The Instigator
dylancatlow
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
JoeOnly
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

North Korea is a constant threat to World-peace and military intervention is necessary

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/5/2012 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,713 times Debate No: 25458
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (6)
Votes (0)

 

dylancatlow

Pro

I will be arguing pro, that North Korea is a constant threat to World-peace and military intervention against them is necessary.

Terms:
1) Threat- A statement of an intention to inflict pain, injury, damage, or other hostile action on someone in retribution for something done or not
2) Peace-
Freedom from disturbance; quiet and tranquility.
3) Intervening - Interference by a country in another's affairs.
4) Necessary - Required to be done, achieved, or present; essential.

The burden of proof will be shared in this debate

Rules:
1) Users must address every obviously plausible argument, dropping ONLY pettifog or obviously flawed arguments.
2) In the first round, users must not make any arguments; doing so will result in loss of conduct point.
3) Debate format is as follows:

Round one - acceptance (this)
Round two- Pro (me) will post opening argument. Con (them) will post opening argument and rebuttal
Round three - Pro (me) will rebuttal and make closing statement. Con (them) will make closing statement ONLY. Not following this rule is an automatic loss of conduct point.

This is the case so we each make:
1 opening statement
1 rebuttal
1 closing argument

If a situation arises in which the resolution is obviously flawed is some way and makes one side of the argument impossible, it may be slightly altered if we both agree.
If you accept these terms please respond "I accept these terms as given"
I look forward to a fun debate!
JoeOnly

Con

I accept the parameters of the debate and I will be arguing against an invasion of North Korea.
Debate Round No. 1
dylancatlow

Pro

dylancatlow forfeited this round.
JoeOnly

Con

Legal military intervention in a state requires that evidence of an imminent threat of force from that state exists, and that peaceful alternatives have been exhausted. These are both clearly not true of North Korea at the moment, hence military intervention would be illegal.
Debate Round No. 2
dylancatlow

Pro

dylancatlow forfeited this round.
JoeOnly

Con

North Korea is about as much of a threat to World Peace as Narnia.
Debate Round No. 3
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by JoeOnly 4 years ago
JoeOnly
No problem. I await your opening argument.
Posted by dylancatlow 4 years ago
dylancatlow
Okay, just making sure. If you believed military intervention was not EVER justifiable, this debate would be impossible. Like one going into an argument thinking "All books are bad" to try and argue why Harry Potter is a bad book.
Posted by JoeOnly 4 years ago
JoeOnly
The debate is whether the West, presumably what you meant, should intervene militarily in North Korea. You're pro, Im con. Im not opposed to any military intervention anywhere anytime if that's what you mean. Im opposed to any kind of intervention North Korea right now.
Posted by dylancatlow 4 years ago
dylancatlow
You're opposed to any sort of military intervention? We have nothing to talk about.
Posted by JoeOnly 4 years ago
JoeOnly
I think we already disagree on the definition of military intervention. However, you can present in your opening argument the type of military intervention you support, I will argue against it, as I'm opposed to any sort of military intervention.
Posted by dylancatlow 4 years ago
dylancatlow
The debate isn't about invading North Korea.
No votes have been placed for this debate.