The Instigator
canhandley0u
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
thett3
Con (against)
Winning
7 Points

Mexico's Problem With Drug Cartel Warrants United States Military Intervention

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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...
thett3
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/1/2011 Category: Politics
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 6,504 times Debate No: 18570
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (15)
Votes (2)

 

canhandley0u

Pro

The problems that the drug cartel are causing in Mexico have got out of hand and it appears the presence of the United States military may be the only answer at this point. The violence that the drug cartel are causing in Mexico is beginning to effect the United States and will only get worse should we not intervene. We are already on the defense with Mexico regarding the cartel and immigration so why shouldn't we become more proactive if they continue?
thett3

Con

Thanks for the topic. I'll show that using the U.S. military

I'll run a series of counterplans, explain the advantages and why I outweigh.


Counterplan One: Legalize drugs

Advantage one: Crime related to the drug trade goes away.


This is obvious..if we legalize drugs there will be no drug war to fight.

Advantage two: Increase revenue

No longer having to fight the drug war leads to resources being freed up to pay off the debt, or to increase military spending.

Advantage three: Increase U.S. Hegemony

When we no longer need as many soldiers and resources spent on our southern border, allowing for more U.S. power projection which would increase our hegemony world-wide and lessen the chance of Nuclear proliferation by foreign and aggressive powers. Alexis Madrigal elaborates on the devastation brought by nuclear war[1]:

"Imagine that the long-simmering conflict between India and Pakistan broke out into a war in which each side deployed 50 nuclear weapons against the other country’s megacities. Karachi, Bombay, and dozens of other South Asian cities catch fire like Hiroshima and Nagasaki did at the end of World War II.

Beyond the local human tragedy of such a situation, a new study looking at the atmospheric chemistry of regional nuclear war finds that the hot smoke from burning cities would tear holes in the ozone layer of the Earth. The increased UV radiation resulting from the ozone loss could more than double DNA damage, and increase cancer rates across North America and Eurasia.

"Our research supports that there would be worldwide destruction," said Michael Mills, co-author of the study and a research scientist at the University of Colorado at Boulder. "It demonstrates that a small-scale regional conflict is capable of triggering larger ozone losses globally than the ones that were previously predicted for a full-scale nuclear war.""

Nuclear war is bad, and U.S. authorities being tied down in Mexico or on the border instead of searching and destroying nuclear materiel leads to an increased chance of nuclear war, and possibly extinction.



Counterplan two: Border fence

Advantage one: Keeps Cartels out of the U.S.

Obvious, the fence and guards on the fence prevents crossings and prevent drug cartels being able to sell their drugs. Another advantage would come from keeping out illegals.


Counterplan three: Execute all foreign nationals caught with illicit substances in their possession

This counterplan has been advocated by the most prestigious scholars of drug usage and deterence, such as thett4[2] who elaborates, simply and eloquently: "This would end the drug war in a matter of weeks, because all of the drug dealers would be dead." This could be done by eliminating certain legal aspects such as " overturn the Supreme Court case forcing the courts to recognize constitutional rights to everyone on U.S. sovereign territory and let em have it! Every person found with drugs on their person will be checked to insure they are a citizen. If not, they go straight to the gallows for a humiliating execution"

It is simple, effective, and ingenius.

Refutations


" the presence of the United States military may be the only answer at this point"

--> Why the military, why the U.S.? Are we responsible for Mexico now?

"The violence that the drug cartel are causing in Mexico is beginning to effect the United States and will only get worse should we not intervene"

--> Refer to my counterplans. Starting a war on our continent leading to the deaths of tens, if not hundreds of thousands of innocent people will bring about world-wide condemnation on the United States.

--> TURN: An unwarranted invasion leads to decreased U.S. hegemony because of decreased status in the world, thus increasing the likelihood of a Nuclear attack, Terrorism, WWIII, or all of these impacts.

--> TURN: Keeping U.S. troops tied down fighting a war in Mexico would lead to decreased U.S. military power because it has less soldiers and resources to spread around.

In conclusion Pro gains no solvency, advantages, or positive impacts. Vote Con.

1. http://www.wired.com...
2. http://www.tumblr.com...
Debate Round No. 1
canhandley0u

Pro

Con has refuted as well as offered counter-plans; however, they will not stop the drug cartel as I will explain:

"Counterplan One: Legalize drugs
Advantage one: Crime related to the drug trade goes away.
This is obvious..if we legalize drugs there will be no drug war to fight.
Advantage two: Increase revenue
No longer having to fight the drug war leads to resources being freed up to pay off the debt, or to increase military spending."

First of all, the drug cartel has evolved and are seeking large ransoms from other crimes, including kidnapping. According to law enforcement in Phoenix, AZ, they had to assemble a new unit just to, "Investigate kidnappings related to drug and human smuggling. In the last two years, the city has recorded some 700 cases, some involving people held against their will in stash houses and others abducted." [1]

Second, legalizing drugs would not stop the cartels involvement with them. The cartel would likely still be involved with the drugs once they were legal, much like the organized crime in the United States was involved with alcohol after Prohibition was repealed.

Legalizing drugs in the United States would not stop the cartels but only create a larger issues in the US. Look at prescription medication, which is a drug and is legal, but is an ever-increasing problem. Damien Cave writes, "Florida Medical Examiners Commission found that the rate of deaths caused by prescription drugs was three times the rate of deaths caused by all illicit drugs combined." [2] It's hard to imagine that having access to heroin, methamphetamine, cocaine, etc would not only make it easier to overdose but be a catalyst for other harmful behaviors due to impaired judgement.

"Counterplan two: Border fence
Advantage one: Keeps Cartels out of the U.S.
Obvious, the fence and guards on the fence prevents crossings and prevent drug cartels being able to sell their drugs. Another advantage would come from keeping out illegals."

A border fence is not going to stop the illegal drugs that come through by vehicles, through the air, or by sea which is is how the majority of the drugs from Mexico find their way into the United States. Additionally, the border fence has failed to stop the drugs and immigrants that are tunneling their way under the fence.

"Nuclear war is bad, and U.S. authorities being tied down in Mexico or on the border instead of searching and destroying nuclear materiel leads to an increased chance of nuclear war, and possibly extinction."

Yes, nuclear war is bad; however, all of our resources are not and should not be tied down in searching and destroying nuclear material. This is completely irrelevant and totally contradicts Con's concern about increasing US hegemony by being in Mexico. US hegemony would increase much more by having all our authorities searching and destroying nuclear materials from other nations as doing so would dub us the controlling nation of nuclear material.

"Counterplan three: Execute all foreign nationals caught with illicit substances in their possession"

It is ridiculous to think we can kill any illegal in our country with illicit drugs. Speaking of US hegemony, what do you the perception of the US would be when the rest of the world sees us killing someone with a gram of marijuana? Besides, the cartels are ruthless and many smugglers are in the trade for fear of their life and that of their loved ones due to threats by the cartel.

In response to Con's refutations:

"Why the military, why the U.S.? Are we responsible for Mexico now?"

No we are not responsible for Mexico; however, we are responsible for our own citizens and their safety. Now that the cartels violence is harming the US we have to intervene to protect our people as the Mexican Govt certainly is not doing so. The majority of the cartels weapons come from the Mexican Govt which the United States provided. As stated before abductions are on the rise here among other crimes and are directly related to the cartels.

1. http://www.nytimes.com...
2. http://www.nytimes.com...
thett3

Con

Thanks for a timely response. I'll now respond to Pro's objections.

Defense

Legalization

Advantage one: Crime Down

Pro argues that the drug cartels are involved in other crimes as well. I have a few responses.

--> Granted, but what kind of impact does this have? I mean obviously the drug cartels specialize n drug crime, so the majority of their crime would go away.

--> My CP would deprive the cartels of much of their revenue, making their abilities to commit crime go down.

--> My CP frees up law enforcement and resources of the U.S., allowing us to migitate crime quicker.

--> The New York Times card my opponent brought in supports my side, because it claims that the crime comes from "Mexico’s drug cartels and their trade."[Emphasis mine].

--> He draws a really good example regarding prohibition, however it is turned to my side. Consider that since alcohol is now legal the black maret for it no longer exists. Granted, it may have continued to exist for a short time, but it n longer does. This historical precedent shows that the underground market for drugs would likely disappear as well.

--> He makes another good argument about how prescription medication causes more deaths. However if you read his card, it only specifies abuse of perscription drugs (which is illegal) so the advantage is turned to my side.

Advantage Two:

Dropped.

Advantage Three:

Pro Argues: "our resources are not and should not be tied down in searching and destroying nuclear material."

-->
What? We shouldn't spend our resources preventing a deadly nuclear attack, but we should spend them invading a sovereign nation over different types of herbs?

He further argues that preventing nuclear proliferation makes us appear controlling ....and invading our neighbors doesnt? My plan has by FAR less negative impact, especially considering how it already happens in the status quo.

Border Fence

Pro only argues that people can tunnel under the fence.

--> Yes, but having a fence there in the first place still slows down the cartels and gives law enforcement a greater window of opportunity to capture them.

Mandatory executions

" Speaking of US hegemony, what do you the perception of the US would be when the rest of the world sees us killing someone with a gram of marijuana? "

--> Refer to counterplan one. We could legalize the soft drugs if we wanted.

--> It's true that my plan would reduce some diplomatic power of the U.S., but the Hard power gained outweighs. My Opponents plan leads to soft power being much decreased, because an unwarranted invasion makes the worldview of the U.S. decline substaintially, and Hard power goes down because our resources and soldiers are tied up in Mexico fighting a useless war.


Note that my Opponent hasn't even presented a coherent case about how we could/why we should invade Mexico so even if you don't buy any of my arguments, still vote Con because it's the status quo.

Thanks.
Debate Round No. 2
canhandley0u

Pro

Thank you for another very well organized and thought out rebuttal. I now will provide my response:

Con points out from my last round, "He draws a really good example regarding prohibition, however it is turned to my side. Consider that since alcohol is now legal the black maret for it no longer exists."

Moonshine is still bootlegged today as most of the United States regulates the percentage (proof) of alcohol. There are many strands of marijuana all of different potencies which the government would regulate much like they have done with alcohol. In turn, this would leave a black market for stronger and more natural marijuana.

Again, con points out, "He makes another good argument about how prescription medication causes more deaths. However if you read his card, it only specifies abuse of perscription drugs (which is illegal) so the advantage is turned to my side."

This helps to clarify my point regarding prescription drugs as we have failed to control them. Prescription drugs are commonly find their way in the wrong hands or are abused by those they are prescribed to leading to overdoses. This "historical precedent" shows that the same will likely be true if current drugs deemed illicit were to be legalized.

Con suggests, "Pro argues that the drug cartels are involved in other crimes as well . Granted, but what kind of impact does this have? I mean obviously the drug cartels specialize n drug crime, so the majority of their crime would go away. "

Their other crimes include extortion and kidnapping. As mentioned in the previous round in Phoenix, AZ alone there were 700 kidnappings from affiliates of the cartel in a two year period.

Con writes, "Advantage one: Crime Down"

I would like to thank con for the rebuttal on this as he so eloquently pointed out in his con position for the debate "The US Should Legalize all drugs" from 9/11/11:

"...argument that crime will decrease due to legalization can be shown as false on many accounts. For one thing, there is a solid correlation between drugs and crime. The National Center for Victims of Crime[3] reports:

'In the 2004 Survey of Inmates in State and Federal Correction Facilities, 32% of State prisoners and 26% of Federal prisoners said they had committed their current offense while under the influence of drugs. Among State prisoners, drug offenders (44%) and property offenders (39%) reported the highest incidence of drug use at the time of the offense. Among Federal prisoners, drug offenders (32%) and violent offenders (24%) were the most likely to report drug use at the time of their crimes. '

Nearly 1/4th of violent offenses were committed under the influence. That is no coincidence. Drugs increase the probability of a person making an irrational decision including a crime, so logic shows us that drugs are a primary component in many crimes."

Con points out in my 2nd round the following, " Pro Argues: 'our resources are not and should not be tied down in searching and destroying nuclear material.' --> What? We shouldn't spend our resources preventing a deadly nuclear attack, but we should spend them invading a sovereign nation over different types of herbs?"

As I'm sure you, the voter, read before I stated, " Yes, nuclear war is bad; however, all of our resources are not and should not be tied down in searching and destroying nuclear material."

" Border Fence
Pro only argues that people can tunnel under the fence."

Con must not have read my whole rebuttal to the border fence as I pointed out, " A border fence is not going to stop the illegal drugs that come through by vehicles, through the air, or by sea which is is how the majority of the drugs from Mexico find their way into the United States. Additionally, the border fence has failed to stop the drugs and immigrants that are tunneling their way under the fence."

As for why we need intervention, which I supported in the violence that has effected America, I will elaborate further at the request of con. According to the State Department [4]:
" No one can say for certain how many Americans have been killed in the escalating Mexican drug violence in the past several years, but the closest thing to an official list—the U.S. State Department's database of deaths of U.S. citizens abroad by non-natural causes—indicates that the number has been steadily increasing. At least 106 U.S. residents were victims of "executions" or "homicides" directly related to drug battles in Mexico in 2010, compared to 79 in 2009 and 35 in 2007, according to the State Department figures. Many deaths, disappearances aren't tallied. And experts—and the State Department itself—say the number is certainly much higher. For example, the State Department doesn't list several recent high-profile deaths that have been publicly linked to the drug cartels or cases in which Americans have vanished or been killed in the U.S. by Mexican drug gangs." This report goes on to state, "The cartels are pushing new boundaries when it comes to targeting Americans.
Recent law enforcement bulletins have stated that cartels have instructed members to shoot and kill American border agents using AK-47 assault rifles, according to testimony presented March 31 at a hearing before the House Subcommittee on Homeland Security. 'The shooting of special agents Zapata and Avila is a game changer which alters the landscape of the involvement of the United States in Mexico's war against the drug cartels,' said U.S. Rep. Michael McCaul, R-Texas, chairman of the subcommittee. 'For the first time in 25 years, the cartels are now targeting American law enforcement.' Gonzalez, the Texas sheriff, whose department sits on the other side of the Rio Grande from Mexico, said his officers have long seen evidence that the violence doesn't respect borders. 'The feds say our side of the border is safe,' he said, 'but we have bullet holes in our schools and businesses that say otherwise.'"
According to Sheriff Paul Babeu in Arizona [5], " 'Mexican drug cartels literally do control parts of Arizona,' he said. 'They literally have scouts on the high points in the mountains and in the hills and they literally control movement. They have radios, they have optics, they have night-vision goggles as good as anything law enforcement has. This is going on here in Arizona,' he said. 'This is 70 to 80 miles from the border - 30 miles from the fifth-largest city in the United States."'

It is evident that we are falling victim to these ruthless cartels as a result of the Mexican Govt allowing them to have free reign in their country as they make their way across our border. How long do we wait until we intervene with our military? I say we have waited long enough which is why I believe we use our military to put an end to these ruthless cartels, take back our border and country, and protect the citizens of the United States of America.

3. http://www.ncvc.org...
4. http://www.amren.com...
5. http://www.examiner.com...
thett3

Con

Thanks Pro. I'll do rebuttal now, mostly clearing up statements made in this round.

My Opponent argues that moonshine is still bootlegged. I have a few responses.

--> I'll take your word for it, but the impact is obviously much less now than in the past.

--> Most moonshiners turned to more profitable ventures after Prohibition, and the black market largely dissappeared. Sure, some remnants may exist, but the fact of the matter is that legalization destroys the vast majority of the black market.

--> Turn: Prohibition shows us that criminalization of substances large amounts of people want is not substainable.

--> Turn: You never hear about people being killed in the illegal alcohol market, because either A) The black market no longer exists in which case you vote Con, or B) The violent aspect of the black market no longer exists in which case you vote Con.

--> Turn: Government regulation would lead to drugs being safer because they have to meet certain standards.

Pro further argues: "Prescription drugs are commonly find their way in the wrong hands or are abused by those they are prescribed to leading to overdoses. This "historical precedent" shows that the same will likely be true if current drugs deemed illicit were to be legalized."

--> Recall how I previously stated that the abuse of these drugs was already illegal, showing that criminalization does not deter.

--> Pros argument is that perscription drugs fall into the wrong hands. Again, abuse is already illegal. Criminalization dos not deter.

--> Correlation =/= Causation, legal drugs killing more people does not lead to the conclusion Pro is trying to suggest, that legalization facilitates abuse. More people take prescription drugs than recreational drugs. I can personally attest to this, as I have never taken any illicit drug nor legal drugs such as tabacco or hookah. I can however think of many specific cases in which I have taken prescription drugs.

Pro further argues that cartels are involved in other crimes, but he ignores all of my analysis on that point and how it is turned to my side, so you can extend that.

Pro then quotes yours truly about the relationship between drugs and crime. I'm flattered that he thinks I'm a reliable enough source to quote from, however unfortunately for him since those were my own arguments, I more than anyone else can see the weaknesses in them.

Let's have me eat my own words now..

"'In the 2004 Survey of Inmates in State and Federal Correction Facilities, 32% of State prisoners and 26% of Federal prisoners said they had committed their current offense while under the influence of drugs"

--> Cool story, too bad correlation=/= causation. Recall how those in poverty or the inner city are both far more likely to both abuse drugs and to commit crime. There are much larger factors at work here than simply the drugs themseves.

--> Turn: The criminalization of drugs makes potential users have to associate with criminals and cartels, facilitating cime and violence.

" Among State prisoners, drug offenders (44%) and property offenders (39%) reported the highest incidence of drug use at the time of the offense. Among Federal prisoners, drug offenders (32%) and violent offenders (24%) were the most likely to report drug use at the time of their crimes."

--> Cool story, and I bet 100% of them had Vitaman C in their body at the time, but that doesn't mean Vitamin C causes crime. Correlation=/= Causation.

--> Remember that since it's been shown that criminalization doesn't deter, this impact is minimal.

--> Also remember that the crime argument has been turned multiple times to the Con side.

My nuclear war impact is for the most part ignored, Pro argues "all of our resources are not and should not be tied down in searching and destroying nuclear material."

Who was arguing that? I certainly wasn't. But getting involved in a war with our Neighbors certainly distracts our efforts.

Border fence is also ignored. Pro only restates his already refuted statements from round two.

The CP of executing all foreign drug offenders is also dropped, and therefore conceded to.


Pro then gives us a lot of evidence that cartels are bad. I am not disputing this, which is exactly why you need to vote Con. Pro's value of life is undermined because a war would cost thousands of lives. Pros crime argument has been turned. Pro deterrence argument has been turned. Two of my counterplans have been conceded to. Pros only objections on my legalzation counterplan have been refuted. Pro gains no solvency because he hasn't explained why a foreign military (U.S.) could accomplish what the military of Mexico has failed to do.

Cartels are bad, which is why you should vote Con to end them.

Thanks,

thett3
Debate Round No. 3
canhandley0u

Pro

canhandley0u forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
15 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by thett3 5 years ago
thett3
I still cant believe that no one noticed how I cited myself in round one....
Posted by thett3 6 years ago
thett3
lol you sound like me in 8th grade
Posted by racismisawesome 6 years ago
racismisawesome
I think putting up a few sniper towers across the border will suffice. Snipe any mexican that tries to cross, they will learn real quick not to bring drugs and illegal immigrants into our country.
Posted by racismisawesome 6 years ago
racismisawesome
I think putting up a few sniper towers across the border will suffice. Snipe any mexican that tries to cross, they will learn real quick not to bring drugs and illegal immigrants into our country.
Posted by thett3 6 years ago
thett3
lol all three of my counterplans are contrary to my actual position
Posted by BlackVoid 6 years ago
BlackVoid
Being policy-ish on DDO generally means that you just use a lot of the terms those kinds of debaters use. For instance, thett talk about turns, counterplans, advantages, and solvency, which are policy terms. I wrote translations to all these on the "General debate jargon" section of the orientation thread.

Policy debaters tend to blow the resolution out of proportion and say that thousands of people will die if we do what the other debater wants. Even if the topic is just something like "Schooling should be mandatory", policy people will find a way to link it to human extinction. This is actually pretty fun though and sometimes hilarious.

A good example is the debate below. The topic is about english being out official language. But Con runs policy-ish arguments and links it to ecological disasters.

http://www.debate.org...

Because policy style debates tend to stray away from the arguments you'd expect to see, Roy generally votes against them because he apparently thinks they should run the same arguments as everybody else.
Posted by F-16_Fighting_Falcon 6 years ago
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
I never debated in high school.
@Blackvoid and Thett3, What specifically does it mean for a debate to be "poliy-ish"? In real life, I know they read like they are desperate to use the toilet once it is done, but how does that translate to DDO. And what about LD and public forum? I know I could probably look them up on google but I would like to hear from people who have done it.
Posted by thett3 6 years ago
thett3
Roy doesn't like policy? :OO
Posted by BlackVoid 6 years ago
BlackVoid
Yeah, you got pretty policy-ish there. Roy is sure to vote against you if he see this.
Posted by thett3 6 years ago
thett3
lawl, my first round is crazy
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by BlackVoid 6 years ago
BlackVoid
canhandley0uthett3Tied
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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeit. Looks like Roy won't find this debate after all.
Vote Placed by F-16_Fighting_Falcon 6 years ago
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
canhandley0uthett3Tied
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: I have to say Con's proposals and counterplans were rather outlandish but he did a good job explaining them in the face of Pro's rebuttal.