The Instigator
Ezzyo
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
alto2osu
Pro (for)
Winning
19 Points

Resolve: Failed nations are a greater threat to the United States than Stable nations.

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: 11/18/2009 Category: Politics
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,765 times Debate No: 10172
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (7)
Votes (3)

 

Ezzyo

Con

Resolve: Failed nations are a greater threat to the United States than Stable nations.
Definitions:
Threat: A communicated intent to cause harm (black law)
Failed nation: Utterly incapable of sustaining itself as a member of the international economy. Examples of failed nations Examples include but are not limited to that are close to but have not yet actually failed include but are not limited to
Afghanistan
Iraq, Somalia, North Korea, various African countries

Stable nation: Able or likely to continue or last; firmly established; enduring or permanent (dictionary.com) examples of stable nations
China
Iran
North Korea, Switzerland, Singapore
United States
United Kingdom
Failed states can no longer perform basic functions such as education, security, or governance, usually due to fractious violence or extreme poverty. Within this power vacuum, people fall victim to competing factions and crime, and sometimes the United Nations or neighbouring states intervene to prevent a humanitarian disaster. However, states fail not only because of internal factors. Foreign governments can also knowingly destabilize a state by fuelling ethnic warfare or supporting rebel forces, causing it to collapse.

C1: The amount of nuclear weapons stable nations have.

Stable nations have quite-a-few nuclear weapons. China has around 100-200 nuclear weapons. France has around 350. Russia has around 12,787. The U.K. has less than 160 deployed nuclear weapons. That is around 13,947 nuclear weapons. In addition, the U.S. has around 9,326 nuclear weapons. In total, that is approximately 23,273 nuclear weapons in the stable nations all according to the 2009 fact sheet published by the Arms Control Association.

Normally it would not matter if the countries in the failed nation had nuclear weapons, the only problem is, that the U.S. has been at odds with every county mentioned above. Therefore, they technically have a reason to attack the U.S. if they wanted to. Possession of failed nations. Compare this with the 13865 nuclear weapons held by stable nations (nonexclusive of the United States) Based on this, we see that stable nations are more capable of forming a threat against the United States.
C2: stable nations have batter education and test scores then failed nations

According to the U.S. Department of Education 2009, report on T.I.M.S.S. 12th graders in 21 countries took standardized test scores in the areas of math and science. The total averages of these tests were a score of 500. The U.S. however, ranked 19 with an average score of 461 in the area of math, and in the area of science the U.S. ranked 16 out of 21 with an average score of 480. The countries of Sweden, Germany, France, and Russia, are just a few of the countries that have better scores than the U.S.

This is a threat to the U.S. because:

a)A component that defined a failed nation was deterioration of public services, and the school system is a public service. Therefore, if other countries have better education then the U.S. would not that mean that the U.S. public services are deteriorating.
C3: 60 million people died from WWII which was primarily between stable nations. Stable nations have a greater ability to access and obtain weapons of mass destruction.
Wikipedia:
The term failed state is often used by political commentators and journalists to describe a state perceived as having failed at some of the basic conditions and responsibilities of a sovereign government. In order to make this definition more precise, the following attributes, proposed by the Fund for Peace, are often used to characterize a failed state:
•loss of physical control of its territory, or of the monopoly on the legitimate use of physical force therein,
•erosion of legitimate authority to make collective decisions,
•an inability to provide reasonable public services, and
•an inability to interact with other states as a full member of the international community.
Common characteristics of a failing state include a central government so weak or ineffective that it has little practical control over much of its territory; non-provision of public services; widespread corruption and criminality; refugees and involuntary movement of populations; and sharp economic decline
alto2osu

Pro

I thank my opponent for the chance to debate, and wish him the best of luck.

DEFINITIONS

The definitions provided below represent the research-based care that should be given to such a topic and are well-warranted, as failed status should not be assigned lightly or without due consideration. Plus, I'm aff.

Failed nations: Otherwise known as "failed states," characterized by the Fund for Peace. Their 2009 index (which only includes sovereign nations) characterizes failed states thusly:

"A state that is failing has several attributes. One of the most common is the loss of physical control of its territory or a monopoly on the legitimate use of force. Other attributes of state failure include the erosion of legitimate authority to make collective decisions, an inability to provide reasonable public services, and the inability to interact with other states as a full member of the international community. The 12 indicators cover a wide range of state failure risk elements such as extensive corruption and criminal behavior, inability to collect taxes or otherwise draw on citizen support, large-scale involuntary dislocation of the population, sharp economic decline, group-based inequality, institutionalized persecution or discrimination, severe demographic pressures, brain drain, and environmental decay. States can fail at varying rates through explosion, implosion, erosion, or invasion over different time periods."

Included in the 38-nation "alert" list for failed states are Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, North Korea, Lebanon, Pakistan, and Sudan.

Stable Nations: In this case, a stable nation is not simply defined by its sovereign status, according to international policy. So, we can construct the meaning of "stable nation" via Fund for Peace and the American Heritage Dictionary. "Stable" is characterized as:

A) Not subject to sudden or extreme change or fluctuation;
B) Maintaining equilibrium; self-restoring;
C) Enduring or permanent.

In combination with the above qualities, Fund For Peace states that stable states will (generally) lack extensive corruption or criminal behavior, will have a taxation and revenue structure that is not in sharp decline, will not contain large numbers of displaced persons, will have a stable, non-persecutorial government, etc.

Fund For Peace lists these countries amongst the stable, sustainable nations in its index: Canada, the United States, Australia, Russia, most of Western Europe (France, UK, Norway, Sweden, Finland, Denmark, Ireland, etc.), Greece, etc.

With all of that said, the ground of this debate is whether or not the U.S. has more to fear from mutually stable and strong nations (like Russia or China, for example) or from weaker, failed states, like Iran, North Korea, Al Qaeda, etc.

CASE

C1: Rogue nations and terrorist organizations are fundamentally different from stable nations.

As is clearly evidenced by the fundamentalist mentalities exhibited by the heads of rogue nations like North Korea, Iran, & Iraq, as well as a multitude of terrorist organizations which dislike the United States, such states or groups are inherently unpredictable in the current geopolitical climate. Nations such as those listed above have a deep-seeded, ideological hatred for the United States, and rarely take into account the effects of their decisions on the international community.

The exact opposite attitude is exhibited in stable nations. Since their international position, as well as their governmental mechanisms, are far more securely rooted, the stable nation is deterred from militaristic threats or other forms of harassment against the US by two things: mutually assured destruction or a (rational) fear of an international economic crisis. Because a rogue nation or terrorist group has little to no interdependence on the success or failure of the United States, it is not bound by the same obligations as a stable member of the international community.

C2: Battles waged against rogue nations and terrorist organizations are often losing ones.

Consider Iraq and Afghanistan momentarily, not because each may or may not have been an initial military blunder on the part of the US, but because of our relative success in the region. The US has, at its own enormous cost, realized that fighting local insurgency forces is well nigh impossible in comparison to the battles fought of old. A direct comparison can be made to the Vietnam War; if the opposing side has natural and familiar infrastructure, as well as what seems like an endless supply of fundamentalist soldiers, battles can turn into decade-long struggles waged in caves and in villages, rather than in open fields.

One cannot possibly compare the style of battle from World War II, for example, to the fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. Fighting between stable nations, while certainly gruesome and large-scale, is not nearly as dangerous (especially in an age of nuclear warfare) as attempting to quell an insurgency force.

Finally, consider the presence of nuclear weaponry. If we combine the ideology of a failed state with weapons that lead to mass destruction of the human race, we see how truly dangerous a failed state is. While Russia, China, France, England, etc. may possess a nuclear weapon, they will not use it. The Cold War proved this. However, the reason why the US is so eager to extend a diplomatic hand to failed states is because those failed states have the capacity and the determination to use those sorts of weapons, long-term consequences be damned.

RESPONSES TO NEG CASE:

C1:

1. This argument holds no offensive ground for the neg, as it is merely an assertion of the number of weapons that a single nation has amassed. The amount of weapons does not translate into tangible threat.

2. My opponent lists countries such as China, Russia, & France. I challenge him to warrant these nations as a realistic threat to the US. Not only does mutually assured destruction negate his entire position, but each of those countries has no vested interest in turning the US into a sheet of glass. China is our number 1 debt holder, Russia has shown zero military aggression since the Cuban Missile Crisis (give or take), and though France and the US hold a social dislike for one another on a citizen-level, these two governments' interactions cannot compare to those of, say, the US and North Korea.

3. Cross-apply my entire contention 1 to this argument. While stable nations have an economic and survivalistic investment in seeing a thriving world community, rogue and failed states, which are primarily comprised of fundamentalist leaders, have no such investment. This is why terrorist tactics are so effective: terrorists have little to lose.

C2:

1. Turn this argument: a lack of contemporary education is a well-nourished Petri dish for fundamentalist ideology. With an unchecked, unsupervised, or even failed educational system, younger generations are not exposed to the marketplace of ideas, which inevitably leads to their indoctrination. This is why insurgent armies never seem to run out of soldiers. Stable nations with more educational opportunities for their citizens will always have those that doubt wartime scenarios, military involvement, etc. because they have a viable worldview.

C3:

1. Look directly to my analysis in my contention 2. I remind my opponent that nuclear weaponry ENDED WWII via mutually assured destruction, and kept the Cold War from becoming a hot war. WWII and current insurgent wars cannot possibly be compared.

2. Notice that, since WWII, stable nations have not been a threat to the US. I encourage my opponent to name a single military conflict that directly involved a stable nation militarily threatening US soil since that war ended.
Debate Round No. 1
Ezzyo

Con

ok i got a question for you? do you believe the us is a stable nation?if so the us as it said on the resolve stable nations are a greater threat to the united states as us is a stable nation do you believe they are theyr own threat?and tell me what does a stable nation and failed nation loseif they go to battle?what do they have to lose?
alto2osu

Pro

First of all, I would like to extend my entire case and all arguments provided against the affirmative case at this time. None of my arguments or my rebuttals were addressed in my opponent's RD 2 posting.

Now, to address my opponent's RD 2 posting, which was essentially a series of questions. I have answered them below.

"ok i got a question for you? do you believe the us is a stable nation?if so the us as it said on the resolve stable nations are a greater threat to the united states as us is a stable nation do you believe they are theyr own threat?and tell me what does a stable nation and failed nation loseif they go to battle?what do they have to lose?"

1. Do you believe [that] the U.S. is a stable nation?

Yes. According to my definition of failed and stable nations, the U.S. qualifies as a stable nation.

2. If so...do you believe that they (presumably the U.S.) are their own threat?

Uh...no. Mind you, I may be misunderstanding the point of my opponent's question here, but the resolution does not imply that we are discussing the U.S. as a threat to itself. I mean, in an abstract way, certainly the U.S. could be considered its own enemy in multiple respects, but that isn't framer's intent at all. Not only that, but if my opponent were going to attempt to define the debate thusly (and somehow magically make it not abusive to the affirmative), he certainly didn't do it in RD 1.

3. What does a stable nation and failed nation lose if they go to battle?

I've considered the last two questions as one, since the last question is redundant.

To answer this question fully, I recommend that my opponent review my entire case, since my case sets out to establish this very thing. To recap:

*Stable nations, because they have a vested economic and survivalist interest in realizing a successful world community, have quite a bit to lose by showing militaristic aggression toward the U.S.

*Failed nations have no such vested interest for the very reason that they are failed. Their economy has little to do with the world community (as it is usually in shambles in the first place), and they are lead by the most fundamentalist and/or corrupt of leaders, so the concept of world cooperation is essentially lost to the ideology of the state. Hence, they have very little to lose. Not only that, but note that most failed nations have several bones to pick with the U.S. (on that same fundamental level) that stable nations do not (take a look at my education turn specifically for more on this).
Debate Round No. 2
Ezzyo

Con

ok well you said the U.S is a stable right.well and you anwser no to my 2 question correct then your whole case falls because my 2 question was sence the U.S is a stable nation are they threat to itselfs you said no an the resolve states that stable nations are a greater threat to the U.S on you side well wouldent that be against your whole case so its like we both fall unless if you want to check what has not fallen?
alto2osu

Pro

"ok well you said the U.S is a stable right.well and you anwser no to my 2 question correct then your whole case falls because my 2 question was sence the U.S is a stable nation are they threat to itselfs you said no an the resolve states that stable nations are a greater threat to the U.S on you side well wouldent that be against your whole case so its like we both fall unless if you want to check what has not fallen?"

Despite my opponent's highly incoherent grammar & syntax, I do believe that he is attempting to state that, because I agree that the U.S. is a stable nation, yet do not characterize the U.S. as a militaristic threat to itself, my case has presented itself as a logical contradiction.

If this is the case, then I am a bit flabbergasted, as my position in this debate, as dictated by my opponent, is the affirmative. Hence, my job is to prove that failed nations are of greater threat to the U.S. than stable nations are. I will remind him briefly of his own resolution:

"Failed nations are a greater threat to the U.S. than stable nations."

To be honest, I'm not absolutely positive that I fully understand my opponent's advocacy at this point (if one even exists). He has essentially chosen to abandon is RD 1 case entirely, and has neglected to address mine, as well.

Hence, I encourage readers to once again extend all of my argumentation from RDs 1 & 2, and vote for Pro. Thanks for the debate!
Debate Round No. 3
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by alto2osu 7 years ago
alto2osu
I tend not to post competitive cases here for that very reason. Since I'm a coach, I write cases for practice purposes, but my kids run their own. It just angers me that some jag-off high school debater thinks that this sort of behavior is acceptable.
Posted by XimenBao 7 years ago
XimenBao
One of the reasons I always liked generating new novel affs at the expense of established researched ones.
Posted by alto2osu 7 years ago
alto2osu
This makes me sad, b/c I do think that DDO can be a helpful forum for competitive debaters, but it's getting to the point where no one will actually be willing to debate anymore.

Like, the team I coach was just at a TOC bid tourney in WA, and some jacka$$ from a WA high school was running MY AFF, VERBATIM, in round (my aff for the LD topic...the one about immunizations). One of my students heard it and told me.

Really? Seriously?
Posted by alto2osu 7 years ago
alto2osu
Puck: I know, right? See, I figured since he actually had some semblance of a case that this would be a real debate. Plus, I'm always looking for blocking, so I thought this might have been useful for both of us. Ha. Ha ha ha. Ha ha.

The hilarious thing is that this case is already on DDO...so, way to use that search function, con! :D
Posted by Nails 7 years ago
Nails
I'd have to agree with Puck, though his rebuttals were very convincing.
Posted by Puck 7 years ago
Puck
I think someone just wanted your case, alto2osu. :P
Posted by alto2osu 7 years ago
alto2osu
Sorry. I didn't have room to post this in the actual round.

Bibliography

http://www.fundforpeace.org...

Helfstein, Scott "Governance of Terror: New Institutionalism and the Evolution of Terrorist Organizations." Public Administration Review 69.4 (2009): 727-739.

Winkler, Theodor H. "The Shifting Face of Violence." World Policy Journal 25.3 (2008): 29-36.

"Rules of engagement." Economist 376.8436 (2005): 74-75.

Simon, Steven "The New Terrorism/ Securing the Nation against a Messianic Foe." Brookings Review 21.1 (2003): 18.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by alto2osu 7 years ago
alto2osu
Ezzyoalto2osuTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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:07 
Vote Placed by XimenBao 7 years ago
XimenBao
Ezzyoalto2osuTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by Nails 7 years ago
Nails
Ezzyoalto2osuTied
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:07