The Instigator
CAPLlock
Pro (for)
Losing
1 Points
The Contender
GMDebater
Con (against)
Winning
12 Points

History has condemned nations getting into other nation affairs

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 - Required
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/4/2011 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,779 times Debate No: 17395
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (12)
Votes (4)

 

CAPLlock

Pro

History has proven that getting into other nations affairs can be a serious danger
Round one is acceptance.
GMDebater

Con

I accept this debate. Please avoid ad hominen attacks and straw-men arguments.
Good luck to my opponent.
Debate Round No. 1
CAPLlock

Pro

I will avoid those kinds of arguments.


I will start to talk about WW1 and how the 'Alliance system' caused WW1. I'll be short.
When an Austrian ruler was killed by the Black Hand( A terrorist group) from Serbia, with Austria attacked Serbia. And Germany attacked Luxembourg France and others. Since Russia was friends with Serbia, Russia came to aide the Serbs.
You now have the Russians, France, Germans all fighting in a single war . These nations were high up on the army powers at this time of the war.
The UK and the USA would later come as will the Otto's. This happened because of other nations sticking their nose into other nations affairs.

After WW1 and the Treaty of Versailles ( http://en.wikipedia.org...;).
With Germany punished roughly, and with the rise of Hitler Germany came to be great again. Germany started to get appeased and then fought Poland. France and Britain declared war. The fight for Europe came to be great that when Germany attacked Russia entering them into the war and America came to fight the Germans (and Japan too) we had, like in WW1, a war against powerhouses. The alliance system too had a effect on WW2

Sorry if this is sloppy.
GMDebater

Con

Thank you for your opening argument. I whole-heartedly agree that there are times when we should not be involved. However, there are times where it is VITAL to help other nations.

C1: We need to help other nations in time of need

Let's take a look at Haiti. The death total was more than 200,000 http://www.telegraph.co.uk...

Should we have sat around and not come to their aid? The Haitian government are poor, the people are poor! There is no way that the gov't can pay for it all by themselves.

conclusion: In times of desparate need, the nations should come to the aid of other nations.

C2: When human rights are violated, we need to protect the life of humans!

Example: German holocaust

Here is a list of those who died and the groups they represented:

VictimsKilledSource
Jews 5.9 million [1]
Soviet POWs 2–3 million [2]
Ethnic Poles 1.8–2 million [3][4]
Romani 220,000–1,500,000 [5][6]
Disabled 200,000–250,000 [7]
Freemasons 80,000 [8]
Slovenes 20,000–25,000 [9]
Homosexuals 5,000–15,000 [10]
Jehovah's
Witnesses
2,500–5,000 [11


Should we have sat around and done nothing? How much further could Hitler have gone? He also rampaged throught Europe taking nation by nation. If we had not have gotten involved and other nations united to defend Europe, Europe would most certaintly have became a fascist state.

Source:
  1. Dawidowicz, Lucy. The War Against the Jews, Bantam, 1986.p. 403
  2. ^ a b Berenbaum, Michael. The World Must Know, United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, 2006, p. 125.
  3. ^ a b 1.8–1.9 million non-Jewish Polish citizens are estimated to have died as a result of the Nazi occupation and the war. Estimates are from Polish scholar, Franciszek Piper, the chief historian at Auschwitz. Poles: Victims of the Nazi Era at the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum.
  4. ^ a b c Piotrowski, Tadeusz. "Project InPosterum: Poland WWII Casualties", accessed March 15, 2007; and Łuczak, Czesław. "Szanse i trudności bilansu demograficznego Polski w latach 1939–1945", Dzieje Najnowsze, issue 1994/2.
  5. ^ "Sinti and Roma", United States Holocaust Memorial Museum (USHMM). The USHMM places the scholarly estimates at 220,000–500,000. Michael Berenbaum in The World Must Know, also published by the USHMM, writes that "serious scholars estimate that between 90,000 and 220,000 were killed under German rule." (Berenbaum, Michael. The World Must Know", United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, 2006, p. 126.
  6. ^ "Romanies and the Holocaust: a Reevaluation and Overview". Radoc.net. Retrieved 2010-07-31.
  7. ^ Donna F. Ryan, John S. Schuchman, Deaf People in Hitler's Europe, Gallaudet University Press 2002, 62
  8. ^ a b "GrandLodgeScotland.com". GrandLodgeScotland.com. Retrieved 2010-07-31.
  9. ^ The number of Slovenes estimated to have died as a result of the Nazi occupation (not including those killed by Slovene collaboration forces and other Nazi allies) is estimated between 20,000 and 25,000 people. This number only includes civilians: killed Slovene partisan POW and resistance fighters killed in action are not included (their number is estimated to 27,000). These numbers however include only Slovenes from present-daySlovenia: it does not include Carinthian Slovene victims, nor Slovene victims from areas in present-day Italy and Croatia. These numbers are result of a 10 year long research by the Institute for Contemporary History (Inštitut za novejšo zgodovino) from Ljubljana, Slovenia. The partial results of the research have been released in 2008 in the volume Žrtve vojne in revolucije v Sloveniji (Ljubljana: Institute for Conetmporary History, 2008), and officially presented at the Slovenian National Council ([File:ttp://www.ds-rs.si...]). The volume is also available online: [File:http://www.ds-rs.si...]
  10. ^ a b c d e The Holocaust Chronicle, Publications International Ltd., p. 108.
  11. ^ a b Shulman, William L. A State of Terror: Germany 1933–1939. Bayside, New York: Holocaust Resource Center and Archives.
Conclusion

It is my assertion that in time of need and in times when human rights are violated, it is important to step up!
Debate Round No. 2
CAPLlock

Pro

Let's take a look at Haiti. The death total was more than 200,000 http://www.telegraph.co.uk......

Should we have sat around and not come to their aid? The Haitian government are poor, the people are poor! There is no way that the gov't can pay for it all by themselves.
Normally its more of the people, not the nation as a whole.


C2: When human rights are violated, we need to protect the life of humans!

Should we have sat around and done nothing? How much further could Hitler have gone? He also rampaged throught Europe taking nation by nation. If we had not have gotten involved and other nations united to defend Europe, Europe would most certaintly have became a fascist state.

I know. But it should only be Germany and those who Germany attacked. The war would have been much smaller. Thats war.More lives would have been saved if we protected ourself only.

Im glad I saved the Cold War for this round.
We wanted to save nations from communist, but we could fight them; a war would break out.
Sometimes you cant save people.
GMDebater

Con

Thank you for a quick response.

"Normally its more of the people, not the nation as a whole"

I am unsure what you're saying. The GDP of Haiti is $6.48 Billion US dollars at current prices - 2009
compare that to the USA with a GDP of $14.12 Trillion US dollars at current prices - 2009
Source: World Bank, World Development Indicators

I honestly do not think Haiti could have recovered without the help of the red cross.



"I know. But it should only be Germany and those who Germany attacked. The war would have been much smaller. Thats war.More lives would have been saved if we protected ourself only. "

My opponent hasn't gave a single valid source to support this claim. Could we truly afford to sit back and ignore Hitler's rampage throught Europe? I have given 10 sources showing how many peopke were killed as a result of the fascist state. Imagine how many more would've died as a result of us sitting back and ignoring Hitler,

I await your response.
Debate Round No. 3
CAPLlock

Pro

"I know. But it should only be Germany and those who Germany attacked. The war would have been much smaller. Thats war.More lives would have been saved if we protected ourself only. "

My opponent hasn't gave a single valid source to support this claim. Could we truly afford to sit back and ignore Hitler's rampage throught Europe? I have given 10 sources showing how many peopke were killed as a result of the fascist state. Imagine how many more would've died as a result of us sitting back and ignoring Hitler,

I dont need a source. That was a war where 70 million people died. Any way we avoid fighting should been the way.
How do you know that more deaths could have come from this?
GMDebater

Con

I love how my opponent ignores my forst rebuttal as if he's conceding that point to me. Anyway on to the debate.

"I dont need a source. That was a war where 70 million people died."

Actually the number is
1978167400

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org...

"Any way we avoid fighting should been the way."
So we should have ignored the genocide Hitler did and ignore Japan in the Pearl Harbour Attacks?

"How do you know more deaths could have come from this?"

It's caled "logic." It is quite obvious what would have happened. Hitler first invaded Poland and then went on a rampage throught Europe. No one country could have defeated him. We needed to join forces against fascism. He would have performed genocide outside those nations.

I urge a strong vote for con. My opponent had horrible spelling and never argued his side of the case.
Debate Round No. 4
CAPLlock

Pro

It's caled "logic." It is quite obvious what would have happened. Hitler first invaded Poland and then went on a rampage throught Europe. No one country could have defeated him. We needed to join forces against fascism. He would have performed genocide outside those nations.

Caled? You put a huge death toll. Thats had no logic in it what so ever. http://en.wikipedia.org...;


I urge a strong vote for con. My opponent had horrible spelling and never argued his side of the case.

You based your arguments on "what if". You really dont know what would have happen. I used the logic:
"The more gas you put in a fire, the bigger it gets"

Caled? http://en.wikipedia.org...;

This is whats called a Slippery slope fallacy.



Actually the number is
1978167400


No. That number is wrong. 1,978,167,400(1.97 billion) death toll in 1940 would nearly kill humans. In 1940 the population was only about 2.3 billion. So that wrong.
http://www.infoplease.com...
( this does show 1940, but the population is still small for that number)


I love how my opponent ignores my forst(?) rebuttal as if he's conceding that point to me. Anyway on to the debate.

So we should have ignored the genocide Hitler did and ignore Japan in the Pearl Harbour Attacks?

I dont think so. Also; http://www.nizkor.org...

GMDebater

Con

Thank you for the opportunity to debate.

My opponent accuses my arguments as slippery slope when, in fact, they were very obvious. Slippery slope is when there is no historical evidence to back up. My opponent has yet to respond to the fact that the Haitian government's GDP is 6 billion dollars roughhly while the earthquake costs roughly 14 billion. Economics would tell you that the earth quake would have bamkrupted the government had the red cross not have stepped in.

RFD
S/G: My opponent had horrible grammar such as not capitalizing I and saying "im" instead of I'm
Arguments: My opponent has not affirmed his resolution
Sources: This should be obvious. I am the only one who used sources.
Debate Round No. 5
12 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by CAPLlock 5 years ago
CAPLlock
Sieben is the most likely stupidest person I have meet on the internet. Get a life.
Posted by Sieben 5 years ago
Sieben
OW WOW WOULD YOU LOOK AT THAT

A troll claiming he's not a troll. Y u so fahnny?
Posted by CAPLlock 5 years ago
CAPLlock
Just some trolls who have no life. Read on.
Posted by GMDebater 5 years ago
GMDebater
lol. What are we arguing here? I am gonna accept in a few days.
Posted by CAPLlock 5 years ago
CAPLlock
You guys are idiots yourself.
Posted by Sieben 5 years ago
Sieben
I think you are opportunistic to a ridiculous degree. Malice has nothing to do with it. You snipe noobs, run abusive arguments, and debate so underhandedly I am amazed you can look yourself in the mirror.

But nice "tu quoque" fallacy.

You having an interest in debating him is tautological. It doesn't explain why you are debating or why you have the interest. Doubtless you will claim you are just innocently interested in the topic. Why should I believe that? My theory about your poor character is a lot more plausible.
Posted by CiRrK 5 years ago
CiRrK
U implied that I enjoyed doing X malicious act. That is y u made the beat up 8 yrs olds comment. However, by calling him a retard you also said something malicious. And yes, im glad you realized my interest is why I wanted to do the debate not because I enjoy noob-sniping.
Posted by Sieben 5 years ago
Sieben
What do you mean "at least i didn't call him a retard"? So what? He is a retard.

But yeah. "Why do you do X?" "Because I am interested in doing X". Zzzz
Posted by CiRrK 5 years ago
CiRrK
At least i didnt call him a retard. And idc if he has a low win ratio. I would just be interested in taking it.
Posted by Danielle 5 years ago
Danielle
What Sieben said.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Krazzy_Player 3 years ago
Krazzy_Player
CAPLlockGMDebaterTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Better arguments by Con.
Vote Placed by Double_R 5 years ago
Double_R
CAPLlockGMDebaterTied
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:13 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro made no arguments to affirm his resolution. All he did was answer back to Cons assertions which were insufficient. Generally speaking, when you spend more character space quoting your opponent, then making your own argument it is a sign that your argument is very weak. Conduct goes to Pro for Cons copy and paste of his round 2 source (apparently from a Wikipedia page). This does not allow his opponent a reasonable opportunity to understand the basis of his contentions.
Vote Placed by baggins 5 years ago
baggins
CAPLlockGMDebaterTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's case is anecdotal and not compelling.
Vote Placed by BlackVoid 5 years ago
BlackVoid
CAPLlockGMDebaterTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Poor debate overall, both only use one or two examples on a topic that is much more expansive. But pro really doesn't refute anything and con's humanitarian argument is pretty much unanswered.