The Instigator
blackhawk1331
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
bossyburrito
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

Resolution: You should only defend yourself when it is a sure win.

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 1 vote the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/11/2012 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,510 times Debate No: 25107
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (15)
Votes (1)

 

blackhawk1331

Con

I will be debating bossyburrito on the resolution "You should only defend yourself when it's a sure win". I will be taking the position that you should defend yourself no matter what. Bossy will be taking the position that you should only defend yourself when it's a sure win.

R1: Acceptance
R2: Opening arguments
R3: Rebuttals
R4: Closing arguments



*******NOTE: This debate is refering to groups of armed people fighting each other, not one person attacking another.**********
bossyburrito

Pro

I accept this debate.
I want to offer up some definitions for this debate. Con can challenge them if he feels the need.

Defend: To ward off attack from; guard against assault or injury (usually followed by from or against ) {1}

Sure: free from doubt as to the reliability, character, action, etc., of something. {2}

Win: to gain the victory; overcome an adversary. {3}

{1}http://dictionary.reference.com...
{2}http://dictionary.reference.com...
{3} http://dictionary.reference.com...
Debate Round No. 1
blackhawk1331

Con

I believe that a nation should defend itself regardless of it's chances of winning the fight. To support my position, I will draw on one war and two nations. The war is World War Two and the nations are France and the USSR.

In World War 2, Germany rolled into France and secured its hold on the nation. France had no chance at breaking free without assisstance. They had no assisstance at the beginning since Great Britain was fighting to maintain its own sovereignty and the US wasn't officially involved. Did France roll over and die? No. The French resistance formed. They fought back against the Germans as best they could despite the fact that their chances of winning were almost 0. They fought back, and became a key piece in Germany's defeat. If not for the French Resistance, D-Day wouldn't have happened. Without D-Day, it would have been much longer before the allies hit the mainland of Europe, if they ever hit it. If France, and all its citizens, had quit because "it wasn't a sure win", then World War Two would have turned out much differently.

The USSR is another great example. Germany pounded them for a large portion of the war, and almost broke them. The army of the USSR never quit. They kept fighting to defend their nation despite the fact that "it wasn't a sure win." They eventually were able to score a few great wins over the Germans and turn the war around. They ended the war as a super power. That wouldn't have happened if they'd quit.

I await my opponent's arguments.
bossyburrito

Pro

I will be defending the idea that nations should not defend themselves if they are not guarenteed to suceed.

Point 1: Chicken
For my first point, I will draw upon the popular Chicken game {1} from Game Theory. The scenario is simple: Two cars are speeding towards each other on a highway. Right before they hit, they have to do decide if they want to swerve out of the way. The worst outcome is one in which neither of them swerve. They both die/suffer heavy casualties. However, if one of them swerves, the other is able to keep riding along the highway. Therefor, the person who doesn't swerve is better off than the one who does. One must realize that even though one is better off, they don't both die. If one nation does not defend itself, it does not risk heavy casualties. It does not matter that they might still win. It would not be worth the risk of mutually-assured destruction.

Point 2: Casualties from defense
Before deciding to defend, you have to think of the outcomes. Is it worth it? For example, in the Battle of Stalingrad, up to 2,000,000 casulties were reported{2}. If Russia had given up the city, they would have avoided thousands upon thousands of deaths. Another example would be the Second Battle of the Marne, in which there were over 200,000 casualties and captures. {3}


{1} http://en.wikipedia.org...(game)
{2}http://en.wikipedia.org...
{3}http://en.wikipedia.org...


Debate Round No. 2
blackhawk1331

Con

blackhawk1331 forfeited this round.
bossyburrito

Pro

To keep this fair, I won't post any rebuttles this round. I suggest that we put rebuttles in the next round, with our closing statements.
Debate Round No. 3
blackhawk1331

Con

blackhawk1331 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
15 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by bossyburrito 5 years ago
bossyburrito
Please vote Tie btw.
Posted by blackhawk1331 5 years ago
blackhawk1331
I wasn't able to finish this debate. Feel free to vote or not, but we'll be restarting at a later date.
Posted by bossyburrito 5 years ago
bossyburrito
Should I post an argument or what?
Posted by bossyburrito 5 years ago
bossyburrito
Should I post an argument or what?
Posted by bossyburrito 5 years ago
bossyburrito
They wouldn't rape everybody though...
Posted by 16kadams 5 years ago
16kadams
Ok... Let a country come in and rape everybody with no resistance!
Posted by bossyburrito 5 years ago
bossyburrito
Should I go ahead and post rebuttles or wait for you?
Posted by bossyburrito 5 years ago
bossyburrito
Aw heck I didn't run spellcheck lol.
Posted by bossyburrito 5 years ago
bossyburrito
Aw heck I didn't run spellcheck lol.
Posted by blackhawk1331 5 years ago
blackhawk1331
I figured in R3 we rebute each other's opening arguments. Otherwise, I don't get a chance to rebute you rebuttals. That'd probably just be worked into closing statements. Like person x said y about z trying to make it sound false, but y is false because q.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by royalpaladin 5 years ago
royalpaladin
blackhawk1331bossyburritoTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: Tie