The Instigator
brian_eggleston
Pro (for)
Winning
16 Points
The Contender
Grape
Con (against)
Losing
15 Points

It's time for Britain to send a military task force to the South Atlantic

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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: 2/24/2010 Category: Politics
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,642 times Debate No: 11269
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (11)
Votes (7)

 

brian_eggleston

Pro

Those dirty, thieving greasers the Argentineans have turned their vile, swarthy faces towards the Falklands once again. This time they are greedily eying the islands with a view to getting their grasping hands on the oil that is being drilled offshore there.

As many of you will know, the murderous and cowardly Argentineans have coveted this British Territory for years. Back in 1982 a Royal Navy aircraft carrier and an amphibious task force supported by nuclear submarines and Royal Air Force aircraft travelled 7,800 miles from Britain and landed soldiers and commandos from the Royal Marines in a major joint operation to liberate the remote Falklands from the filthy Argie scum that were occupying the islands.

http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk...

However, because this Argentinean invasion took Britain by surprise and because the islands are so far from their mother country, the brutal and merciless Argie troops were able to terrorise the local population for many weeks before the British arrived to release them from their captors' evil clutches.

Of course, all this appalling suffering would never have happened if Britain had had a permanent military presence on the islands large enough to deter or repel an Argentinean invasion.

Today, almost thrity years after the last Argentinian invasion, the writing is once again on the wall. The Argies are threatening "unspecified actions" against Britain and is due to make a pathetic appeal to the UN to back their position.

In addition, they have mustered support from corrupt leaders from banana republics right around South America. For example, Venezuela's President Ch�vez said:

"Look, England, how long are you going to be in Las Malvinas {The Falkland Islands}? Queen of England, I'm talking to you…return Las Malvinas to the Argentine people."

http://www.nytimes.com...

Britain should learn the mistakes of the past and ensure that the Falklands are adequately defended from Argentina's military designs on the islands by ensuring that the small garrison of British troops is massively strengthened and are assisted by a task force from the Royal Navy and Royal Air Force.

http://www.army.mod.uk...

Britain must act now before it's too late.

Vote Pro.

Thank you.
Grape

Con

My opponent has taken the position that in order to prevent the Falkland Islands from falling into the hands of the vile Argentine people, the UK should drastically increase its garrison on the island. I believe this to be unnecessary and wasteful as it would consume resources over time to continuously defend the Falkland Islands. I have a few solutions that are more permanent and though they are more immediately expensive, they would provide a greater long term benefit.

1. Claim Argentina attempted to attack the Falkland Islands. This would not be difficult to stage or just lie about. Then, the government could claim a need to retaliate against Argentina instead of simply playing defense. A massive propaganda campaign could easily get the public behind this. Then the UK simply destroys most of Argentina's military, government facilities, and infrastructure with it's massively superior air power. There would be no need to worry about international consequences because the US would quickly jump to the side of the British (perhaps even offering them military aid) and the US has been able to successfully block diplomatic sanctions against aggressive nations many times in the past.

2. Alternately, claim the existence of a pro-Argentine revolution in the Falklands using a similar strategy. Send in troops to suppress the rebellion and make sure there is so much collateral damage that there are no more Falklands. Using flamethrowers would be an excellent idea. Once all traces of life are removed from the Falklands, Britain can withdraw its forces. Argentina will no longer have any need to control these smouldering islands and they will remain under the control of the British. Even if Argentina did invade the Falklands again, they would win nothing and the British military command could smirk smugly over a cup of tea. Any whining about these atrocities (as liberals are prone to do) could be silenced by blaming the damage on the rebels.

Both of these solutions are much more economic than the one my opponent provide. His way of handling the situation would waste of a lot of money by keeping troops deployed over a long period of time, perhaps indefinitely. The solutions I have offered would deal with the situation much more quickly. I will include a number of sources backing my position in the next round, but for now I am too lazy. Peace out.
Debate Round No. 1
brian_eggleston

Pro

Many thanks to my Grape for accepting this debate and also for proposing two interesting alternatives to my military taskforce.

Unfortunately, we must dismiss his second proposal to incinerate the civilian population of the Falklands out of hand because Falkland Islanders are British Citizens and whilst I concede that there may be some British people that deserve to be torched, neither Elton John nor George Michael live in the Falklands so no advantage would be gained in that respect.

More importantly, Britain needs a functioning community on the Falklands to service the oil industry, which although is presently in its infancy, is set to grow enormously as the estimated 60 billion barrels of oil (1) are extracted from the South Atlantic seabed. At today's prices that's worth $4.8 trillion (2) – which is a lot of money in anybody's book and is why those treacherous Argie twisters want to get their thieving mitts on it so badly.

My opponent's first proposal, however, had more merit. However, starting a conflict and blaming someone else would amount to cheating and that's not the British way – that's the Argie way. Indeed, they are famous for cheating. Argentina's most famous son Diego Maradona is No.1 in the list of Greatest Sports Cheats of All Time (3) on account of the ‘goal' he scored against England using his hand in the quarter final of the 1986 World Cup that meant that Argentina progressed in the competition at England's expense.

If an England player had done that, he would have been ostracised from society but Maradona is a hero in Argentina. That's the sort of people we are dealing with here.

So, in conclusion, the best course of action to take is to send a military taskforce down to the South Atlantic to protect British interests. After all, the fabulous wealth generated by the huge oil reserves there will more than cover the cost of the expedition.

Thank you.

(1) http://en.mercopress.com...

(2) http://www.oil-price.net...

(3) http://soccerlens.com...
Grape

Con

Grape forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by lambda 6 years ago
lambda
"murderous and cowardly Argentinians"; thats interesting.

http://www.nytimes.com...
Posted by Grape 6 years ago
Grape
Everyone pretend this debate never happened and leave it tied so I can continue my undeserved win streak.
Posted by Grape 6 years ago
Grape
I apologize, I sort of forgot about this debate.
Posted by brian_eggleston 6 years ago
brian_eggleston
No and no!
Posted by tBoonePickens 7 years ago
tBoonePickens
Didn't they belong to Argentina to begin with? They should just givem back.
Posted by brian_eggleston 7 years ago
brian_eggleston
That's serious? :)
Posted by Grape 7 years ago
Grape
Needless to say I elected to go with the serious route.
Posted by brian_eggleston 7 years ago
brian_eggleston
Well, it's wtitten "tongue in cheek" but, at the same time, many a true word is said in jest so comedic or serious would be fine by me.
Posted by Grape 7 years ago
Grape
I am presently debating whether to argue this from a serious standpoint or a comedic standpoint.
Posted by Lukas 7 years ago
Lukas
good gad! I can only presume this is some kind of irony as Im sure you cant be serious. Or maybe its a DDO thang im not yet accustomed to. Im thinking maybe I should take you on here, just to make sure....
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by Udel 9 months ago
Udel
brian_egglestonGrapeTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro says Britain should send ships to the Atlantic to help the Argentinians. Con provides alternative solutions that he says are preferable because it's cheaper and does not require that many troops abroad for long. Pro countered Con's counter proposals and Con (bad conduct through forfeits) did not respond to Pro's rebuttals so Pro's arguments stand.
Vote Placed by lambda 6 years ago
lambda
brian_egglestonGrapeTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:24 
Vote Placed by Rockylightning 6 years ago
Rockylightning
brian_egglestonGrapeTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:24 
Vote Placed by Grape 6 years ago
Grape
brian_egglestonGrapeTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:33 
Vote Placed by trendem 6 years ago
trendem
brian_egglestonGrapeTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Vote Placed by Awed 6 years ago
Awed
brian_egglestonGrapeTied
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 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 6 years ago
wonderwoman
brian_egglestonGrapeTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40