The Instigator
MasterKage
Pro (for)
Winning
15 Points
The Contender
lannan13
Con (against)
Losing
13 Points

Missiles defense systems are unnecessary

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 5 votes the winner is...
MasterKage
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/22/2011 Category: Politics
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 995 times Debate No: 20016
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (6)
Votes (5)

 

MasterKage

Pro

==Introduction==

This is for Weirdman's debate christmas tournament.

You can find the sign up's here: http://www.debate.org...

And you can find the debating match up's here: http://www.debate.org...

My opponent will be arguing that missle defense systems are necessary, while I will be arguing that there will be other, just as effictive, methods other than missle defenses.

First round will be acceptance.

I don't believe that definitions are necessary, but my opponent may provide them if he wishes.
lannan13

Con

I accept. As the con I'll be debating that we need balistic missle interceptors.
Debate Round No. 1
MasterKage

Pro

MasterKage forfeited this round.
lannan13

Con

sub 1. I have nothing to refute, but masterkage thank you for explain so I'll now explain
1 there are a lot of countries out there that have nuclear wepons and the fact is simply this we need more defense. The U.S. has some, but there are very little and they are in Alaska and California.
2. the GBI can only defend a small amout of area.
3. the threat is EMP (eletric magnetic pulse) and an EMP strike will fry the power grid and with perjected tests 95% of Americans would die in an EMP strike and fall-out.
4. DOD knows about the problem and has done nothing about it... Pro may say why well they've been off spending on other things.
Debate Round No. 2
MasterKage

Pro

My refutations will be accordance to his points, so for his first point my first refutation will be one as well.

1) The fact that other nations and territories have missle defenses isn't a valid reason for the U.S to have them. Just becuase slavery wasn't judged as a misdeed untill Lincoln came into office, doesn't make slavery valid.

2) For any one who doesn't know, the GBI is the Georgia Bureau of Investigation. Obviously this organization is only met to protect Georgia. The are numerous organizations that protect each individual state, there are also many which protect the United States overall, such as the FBI.

3) An EMP is the after effect of, normally, a nuclear explosion which results in a mushroom cloud. Clearly if an intent was to fire a nuke at the U.S. the E.M.P. would not be focused upon but the nuke prior to the EMP effects.
lannan13

Con

1. I never said other countries had GBIs
2. GBI is Ground Base Intecptors.
3. Pro only talks about a nuclear devise not a EMP which would fry the U.S. powe grid... How do we know this well the U.S. in the 1980s did a test.
4. The Pro has dropped this arguement don't let him bring it up again.
5. Pro has said nothing why a missile defense system is bad. he jus tries to make an agruement on how they have flaws.
Debate Round No. 3
MasterKage

Pro

Refutations

1) I'm sorry I misread Con's first point, so now I will make a valid refutation against it. You stated the only areas in the United States that have nuclear weapons are Alaska and California, yet this is invalid information.
As you can see in this graph [1] it shows the areas of Earth that have nuclear weapons. The key is further down on the page. The primary areas to which have nuclear weapons is northern Europe. All of the area of the United States has nuclear weapons.

2) Thank you for your clarification. Of course you should have stated that, so that I didn't make an invalid refutation. Although, my opponent has shown a flaw in the GBI which is a Pro argument.

3) An Electromagnetic pulse [2] is, once again, generally the events after a nuclear explosion has happened. Obviously, we would hardly worry about the effects of the EMP, but we would focus on the effects of the nuke.

4) I, again, misread this argument, so this should not be considered a dropped argument. I misread DOD as DDO, so I thought Con was referring to this website. This is, once again, in argument in favor of my posistion.

5) In this debate, I am not entitled to show how missle defense systems are bad, I am to show how missle defense systems are unnecessary



Arguments

The missle defense systems are too costly [3]

In 2007 only, an estimated 130 billion dollars has been sent into a missle defense system, yet no working system of that 130 billion dollars was produced.

Also, the costs of the Ground-Based Midcourse Defense is set at an estimated 30.7 billion [4]


Sources

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[3] http://www.fpif.org...
[4] http://en.wikipedia.org...
lannan13

Con

1. The U.S. obvesouly ha nukes we know this, but my friend you yet aain mistook my info I said we have GBI in those states and they aren't effective
2. resovled
3. The Pro is saying the explotion of the nuke is more important isue than a U.S. without power. No electriciy for hospitals so all in all after the nuke explotion means more people will helplessly die. Not to mention the diesse from the spoiled food. The Pro is technically heling me on this point.
4. droped
5. when he showed how missile defenses are unessesary well. the last round is for summerization insted of new agruement so I ask you to discount this.
I see nothing but a Con ballot
Debate Round No. 4
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by RoyLatham 5 years ago
RoyLatham
No, I gave S&G to Pro, and Conduct to Con.
Posted by vmpire321 5 years ago
vmpire321
Roy, you gave conduct to PRO.... But you said in your RFD "PRO loses conduct for the forfeit"
Posted by RoyLatham 5 years ago
RoyLatham
Pro had to meet the burden of proof that missile defense is unnecessary. One approach is to argue that massive retaliation is so effective a deterrent that missile defense is unnecessary. that leads to a debate about whether Iran and North Korea are rational enough to be deterred. However, Pro didn't make that argument. Another route is to argue that there is no threat, so defense is unnecessary. That's a tough one, but Pro didn't press that either. Pro accepted that an EMP strike was a threat.

Pro made no case. Pro had the burden of proof, so failure to make a prima facie case is fatal to the debate, despite Con's weak showing.
Posted by RoyLatham 5 years ago
RoyLatham
The main reason for a missile defense system is to increase the stability of regions subject to the intimidation of authoritarian regimes. Iran threatens Israel with missiles and is working to threaten Europe, North Korea regularly shoots missiles over Japan and demands bribes. China threatens Taiwan. The alternative to missile defense is the further development of nuclear weapons and missile systems for defensive counter strikes. N. Korea is working to get a missile with enough range to threaten Hawaii. The N. Korean pattern is to demand payment of protection money

Current missile defense technology is working well. It has not been implemented because it's blocked by Democrats.

EMP attacks are bursts high above the ground, so there is no mushroom cloud or direct deaths from the explosion. The electrical grid and communications systems are taken out, with millions of deaths the indirect result. Iranian military writings emphasize the effectiveness of EMP attacks, hence the current interest in the subject.
Posted by MasterKage 5 years ago
MasterKage
Con go ahead and post your argument and I'll refute it.
Posted by MasterKage 5 years ago
MasterKage
Whoops. I did not mean to forfeit.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by 16kadams 5 years ago
16kadams
MasterKagelannan13Tied
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:34 
Reasons for voting decision: poor debate, conduct for FF. I re read pro failed to fill the bop, sorry master kage. HE did well but didn't fill a bop enough. he gets sources and grammar
Vote Placed by vmpire321 5 years ago
vmpire321
MasterKagelannan13Tied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:14 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct goes to CON due to the ff. Spelling/Grammar goes to PRO (What happened to spell checker, lannan?) PRO made new arguments in the last round, and didn't properly handle his BoP
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 5 years ago
RoyLatham
MasterKagelannan13Tied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:14 
Reasons for voting decision: This debate was a mess, with neither side researching the subject adequately. Pro loses conduct for the forfeit. It was difficult to figure out what Pro's case is. EMP is an attack with a high altitude burst, no mushroom cloud. Con did a weak job overall, but present the argument that missile defense was necessary for defense against EMP. I couldn't find Pro's argument as to why defense was unnecessary. Being part of a ground attack doesn't make it unnecessary.
Vote Placed by Lordknukle 5 years ago
Lordknukle
MasterKagelannan13Tied
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:61 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct CON. Spelling and Grammar PRO. Sources PRO. Arguments were awful on both sides but I could barely understand what CON wanted to say with his grammar and spelling so win: PRO.
Vote Placed by CAPLlock 5 years ago
CAPLlock
MasterKagelannan13Tied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: S/G go to Pro. Con had bad grammar Arguements go to Pro