The Instigator
UtherPenguin
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
bsh1
Con (against)
Winning
14 Points

Japan should remove Article 9 of it's constitution

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
bsh1
Voting Style: Open Point System: Select Winner
Started: 8/4/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,707 times Debate No: 77590
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (46)
Votes (2)

 

UtherPenguin

Pro

Debate reserved for bsh1. Will open to bsh1 sometime this weekend (hopefully)

Debate impossible to accept (Notify me if you are intrested in debating, I will not be open until next week though)

Rules:

Burden of Proof is on me.

Failure to abide by the terms,format, or rules of the debate will result in a loss of conduct during the voting period.

If Con finds the terms to be inaccurate or unreasonable, then he or she may alter the terms (but only with an argument as to why)

Format of Debate:
Round 1: Acceptance

Round 2: Opening Arguments

Round 3: Rebuttals

Round 4: Counter-Rebuttals/Conclusions

Terms:

Article 9: The Article 9 of the Japanese Constitution (日本国憲法第九条, Nihon koku kenpou dai ku-jou) is a clause in the National Constitution of Japan outlawing war as a means to settle international disputes involving the state. The Constitution came into effect on May 3, 1947, following World War II.

Remove: Eliminate or take away

Constitution: A body of fundamental principles or established precedents according to which a state or other organization is acknowledged to be governed.

Once more to clarify, I will be arguing that Japan should remove article 9 of it's constitution and my opponent is to argue otherwise.
bsh1

Con

Thanks to Uther for selecting me as his opponent :) It's an honor. I think this will be a fun, and somewhat unusual, topic, and I look forward to the debate. I accept it with the understanding that the BOP rests solely with Pro. I turn things over to him.
Debate Round No. 1
UtherPenguin

Pro

Thanks to Con for accepting the terms and rules of the debate, as previously stated, here are my opening arguments.

Premise: War as a Sovereign Right

Sovereignty is defined by Oxford as “the authority of a state to govern itself or another state.” (Source: http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...)

This means that by nature, a government has various rights and powers to allow it to maintain its sovereignty. The military is the armed force of a country. Hence, the military is a part of a country’s government. With that in mind, that means that a country’s ability to mobilize and use its military is a sovereign right of a government.

Furthermore, Japan acknowledged the existence of war as a sovereign right. This is implied in Article 9 as seen here:

Aspiring sincerely to an international peace based on justice and order, the Japanese people forever renounce war as a sovereign right of the nation and the threat or use of force as means of settling international disputes. . .

The fact that they had to renounce War as a sovereign directly implies that they acknowledge the use of War as a sovereign right in the first place. Hence, a country’s ability to use mobilizes military force to resolve conflicts are a sovereign right of the country.

Argument: The existence of Article infringes on Japan’s sovereignty

As mentioned previously, a country’s ability to resolve conflict through military force is a country’s sovereign right. Since the country acts independent of other countries/forces it is therefore necessary for sovereignty to be preserved.

However, the history of Article 9 is what makes it a much larger infringement on sovereignty then simply the nature of Article 9.

The Japanese constitution was rewritten in 1946 after Japan’s surrender in WWII. The constitution was made under the direct influence of the Allied Forces (more specifically the United States). The US made the Article as a way of preventing Japan’s military from remobilizing and preventing Japan from ever expanding again. Therefore the existence of Article 9 is an even larger infringement on Japan’s sovereignty since the Article was made by a foreign power.

Argument 2: Self Defence

Several countries and abroad organizations been shown to be a threat to Japan’s national security, many of which include ISIS and North Korea. For example:

Several months ago, the terrorist ISIS had caught and beheaded two Japanese hostages (Kenji Goto and Haruna Yukawa). The killings of two nationals by a foreign organization such as ISIS are a justifiable reason to mobilize a military on foreign soil. However, due to Article 9, the Japanese are unable to respond militarily. Contrast that with the United States, which formed a coalition against ISIS for future military campaigns. Japan may be able to join, but would be left unable to act much upon that affiliation.

As well as North Korea, a country that has on numerous occasions shown a great distaste towards the United States and its allies. Japan is a very close ally to the United States, and North Korea has threatened multiple times the possibility of declaring war against South Korea. Given North Korea’s distaste towards Western-aligned countries, it would therefore not be irrational to assume that Japan would be another potential victim to North Korean incursions. Therefore, self-defence would be necessary against North Korea, however, the existence of Article 9 impedes Japan’s self-defence.

Argument 3: Unlikelihood of Expansionism.

The main concern that caused the creation of Article 9 was the fear that Japan would return to Expansionism once the Allied Occupation ended. That was a well-thought concern during the late 40’s when Japan was still experiencing the effects of ardent Nationalism (which prompted Expansionist policies in the first place). However, since the end of WWII Japan’s cultural mindset changed drastically, to the point that a return to Expansionism is highly unlikely. This can be seen in the hesitation shown by Japan’s LDP (Liberal Democratic Party) in regards to altering Article 9. The LDP (also the majority party of Japan’s Parliament) has gone only as far as to reinterpret the constitution to allow the use of Self-Defense in the country. Only the Nationalist and Conservative Parties have gone as far as to call for the removal of Article 9, and they have shown little sign of wanting a return to imperialism.

This hence shows that the removal of Article 9 runs very little risk of militant belligerency from Japan. If the country is so hesitant to remove Article 9, then it would be even more unlikely that Japan would return to expansionist policies.

Sources:

  1. http://japan.kantei.go.jp...
  2. http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...
  3. http://afe.easia.columbia.edu...
  4. http://iucn.org...
  5. http://afe.easia.columbia.edu...
  6. http://www.cnn.com...
  7. https://www.youtube.com...

bsh1

Con

Thanks, Uther, for selecting me as your opponent for this neat debate. Since the BOP rests entirely for Pro, I don't particularly need to offer constructive arguments. Instead, my opening arguments will mostly be refutations of Pro's points.

OVERVIEW

1. Insofar as Pro has the BOP, it is not my job to show that Japan should keep Article 9; all I have to do is prevent Pro from showing that Article 9 should be removed.

2. Since Pro's sources aren't enumerated, I can't always tell which sources go with which claims. This creates issues as some claims appear totally unwarranted.

ARGUMENTS

PRMS. War = Sovereign Right

1. Rights Can be Waived. Rights are best understood as enforceable claims. For instance, if I have a contract with John that stipulates that he will mow my lawn every Thursday in exchange for $100, I have a claim to John's labor and time, and--reciprocally--John has a claim to my money if he shows up for work. These claims are legally enforceable, and I can use the law to compel John to deliver on the claim I have over him. In other words, I have a right to his work, and he has a right to my money in exchange for his work. Just as with any claim, I can choose not to assert it at any particular time. Suppose John is having some family troubles. I could choose not to exercise my claim over him out of sympathy for his present circumstances, and allow him to have a Thursday off. I, in effect, have waived my right to his work for that day. Similarly, I can choose, to waive my right to have a lawyer present if questioned by the police. I need not assert my rights or claims in every case. Therefore, it is not absurd to advance the possibility that a government or society may, collectively, waive a right.

2. Sovereigns Self-limit. Pro defines "sovereignty" as “the authority of a state to govern itself or another state." Using this definition, any limitation on a state's authority is a violation of it's authority. Unless we want states that have no restrictions whatsoever (e.g. Stalinist USSR, Nazi Germany, etc.), we must accept that sovereignty comes with limits. No sovereign can govern absolutely, and there must be limits on what powers a state has to make and enforce laws. Since the purpose of sovereignty, as implied by this definition, is to limit external intervention in "internal" affairs, we can conjecture that the only reasonable limitations on sovereignty are those that have internal legitimacy, since these restrictions best respect the the end-goal of sovereignty. By "internal legitimacy," I mean popular, internal support.

3. Internal Support =/= No External Coercion. Many countries, through colonization or conquest or some other process have political systems that reflect foreign influence, but this foreign influence does not itself delegitimize the systems. If the systems are supported by the local people, the systems are still expressions of the will of the people consistent with the values of sovereignty. For instance, if you force X upon me, but it turns out I love X, it would be a violation of my wants and desires to take X away from me. Similarly, just because X may be imposed by an external force, if the people of a society love it, it would be a violation of their wishes and self-rule to rescind X.

A1. Article 9 Infringes on Japan's Sovereignty

Japan's Article 9 is popular today among Japanese. While exact poll numbers vary, the consensus among experts is that Japanese citizens support a pacifist constitution. To just reference a few sources:

(a) "Annual opinion polls carried out by the Yomiuri Shimbun found the public’s approval rate for revising Article 9 fell to 30 percent in 2014 from 44.4 percent in 2004, while the percentage of those who do not wish to change the charter increased to 60 percent in 2014, compared with 46.7 percent in 2004...Abe is undoubtedly well aware that a majority of voters have consistently opposed any revision to Article 9 over the past 15 years." [1]

(b) "In the [Yomiuri Shimbun] poll, 51% did not support Japan's limited exercise of its right of collective self-defense, against only 36% who did support it. Opinion polls in other media outlets showed similar results. A poll conducted...by NHK...said that 38% supported the cabinet decision to approve the exercise of the right of collective self-defense, while 56% did not." [2]

(c) "Many ordinary Japanese support Article 9, which they credit with keeping the country out of war for 68 years. An opinion poll last month in the liberal-left Asahi newspaper found 63 percent of respondents oppose Mr Abe’s plans for Article 9." [3]

(d) "But in this case the proposed changes [to Article 9 to increase Japan's ability to exercise military force] went to the very heart of Japan's postwar charter, and were far too consequential for the process to be short-circuited. The critics included a majority of Japan’s constitutional scholars; nearly 10,000 people, including scholars, artists and a Nobel laureate, signed a petition opposing the new legislation, and tens of thousands of people have participated in demonstrations. Polls show voters oppose the legislation by a two-to-one margin." [4]

(e) "A recent Kyodo News poll found 60 per cent of respondents said the Japanese Constitution should not be altered, while 32 per cent called for changing it." [5]


I think that this litany of evidence fairly clearly illustrates that the Japanese are on the side of Article 9. This has 2 impacts. Firstly, it shows that the Japanese people have "waived" their right to war by supporting a pacifist position. Secondly, it shows that the legislation has internal support, and is thus not a violation of sovereignty. Even if it was imposed on Japan, it was embraced by the Japanese, and so is not currently violating their sovereignty. What may have initially been an encroachment upon them has now become an expression of the vox populi.

A2. Self-Defense

"In the Sunakawa case, decided in 1959, shortly before the US-Japan Security Treaty was to be renewed, the defendants to criminal proceedings for trespassing on a US Forces base challenged the constitutionality of the US-Japan Security Treaty and the presence of US military forces in Japan...The Court went on to comment, however, that Article 9 did not deprive Japan of the inherent right of self-defense, and that such measures or arrangements that were limited to the purpose of protecting Japan would not therefore be inconsistent with Article 9." [6] Clearly, therefore, the constitutional law surrounding Article 9 does not prohibit self-defense, essentially making this point moot.

Given this, and given that Japan has a mutual defense pact with the U.S., [7] it seems implausible that Japan would be unable to protect itself or fulfill its national security needs even with Article 9 in place.

A3. Expansionism

This is essentially a preemptive defense of an anticipated attack by Pro. It doesn't offer any unique reason to affirm the topic. In other words, that Japan isn't expansionist is not a reason to remove Article 9 or why doing so is good, it's just a reason why doing so isn't bad. So, this has no constructive offense for Pro, and cannot win him the debate.

PACIFISM

1. Nations that act in a pacifistic fashion are naturally less provocative to their neighbors. Thus, they are less likely to be targets of aggression.

2. Pacifism prevents the military from gaining too much political power which could give it outsized influence in the society and/or threaten constitutional government.

3. Pacifism impedes a country's ability to get entangled in costly wars.

SOURCES

1 - http://tinyurl.com...
2 - http://tinyurl.com...
3 - http://tinyurl.com...
4 - http://tinyurl.com...
5 - http://tinyurl.com...
6 - http://tinyurl.com...
7 - http://tinyurl.com...

Pro hasn't furnished sufficient reason to affirm. Thus, I negate. I turn the floor over to Pro...
Debate Round No. 2
UtherPenguin

Pro

UtherPenguin forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
UtherPenguin

Pro

Apologies for the previous forfeit. I will try and merge my rebuttals and my conclusive arguments in this round.

R1:

" Sovereigns Self-limit. Pro defines "sovereignty" as “the authority of a state to govern itself or another state." Using this definition, any limitation on a state's authority is a violation of it's authority. Unless we want states that have no restrictions whatsoever (e.g. Stalinist USSR, Nazi Germany, etc.), we must accept that sovereignty comes with limits. No sovereign can govern absolutely, and there must be limits on what powers a state has to make and enforce laws. Since the purpose of sovereignty, as implied by this definition, is to limit external intervention in "internal" affairs, we can conjecture that the only reasonable limitations on sovereignty are those that have internal legitimacy, since these restrictions best respect the the end-goal of sovereignty. By "internal legitimacy," I mean popular, internal support. "



(In regards to the USSR/Nazi Germay) Mote that in the case of the USSR and Nazi Germany, the people were not given a choice as to the decision making of their government, and had little say into the ruling made by each leader. For example, the Gulag labour camps to which many political prisoners/dissidents were sent to as a result of questioning the sovreignty of the government. But this analogy does not apply well to Japan. Since firstly: I am suggesting that absoulte control is a sovreigns right and secondly: Japan is by no means comparable to the Stalinist USSR since in Article 15 of the constitution it states: "The people have the inalienable right to choose their public officials and to dismiss them."Hence the comparison is inaccurate.Thirdly, in dealing with sovreignty, a nation's ability to moblize military forces in self-defence is a fairly basic function to any sovreign state.

Source:1. https://en.wikipedia.org...
2.
http://japan.kantei.go.jp...


R2: "Many countries, through colonization or conquest or some other process have political systems that reflect foreign influence, but this foreign influence does not itself delegitimize the systems. If the systems are supported by the local people, the systems are still expressions of the will of the people consistent with the values of sovereignty. For instance, if you force X upon me, but it turns out I love X, it would be a violation of my wants and desires to take X away from me. Similarly, just because X may be imposed by an external force, if the people of a society love it, it would be a violation of their wishes and self-rule to rescind X."

However, note that while the incuring influence of foreign powers may not delegitimize a government, it does not justify the original incursion of foreign powers.

For example, as used in your previous analogy, "if you force X upon me, but it turns out I love X, it would be a violation of my wants and desires to take X away from me" Even if you do turn out to like X, it doesn't justify having X forced upon you. Similarily, if the Japanese population turns out to be satisfied with Article 9, it does not justify having Article 9 forced upon them originally.

R3: "In the Sunakawa case, decided in 1959, shortly before the US-Japan Security Treaty was to be renewed, the defendants to criminal proceedings for trespassing on a US Forces base challenged the constitutionality of the US-Japan Security Treaty and the presence of US military forces in Japan...The Court went on to comment, however, that Article 9 did not deprive Japan of the inherent right of self-defense, and that such measures or arrangements that were limited to the purpose of protecting Japan would not therefore be inconsistent with Article 9." [6] Clearly, therefore, the constitutional law surrounding Article 9 does not prohibit self-defense, essentially making this point moot.

"Given this, and given that Japan has a mutual defense pact with the U.S., [7] it seems implausible that Japan would be unable to protect itself or fulfill its national security needs even with Article 9 in place."

The largest problem with putting one's defence in the hands of a foreign power is the dependency that would grow later on. For example, if the United States were unwilling to moblize troops for Japan (given the large amounts of Legal work and PR work that would be required to moblize trrops abroad) this would leave Japan in a position of defenslessness as they would not be able to respond to whatever imposing threat required mobliztion.

Secondly, very similar treaties have been made with numerous other countries to whom already have an active military in the case that defense were required. Such countries are:

Albania, Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Spain, Turkey, United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand, Philippines, Thailand, Japan, South Korea, Argentina, Bahamas, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Trinidad & Tobago, Uruguay and Venezuela.

Most of these aformentioned countries already have a military on their own (Such as Brazil and Canada) despite the defence that they have from the United States. So even though a treaty had already been signed by Japan and the US, having an active military would still make sense.

Sources:

1. http://www.state.gov...

2. http://avalon.law.yale.edu...

3. http://occupywallst.org...


R4:

"1. Nations that act in a pacifistic fashion are naturally less provocative to their neighbors. Thus, they are less likely to be targets of aggression.

2. Pacifism prevents the military from gaining too much political power which could give it outsized influence in the society and/or threaten constitutional government.

3. Pacifism impedes a country's ability to get entangled in costly wars."

Pascificm and military can still be compatible. If the military only uses their power for defence when necessary. For example, acording to the UN Peace index, the 4 most peace ful countries in the world are: Iceland, Denmark, Austria and New Zealand.

With the exception of Iceland, all of these countries have a standing army of their own, despite the lack of major conflicts they participate in. This hence shows that pacifism can still be achieved in countries with a standing army.

Source:

1. https://en.wikipedia.org...

2. https://en.wikipedia.org...

3. https://en.wikipedia.org...

4. https://en.wikipedia.org...

5. https://en.wikipedia.org...


In conclusion and summary, here were my arguments.

1. Article 9 impedes Japan's sovreignty

2. The creation of the Article was not Japan's choice.

3. Self defense in the country is required, and the existence of the Article inhibits such.

4. With the removal of the Article, Expansion and Belligerency is unikely.

I apologies for my absecne and await Con's rebuttals
bsh1

Con

Thanks, Uther!

OVERVIEW

My overview is dropped. Pro still has failed to clearly show which links correspond to which claims, which makes it hard to verify his assertions.

ARGUMENTS

PRMS. War = Sovereign Right

1. Rights Can be Waived. This point is dropped by Pro; please extend it. The impact of this point is very clear and devastating. In conjunction with the polling data I provided (which was also dropped), I made the argument that the Japanese people, through their avid support for Article 9, have chosen now to waive their right to engage in offensive war. Insofar as sovereigns can waive rights, and insofar as the polling data supports that the right was waived, I've shown that Pro's sovereignty argument does not uphold the resolution.

2. Sovereigns Self-limit. I agree that the USSR and Nazi Germany did not give their people a choice in governance. In fact, I wrote: "Unless we want states that have no restrictions whatsoever (e.g. Stalinist USSR, Nazi Germany, etc.), we must accept that sovereignty comes with limits." Sovereigns must have limits on what they can do; no sovereign should have the power to throw people into prisons without trial, for example. That is why most constitutions enshrine due process rights for their citizens; these due process rights are limitations on the sovereign's power imposed (more or less) by the sovereign. If sovereigns can limit their power, as Pro seems to agree that they can (he opposes the total authority of the state found in the examples I noted), then the impact is that it is not conceptually absurd to suggest that sovereigns can impose limits on themselves, such as limits preventing them from engaging in offensive wars. Pro needs to show that Japan should not self-limit in this way, but, my point is that they can do it, so unless Pro can furnish a compelling reason to not self-limit here, he cannot win.

3. Internal Support =/= No External Coercion. Pro writes: "However, note that while the incuring [sic] influence of foreign powers may not delegitimize a government, it does not justify the original incursion of foreign powers...Even if you do turn out to like X, it doesn't justify having X forced upon you." Sure, the "original" violation was wrong, but two wrongs don't make a right. The whole point of sovereignty, as articulate by Pro, is to respect the choice and autonomy of a nation's citizenry. So, violating their ability to choose by imposing Article 9 on them was an infringement of sovereignty. But, violating their ability to choose by taking away a popular article of their constitution is ALSO a violation of sovereignty. Now, at this time, Japan wants Article 9, and so the people should be allowed to exercise their sovereign authority to keep the Article. The original violation was temporary, not on-going because the Japanese have come to embrace it. It would therefore not be reparative to rescind the Article, it would only be another violation of sovereignty. Frankly, nothing Pro said changed my basic point, that "if you force X upon me, but it turns out I love X, it would be a violation of my wants and desires to take X away from me."

I mean, using Pro's logic, I could say that the Constitution was forced on me (I never voted for it, nor have any of my contemporaries) and so it must be removed. Yet, that would be silly, because if we as a society still want to retain it, we should be allowed to do so.

A1. Article 9 Infringes on Japan's Sovereignty

All of my arguments here about the popularity of Article 9 were dropped. Extend them. Also, extend my earlier impact analysis: "Firstly, it shows that the Japanese people have 'waived' their right to war by supporting a pacifist position. Secondly, it shows that the legislation has internal support, and is thus not a violation of sovereignty."

There are two, clear-cut ways for you to vote Con already. Using these dropped stats plus the dropped argument about waiving rights, you can vote Con on the basis that the Japanese people are deciding to waive their right to war. Furthermore, you could vote Con using these stats and the idea of self-limitation. Article 9 is no longer a violation of sovereignty, because the Japanese have chosen willingly to keep it. Past violations do not alter the fact that the Japanese have now, of their own volition, embraced Article 9.

A2. Self-Defense

Pro never challenges the legal validity of Sunakawa, which upheld the mutual defense pact between the US and Japan, and Japan's right to self-defense.

Pro does however voice concern about the mutual defense pact, and Pro appears to intimate that Japan lacks an active army. Let's me tackle each of these claims individually. Firstly, Pro frets that the U.S. might bail on Japan, but this is highly unlikely. Firstly, the U.S. has never, to my knowledge, failed to fulfill a mutual defense commitment, including those given to NATO. Secondly, the U.S. has a key strategic interest in Japan that would impel them to fulfill their commitments. Japan is our 4th largest trading partner [1] and a key geopolitical ally in counterbalancing Chinese expansionism [2]. Obama has stridently reaffirmed his commitment to Japan's defense [3], and it's likely that any future president will do the same.

As for the notion that Japan would be impotent without the US, that would be incorrect. Japan does have an army, formally referred to as the Japanese Self-Defense Forces, which is tasked with defending Japan and often engages in peacekeeping, disaster relief, military drill, or other exercises [4]. While not an offensive force, it is perfectly capable of responding to aggressors. It's military forces, for instance, are noticeably more technologically advanced than China's, leading some experts to observe that: "'Japan has the strongest navy and air force in Asia except for the [US].'" [5] It also has an impressive missile defense system. [5]

A3. Expansionism

Pro drops this. Extend that this point provides Pro no positive offense.

PACIFISM

Pro never rebuts any of the benefits to pacifism that I outlined. Instead, he attempts to say that Japan can still have those benefits if it repeals Article 9. The obvious problem with this claim is the optics surrounding such an action. Repealing a law that prevents you from going to war will be interpreted as aggressive by countries like China and North Korea, making Japan more likely to be targeted. It also means leaders in Japan will have fewer restraints on their ability to act aggressively, and drag Japan into wars. Japan and Iceland exist in very different geopolitical climates.

Pro also write: "Pascificm and military can still be compatible. If the military only uses their power for defence when necessary." Isn't this the status quo? Article 9 allows for defense when necessary. If this is what Pro wants, why not just vote Con?

VOTING ISSUES

1. Waiving Rights

Japan's people chose to waive their right to offensive war. Therefore, there is no violation of Sovereignty.


2. Self-Limiting

Because Article 9 has internal support, it is a chosen limitation, and thus not a violation of Sovereignty.


3. Defense

The only positive reason besides Sovereignty Pro had to affirm was self-defense. But Pro hasn't shown that Japan would be any more safe without Article 9 than with it. Japan can clearly still defend itself against threats, even with Article 9 in place. So, Pro has no positive offense left at this point.


4. Turn

Since the vox populi is on the side of Article 9, it would actually be a violation of Sovereignty to take Article 9 away. The people of Japan have chosen X. This turns Pro's entire premise and A1 against him.


5. Pacifism

Pro's approach is likely to lead to conflict; mine retains the benefits of pacifism.


Thanks! Please Vote Con!

SOURCES

1 - http://tinyurl.com...
2 - http://tinyurl.com...
3 - http://tinyurl.com...
4 - http://tinyurl.com...
5 - http://tinyurl.com...
Debate Round No. 4
46 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by UtherPenguin 2 years ago
UtherPenguin
Aw damn I got rekt
Posted by bsh1 2 years ago
bsh1
Thanks for the votes!
Posted by tejretics 2 years ago
tejretics
== RFD ==

This was a good debate, though it was thrown a bit off track by the forfeit. Fairly straightforward vote in itself, and, due to lack of time, I'll just go over the main points. As a note, Pro has the BOP per rules, so I'll be judging the debate on Pro"s offense *only.*

(1) Sovereignty

Con wins this on the waiving of rights. Pro drops that rights can be waived. Under this, I'd presume Con anyway. The forfeit through the debate off course, so silence *is* compliance, and this was the final round. The Japanese people *support* Article 9, so, as Con notes, they support the waiving of a right. Democracy is enough justification for waiving a "sovereign right." The popularity of Article 9 is also *dropped* by Pro. With so many dropped impacts, I have to presume Con.

(2) Self-Defense

Self defense doesn't link to Article 9. Nothing in Article 9 prohibits self-defense. Only *offense* is not permitted. The Sunakawa ensures this, and is legally valid. Pro doesn"t question the legal validity of the Sunakawa. I can give this to Con right there. There"s absolutely no link to self-defense and Article 9. Then, Pro posits an "if" question -- what would happen if the U.S. breaks the treaty with Japan? Con"s impacts against this clearly stand: (1) the U.S. hasn't broken a treaty so far, (2) strategic interest. No-link and U.S. argument refuted means I can choose Con again.

The expansionism argument is a defense. Voters should not vote on defense and preemption. Pacifism benefits are dropped by Pro.

Clear Con win.
Posted by UtherPenguin 2 years ago
UtherPenguin
Okay.
Posted by bsh1 2 years ago
bsh1
Oh wow...Let me know what you think of my R4. I can give you feedback too if you'd like.
Posted by UtherPenguin 2 years ago
UtherPenguin
I just found out the debate was in voting period (when I made my first comment)
Posted by bsh1 2 years ago
bsh1
You haven't read my R4?
Posted by UtherPenguin 2 years ago
UtherPenguin
I'm afraid to even look at your argument from the feat that I got rekt.
Posted by bsh1 2 years ago
bsh1
Thank you :)
Posted by UtherPenguin 2 years ago
UtherPenguin
Your opening arguments were very difficult to rebut.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by whiteflame 2 years ago
whiteflame
UtherPenguinbsh1
Who won the debate:-Vote Checkmark
Reasons for voting decision: There's not much to say on this debate. Con turned the sovereignty argument, showing that sovereignty is best upheld by adhering to the will of the majority. Pro's response, that we should reject the past, simply didn't get him anywhere, since the loss of sovereignty in the past doesn't justify its loss in the present. As Con said, 2 wrongs don't make a right. As self-defense is a constant between the two cases, and as expansionism doesn't play into the debate, Pro is just losing all of his points to either mitigation or lack of applicability. The pacifism point is also functioning against him, showcasing a probable benefit to keeping Article 9 in place, something that would have been enough to establish Con's BoP if he had any. It doesn't help that Pro's sourcing is difficult to follow. Perhaps if he'd argued for the extra round, things would have been a little more even, but Pro's biggest problem is just mishandling Con's arguments, which are mostly dropped and deadly to his case.
Vote Placed by tejretics 2 years ago
tejretics
UtherPenguinbsh1
Who won the debate:-Vote Checkmark
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments.