armies and other potential threats against the US. Failed nations lack the resources, economies, and unity needed to be a threat. This leads me to my second contention.

Contention 2: Stable nations are the reason any failed nation is at any level of threat.
From an Afghan war vet…
‘' When the Soviets finally ended operations in Afghanistan, they left behind a lot of their own equipment to make for a quick pull out which added to the overwhelmingly large amount of weapons already residing in that country. The Soviets also left behind millions of anti-personnel landmines during the pullout because they were ***** off that their operation was unsuccessful.'

The Taliban are a threat (ill give pro that) they did a great job in making America a fairly unorganized nation after the 9/11 terrorists bombings. But without stable nations the Taliban would be a fraction of their current self. Iraq and Afghanistan are exceptions, but even in the exceptions my points still rain true.

Contention 3: stable nations are organized.
From Wikipedia…
‘'The attack on Pearl Harbor was a surprise Military strike conducted by the Imperial Japanese navy against the United States naval base at Pearl Harbor, Hawaii on the morning of December 7, 1941.'

Organization allows nations to attack with swiftness and vigor. This example proves the position CON firmly. The attack on Pearl Harbor (as most should know) was a surprise attack that left Pearl Harbor in ruins. Japan was and is a very Stable nation that proved to be a greater threat than any failed nation at the time.
In conclusion, failed nations over all lack the stable governments needed to govern all of the ingredients to become a threat to us. In the past stable nations have proved to be a much greater threat to the United States. Because stable nations pose a greater economic threat to the United States, stable nations are the reason that failed nations are at any level o threat, and stable nations are organized, I urge a Con vote.
stargateman

Pro

The characteristics that make a nation "stable" are
A) good economy,money coming in and going out
B) strong army, has a plan not just scattered little groups
C) strong government, stable
The characteristics that make a nation "failed" are
A) government scattered,no absolute control
B) little to no army or law enforcement, scattered forces fighting for control, chaos
C) bad economy, little or no money going in or out

There are some things that describe both "stable" and "failed" nations and that is why failed nations pose a greater threat than stable nations because failed nations there is chaos and fear of all the separate rebel clans trying to take control constantly, that is why I stand pro.

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

Contention 1: Failed nations pose a greater threat to the united states than stable ones
Failed nations pose a greater threat to the U.S. then stable nations, take the Taliban for instance they flew planes in to some of the United States important building such as the Pentagon and the Twin towers and on September 11, hundreds of people died and we lost the Twin towers and could of lost most of D.C. if the plane that hit the Pentagon had hit the nuclear reactor underneath it.

Contention 2: Failed nations are the reason for hundreds of U.S. soldiers deaths
We have been at war with Iraq's different groups of rebel fighters such as the Taliban since 2003, that's 7 years how long do we have to fight? Last month the Taliban killed 5 U.S. Troops and 2 are missing in Afghanistan Taliban said they had captured. That's just one thing that happened last month. Since the war began according to Wikipedia the Total dead and wounded in the Iraq war is 36,231 and in the Afghanistan war is 7,228.

Contention 3: Failed nations can weaken a stable nation
Failed nations can weaken a stable nations economy and government along with its army by that government spending money to build new armor such as tanks and planes if the army needed more or new weapons and if the failed nations have enough forces they can weaken a army by slowly taking out groups of soldiers. Since failed nations can weaken a country with little forces then how is it that we can call are self's completely stable if we cant fix are own economy or help another country of little forces fix there problems by simply starting a government while protecting the city for a few months and then let them be on there own, it is for these reasons I urge a Pro vote
Debate Round No. 1
tmoney226

Con

I will ask that my opponent answer all questions in the next cross x round (round 4), as I will do the same.

I will begin my attack in chronological order.

Contention 1: Failed Nations pose a greater threat to the united states than stable ones.
My opponents first contention is the resolution, not an argument. it is simply stating examples of how Afghanistan and Iraq are threats. This maybe true, but I challenge him to find any other example. These are merely exceptions that I have already addressed. Stable nations remain the true threats.

Contention 2: Failed nations are the reason for hundreds of U.S. soldiers deaths.
Our 2nd contentions clash head on with each other. however, yours states that the failed nations are to blame for the deaths of hundreds of U.S. solders. I urge you to read my second contention again because it isn't, it is the stable nations that are to blame. Oh and by the way, its thousands of deaths. (all to be blamed on STABLE NATIONS)

Contention 3: Failed nations can weaken a stable nation.
Proving to be his most difficult contention, (not that it was at all)to diminish, his last contention is very....not true. My opponent says that a nations economy and government can be weakened by failed nations. However, This isn't true, if anything it helps. Everyone reading this is probably thinking, What is he Saying! Well think about it. The government pays companies to manufacture equipment for the army. The government does operate their own plants, but still they rely on others for production. that gets more money in circulation, thus HELPING our economy. How that hurts the economy or the government is unknown to me. I must also point out that my opponent has conveniently used the term 'if' quiet frequently. Scenarios, are not what we are debating, what if I were to say we would simply drop a atom bomb on every failed nation? Debates don't work that way, it would be never ending.

Because I have successfully attacked every point on my opponents case, I urge a con vote.
stargateman

Pro

I will ask that my opponent answer all questions in the next cross x round (round 4), as I will do the same.

I will begin my attack in chronological order.

Contention 1: Stable nations often pose a greater economic treat to the United States.
My opponents first contention focuses on how quote "stable nations often" (key word) " pose a greater economic threat to the U.S. He refers to Japan and not some other stable country because of his evidence by Ben Franklin and George Margolin is my guess t why Japan? When he says "often" in his 1st contention title often means all the time just most of the time and since that does not mean all the time then there for there is room for a non stable nation to attack the U.S. like in 2001 with the Twin Towers and other buildings such as the pentagon and those planes that were taken over hit there targets and we lost the Twin Towers and hundreds of people died that day when a non stable country hurt the U.S.

Contention 2: Stable nations are the reason any failed nation is at any level of threat.
This contention deals with Afghanistan and that's where part of the Taliban are and Afghanistan is a failed nation and he refers to 9/11 and that is supporting my first contention where the Taliban are responsible for 9/11 and the destruction of the Twin Towers as well as damaging the Pentagon. I will now attack his piece from the afghan war vet it says that the soviets had a operation their and left behind a lot of there equipment and since the soviets left then Afghanistan was not stable and there for was a failed nation and with all of the stuff left behind from the soviets then the Taliban were able to get there hands on it and use that technology against the U.S.and other country's surrounding Afghanistan there for that proves my 2nd contention and backing up my first.

Contention 3: stable nations are organized.
In his 3rd contention he says that stable nations are organized and yes they are but that doesn't mean that a failed nation cant have a organized rebel group or a group that kills if they don't get what they want so there for stable nations and failed nations can both be organized in different ways so that supports both of are arguments.

Because I have successfully attacked every point on my opponents case, I urge a con vote
Debate Round No. 2
tmoney226

Con

tmoney226 forfeited this round.
stargateman

Pro

stargateman forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
tmoney226

Con

tmoney226 forfeited this round.
stargateman

Pro

stargateman forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
tmoney226

Con

tmoney226 forfeited this round.
stargateman

Pro

stargateman forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by stargateman 6 years ago
stargateman
Please do not vote on this debate me and my partner have started a new round and will be transfering these couple rounds over to that one again please do not vote, thankyou.
Posted by stargateman 6 years ago
stargateman
we are sorry we will be making new debate within a couple of days
Posted by tmoney226 6 years ago
tmoney226
Started a new debate that continues were we left off on this one. @
http://www.debate.org...
Posted by tmoney226 6 years ago
tmoney226
Thank you, didn't mean to forfeit.
Posted by stargateman 6 years ago
stargateman
I apologize for forfeiting round three I was going to make it fair but I was also going to do it but had no time sorry.
Posted by tmoney226 6 years ago
tmoney226
I apologize for forfeiting round 3, I have no excuse
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by stargateman 6 years ago
stargateman
tmoney226stargatemanTied
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