The Instigator
cody30228
Pro (for)
Winning
28 Points
The Contender
Sherlock_HolmesXXI
Con (against)
Losing
27 Points

Military force is justified to protect economic dependencies.

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
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: 1/29/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,782 times Debate No: 2290
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (22)
Votes (13)

 

cody30228

Pro

This topic is slightly confusing so let me clarify.
An economic dependency is MY word for a location of economic investment. Expanding on this, I give an example.
Country A relies on exporting oil to Country B for a large percentage of GDP

Hope this clears things up.

So my argument(s):
1. Economy is necessity for life
A nation must have an economy to survive. When the economy fails, the country fails. A government must do anything in it's power to survive. If that means using military force to secure the economy, then it's justified.

2. Why it's justified
Locke's social contract states that the government's only obligation is to protect it's people. Without an economy, the government can not protect it's people. No money for defense, no money for civil reforms, no money for social aid. To fulfill the social contract, a government must protect it's economy

Good luck to anyone who takes this debate.
Sherlock_HolmesXXI

Con

Comrade Frenchy...fancy seeing you here. Well, good luck to you as well, though I doubt you'll need it, and may the more superior debater win!

I shall begin with clarifications, moving, from there, to my constructive and rebuttal simultaneously.

I. Clarifications
1. The resolution has now been more specified, and is from now on:"Military force is justified to protect locations of economic investment that countries cannot survive without."--cody30228 on an AIM conversation--

2. Definitions (merriam-webster.com)
Military: 1.Etymology, Latin meaning soldier, 2.of or relating to soldiers, arms, or war, 3.armed forces
Force: 1.violence, compulsion, or constraint exerted upon or against a person or thing
Is: 1.the present, 3rd singular of "be"
Justify: to show a sufficient lawful reason for an act done
Protect: to cover or shield from exposure, injury, damage, or destruction
Locations: 1.positions or sites occupied or available for occupancy or marked by some distinguishing feature
Economic: 1.of, relating to, or based on the production, distribution, and consumption of goods and services
Investment: 1.the expenditure of money for income or profit
Country: 1.a political state or nation or its territory
Survive: 1.Etymology, Latin meaning to live, 2.to remain alive or in existence
Violence: 1.the unjust exertion of action so as to injure, damage, and/or kill
Be: 1.used as the auxiliary of the present participle in progressive tenses expressing continuous action
Exist: 1. to have life or the functions of vitality
Nation: (not capitalized) 1.a territorial division containing a body of people of one or more nationalities and usually characterized by relatively large size and independent status
Nationalities: 1.an ethnic group constituting one element of a larger unit

3. Observations

[[Observation 1]] The verb "is" limits the ground for both sides equally. Because, "is" refers to the present, empirical evidence of societies that do not continually exist in the present-moment is rendered obsolete…and don't you even dare bring up the argument "time doesn't exist".

4. Arguments

[[Contention 1]] While my opponent directly states that a nation requires economy to survive, he completely ignores the fact that, according to his logic in class and the resolution, "economic" is only a single word of the phrase. Because he only refers to part of the phrase and not the entire phrase, and because the part of the phrase does not have the same meaning as the entire phrase, his entire 1st argument should be considered irrelevant unless he further clarifies. Instead, we must look at the complete phrase of "locations of economic investment" in which "economic investment" describes the type of location, and "economic" describes the type of "investment". According to Merriam-Webster's definitions, the entire resolution refers to the idea that a nation is justified in its use of military violence in order to protect areas having the potential to benefit, and are necessary to the existence of, the nation's economy through investments made by the nation into "said area". This means that in order for the nation to survive, it must have the ability to spend money on other nations in order to obtain a better economy or sustain the present one, which is completely untrue. One major, current example of a nation that does not rely on investment upon other nations is that of the Earth as a whole. As "the Earth as a whole and the humans that exist upon it" clearly fit the definition of a nation, and as we humans have still yet to come into contact with any other living forms besides those on Earth, I believe it is safe to say that both the Earth does subsist and the Earth does not need to invest in other nations, still unknown to man, in order to subsist.

[[Contention 2]]

[SPA]
"…the government's only obligation is to protect its people."
I believe you very conveniently forgot to add ‘at the continuously increasing cost of the people's rights'.

[SPB]
Either way, justification is still not present. Is it possible that a lower economy is better for a country? After all, money is often seen as the cause of greed, and with less money, countries would learn to better budget what they do have. In addition, if there's less money, wouldn't that mean limited to non-existent funds for any offensive powers as well?
Well isn't that funny? The last I checked, your profile states you are against any form social aid! Just for some specific examples, you are clearly against: national health care, social security, welfare, and any social programs in general!!! You hypocrite!!! This calls for a discourse! My opponent should not be allowed to win this debate or else he will only be encouraged to continue to influence others with hypocritical ways! .....and, Cody, don't you even dare to falsely change your political views just so you can negate this argument!

[SPC]
What would you say to a theory argument created by Thomas Paine in his book Common Sense that society would be better off without a form of government?

"Issues Position
Medicaid & MedicarePaying into social programs like Medicaid and Medicare should be mandatory. Against
National Health CareThe government should provide a national health care system. Against
School VouchersFamilies should receive a voucher if they want to send their child to a private school instead of a public school. Against
Social ProgramsThe government should create and provide social programs. Against
Social SecurityPaying into a social program like social security should be mandatory. Against
WelfareThe government should provide welfare to the poor. Against"
---direct copy and pastes from the profile of cody30228 on 2/1/2008---
Debate Round No. 1
cody30228

Pro

Clarifications
So your definitions are pretty much useless until you link them to some sort of argument or "impact". So I don't have to attack all of them until they have a reason.

3. Observations
Here you claim that I can not use past evidence because that violates "is". When making a decision, we think about past experiences. Such as:

Is it ok for me to steal a cookie
Last time I stole a cookie I was in trouble thereafter
It is not ok for me to steal a cookie

It is impossible for man to make a decision using "is" without looking at was it has been or what was before. If anything, the only thing that "is" limits is the future. Since the past is needed in creating the present, the future becomes a non-issue. Because of this, neither of us can create a hypothetical situation in the future were economy is NOT needed to survive….sorry, I know I just destroyed your like hidden argument for later but oh well 

4. Arguments
I don't believe my first argument with the use of economy is irrelevant. I claim that an economy is needed. Thus, a location of economic investment that a country can not live without would be the same as the sense of my first argument. Now you claim that Earth is a nation, and Earth does not economically invest in other nations, so an economy is not a necessity of life. However, I claim that we are
1. talking about a "country" in my AIM defintion that you used. Earth is not a country. A nation maybe, a society maybe, but not a classified country.
2. We are debating if military force is necessary to protect a location that is needed to survive. If Earth is a country, as you say, and Earth does not invest in any economy and does not have any places that we have described to protect, it does not apply to this resolution. Saying they have nothing to protect does not prove that they are not justified in protecting a location if they did have said location to protect.

[[Contention 2]]

[SPA]
I believe I do not have to add anything. A government has a duty to protect the people. If the person does not want to be protected, they can leave. What you are trying to say is that fulfilling an obligation is bad. However, an obligation is called an OBLIGATION because there is an OBLIGATION or a need to do so. I believe an alive citizenry is more important that a spoiled and greedy one.

[SPB]
See, I am not stating that a high, prosperous economy is good. I am asking if it is justified to use military force to protect a place that is NECESSARY for ANY ECONOMY. A lot of money may be evil. But some money is needed. If we have no money, we have no food, no energy, no home, no infrastructure, no nothing.
Ok, you must be desperate to use my own views against me. First, I can always play the devil's advocate for the sake of debate. Second, I can always compromise some of my personal believes for others I deem more important. Example, I might allow social security to allow something I like such as a sales tax. And finally, I am not supporting national health etc etc. I am supporting a NECESSITY of life. Where is the link between enough money to survive and enough money to waste on social aid?

[SPC]
Thomas Paine's "Common Sense" was not calling for the abolition of any government. He was calling for the abolition of a totalitarian state that is oppressive. If you were to use a philosopher against society, at least use Ralph Waldo Emerson's "Self Reliance". But if you do use that I already have an argument against it. Just telling you to look into it for future reference.

So you have not once debated the justification of using military force to protect a location that is needed for economic survival which in turn is needed for survival period.
Sherlock_HolmesXXI

Con

Sherlock_HolmesXXI forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
cody30228

Pro

I apologize, both me and Sherlock Holmes have a lot of homework so he was unable to respond.

Need

100

characters

......................................
Sherlock_HolmesXXI

Con

Sherlock_HolmesXXI forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
22 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by SportsGuru 9 years ago
SportsGuru
It seems the detective could not finish his arguments in time. Classic British inaction mirrored in other situations such as pre-WII when they left the Czechs out to be dried by the Nazis after signing an agreement to protect them.
Posted by SportsGuru 9 years ago
SportsGuru
This is ironic. Comrade "Frenchy" is facing a BRITISH detective. I am surprised no mention of limeys or frogs have been made. Will the all the queen's horses and all the queens men rise up to the occasion and defeat the infamously weak french, or will the French tear a leaf from the book of their ancestors the Guals and rise to their former glory. Only these next 1.5 rounds will tell!!
Posted by lemonsmile 9 years ago
lemonsmile
thats good i guess. because its about our debate team.
Posted by Sherlock_HolmesXXI 9 years ago
Sherlock_HolmesXXI
ah look! another supporter for "the almighty frenchy"!

...well THATS just fine and dandy!!! (humongous use of sarcasm present)
Posted by SportsGuru 9 years ago
SportsGuru
It seems a little above par compared to other articles I've read in this paper.
Posted by lemonsmile 9 years ago
lemonsmile
hahah. that's danny coke. i am curious too! lol. pretty good i guess.
Posted by SportsGuru 9 years ago
SportsGuru
Here's the link:
http://www.herald-coaster.com...

I find it interesting that the second picture catches the corner of a coke.

I'm also curious when the state quals info was given.
Posted by SportsGuru 9 years ago
SportsGuru
oh and great quote

Your comments must be at least 25 characters in length
Posted by lemonsmile 9 years ago
lemonsmile
nope sorry i didn't see it was it good?
Posted by SportsGuru 9 years ago
SportsGuru
@ nicole

Did you see the Fort Bend Herald article on the debate team?
13 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Krazzy_Player 3 years ago
Krazzy_Player
cody30228Sherlock_HolmesXXITied
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 cody30228 7 years ago
cody30228
cody30228Sherlock_HolmesXXITied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Crazy4Steelers07 7 years ago
Crazy4Steelers07
cody30228Sherlock_HolmesXXITied
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 Corycogley77479 7 years ago
Corycogley77479
cody30228Sherlock_HolmesXXITied
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 Sherlock_HolmesXXI 8 years ago
Sherlock_HolmesXXI
cody30228Sherlock_HolmesXXITied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Dihydrogen_Monoxided 9 years ago
Dihydrogen_Monoxided
cody30228Sherlock_HolmesXXITied
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 WeaponE 9 years ago
WeaponE
cody30228Sherlock_HolmesXXITied
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 astrosfan 9 years ago
astrosfan
cody30228Sherlock_HolmesXXITied
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 SportsGuru 9 years ago
SportsGuru
cody30228Sherlock_HolmesXXITied
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 SamuelAdams 9 years ago
SamuelAdams
cody30228Sherlock_HolmesXXITied
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