The Instigator
littlelacroix
Con (against)
Losing
32 Points
The Contender
Johnicle
Pro (for)
Winning
50 Points

Military force is an appropriate weapon for the US to use against enemies that may develop nukes

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  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
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: 1/21/2008 Category: Society
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,264 times Debate No: 2053
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (22)

 

littlelacroix

Con

The United States frequently uses military force to prevent any possible future conflicts. However, rarely is the soft-power technique used before resorting to military force. I stand that soft-power is much more useful and progressive than resorting directly to brute force. Also, because nukes are becoming the weapon of choice in the world today, I believe that soft-power will prevent the accidental firing of nuclear weapons, essentially ending the world as we know it. The only solution to nations that are posing threats to the US would be to use soft-power. Thank you.

Also, this would make the US look better in the eyes of the rest of the world.
Johnicle

Pro

Greetings Mr. James La Croix. It is I, Luke Cumbee, we've never had an online debate but our earlier debates have been quite fun. I hope that computers will not change the greatness of our debate. Good Luck, and with that, I will begin my case.

Military force is something that should not be used lightly. However, nuclear weapons are something that defiantly should not be attained, especially by nations that are our enemy. Therefore, we must use military force to prevent this crime capability in order to protect our self and to protect the world. Which is why I must agree with…

-Resolved- Military force is an appropriate weapon for the US to use against enemies that may develop nukes.

(Argument)1. Preventing the acquisition of nuclear weapons equals worldwide security.
-What you have to see is that when we prevent the acquisition of nuclear weapons, we aren't only protecting our self, but also the entire world because nuclear weapons have worldwide radiation effects. Not to mention, any nuclear weapons fired at us or anyone for that matter has a good chance of having nuclear weapons fired back at them. In other words, we have to stop these nuclear weapons from our enemy or we risk either many deaths or even the extinction of mankind.

(Argument)2. Military Force may be the only way to prevent nuclear weapon acquisition.
-Source- the NATIONAL OBSERVER: AUSTRALIA AND WORLD AFFAIRS, Winter 2007 (Sharif Shuja [International Relations, Victoria University, Australia]), p. 57, Online, INFOTRAC, Expanded Academic ASAP----------
-Quote- "The nuclear crisis demonstrates that North Korea, even though isolated and with a stagnant economy, is capable of exerting significant pressure on the international community, and possessing nuclear weapons has in fact strengthened its diplomatic and political leverage in negotiations with the United States. The sad fact is that America currently is not able to stop North Korea, short of military action." END QUOTE
-Although North Korea may not be a nation that we would want to use military force against, it still does show that we would have to use military action against them if they were to pose a big enough threat. As this quote states, "America currently is not able to stop North Korea, short of military action." In other words, military force is sometimes the only way to remove nuclear weapons from an enemy, and if you really think about it… sometimes these nuclear weapons MUST be removed which makes military force all the more just.

(Argument)3. It only takes one military threat to endanger the world.
-From- James Kraska; American University International Law Review---- Commander, Judge Advocate General's Corps, U.S. Navy], 2007, Online, Lexis-Nexis, p. 370
-Quote- "Rouge states and terrorists do not seek to attack us using conventional means. They know such attacks would fail. Instead, they rely on acts of terror, and potentially, the use of weapons of mass destruction – weapons that can be easily concealed, delivered covertly, and used without warning." END QUOTE
-What makes nuclear weapons so dangerous is how easily and quickly they can be used. This quote says it right as he describes weapons of mass destruction as being capable of being "easily concealed, delivered covertly, and used without warning." This is why we must use military force to prevent the ACQUISITION. This ensures that they won't sneak a nuclear weapon into some sort of nation without us being able to stop them. It's a safeguard that we must use in order to protect ourselves and the world, which therefore makes the military force, appropriate.

(Argument)4. The threat of nuclear weapons outweighs military force.
-In order to see if this resolution is just or not, you must weigh the two possibilities. On one side you have nuclear weapons whose possible effects are evident, and on the other side you have military force where the effects are minimal. In other words, any military force cannot possibly outweigh even the smallest of chances of nuclear weapon use.

-In the end, these nuclear weapons must not be attained by these enemies. Since the resolution merely points out that it is appropriate, you must see that sometimes it is the only way to do it, therefore making it appropriate. It gets the job done which provides safety to our nation, so please vote Pro.

p.s. (La Croix, are you going to Yankton?)
Debate Round No. 1
littlelacroix

Con

Sorry to have postponed this debate even longer, but I have been extremely busy. Also, I can't wait to see (and beat) you at Yankton, lol, just kidding. Now on to the debate.

I will first start by stating my arguments, then moving to my opponents.

1. Nuclear proliferation will create stability and safety
The Nuclear Peace Theory is a theory that states that with more and more nukes, the more and more a leader, or controller of a nuke, would think before detonating said weapon. This theory is based on the deterrence of firing one nuke for the next. Every man, no matter how evil, understands that there would be no point in firing a nuclear weapon, starting a nuclear war, and essentially ending the world as we know it.

2. The Pakistan and India example of the NPT
In 1999, while Pakistan and India had been feuding, nuclear weapons were acquired on both sides, yet none were fire. They had both known that it would've been pointless to fire because they were afraid of the retaliation. This real life example of the Nuclear Peace Theory proves that it prevents nuclear war.

Now, moving on to your arguments.

1. The Nuclear Peace Theory takes over the entire first argument. In no way can military force have the same effects as the NPT(I'm tired of typing the theory). Military force will most likely result in death on both sides of the conflict. However, no death will occur from NPT.

2. Even Kim Jong Il himself is not so irrational to fire nuclear weapons at the United States or anybody else for that matter. People like him needs people to rule over and, also, he's not suicidal. We have over 22,000 nukes and they had between 1 and 10 in 2006. You don't have to be a math major to know that you are outnumbered there. Besides, he would be lucky to even launch a nuke before we could retaliate. He knows that he can't win if he tries and would thus, not fire any of his nukes.

3&4. I would like to extend my previous argument from my 2 point above. If the example I provided above between India and Pakistan isn't good enough, I'll go in to some detail on the Cold War, but we'll save that for another time.

Btw, I would like to wish you good luck, both in this debate and at Yankton this weekend.
Johnicle

Pro

I am sorry to make this argument so blatantly, but my opponent has NEVER proven the resolution true. All the resolution (or the definition of the debate) asks us is if military force is APPROPRIATE if we needed to use it. All my opponent has proven on ALL of his arguments is that it is unlikely that nuclear war will happen, but that is not the debate. I have proven that sometimes proliferation is bad and that military force is then appropriate to get rid of it. Pull through my case and look to see if any of his arguments are resolution specific because I do not believe they are. Sorry Mr. La Croix, but you are in the wrong debate. I hope in your next speech, you will do AT LEAST one of two things... either point out how you are proving it is appropriate, or list a few new reasons. Until then, good luck.

Thank You
Debate Round No. 2
littlelacroix

Con

Alright, now before I begin, I want to offer the following definition:

Diplomacy: Tact and skill in dealing with people.

Now, as I mentioned in my first speech, diplomacy is the appropriate way of dealing with matters. Then, in my second speech, I mentioned the Nuclear Peace Theory. Sometimes doing nothing is the best way of dealing with people, or the best form of diplomacy. Thus, my argument must stand that diplomacy is more rational and also more appropriate when dealing with international issues, such as the one we are debating. Therefore, Mr. Cumbee, I have proven the resolution to be false as I, essentially the NEG, (this is really sounding like an actual LD round)must prove it to be false. And since you have not refuted any of my actual arguments, you therefore must agree that diplomacy works. Thus, my only burden would be to prove that military force is not appropriate.

Since both sides should know that appropriate means a suitable action, that should be taken into consideration in this round. Since the resolution never states that the enemies actually have the intention to use them upon us, preemptive action, by using military force, would not be a suitable action, and thus not appropriate. The appropriate move would be to take a diplomatic stance to this and allow the Nuclear Proliferation Theory to create and stability in this world.

Ultimately Mr. Cumbee, I am not in the wrong debate and since you wasted your last speech saying so, I wish you good luck now trying to prove your side. :-)
Johnicle

Pro

Mr. La Croix, before I begin, I would just like to thank you for this debate and that I would like to continue our debates online. Until then, let me begin with why I think that I win this round.

1. Con never proved why military force itself was not appropriate.
-All that Con has proven is that diplomacy is better, but what you have to see is that does not disprove military force as being appropriate. It's like proving that a pen is better than a pencil. Personally I prefer the pen, but every once in a while I find myself using the pencil. It's the same situation here, the United States might someday find itself in a situation where diplomacy does not work, then what? It's only other option would then be to use military force which therefore makes it appropriate.

2. My case (Pro) was never argued with how it is not appropriate, only with why nukes may not be a bad thing.
-Okay, nukes may not be that bad and may hardly ever be used, but that doesn't mean that we will never find ourself in a situation that we might need to use some sort of force to stop nuclear proliferation (the spread of nukes). Therefore, we may need to stop it, and military force, is an option that will be looked at because it is appropriate.

-In the end- You have to see that military force is appropriate. Before voting, I challenge you to point somewhere in this debate where my opponent has ever disproved the appropriateness. Since he has only offered a better option (diplomacy which is like the pen) and has not said anything about the option we are debating (military force which is like the pencil), you have to see that sometimes, it is appropriate to use the pencil (like situations where you don't have to pen or with math problems) and vote Pro.

Thank You and see you later Mr. La Croix.
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by Johnicle 9 years ago
Johnicle
ya but the funny thing is is that we are in the state (but not the same district i guess) and we debated each other 2 weeks ago on the same side... the tournament had 40 and we hit round 1... wow, it was a good debate though
Posted by jacobgunter 9 years ago
jacobgunter
Thanks for all of the good ideas for LD. I know ssome of my teammates will benefit from it. hope You guys dont mind, but dont worry, its not like we are anywhere near the same districts.
Posted by karlynjane 9 years ago
karlynjane
yayy LD! either one of you feel like debating me on this topic? send me a request if so
22 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Excessum 8 years ago
Excessum
littlelacroixJohnicleTied
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 Johnicle 8 years ago
Johnicle
littlelacroixJohnicleTied
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:07 
Vote Placed by Mangani 8 years ago
Mangani
littlelacroixJohnicleTied
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:07 
Vote Placed by littlelacroix 9 years ago
littlelacroix
littlelacroixJohnicleTied
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 huntertracker6 9 years ago
huntertracker6
littlelacroixJohnicleTied
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:30 
Vote Placed by dfhahadfh 9 years ago
dfhahadfh
littlelacroixJohnicleTied
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 
Vote Placed by Insene 9 years ago
Insene
littlelacroixJohnicleTied
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 
Vote Placed by ahole 9 years ago
ahole
littlelacroixJohnicleTied
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 
Vote Placed by simplyme 9 years ago
simplyme
littlelacroixJohnicleTied
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:30 
Vote Placed by shaqdaddy34 9 years ago
shaqdaddy34
littlelacroixJohnicleTied
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