North Korean Leader Kim Jong Un should be referred to as "Fat Boy Kim" on all official US Documents.
Debate Rounds (4)
When North Korea (or someone who supported them) hacked Sony because of "The Interview" (a movie which parodies Kim Jong Un), they were trying to make a point: that no criticism of their leader, Kim Jong Un, would be tolerated by North Korea.
If the United States government responded by renaming Kim Jong Un "Fat Boy Kim" on all its documents, that would send a message to not only North Korea but to tyrannical regimes throughout the world that freedom of speech would not be suppressed.
2. He is Indeed Fat
Honesty is the best policy. In fact, by calling him that, perhaps they could shame him into losing some weight, which would be beneficial to his own well-being.
If North Korea responded with a cyber attack on the U.S. electronic grids, that'd be sufficient justification for a war against North Korea, which is growing more and more dangerous.
As there are probably several dozen people in the world who are named Kim Jong Un, but no one is named Fat Boy Kim, this would allow for complete precision of language. That is, if Obama authorized a mission to assassinate Kim Jong Un, nobody would respond with "Which Kim Jong Un are you talking about?"
It's my opponent's turn now. I await his response.
1. It will heighten Korean tension
If we disrespect the North Korean leaders name, then they are obviosly going to be mad. And what to mad people do??? Fight! Doing such an act would provoke another war... and war is bad since people die and money is wasted.
Wouldn't it be immature for the US to call Kim Jong Un such a profane name. We are called to be the leading nation as we are the most advanced and unified. This would lower our self image a LOT.
What is the definition of a "Fat Boy"? How do we define between boy, man, and adolescent? What is the brightline between fat, plump, and chubby? We don't know! We can't call someone something that is too subjective to define.
Ok, we may disagree with everything Kim Jong Un is doing. But that doesn't allow us to disrespect his name and family name. Doing such an action would greatly offend the Kim family along with Kim Jong Un.
I negate and will refute next round
2. Immaturity? More likely it would show that our leaders are not afraid of North Korea. It would inspire confidence in the world.
3. Kim Jong Un's current weight is unknown, but physical appearance suggests he meets the criteria of "overweight". Especially by the standards of North Korea.
4. Why not? He is in charge of a dictatorship which has been responsible for countless deaths, and he has done nothing to alleviate the sufferings of his people since he has assumed the (metaphorical) throne. Rather, he continues to party and live the high life, giving little thought to the fact that the wealth he enjoys is at their expense.
I will now address my opponent's case:
My opponents first contention mentions how it is allowed via free speech. However, this isn't free speech; this is the placement of an offensive name for someone. Free speech is saying and expressing things. You are still free to express if Kim Jong Un is fat (if you believe so). So this contention falls since there isn't a relevant warrant to your claim
His second contention mentions that he is actually fat. However, that doesn't mean we have to call him out on it. Especially on such a crude level. Honesty is the best policy, but do we label people by their looks. On my passport, it won't say "Fat Man Dan", or other things noting people's descriptions in a derogatory way. This dehumanizes and takes away one's dignity. Even if we don't agree with Kim Jong Un's policies, we can't take it in our own hands to give him a name and dehumanize him to that level. Even then, "Fat" is subjective. We must look with subjectivitism as their is no valid definition on when a person is fat. There are ratios for when a person is classified obese, but ther isn't any criteria on when one is deemed "fat". What is the brightline between "pudgy" and "chubby'? Exactly, it is way too vague. He also says that if we alarm him on his "fatness" it can change his health. However that isn't for the US and others to humiliate on. If it was an issue, Kim Jong Un's doctors or advisors would've told him. So cross apply my 3rd and 4th contentions and so this contention falls.
His third contention mentions how labeling Kim Jong Un with this name is jst as it is a part of war. However, even if we are in war, we have some decency. In WWII, did we call Hitler, "Mustache Meathead"? Of course not, that is disrespectful. even then, the US isn't even in a official war with N. Korea, just some tension. So it would provoke a war, which is bad. There is also no proof on the cyber attack as a result from the N. Korean government so that point falls. So cross apply my 1st contention so this contention falls.
His fourth contentions mentions how there might be many Kim Jong Un's and changing his name on legal docs. would clarify. However, there is no warrant showing the amount of Kim Jong Un's t cause such confusion. Even then, there isn't an issue with name sharing. There are many Joe Smith's, so there are other ways to ID people if they are needed for legal purposes (address, phone, etc). Furthermore, Kim Jong Un is a public figure so it isn't hard to seperate him from others that might (no warrant showing) share a name. So this contention falls.
Now to rebuild my case:
My opponent tries to cross apply his third contention to my first, however the opposite is true. There is no actually war called for by Congress, just tension. And as I said affirming will increase tensions, leading to a war (bad!). And humiliating a leader is NOT a war tactic. So my first contention stands.
My opponent attacks my second contention by saying affirming would show that leaders are not afraid and thus promote confidence. However, it would make people think lower, even coward like for leaders to fight by calling each other names, like six year old girls. And he doesn't directly attack how affirming makes the US look VERY immature so my second contention stands.
To my third contention my opponent responds by saying that his physical criteria is sufficient for overweight, especially in N. Korea. However, it is unwarranted on how N. Korea views him as "fat". And even if they do, that doesn't allow us to intervene and define him as so. And as I have said, there is no objective criteria for "overweight" or "fat". For example, a deemed "skinny" girl may view herself as "fat". Thus, my third contention stands.
My opponent responds to my fourth contention by saying that because Kim Jong Un isn't the greatest ruler, we have the right to disrespect him. That clearly is false and dehumanizing. Although he may not be a great ruler, we have NO right to label him a "Fat Boy". Since there is no direct attack on the disrespecting aspect of affirming, this contention stands.
Thus, I strongly negate and side on the con.
1. Freedom of Speech is not designed to protect popular speech, but unpopular speech. Besides, Kim Jong Un called Obama a monkey. That's just racist.
2. Tough Love (we hate the dude but still). He'd be inspired to change just to have his annoying nickname. That would actually result in his life being prolonged. He benefits.
3. It's unlikely that a war will result just by calling him "Fat Boy Kim". In fact, by showing him we're not afraid of him, he might be less likely to go to war. Who knows?
4. Okay, it works like this: the Pentagon authorizes sending a commando unit inside North Korea to assassinate Kim Jong Un. But once they get inside, how will they know which Kim Jong Un to kill? North Korea is a very secretive country, so it'd probably be harder than you think to ID him.
Cracking my opponent's case:
1. The United States is not in a state of war against North Korea. However, they make incendiary remarks against the United States every year.
2. It's diplomacy. It's not petty at all. Besides, people would think it was funny.
3. By the standards of no country is somebody as heavy as Kim Jong Un not overweight (not even in the United States).
4. "Isn't the greatest ruler" is a bit of an understatement. Daily he oppresses the people of North Korea for his own benefit. They have nothing, while he's wealthier than 100 average Americans combined.
Before I end this, I have one last point to make:
The North Korean people, upon seeing that their seemingly infallible leader has been insulted like this and he is powerless to exact his revenge without sparking the Second Korean War, may begin to question their leader, which might spark a chain of events leading to the deliverance of North Korea from the tyranny of the dictatorial Kim Dynasty.
That will be all, and I ask voters to cast their votes in my favor. Thank you.
To rebuild my case:
My opponent attacks my first contention by saying "The United States is not in a state of war against North Korea. However, they make incendiary remarks against the United States every year." Thus, he concedes that there isn't a war. He doesn't refute my points on how it will greatly increase tension and lead to a war (and war is bad), so my first contention stands.
My opponent attacks my second contention by saying "It's diplomacy. It's not petty at all. Besides, people would think it was funny." He states that it is diplomacy, however, diplomacy is defined as "the conduct by government officials of negotiations and other relations between nations." (Dictionary.com). This point can be turned in my favor as for diplomacy, one must be courteous and mature. In addition, he says that it would be funny to address Kim Jong-Un in such a name. However, 1. this is a new argument in a rebuttal and should be ignored and 2. who cares what is funny. That doesn't justify an action. I bet some Nazis were laughing during the Holocaust, does that justify it? Of course not. Therefore, my second contention stands.
To my third contention, my opponent says "By the standards of no country is somebody as heavy as Kim Jong Un not overweight (not even in the United States)." However there is no source or logical reasoning given on the standards of people deeming one "overweight" or "fat". He simply says it could be commonly agreed. But popularity doesn't justify an action. For example, no one likes taxes, but does that mean that they aren't just. No! So this point falls and my third contention stands.
To my fourth contention, my opponent attacks it by saying ""Isn't the greatest ruler" is a bit of an understatement. Daily he oppresses the people of North Korea for his own benefit. They have nothing, while he's wealthier than 100 average Americans combined." However, this doesn't disprove my argument (the disrespect of the action of the resolution). He simply says it can be justified by what he has done. However, it may enrage him and cause more oppression. Remember: we aren't debating Kim Jong-Uns ruling ethics - just whether his name shall be called "Fat Boy Kim" on US documents. Therefore, this contention stands.
On to my opponents case:
My opponent defends his first contention by saying "Freedom of Speech is not designed to protect popular speech, but unpopular speech. Besides, Kim Jong Un called Obama a monkey. That's just racist." However, the resolution said on US documents. That isn't freedom of speech, simply labeling. You can still freely call Kim Jong-Un "Fat Boy Kim" so this argument isn't logical. We can also disregard the Obama example as: 1. There is no source and 2. It is compltely irrelevant.
My opponent defends his second contention by saying "Tough Love (we hate the dude but still). He'd be inspired to change just to have his annoying nickname. That would actually result in his life being prolonged. He benefits." The point on "Tough love" doesn't matter because that is my opponent's opinion. He mentions how Kim Jong-Un will be inspired to change, yet, we don't have the obligation to promote his health. And if we want him to benefit, this contradicts my opponents argument as it is a part of war. So either way, this contention falls.
My opponents defends his third contention by saying "It's unlikely that a war will result just by calling him "Fat Boy Kim". In fact, by showing him we're not afraid of him, he might be less likely to go to war. Who knows?" However, it would do the opposite and provoke war. In addition, he doesn't respond to the cross application of my first contention to it (disrespect). So this contention falls.
My opponents fourth contention is defended by saying "Okay, it works like this: the Pentagon authorizes sending a commando unit inside North Korea to assassinate Kim Jong Un. But once they get inside, how will they know which Kim Jong Un to kill? North Korea is a very secretive country, so it'd probably be harder than you think to ID him." However, he still doesn't warrant that there is other Kim Jong-Uns. Especially in a strict country like N. Korea, he wouldn't allow for people to share his name. Even then, he doesn't respond to my attacks on how there are more detailed ways to ID one, so this contention falls.
And to my opponents last point: "The North Korean people, upon seeing that their seemingly infallible leader has been insulted like this and he is powerless to exact his revenge without sparking the Second Korean War, may begin to question their leader, which might spark a chain of events leading to the deliverance of North Korea from the tyranny of the dictatorial Kim Dynasty." However:
1. Nobody would see it
a. The name is on US documents
b. N. Korea is a deeply censored society
2. My opponent doesn't show how this leads to a war and removal of oppression
3. There is no impact on the removal of the Kim Dynasty and it is complety non-resolutional
I urge you to vote for the CON for the following reasons:
1. I have more well-defended ground remaining. My opponent misses many components to my arguments as seen in the rebuttals.
2. My opponent has no ground remaining . I thoroughly attack his arguments and cross apply my arguments.
3. I best fulfill the burden of the resolution. I show why the US shouldn't refer to Kim Jong Un as "Fat Boy Kim" on DOCUMENTS. My opponent misinterprets it as having the name seen everywhere as some type of propoganda.
4. I have better discourse. I neatly organize my arguments in an articulate manner with a roadmap I follow. Also, I provide better punctuation, spelling, and grammar. In addition, I was more courteous. I never offended my opponent. While my opponent offends my roadmap (ROADMAP: I'm not on the road) and my case (Cracking my opponents case) and other examples seen throughout the debate.
5. My opponent provides no voting issues. So you should default to mine and side CON
All-in-all, this was an interesting debate over a fun, an controversial, topic. I enjoyed debating my opponent and hope you guys enjoy reading this debate. Thank you, have a nice day/afternoon/night and I urge you to side CON.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by YYW 2 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||4||0|
Reasons for voting decision: A clear win for PRO. The comedic value of referring to Kim Jong Un as "fat boy kim" clearly outweighs any impact that CON had -which was none. CON offers no link, evidence or persuasive argument to connect affirming the resolution to increased tension -and he fails to weigh that increased tension, even if it were to exist, against the added comedic value. CON's case begins and ends with spurious claims like "immaturity" and "disrespect." Dude, you accepted a troll debate, not a serious discussion of international relations -and in that you failed to treat the debate as it ought to have been treated, you lose. Conduct to PRO for keeping with the spirit of the debate. Arguments as well.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.