The Instigator
Yraelz
Con (against)
Winning
13 Points
The Contender
MoonDragon613
Pro (for)
Losing
6 Points

Parli: This house would take it off, take it all off.

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
Con Tied Pro
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: 3/9/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,282 times Debate No: 3146
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (6)
Votes (5)

 

Yraelz

Con

This is a parli designed debate. Format is as follows.

The Pro is the house, their burden in this debate is to found a case that fits under the resolution in some way or another.

Con is the opposition force, whatever case the house chooses to make I will advocate against.

I now stand open for the house's case.
MoonDragon613

Pro

Case: Currently there exist approximately 180,000 coalition soldiers stationed in Iraq attempting to maintain stability in the chaotic war torn region. The New York Times puts the annual cost of the war in Iraq at 200 Billion. Furthermore the American casualties in Iraq number close to four thousand.

The government, hereby proposes that we therefore withdraw all US forces in Iraq and instead undergo an extensive recruiting campaign in any country with a GDP per capita below 2,500 in order to send a total of 2 Million foreign soldiers into Iraq.

Point 1: The Economics
The economics of the war are crippling. 200 Billion a year is a tremendous expense, and one that we cannot sustain without great cost to American taxpayers and American social services. 200 Billion. *pause*. For even 100 Billion we could easily support 3 million aforementioned soldiers. This would leave another 100 Billion a year for social spending in America. With 100 Billion per year we could fix our education system, resolve our healthcare system, with 100 Billion per year we could feed the hungry and maintain social security. This proposal directly benefits America by liberating tremendous resources to be used for the social good.

Point 2: Resolving the Iraq Crisis
We also advocate this proposal because it will allow for the resolution of the Iraq Crisis. And there is an Iraq Crisis. The situation in Iraq is deteriorating. The insurgents are growing stronger, and there is tremendous internal pressure to withdraw because of the death of Americans. The status quo cannot be maintained. If we withdraw, Iraq would fall apart and whatever government that ensues from the chaos would be as vehemently anti-American as Iran and North Korea. If we stay, Iraq would still fall apart as it is in the process of doing. We cannot afford to send more Americans nor do we have enough supporters to raise an army in Iraq. The only recourse to resolve the situation in Iraq is to act quickly, and act decisively and simultaneously crush the insurgents while showing a determination to stay whatever the cost.

a. The insurgents draw tremendous power from the fact that they know with each US casualty the US comes closer to withdrawal. We proved this in Vietnam and we're proving that in Iraq today. However with foreign mercenaries, casualties would no longer have a visceral impact on the American public. Mercenaries are not Americans and even if casualties triple or quadruple, America wont care and the numbers are easily replaceable.

b. Secondly with 2 million soldiers instead of 180 thousand, we could tremendously broaden the scope of military supervision and military effectiveness. With 2 million soldiers we can supervise 10 times the area we currently supervise. With a combination of a huge army and an army that will stay until Iraq's pacification, we can finally take a step towards the resolution of the crisis in Iraq.

Point 3: Greater safety for America overall.
By using mercenary forces in such numbers, America sets a tremendous international precedent that will contribute significantly to its influence in international affairs. America, when making speeches about the war on terror and the axis of terror once again regains its credibility. With this precedent, we could negotiate more powerfully with Iran, with North Korea, and any dictators that threaten the interest of the United States.

Point 4: positive externalities
In addition to of course the tremendous tremendous benefits to America, the remaining time will be spent discussing the positive extranalities, the benefits over seas. Countries that qualify are countries that most desperately need foreign capital. The inflow of American money on such a scale in those countries would boost the economies there, building wealth and prosperity.

Another positive externality is the safety to the Iraqi people. The impending bloodshed, the increasing instability, the increasing violence would lead to tremendous upheaval in Iraq. That upheaval would destroy Iraq economically and socially. This upheaval will lead to secular violence of such scale, would likely lead to a Darfur, or a Kosovo. The upheaval will inflict tremendous pain and suffering. The positive moral externalities of saving the lives of Iraqis is something that should not be ignored.
Debate Round No. 1
Yraelz

Con

I will begin by thanking my opponent for taking this round and also my voters for voting.

Thus I will offer a brief roadmap of where I will be going, that being: I will start with a topicality, and then moving onto all four of my opponents points.

Topicality: My opponents case does not actually fall under the resolution at all. The resolution clearly says that this house would take it off, take it all off. Thus my opponent has decided to withdraw troops from Iraq, all of them. Sadly the plural word troops cannot be supported by the singular pronoun it. If the resolution had perhaps said, "This house would take them off, take them all off" then it might have worked. Even then we still have the problem of the phrase "take... off", last time I checked "take... off" and "remove... from" were not synonyms. While they can mean the same thing they often don't, this is a scenario where removing troops is not synonymous with taking them off.

Furthermore the resolution quite clearly states that we should take it off take it all off. Not "replace" as my opponent seems to want to do.

Which leads me into my opponents points.

1. Economics. The first thing voters need to see on this point is the fact that my opponent has no way to gaurantee solvency. I challenge him to offer me any source that actually says we will be able to convince 2 million foreign soldiers to fight for us. Furthermore this is actually a turn and an advantage for me. Right now we hire mercenaries to aid us in Iraq, these mercenaries are from a company known as Blackwater. Currently they have 21,000 soldiers in Iraq, and as a consequence we are paying them 1 billion dollars over a 5 year period (http://en.wikipedia.org...). My opponent doesn't want 21,000 soldiers though, he wants 2 million, a number 95 times greater. Thus instead of 1 billion dollars over 5 years we will be dishing out 95 billion dollars over 5 years to support 2 million troops. Thus we would seem to have an advantage, sadly it isn't. My opponent assumes that the money going towards Iraq is specifically in wages for troops, but its not true if it were true the 200 billion dollars spaced out over the 180,000 troops would mean that each troop was attaining a salary of over 1 million dollars per year. Sadly the best salary for a United States Marine is liberally 100,000 per year. Taking this number as a basis means that for every 100,000 spent on a troop and additional 1,000,000 will be spent on gear, supplies, planes, ships, etc... Thus for the 2 million troops that my opponent plans to put into action costing about 100 billion we will be shelling out another 1 trillion for gear in order for them to succeed.

Unless of course it would be my opponents plan to send in 2 million troops trained in martial arts.

2. Resolving the Iraq crisis. This is interesting, my opponent points out that if we leave now Iraq will hate us in the future. Thus he advocates that we send in 11 times the current force to crush them....... at which point they will love us. I do not see the logic in my opponent claims, and can only advocate myself that a large portion of Iraq is going to dislike us no matter what happens.

"A March 2007 survey of more than 2,000 Iraqis commissioned by the BBC and three other news organizations found that 51% of the population consider attacks on coalition forces "acceptable,"" - http://en.wikipedia.org...

Secondly this is yet another turn for me. My opponent advocates that with 2 million mercenaries we will be able to control Iraq, this however relies on the fact that we can control the mercenaries. We can barely control Blackwater's American mercenaries, what evidence can my opponent possibly show that will gaurantee we can control foreign mercenaries? 2 million foreign mercenaries.

Finally please examine this statement made by my opponent, "With a combination of a huge army and an army that will stay until Iraq's pacification". My opponent is clearly advocating that we create a military state, and advocates it stays that way until pacification. Can my opponent gaurantee pacification?

3. Greater safety for America overall.... This has no solvency. We already wield the nuclear bomb and arguably the greatest air force in the world. Pumping 2 million troops into a country at this point is pointless. It would be like me beating someone senseless (the nuclear bomb), and then turning around and pushing someone else (2 million troops). The fact that I just beat someone senseless is going to make the push look like nothing. The fact that we have launched two nuclear bombs in the past makes any number of ground forces seem like an innocent baby.

4. Finally we have positive externalities. My opponent offers 2 scenarios.

a. The first one is that of giving desperate countries foreign capital. First off this is untrue, we are not going to be paying mercenaries from struggling countries to fight for us as it is doubtful they would have military training. Instead we will be paying countries with superfluous amounts of soldiers. Countries like China, Great Britain, France, Spain etc..... Thus we are just going to be making the countries that are already powerful even more powerful. On top of this we are losing our own power by giving away arguably trillions of dollars to other countries.

b. Safety of the Iraqi people.... ? The Blackwater soldier's are culpable to the United States government for war crimes because they are mostly American's and Blackwater is based in America. This has not stopped Blackwater soldiers from simply slaughtering innocent Iraqis. So what makes my opponent think that foreign troops, not liable to the United States at all for war crimes, are going to be better? I think they'll be worse.
MoonDragon613

Pro

My opponent claimed I didn't follow the resolution. A careful reading would reveal otherwise. Notice how I've just advocated taking it (The US Military) off. Take it all off. Of course I took it an extra step and threw in a replacement. So with that being said, time to delve into points and counter points.

On Case:
I. Economics
My opponent uses Blackwater as an example. 21,000 very highly trained, skilled mercenaries which serve as private body guards and engage in specialized missions. I'm sure my opponent has carefully read the part of the resolution which said "any country with a GDP per capita below 2,500".

I'm not talking about building a 2 million strong army of elite mercenaries. I'm taking about building a 2 million strong army of adequately trained conscripts. I'm talking about recruiting from Sudan or Ethiopia or the Congo, Recruiting from Soviet break away states suffering from severe economic distress. My opponent's numbers are ludicrously off the mark since he's using the wages for US troops. The GDP per capita in the United States is a whopping 44,000. Use that as a comparison.

II. Resolving the Iraq Crisis.
Of course a portion of Iraq will dislike us no matter what happens. In regards to the March 2007 survey, that's only a glimpse as to the broader data. Which I have. All of it. Except for the Kurds, we have seen a continued decrease of support for American troops as well as a decrease of the feeling of security by the people of Iraq since "Mission Accomplished".

Now I have suggested a method to resolve the Iraq Crisis that would not leave in power a government which vehemently hates America and will destabilize the region. My opponent ... hasn't. His criticism of the likelihood of the success of my operation is irrelevant. Even if my proposal is not guaranteed to succeed, so long as it has the Possibility of improving the current situation, the resolution should be supported.

Notice my opponent has NOT dispute my outlook on the eventual progression of the situation in Iraq. Thus my proposal stands, regardless of his criticism, as the only option avaliable.

III. Greater US Security
Having nuclear weapons does not give us the numerical superiority necessary to take military action in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Iran. My opponent might be good at drawing pictures with words, but be that as it may, we have not used nuclear weapons since 1945. Every action taken since then for US Security or in US interests has relied on missiles, planes, and ground troops.

IV. Externalities
a. Actually ... the case construct spells that part out. We are recruiting, and then training, mercenaries from struggling countries to fight for us. These people are cheap to hire, cheap to train, and cheap to insure.

b. As I mentioned earlier, Iraq is in a precarious position. When they erupt into a full civil war, an eventuality my opponent has acquiesced, the current violence there would be just a pale shadow of what is to come. Open warfare. Genocide. Religious fanaticism on both sides. And of course throw in the Kurds and you have a blood bath worse than what we've seen in Sudan.

So let's compare. Mercenaries who MIGHT be harsh or brutal. Versus the catastrophic civil war which WILL be destructive.

For these reasons the Government is proud to stand by its resolution.
-Hear me Roar!
Debate Round No. 2
Yraelz

Con

Alright then, to begin my last round I would like to thank my opponent for debating this topic with me. I will once again begin with my topicality argument.

My opponent quite clearly argues that, "Notice how I've just advocated taking it (The US Military) off." While the pronoun it can work to describe a body, the preposition "off" cannot be applied to the U.S military in this circumstance. The U.S military in other words cannot be taken off. It can be removed, withdrawn, relocated, but not taken off.

Furthermore notice the resolution says that "This house would take it off, take it all off." In this instance my opponent is advocating that the United States represents this house, and the military is what should be taken off. However the resolution clearly states all off, where as my opponent just plans to take "if off" of Iraq. Thus my opponents case clearly does not fall under the resolution.

Which brings me to the no solvency issue. That being, my opponent can offer absolutely no gaurantee that he will be able to recruit 2 million people from financially struggling countries. Furthermore he has no gaurantee that their are 2 million "adequately trained conscripts" to even be found in said struggling countries.

And! Why would these people join this campaign for such low wages if they could just as easily emigrate to the United States and actually enlist in our army for higher wages without ever having to fight?

IV. Externalities

From here my opponent attempts to belittle one of my most important arguments made in the last round,

"Safety of the Iraqi people.... ? The Blackwater soldier's are culpable to the United States government for war crimes because they are mostly American's and Blackwater is based in America. This has not stopped Blackwater soldiers from simply slaughtering innocent Iraqis. So what makes my opponent think that foreign troops, not liable to the United States at all for war crimes, are going to be better? I think they'll be worse."

I clearly advocate that we will find it difficult if not impossible to control these foreign troops as they hold no real allegiance or culpability to the United States. My opponent responds with,

"As I mentioned earlier, Iraq is in a precarious position. When they erupt into a full civil war, an eventuality my opponent has acquiesced, the current violence there would be just a pale shadow of what is to come."

This is a direct turn, the idea of implementing an army that we may not be able to control simply increases the chance of said civil war. This possibility would not only be increased by our actual lack of control but encouraged if not necessitated by the shameful acts of violence these troops would be committing against the Iraqi people.

III. Greater US Security

My opponent also continues his line of argument consisting of the idea that 2 million troops will intimidate our enemies in the future. He attempts to discredit my point about nuclear warheads by stating that they have not been used since Japan. This is true, so let me re advocate. Non-Nuclear bombs make ground troops seems utterly pointless. When we can accurately guide a smart bomb down someones chimney from halfway across the world it makes a large army seem small.

II. Resolving the Iraq Crisis.

My opponents advocacy here can simply be summed up with a direct quote from his last round,

"Now I have suggested a method to resolve the Iraq Crisis that would not leave in power a government which vehemently hates America and will destabilize the region."

This being in response to my statement in round two stating,

"Thus he advocates that we send in 11 times the current force to crush them....... at which point they will love us. "

They already have a 51% disapproval rating of us, how is sending 11x the current force over their going to make them like us in any way? My opponent simply states that he has a plan which will stop them from hating us while stabilizing the reason, yet he offers absolutely no analysis on why this could possibly be. On the other hand I offer reasons why it this wouldn't be the case.

I. Economics

Finally and saved for last because it is the most important issue in this round. In my second round I clearly state that,

"My opponent assumes that the money going towards Iraq is specifically in wages for troops, but its not true if it were true the 200 billion dollars spaced out over the 180,000 troops would mean that each troop was attaining a salary of over 1 million dollars per year."

I go on to analyze this statement and liberally decide that each troop actually gets payed $100,000 dollars. This means that for every troop enlisted a million dollars is spent on gear. Aircraft, guns, body armor, tanks etc.... But this is a liberal estimate. Really a troop probably only gets payed about $50,000. But to pacify my opponent we will assume that each of these new troops is getting payed absolutely nothing. They just enlist for free. That doesn't change the fact that they need gear, tanks, planes, bombs, etc...

This means that for each free troop my opponent enlists about 1 million dollars will be spent on gear to fight this war. A.K.A 2 million troops x 1 million dollars = $2,000,000,000,000. Or 2 trillion dollars.

(This is taken from the idea that we currently shell about 200 billion a year into a war that currently contains 180,000 troops. This means each troop if given an equal share of that money would receive a little over 1.1 million dollars. This however is not true as each troop is doubtlessly getting less than $100,000. Thus the 2 trillion dollars would actually be slightly higher if I actually had proper wages. )

In summary my opponent advocates we pay these people little, which is fine. And yes my opponent has some minor benefit, considering that the cost of raising our own army to 2 million would be 2.222 trillion dollars ((2,000,000/180,000) x 2,000,000,000). In fact my opponent is saving about 200 million dollars with his plan. Sadly the United States either way is incapable of sustaining a 2 trillion dollar war. This turns my opponents entire economic benefit.

Thank you for the debate.
MoonDragon613

Pro

As to topicality, remember, I'm advocating taking all American US troops out of Iraq. Which suffices to satisfy the resolution. Seeing as how this is a rather abstract resolution, I believe it has been satisfied.

Now moving on to why I've won this debate.

4. Externalities.
One of the key externalities is the "safety of the Iraqi people". As I've said, My resolution at least makes it possible to prevent the inevitable chaotic destruction of the impending civil war. My opponent's status quo does not. And he concedes that. Read his arguments carefully. His criticism is that my proposal Might make things "worse" because of Blackwater's failure. And he says it Might make things worse because it might increase "the chance of said civil war."

But notice how this goes entirely unsupported during the debate. Because the truth is, the Civil War, as it stands, is inevitable. Might my resolution fail to stop the impending Civil War? Certainly. There is the Possibility. However, since my argument that the civil war is inevitable is NOT countered by my opponent, as it stands, my Resolution results in positive externalities you would not find in the status quo.

Also, Unchallenged is my assertion that it would result in greater economic prosperity in Africa and other underdeveloped regions of the world.

3. Greater US Security.
My opponent says we don't need an army because we have Nuclear Weapons. And that ground troops are pointless. If you believe that having Nuclear Weapons means we don't need an army, then by all means, this point is his ...

Oh by the way, when the North Koreans invaded South Korea, ... were out interests protected because we had nuclear weapons? When Iraq invaded Kuwait, were out interests protected because we had nuclear weapons? When Afghanistan attacked New York, were our interests protected because we had nuclear weapons?

But hey, if my opponent says us having nuclear weapons safeguards us from all threats and protects our interests, then sure. If he says ground troops are "utterly pointless" then sure. Why look at history, or evidence at all? We have his word for it.

2. Resolving the Iraq Crisis
My opponent cites their 51% disapproval rating. He forgot to cite the corresponding decline in the feeling of Security. During the 6 month period from 3/5/07 to 8/24/07, 70% of Iraqis felt that security worsened. It was after those 6 months when 53% of polled began to disapprove of the presence of coalition forces in Iraq.
If you're going to cite data, make sure you look at all of it.

Sending in 11 times the current forces would restore peace in Iraq. If it restores peace in Iraq our approval rating will go up. I have now explained, and given statistical evidence.

But of course this is irrelevant. The issue is does sending in 11x the troops increase the probability of resolving the Iraq Crisis. My opponent offers no evidence to the contrary therefore this point is conceded to me.

1.
Finally. After winning 3 points, we're finally at the last one. Important as well. Perhaps not the most important, but doesn't matter. Since I've won all 4 points, doesn't really matter which one's most important right?

My opponent claims my argument depends on each soldier attaining a salary of over 1 million dollars a year. Upon this he bases his whole spiel of mathematics. And that is where he's wrong.

My argument depends on each soldier COSTING 1 million dollars a year.
The US Army estimates that each soldier's death costs $100,000 (death benefit) and from $250,000 to $500,000 (life insurance. Bilmes and Stiglitz from Columbia, in the 34 page report, "The Economic Costs of the Iraq War: An Appraisal Three Years after the Beginning of the Conflict"
on the other hand computed the cost of death to be $6 million.
Don't forget the health care, the veteran's benefits, the pensions, the free college education.
Don't forget the COST OF TRAINING.
Don't forget, especially, the cost of death and replacement.

THAT is the basis of my argument on economics. Troops from 3rd world countries are cheaper to train. Cheaper to replace. Cheaper to maintain. Cheaper to maintain after the war. And that is why this is not only economically feasible, it creates an economic surplus.

-Thank you for the debate.
Debate Round No. 3
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by FalseReality 9 years ago
FalseReality
This is the Third reference.
Posted by Yraelz 9 years ago
Yraelz
Yeah well I had to change that a bit.

Would can be interchangeably replaced with should.
Posted by Korezaan 9 years ago
Korezaan
In Parli, the government ALWAYS goes first ._.;
Posted by SportsGuru 9 years ago
SportsGuru
Question: In parli debate topics, is "would" interpreted as "would" or "will"?
Posted by SportsGuru 9 years ago
SportsGuru
If this is still open next week after Tuesday, I will take it. There is a band trip this week and I do not want a repeat of my round 3 argument in our last debate.
Posted by Logical-Master 9 years ago
Logical-Master
I've read your description of this on another comment section and I'm not entirely certain about how things flow. I'll see how this debate goes and will probably take up the next one (assuming there is a next one).
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by Yraelz 8 years ago
Yraelz
YraelzMoonDragon613Tied
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:70 
Vote Placed by C4747500 9 years ago
C4747500
YraelzMoonDragon613Tied
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 Logical-Master 9 years ago
Logical-Master
YraelzMoonDragon613Tied
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 Bitter_Sarcasm 9 years ago
Bitter_Sarcasm
YraelzMoonDragon613Tied
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 qwerty15ster 9 years ago
qwerty15ster
YraelzMoonDragon613Tied
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