The Instigator
n96
Pro (for)
Losing
1 Points
The Contender
Raisor
Con (against)
Winning
29 Points

Military force should be used in a conflict if peace can not be achieved rapidly.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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: 5/26/2011 Category: Politics
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,385 times Debate No: 16710
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (2)
Votes (6)

 

n96

Pro

Non-lethal military force should be used by third parties in conflicts, which threaten many civilian lives, if said conflict can not be resolved rapidly (1 to 2 weeks). Locals may demonstrate hated towards these third party forces at first, because of lack of information. In my opinion this one problem can e solved through good communication.

The current conflict in Libya is causing the death of many civilians, has been going on for too long and is causing a sharp increase in commodities due to lack of security of oil supplies. A third party could intervene in this situation and arrest fighters from both sides and confiscate weapons. Ultimately, the goal is to confiscate all weapons. If weapons are confiscated, this would lead to significantly lowered civilian casualty rates.

When a sufficient amount of security is obtained, a referendum enforced by the third party military force will occur, which will lead to a fairly elected outcome of the conflict (of course, no death penalty, etc.). This referendum is necessary for Libya in my example, because there are certain groups of people who believe that terrorist organizations are behind the uprisings, and I personally believe that third parties should not take sides.

I am looking forward to an undoubtedly interesting counter-argument.
Raisor

Con

Interpretation of Resolution:

1) "Non-lethal military force" (NLMF) is interpreted as military force that relies heavily on the use of non-lethal weapons.
2) The Resolution is to be evaluated in terms of real-world implementation at the State level. That is, when Pro says "A third party could intervene in this situation and arrest fighters from both sides and confiscate weapons," this is equivalent to "State X will use its military to arrest fighters from both sides etc."
3) Pro advocates for a) the use of NLMF b) to confiscate all weapons involved c) and arrange for a local referendum on the country's governance that is free of third party influence.
4) In advocating for b) and c), Pro is only advocating for a course of action. Pro may not assume that b) will successfully occur or that itis possible to establish sufficient security for c) to occur. These assumptions would remove the debate from the real world and leave me no ground to argue.

Non-Violence:
A) Use of NLMF does not preclude the use of traditional weapons of war, serious injury, or fatalities. U.S. policy on non-lethal weapons (NLW) affirms this [1]:
"Non-lethal weapons may be used in conjunction with lethal weapon systems to enhance the latter's effectiveness and efficiency in military operations. This shall apply across the range of military operations to include those situations where overwhelming force is employed."
"Non-lethal weapons shall not be required to have a zero probability of producing fatalities or permanent injuries."
The use of NLMF is therefore inherently a choice to use violence as a solution to a political conflict.

B) The idea that the use of violence is a solution to the problem of violence is a myth. Any apparent resolution of violent conflict by the application of violence is just that - appearance. Embracing the use of NLMF as a solution to political conflict is a resignation to the illusion that violence is the only answer to human conflict, perpetuating the cycle of human violence.

Regardless of the political outcome of a violent conflict, the ultimate result is the same: the use of violence is reaffirmed as the ultimate and inevitable solution to political conflict. Political disagreement is then reduced to a power game in which the side with superior military force determines the outcome of a conflict.

C) In a nuclear world, the cycle of violence has stakes on par with extinction. History bears out that relatively small conflicts often escalate to much larger acts of violence. Historically, the assassination of Franz Ferdinand triggered the start of WW1, resulting in the death of 16 million people. Recently, attacks of the U.S. on 9/11 resulted in the War in Iraq, the War in Afghanistan, and repeated aerial drone raids in Pakistan. The presence of a global nuclear arsenal places a limit on the escalation of conflict. Should a conflict escalate to the point of nuclear conflict, the result could be extinction of humanity.

NLMF, as an endorsement of violence as a solution to conflict, not only creates opportunity for escalation in each individual conflict it is employed in but also normalizes the use of violence, ensuring that violence will continue to be used as a solution to political conflict and making escalation a virtual certainty. NLMF supports the construction of conflict as a game of power and ensures that future conflict will be viewed as such and therefore approached with a violent solution.

D) An alternative to violence exists in Civil Disobedience (CD) and Nonviolence (NV). Both methods have proven success in the gain of independence of India, the civil rights movement in the U.S., and the People Power Movement that removed the authoritarian Ferdinand Marcos from power in the Philipines. The 20th century provides countless empirical examples of the viability of CD and NV as tools to effect political change [2].

Furthermore, CD/NV can be utilized effectively to resist military forces. Peace activism led to U.S. withdrawal from Vietnam, the 1963 Partial Test Ban Treaty, and prevented military intervention in Nicaragua by the Reagan administration [3]. Additionally, non-cooperation can cripple the infrastructure of an occupying force. The teacher's resistance during Nazi occupation of Norway completely blocked attempts to establish a school system designed to support Nazi principles [4].

More importantly, the advocacy of CD and NV prevent the perpetuation of an inevitable cycle of violence and delegitimizes all use of violence. Only by embracing a categorical condemnation of violence can we hope to escape a future of war and nuclear annihilation, a future made inevitable by the continued use of violence as a tool for political change.

Whereas the use of violence turns conflict into a game of forceful control, CD and NV expose conflict as an inherently oppressive activity. Rather than responding to violence with more violence, CD/NV responds to violence with behavior that forces reflection on the oppressive nature of the violence being inflicted. The U.S. Civil Rights movement centered around marches and protests against overt acts of discrimination. This forced U.S. society to look at its collective conscience and instigated widespread social change.

[1] https://www.jnlwp.usmc.mil...
[2] A Force More Powerful: A Century of Nonviolent Conflict. Ackerman et al, 2000.
[3]http://www.globalpolicy.org...
[4]http://www.salsa.net...
Debate Round No. 1
n96

Pro

Hello Raisor and thank you for taking on this challenge.

Although CD and NV are very good solutions sometimes, in a large amount of cases, CD and NV would be ineffective. Your argument assumes that side 1 is occupying the territory and that a significant enough number of the local population is against side 1. This is not always the case. Although I agree that CD and NV should be used before NLMF, CD and NV will not be effective in situations where the controlling side has local support (ex.: in a conflict between two countries). CD and NV may also not be effective where free speech is severely punished.
Raisor

Con

Case Study: Cuba

Before I respond to my opponent's case, I would like to discuss a historical example of intervention by a third party.

For 400 years, beginning in 1511, Cuba belonged to Spain. Serious demands for Cuban independence began to emerge in 1866 and escalated into violent revolt which lasted on and off, culminating in the Cuban War of Independence in 1895. Three years into the war, the USS Maine was sent to Havana, ostensibly to protect the lives of Americans living in the city during the war. On Feb. 15, 1898, an explosion of controversial origin sank the USS Maine. This incident proved to be a catalyst for action amidst the already existing demands for U.S. intervention. President McKinley made the following request of Congress:

"[A]uthorize and empower the President to take measures to secure a ... termination of hostilities between ... Spain and the people of Cuba, and to ... [establish] a stable government ... and to use the military and naval forces of the United States as may be necessary for these purposes."

Congress approved with the binding stipulation that Cuba could could not be annexed by the U.S. but must be left to the Cuban people. With the aid of the U.S., Spain was forced to leave Cuba. The U.S. began to withdraw in August of 1895. This withdrawal was conditional, two conditions being the establishment of Guantanamo Bay naval base and the right of future U.S. intervention in Cuban affairs.

As an independent state, Cuba proved to be less than stable. The 1906 elections resulted in an armed revolt that was resolved by US installation of a Governor. Elections in 1908 restored self-governance. An attempt to form a separate black republic was violently quashed in 1912, with the help of US forces. The Cuban constitution was suspended in 1930, resulting in violent attacks by various insurgent groups. Amidst a series of violent coups and U.S. involvement, Fulgencio Batista emerged as the ruler of Cuba. And so on.
* * * * *
For what purpose do I detail the origins of the state of Cuba? Cuba represents an instance in which third party intervention in a violent political dispute was "successful;" the dispute was resolved and the mechanisms were put in place to allow for self governance. In the short term, violent third party intervention was able to put an end to the violence between Spain and Cuban rebels.

However, the long run view of Cuban Independence shows that this success was an illusion. Over a period of 35 years Cuba saw political disputes repeatedly escalate to violence and the democratic governance of Cuba was repeatedly disrupted or dismantled. The failure of US intervention to result in the peaceful governance of Cuba bears out the central claim of my first round speech: violence is untenable as a solution to any dispute.

The cycle of violence I described is clearly visible in the Cuban example.

First, as US intervention "succeeded," it was institutionalized in the Cuban constitution, allowing for continued US intervention in Cuban affairs. US intervention was repeatedly administered violently, as in the case of the 1912 revolt.

Second, a Cuban political atmosphere was created in which the ultimate solution to political conflict was violent action. The Cuban revolution utilized violence to create an independent Cuba; violence was legitimized as an effective means of political action and more importantly, as an acceptable course of action if "necessary."

Finally, the principle of escalation is borne out. What begins as a conflict between Cuban nationals escalated to a conflict between the U.S. and Spain (the Spanish American War). This War had far reaching implications for the Philipines, Puerto Rico, and the fate of the Spanish Empire.

What Cuba shows us is that violence is not a localized problem but a structural one. Acts of violence only serve to strengthen the political systems that perpetuate violence; only a categorical condemnation of violence through NV/CD can free humanity from the domination of war.

R2 Rebuttal

1. My opponent claims NV/CD would be ineffective in a large number of cases but provides no warrant for this claim; his claim is an unsupported assertion. I have offered multiple examples of the success of NV/CD under very different conditions. In this round the weight of the evidence clearly stands in favor of the feasibility of NV/CD.

2. My opponent claims that I assume occupation in my advocacy of NV/CD. This is not true. The following are acts of NV resistance that can be carried out in absence of occupied territory: trade embargoes, hunger strikes, marches, rallies. Each of these methods have been used with success historically.

3. My opponent claims NV/CD requires that a significant number of the local population are against an occupying force. First, whenever a political faction is behaving violently, there is always a significant number of the local population opposed to the actions of the political faction. I challenge you to find a historical example where this is not the case. Second, opposition to violent behavior can come from the global community as well as the local community. This is a crucial aspect of NV/CD; NV/CD exposes the evil of violent political factions and initiates a moral awakening in those who may not be the direct victims. This is what happened in the US Civil Rights movement as the abuse nonviolent protesters suffered drew growing sympathy from the non-minority population. The efficacy of NV/CD stems not only from its ability to materially disrupt the oppressor's ability to impose control on a population but also from its ability to force awareness and elicit moral outrage from observers.

4. My opponent claims NV/CD should be used first "before NLMF." This mentality illustrates exactly what is meant when I say that the use of violence cements the view that violence is the ultimate political solution. NV/CD is seen as an intermediary solution, but ultimately when the cards are down, violence is what we should turn to as a final resort. Only a complete and total rejection of violent action can dismantle the cycle of violence.

5. My opponent says CD/NV is ineffective where free speech is not allowed. The case of the People Power Revolution in the Philippines I cited in R1 disprove this. NV resistance was able to effectively bring about political change despite the presence of martial law. Despite the ruling power imprisoning political opposition, shutting down universities, and blocking radio broadcasts, NV was able to replace an authoritarian government with a democracy.

Overview

My opponent's advocacy of NLMF equates to an advocacy for violence as the ultimate political solution. This call to violence is unable to provide a long term path to peace. Instead, calls to violence only perpetuate a cycle of violence which, in a nuclear world, is a cycle that threatens the very survival of our species. Any dialogue concerning the conflict resolution must have as its goal the long term achievement of lasting peace. Only a categorical condemnation of violence through advocacy of NV/CD can offer such a long term solution.
Debate Round No. 2
n96

Pro

Touch´┐Ż.
Raisor

Con

In this debate I have demonstrated that advocacy of the use of NLMF is an advocacy that embraces violence as a political solution, thereby perpetuating an endless cycle of violence.

Vote Con to embrace a policy that can stop violence and save humanity from the peril of nuclear annihilation.
Debate Round No. 3
n96

Pro

By agreement this round will not be carried out.
Raisor

Con

See Above Round
Debate Round No. 4
n96

Pro

By agreement this round will not be carried out.
Raisor

Con

Bye-round
Debate Round No. 5
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by n96 5 years ago
n96
Yes I do agree. 3 rounds it is.
Posted by Raisor 5 years ago
Raisor
n96,

I just realized this debate is set to 5 rounds. Are you ok with only doing 3 or 4? We can just both post a message along the lines of "by agreement this round will not be carried out" for our final rounds.
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
n96RaisorTied
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: pro concession
Vote Placed by Wallstreetatheist 5 years ago
Wallstreetatheist
n96RaisorTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro made a grammar error in the first sentence of the second paragraph. Con's arguments displayed great profundity and breadth. Con had sources.
Vote Placed by Cliff.Stamp 5 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
n96RaisorTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:13 
Reasons for voting decision: Domination by Con, Pro conceded, 1 pt however for a decent topic and OP.
Vote Placed by Ore_Ele 5 years ago
Ore_Ele
n96RaisorTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro conceded.
Vote Placed by baggins 5 years ago
baggins
n96RaisorTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro did not build a strong case. Whatever he did - it was adequately addressed by Con.
Vote Placed by quarterexchange 5 years ago
quarterexchange
n96RaisorTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: obvious