The Instigator
bossyburrito
Pro (for)
Winning
1 Points
The Contender
emospongebob527
Con (against)
Losing
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...
bossyburrito
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/1/2012 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 671 times Debate No: 26786
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (0)
Votes (1)

 

bossyburrito

Pro

This will be a redo of this debate: http://www.debate.org...
We will be debating the resolution "You should only defend yourself when it's a sure win". Con will be taking the position that you should defend yourself no matter what. I 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.**********
Definitions:
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......

Gl;Hf
emospongebob527

Con

Hello Bossy!

I accept this debate and all you terms and conditions and rules and other whatchamacallits.


I will take the Con position and attempt to debunk your claims.


State your case.


Country your briefcase XD.
Debate Round No. 1
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 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. Therefore, 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......
emospongebob527

Con

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 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. Therefore, 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.

I fail to see how this argument relates to the resolution "You should only defend yourself when it's a sure win"

Why?

In the game above, it isn't a matter of defense when the outcome in definitive, it is more of playing it safe, not planning out what you will do when a definitive outcome has been reached.

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.

In this case, I don't see how Russia not giving up the city relates to your resolution, please clarify?
Debate Round No. 2
bossyburrito

Pro

"In the game above, it isn't a matter of defense when the outcome in definitive, it is more of playing it safe, not planning out what you will do when a definitive outcome has been reached."
That is my point. It is better to play it safe to avoid heavy casualties than to try and take on the enemy.
"In this case, I don't see how Russia not giving up the city relates to your resolution, please clarify?"
Russia defended the city, and as a result lost many men.
emospongebob527

Con

emospongebob527 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
bossyburrito

Pro

Why does moon disassemble ink?
emospongebob527

Con

Cause it had the fnord sin.
Debate Round No. 4
No comments have been posted on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by AlwaysMoreThanYou 4 years ago
AlwaysMoreThanYou
bossyburritoemospongebob527Tied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: meh