The Instigator
abard124
Pro (for)
Losing
63 Points
The Contender
InquireTruth
Con (against)
Winning
68 Points

Mahmoud Ahmedinijad is not wrong to not listen to the U.S.'s request that they stop making nukes

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: 3/31/2009 Category: News
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,362 times Debate No: 7624
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (7)
Votes (20)

 

abard124

Pro

I am in no way endorsing Mahmoud Ahmedinijad. He is a horrible extremist, and he is a very hateful person. However, I have no problem with his nuclear weapons program. Let me clarify. I am against every nuclear weapons program in the world. I hate nukes, however, I don't hate Ahmedinijad's program any more or less than the rest, which brings me to my first point.

If you and your friend were both smokers, and neither of you were trying to quit, what would you think if your friend told you to quit cold turkey, and he made no effort whatsoever to quit. Well, if a country that is LOADED with nukes (A.K.A. the U.S.) tries to tell another country not to make nukes (Iran), we must be pretty darn arrogant and ethnocentric to say that they should stop making them, but we should keep ours.

I know what you are thinking. You are thinking that he's Mahmoud Ahmedinijad, one of the most dangerous men alive in the world. How can we let him have Nukes? Actually, look at the numbers. Who led their army to kill the most people in the past eight years? It's not Ahmedinijad. It's not even Saddam Hussein. Nope, It's George Bush. Now, I can't pin this all on the Bush administration, because that would just be untrue. I can, and will, however, point this towards the American persona, more specifically, the ethnocentric, neoconservative viewpoint that we all have, some more than others. I'm guilty of this, you are, and the king of Neoconservatism, Former Co-president, Dick Cheney, is the one who really let us down in any respect of foreign policy.
InquireTruth

Con

==============================
Introduction:
==============================

I would like to thank my opponent for requesting such an interesting debate. Since we have not debated in the past, I would like to formerly introduce myself. I am InquireTruth, champion for all that is right and good, and a paladin of peace and truth.

Though the resolution is awkwardly stated, I think it is clear as to what you are arguing. The following contentions are derived from an internal contradiction in your argument and by the introduction of political and social context.

==============================
Contention 1: Can that which is wrong not be wrong?
==============================

"I am against every nuclear weapons program in the world."

This statement by my opponent clearly illustrates that he thinks nuclear weapons of any sort are wrong. Let us consider the following analogy:

There are two murders. Murderer #1 says to murderer #2, "I think you ought to stop killing people."

Now is it true that murderer #2 ought to stop killing people? I think we can safely say yes. If the request is a sound request, does it really matter who it is coming from? If the request to stop killing people is a proper request made by a fellow murderer, it does not nullify the request, it merely makes murderer #1 a hypocrite. Can murderer #2 really say that continuing to kill people (ignoring murder 1's request) is not wrong because murderer #1 does it too?

My opponent is essentially saying that Iran's nuclear weapons program is justified because "other people do it too."

It stands to reason that since nuclear weapons programs are wrong, that disregarding requests to stop that which is wrong is wrong as well.

==============================
Contention 2: Comparing the US and Iran
==============================
What is the difference between man #1 wanting to own a gun, and man number #2? All things being equal, there really is no difference.

But what is the difference between a grown man going trap shooting with a 12 guage, and a 5 year-old boy doing the same? Well, firstly, the toddler is not fully developed and prepared to handle such a powerful weapon. The toddler is also not yet cognitively able to understand the complex and fatal ramifications of the gun's misuse.

When it comes to comparing the US and Iran, which analogy better suits are situation? I would have to say it is the latter.

1. The US does not want any particular country wiped off the map. Iranian President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, is notoriously recognized as saying that Israel is a fake regime" that "must be wiped off the map (1)."
2. The US does not want to burn any nation with its fury. Mahmoud is noted for saying "Anybody who recognizes Israel will burn in the fire of the Islamic nation's fury (2)."

Would you say that if a grown man saw a toddler wielding a 12 gauge shotgun that he had, at the very least, some responsibility to try and prevent the boy's misuse of the gun (even if he himself owned the very same gun)? If that is justified, how is trying to prevent a nation with destructive proclivities from acquiring nuclear weapons not?

1. http://www.adl.org...
2. http://edition.cnn.com...
Debate Round No. 1
abard124

Pro

Thank you for responding., and for fighting for what is right and good, and peace and truth. I apologize for my resolution being awkwardly stated. I had to futz for a while with it so it made some semblance of sense.

Your analogy about the murderers, while technically correct, does not effectively analogize my argument. My argument was not that Iran's nuclear weapons program is bad, per se, but that we don't have any power in the matter. Murderer 2 won't cite Murderer 1's request as his reason for quitting, if he does. Here's what murderer 2 would be most likely (and rightful) to say is something along the lines of, "But you can?" And that's pretty much Mr. Ahmedinijad's response, and rightfully so.
"My opponent is essentially saying that Iran's nuclear weapons program is justified because 'other people do it too.'"
That is not what I meant at all. Iran is plotting horrible things with their nukes. And, as I said, all nukes are bad. However, I did say Iran has no reason to listen to us, just as murderer 2 has no reason to listen to murderer 1.

Your second contention is also true. No denying that. However, remember that, to Mahmoud, Iran is the greatest, strongest, most stable nation on earth. We are being the little kid when we try to cite the "immatureness" of his nation as the reason they can't have nukes, and we can. I recognize that they do have anger issues, and they should not have nukes, but Iran simply has absolutely no reason to listen to America. We could hire Canada or something, but we simply cannot do the job.

I'm looking forward to your next argument.
InquireTruth

Con

"Your analogy about the murderers, while technically correct, does not effectively analogize my argument. My argument was not that Iran's nuclear weapons program is bad, per se, but that we don't have any power in the matter."

Compare this to:

"And, as I said, all nukes are bad."

Perhaps my opponent just seemingly contradicts himself – I will let him explain further in his following round. If my opponent does not think that Nuclear weapons programs are bad or wrong, why then is he against all of them? How can my opponent justify that putting weapons that have the capability of mass destruction in the hands of those who have shown an ardent proclivity to violence and hostility is not, bad, per se…?

"Here's what murderer 2 would be most likely (and rightful) to say is something along the lines of, "But you can?" And that's pretty much Mr. Ahmedinijad's response, and rightfully so."

A response can only be "rightful" if it is indeed right… Is it right for Iran NOT to stop their nuclear weapons program? I would say that it is clear that it is not. Therefore, Iran's response to the United States request is wrong.

Let me give yet another analogy. If a parent, an ardent clay-pigeon shooter, says to her child, "don't play with guns." Would the child's response be a "right" one if he said, "O, what, but you can…?" The disanolgoy of comparing the US and Iran can be shown by comparing a parent and her child. Since the gun is more dangerous in the hands of the child by orders of magnitude, it stands to reason that the parent can rightfully request that the child not play with guns (even though she is in the practice of doing so herself).

"However, I did say Iran has no reason to listen to us"

Reasons can be easily furnished. Just like a child can be punished for disobedience, the US has the capability to enact punishment against Iran if they insist on endangering the lives all people near and far.

"but we simply cannot do the job."

O, and why is that?

The large question is whether Iran is right in ignoring the US request to stop their nuclear weapons programs.

Since the request is a right one, and nukes in the hands of an angry and dangerous nation is both wrong and bad, it stands to reason that ignoring a right request is wrong.
Debate Round No. 2
abard124

Pro

I should be outside; the weather is beautiful...
But, I suppose I'm here instead. That works too.

Your first argument, that I contradict myself, is mostly based on my lack of clarity. When I said, "My argument was not that Iran's nuclear weapons program is bad, per se, but that we don't have any power in the matter," what I meant was that I was not arguing whether it was bad, because I assumed it as a given. Sorry about that.

One point that I mentioned in a previous round that you may have overlooked is that the child in your analogy knows that he is a child, and that he shouldn't play with guns, and accepts that truth. Nobody in their right mind would go up to Mahmoud and compare his country to a child. Mahmoud Ahmedinijad believes that his country is the greatest country on earth, and is willing to destroy anyone in his way. You and I both know that Iran can't be trusted with Nukes, and I definitely hear what you are saying, but the simple truth is that most countries, especially those with megalomaniac leaders, such as Mahmoud Ahmedinijad of Iran or Kim Jong il from the DPRK, or even former co-president Cheney of the United States, they all think that they are the strongest and most important and powerful country in the world. That old adage, "beauty is in the eyes of the beholder," that is exactly what is happening here. To us, We are extremely stable and benevolent, and Iran, Cuba, DPRK, Pakistan, even Russia, to some extent (but don't worry, Sarah Palin can see what they're up to), are dangerous, corrupt, shifty, and unstable. In Iran (and I certainly do not agree), Mr. Ahmedinijad thinks that any non-Islamic nation is unholy. He is a Muslim extremist (there are extremists from every religion, by the way), so he wants a nuclear Jihad, pretty much. Obviously, we view that as wrong, but he views it as right, and we can't convince him otherwise. Perhaps, if the was a UN resolution that no country could have any nukes, perhaps we could get somewhere, but America can't keep our nukes and then tell other countries not to, no matter how "immature" we might see them as.

As you might have already noticed, I disagree with most neoconservative values. Neocons believe in using the U.S. as a constabulary force and becoming the "Main Nation," so to speak. I see that as a great way to make enemies and be a bad influence on countries. Obviously, some people disagree with me, otherwise, we wouldn't be in the mess that we are in, but the important thing to remember in this debate is that we are working with two of the most neoconservative countries in the world, and they want to be told what to do, even less than we do. So, an international AND FAIR resolution is the only way to keep Iran from making (or buying) nukes.

I would like to thank InquireTruth for a most excellent debate, and may the best man win!
InquireTruth

Con

The weather is indeed beautiful – I was outside for most the day.

I will start with something that I do not think was adequately addressed:

=====================
The Act is STILL Wrong:
=====================

Since we agree that the act of building nuclear weapons is wrong, especially for a nation bent on the destruction of non-Islamic states, how can the act no longer be wrong when it is requested to stop? If the act of building nuclear weapons remains wrong during the time that is requested to stop, no matter by whom, then it is wrong not to heed the request (by virtue of the act itself being wrong).

=====================
The Child Analogy:
=====================

My opponent says that a relevant difference in the analogies is that the child KNOWS he is a child. This difference is not a relevant one, insofar as it does not matter whether the child knows he is a child or not. The responsible thing to do would be to disarm a gun wielding child, no matter if he thought he was Clint Eastwood. Moreover, there are plenty of cases in which a child thinks he/she is something that he/she is not. Take the indestructible boy for instance (1).

The fact of the matter is that there is a relevant difference between the United States and Iran. Iran has hostile proclivities, insofar as it would go to any genocidal lengths to completely annihilate any and all threats. Since nuclear weapons in the hands of the United States poses no REAL threat to other nations, insofar as we are fundamentally aware of the horrible consequences of their misuse, why is it wrong that they request that no hostile and unstable nation possess them?

Now there was a particular church function I was at once. A man known as the "Reptile Man" came. He possessed all sorts of reptilian creatures. At one point he pulled out a King Cobra. He held something so powerfully dangerous in his hands, and he wouldn't dare trust it in the hands of somebody untrained – and it would be understandable if he did not let me hold the snake, even if I really wanted to.

Just as the Reptile Man can rightly request that I not attempt to manage a King Cobra – though he does it often – the US can rightly request that Iran stop their nuclear weapons program. Why? Because it's dangerous. If the request to stop building nuclear weapons IS a right request, how can it be right NOT to listen to it? It simply does not follow.

=====================
The US a Constabulary Force?
=====================

This point is not all that relevant. However, it is important to know that the United States has the right to look after its interests, and one of its primary and most important interests is at risk: self-preservation. Any nation that has anti-American sentiments and a very verbal hatred for our allies should definitely concern the United States, especially when they plan on acquiring weapons capable of total annihilation.

The United States is completely right in requesting that Iran cease with their nuclear weapons program, and Iran is completely wrong for disregarding it.

Thanks,
InquireTruth

Sources:

http://www.suite101.com...
Debate Round No. 3
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by RoyLatham 7 years ago
RoyLatham
This was basically a debate about the doctrine of moral equivalence. If kidnappers aren't allowed to hold people custody, then the police shouldn't be allowed to lock people up either. If the police have guns, then criminals should be allowed to have guns. If the US has nukes, then everyone must be allowed to have nukes. It is unsustainable. Con wins.
Posted by Maikuru 7 years ago
Maikuru
Interesting debate and good cases on both sides.

conduct - tie
s & g - tie
arguments - Con; logical and relevant arguments throughout. I'm not usually an analogy fan but they served Con well here.
sources - Con; only Con used sources
Posted by abard124 7 years ago
abard124
Ya...
Nice to find people from our extremely misunderestimated state!
Oregonians must be really smart :-)
Posted by abard124 7 years ago
abard124
haha ya...
I can't imagine what Mahmoud would do with athletic shoes (except perhaps throw them at the former president)
Posted by InquireTruth 7 years ago
InquireTruth
Thanks for the debate abard124! Good debate with someone in the same region.
Posted by JP 7 years ago
JP
"nikes" I mean nukes
Posted by JP 7 years ago
JP
It might not seem fair. But who cares. He can't have nukes because he might use them. So, I don't care if it's unfair or hypocritical, because obviously him having nikes would be a bad thing for everyone.
20 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Awed 7 years ago
Awed
abard124InquireTruthTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by InquireTruth 7 years ago
InquireTruth
abard124InquireTruthTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by atheistman 7 years ago
atheistman
abard124InquireTruthTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by DevinRichardson1 7 years ago
DevinRichardson1
abard124InquireTruthTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Volkov 7 years ago
Volkov
abard124InquireTruthTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by Youngblood 7 years ago
Youngblood
abard124InquireTruthTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by Steven123 7 years ago
Steven123
abard124InquireTruthTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by Agnostic 7 years ago
Agnostic
abard124InquireTruthTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by tribefan011 7 years ago
tribefan011
abard124InquireTruthTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by Gmoney 7 years ago
Gmoney
abard124InquireTruthTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70