The Instigator
B-ball_Grl78
Con (against)
Winning
50 Points
The Contender
Zetsubou
Pro (for)
Losing
4 Points

Resolve: Failled nations are a greater threat to the united states than stable nations

Do you like this debate?NoYes+5
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: 11/1/2009 Category: Society
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 6,168 times Debate No: 9902
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (24)
Votes (9)

 

B-ball_Grl78

Con

Definitions:
Threat: A communicated intent to cause harm (black law)
Failed nation: Utterly incapable of sustaining itself as a member of the internation economy.
Stable nation: Able or likely to continue or last; firmly established; enduring or permanent (dictionary.com)

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

Contention 1: Iran is a nuclear threat

*"The Iranian nuclear program has been a matter of great concern to the international community for several years. Iran signed the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) in 1968 and has claimed consistently that its nuclear activities are directed to peaceful purposes. In 2003–2005, following revelations by an Iranian opposition group about secret nuclear sites, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) conducted intensive inspections, which revealed that for almost twenty years Iran had engaged in a range of undeclared nuclear activities, including uranium enrichment and plutonium separation efforts." (IAEA Board of Governors, "Implementation of the NPT Safeguards Agreement in the Islamic Republic of Iran," IAEA: GOV/2004/83, 23, http://www.iaea.org....)
This proves that Iran can't be trusted with nuclear weapon. If they were to do so, they would try to attack Israel. And in the longer run, it could pose a nuclear threat to the United States.

Contention 2: China is an economic threat

*Analysts project that in the near future, China will replace the United States as the world's largest economy and exporter. In this context, China's economic rise is viewed as America's decline. "It appears highly likely that China at some point will overtake the United States as the world's largest economy. Global Insight's projections (which are the highest of the three presented) project that China will achieve 7.1% average real growth over the next 20 years. In comparison, the U.S. economy is projected by Global Insight to grow at an average annual real rate of about 3.0%, less than half China's rate. Global Insight's projections indicate that China could overtake the United States as the world's largest economy by 2013. By the year 2025, China's economy is projected to be 59% larger than the U.S. economy, according to Global Insight."

Conclusion:

As you can see, Iran and China are major threats to the United States and they are stable nations. This proves the cons point that stable nations are a greater threat to the United States than failed nations. For all of these reasons please vote con.
Zetsubou

Pro

Hi there. I'd like to say, thank you to my Opponent forehand, so thank you B-ball_Grl78. <3

I will divide my argument into two forms: My resolve and My Negations.

I will start my argument with Negations. Con has tried to prove that Stable nations are a greater threat to the US than unstable nations. She has used evidence of the two Nations of China and Iran. From the Nuclear perspective and Economic treat perspective. I have a single Point to each argument.

(1)Nuclear Iran- Iran has signed the UN's Biological Weapons Convention and in the process of rataphying it, as well as Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty [Citation: http://www.iaea.org...] of which it has signed and ratified. This treaty inhibits Iran from either using or developing nuclear arms under treat of economic execution destroying the Iranian economy. I understand that the Treaty was made in 1968 but Iran only Ratified the Treaty in 2007 which means by the treaties clauses state:

Article I: Each nuclear-weapons state (NWS) undertakes not to transfer, to any recipient, nuclear weapons, or other nuclear explosive devices, and not to assist any non-nuclear weapon state to manufacture or acquire such weapons or devices.

Iran is only under question if proven to have broken those terms post the year 2007. This same rule allows the US to elude the treaty by "Arms sharing" with countries yet to ratify: China, Brazil, even Spain. Note there's no proof that the US has used this but the possibility sustains.
To conclude: Any fears by the US government are just part of "Project for the New American Century (see neo-colonism)" or simply unenforced paranoia. Argument Negated.

(2) *Accepted.* But your claim sounds over "hipped".

My Resolve

I would like to start with the fact that Pro has ignored the other Stable nations and the little significant they have to the Stability to America Economically or in the Militarian perspective. With America as the single Superpower any nation stable or unstable that goes against America will mean inevitable defeat.
I would like to elaborate on the Novel – "30 year war with Iran" by Ronen Bergmanand the Soviet-Afghan War.

(1)The 30 year war with Iran is a book about Mossad's struggles with Iran and its aid of Middle Eastern unstable nations since Ayatollah Khomeini's revolution in 1979 Iran. It talks on how America and Israel gave Iran, Armed weapons of near modern level strength in the Iran-Iraq war and the treat it now possesses to the world. Iran as a government dares not fight America on a 1 to 1 war however Iran has given arms to its Arab League neighbors, from Sudan to Bangladesh. More Importantly It has added Jihads and Rebel Movement notably Al Qaeda but also the Palestinian Independence Jihad and Hezballah who posse a treat to the US via The Soviet Union Effect. [Citation: The book & Common History]

(2)It is common Knowledge that the Soviet War with Afghanistan lead to the collapse of the Soviet Union. This effect is likely to happen again to the US. If *the or an* Unstable Middle Eastern nations where to fall to a Islamic Jihadist Revolution, where Total war is not an Option. The US would fall into a situation much like the current Iraq-Iran war consuming time and money. Yet, if the event of an Economic depression were to happen or a West to East shift in Economic balance were to happen the United States will collapse as a Superpower much like USSR did.

Conclusion: Con has the task of either proving my resolve false or reinforce and defending her resolve.

Queries- Please list all "unthreatening" unstable states.

Note: I would add Citations but I don't have time.
Cya and Good Luck.
Debate Round No. 1
B-ball_Grl78

Con

Here is a list of the top ten failed nations:
1. Somalia
2. Zimbabwe
3. Sudan
4. Chad
5. DRC
6. Iraq
7. Afghanistan
8. Central African Republic
9. Guinea
10. Pakistan

First I would like to begin by rebuilding my own case and then attacking my opponents case.

Contention 1:
My opponent said that the Non-Proliferation Treaty was ratified in 2007. Even if this is true, Iran was still engaged in nuclear activity without anyone knowing for the last 20 years. Like I stated before they were involved in uranium enrichment and plutonium separation. So you should extend my argument because my opponents argument does not apply.

*My opponent did not attack my second contention so you must assume that they agree with it.

Now I will attack my opponents case:

Contention 1:
I don't see how this would be a threat to the United States since we have the largest military in the world. Can you please extend this argument.

Contention 2:
The resolution is asking us to determine a fact. The use of the term "are" (as in failed nations ARE) asks us to examine the world in its presents state and determine the greatest threats facing America. "Are" is a form of "to be" as in "to exist". The resolution does not say "failed nations could possibly become" - it says "failed nations are", asking us to determine the claim in the context of now. Therefore my opponents second contention does not apply to the resolution.

I have disproved both of my opponents contentions which leaves them with no evidence.
Zetsubou

Pro

Thank you and Sorry for the Late Post, Life stuff.

I'll add an Observations topic and rename Negations to Contentions.

-Observations-

Just Noticed Your definition of Threat is wrong, See mine: An act of coercion wherein a negative consequence is proposed to elicit response.

All these Countries are not failed states by your definition: Utterly incapable of sustaining itself as a member of the international economy.

The countries you listed are from the Fund of Peace - Failed States Index [http://www.fundforpeace.org...]. Which is of countries at [b]*risk*[/b] of become failed states hence their name, Alert states.
Notes: "+" Means to get worse; "-" is to get better.
1.Somalia (0)
2. Zimbabwe (+1)
3. Sudan (-1)
4. Chad (0)
5. DRC (+1)
6. Iraq (-1)
7. Afghanistan (0)
8. Central African Republic (+2)
9. Guinea (+2)
10. Pakistan (-1)

Your definition was concise, however but a Failed state is simply what the name suggests. It is an intransitive verb and one of the past- *to have failed*. Failed Nations are Nations such as the USSR, Yugoslavia, East Germany and the ever changing Mesoamerican Nations; just to name a few.

For this reason Change the Debate from - Resolve: Failed nations are a greater threat to the united states than stable nations (spelling fixed) ---to--- Resolve: Nations at risk of becoming failed nations are a greater threat to the united states than stable nations.

-Contentions-

(1)To Contention 1
The USSR had the Second Most Dangerous military in the World (Large is the wrong word, the US is relatively small to other Nations). I don't deny what you say but that only applies in the event of a "Full on War" between a state and another State. That is why is it is not "the American-Iraqi war" nor is it the "War with Iraq". It is the War *in* Iraq. Same rules don't apply; apparently the US says it fights for Iraq's people against Al-Qaeda or Afghanistan's people against the Taliban. The US is fighting a hugger's war, people who shoot from Mosque towers or fire artillery from Schools. If this was a state war it would of ended 5 years ago. But it's taking 7 years and about another 5 to end it. Pease don't dismiss a debate with a simplistic answer.

(2)To Contention 2
I love this kind of thinking. I'll target this it two ways. Don't label something of being Pseudo logical because you completely understand it.

i) Same thing can be said about your Second Contention on your opening post.

ii) To prove, or debate, a fact of the Present, you must understand what is fully asking. The Debate is an open question. It tells you argue in comparison of two different views and to prove why one is better, either by proving that yours is superior to your contenders or by proving the Contenders to be inferior. In a debate of the "State of Something*" you must state what the present is in relation to the future. After all a Threat is of the Post Present, it is of the present but a foretell of the future. To debate that subject you *must* debate the future or you will most likely fail.
* For example: This House believes that a military is a passive cry for war. The Cry is the accusative to the War the Subjective. It is inevitable not to reference how a war can become immanent, as an elite debater. NOTE: A war of the FUTURE.

(1) I like to expand on this:

"Contention Like I stated before they were involved in uranium enrichment and plutonium separation"

When did Nuclear research become Illegal? Also, Countries Ratify Treaties at their own date, it not universal to the world, Ratified Countries Depicted on [Map: http://en.wikipedia.org...]. You also originally stated that Iran is a Treat to Israel:

"If they were to do so, they would try to attack Israel. And in the longer run, it could pose a nuclear threat to the United States."

I don't see Israel even trying to sign the Treaty, but Israel is a Stable Nation, A Stable Nation allowed to develop Nuclear weapons not to mention a new range of Recon Satellites. [see Shavit launchers] If anyone is preparing for War, it's Israel. [Citation: http://www.most.gov.il...]

-Reinforcement-

I'll restate my original Posts

(1)True I don't even like how I worded it much either.
I mean that Stable Nations can feed arms to Rebel Groups like Iran has done to many Jihadist Groups in Arab League Nations.

(2)In the event (the threat), Of a War the US will most likely collapse as Superpower for the reasons stated previously. Since you only claimed the argument of being Pseudo-Logical you may want to argue why it's wrong.

(3) New, previously, unstated Point.
Argue on the other aspect- Pro is yet to talk why Stable nations are a threat since she failed to restate this on her second post. I have established why unstable states are Dangerous, you may chose to still continue on this, but ultimately the decision is upto you.

Pro is obligated to conclude her Argument, Best of luck. ^^
Debate Round No. 2
B-ball_Grl78

Con

I would like to begin by attack my opponent's case and then rebuilding mine.

In the first two rounds my opponent has said many things that prove that stable nations are greater threat to the United States than failed nations. Here they are:

1. " Iran as a government dares not fight America on a 1 to 1 war however Iran has given arms to its Arab League neighbors, from Sudan to Bangladesh. More Importantly It has added Jihads and Rebel Movement notably Al Qaeda but also the Palestinian Independence Jihad and Hezballah who posse a treat to the US via The Soviet Union Effect."
* This is from my opponents first contention. He basically is agreeing with me because he says that Iran gave arms to all this places that he listed above and that they pose a threat the the United States. They wouldn't be a threat if Iran hadn't helped them. Iran is the root of the threat therefore they are the threat not all these other places.

2. "West to East shift in Economic balance were to happen the United States will collapse as a Superpower much like USSR did."
* This is exactly what I was saying in my second contention in the first round. If the East were to gain the economic majority, than U.S. could collapse. The only countries capable of having a better economy than the United States are stable nations. He basically just agreed with my second contention.

Now I will attack his second round:

1. He stated "If anyone is preparing for War, it's Israel."
* Well Israel should be preparing for war because Iran came out and said that they want to attack Israel. It is a strategic and defensive move on Israel's part.
2. The part at the very beginning with the list of countries does not make since. Yes I did get that info from Failed States Index. You say that they are Alert states but if they were Alert states they would not be on the Failed States Index. The index is for failed states.
3. "When did Nuclear research become Illegal?"
* Its not the research that is illegal its the testing that the scientist are doing. They are testing uranium enrichment and plutonium separation.
4. New, previously, unstated point
* I don't really think I have to state any other reason why stable nations are a greater threat than failed nations because I mentioned it in my first speech and also because you made some points in your speeches that helped my case.

For all the reason that I have stated and that I disproved my oppenents points please vote con. Thank you and Good Luck!
Zetsubou

Pro

__________
Observations
__________

You stated:
"I would like to begin by attack(ing) my opponent's case and then rebuilding mine.

In the first two rounds my opponent has said many things that prove that stable nations are greater threat to the United States than failed nations."

You never rebuilt your own argument; you just attacked my first and second argument. You also mistook my Resolve, I debated: Nations at risk of becoming failed nations are a greater threat to the United States than stable nations.

It also seems as if my opponent, Con, has ignored the rename of the Debate as she has not replied.

_____________
Reinforcements
_____________

I don't know how other people debate, but attacking an argument with a sentence and quote for each point is not what I call a decisive attack.

I'll leave a single Question, not Argument to summaries my reinforcements:

Do you see France, United Kingdom or the Russian Federation taking on the US and winning? -Or- The Top most Stable Nations, Norway, Finland and Sweden, TOGETHER taking on the US and Winning?

The answer to that question alone, gives win to this debate. For additional information and those still cynical, please follow on to Rebuttals and Contentions.

__________________
Rebuttals/Contentions
__________________

-First Round-

1. Yes, these Nations are linked with Iran however, Iran as a Stable Nation can never take on the United States directly so this must at least have a mutual relationship with risk Nations. I believe that it is more than a simple mutual relationship and in fact a relationship in favor to the Rebel or Unstable Nations. Without the Unstable Nations, Iran has no realistic military force at all. However, if there was no Iran, Hezbollah on the other hand can just go on to Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and Yemen. Think of this like a person seeking a bank in a Capitalist market, should one bank not be to his/her liking they can just go to the next bank and so on and so forth.

2. Only under the support of losses in revenue.

Part A: Just having a competitor in international market doesn't pose much of a treat to a nation at all. If a Country was to lose economic dominion in the Market, (again the Capitalist way) you don't fail as a Nation, you just become a secondary to the world. With yours and my definition of Threat this act doesn't check all the boxes to become a threat.

Yours: A communicated intent to cause harm (black law)

Mine: An act of coercion wherein a negative consequence is proposed to elicit response.

Part B: You will only fail as an economy if, because of this drop in Market ownership you choose to increase government revenue and not accept it as a process. An alternate reason would be if you many other thing eating at your expenditure like, Military Funding, Welfare and Infrastructure. Developments much like those of the Cold War in relation to Russia; these are just some of the reasons that pose a threat to a country.

-Second Round-

1. Well, McCain also said he would Bomb Iran but in that situation, who is the common aggressor?
US(McCain) to North Korea
Iran(Ahmadinejad) to Israel
Technical arguments for this where stated in My Second Post.

2. This Fact is utterly and undebatably wrong. The Fund for Peace Failed State index is not for failed states, as the name unfortunately suggests. These are counties Most Likely of Failing. If your geography was good enough would know the top 10 Failed States aren't failed states.

1. Somalia – Somali Pirates, extremely Poor but not a Failed State, many labor trade institutions with Holland. The US must feed this Country Economically.
2. Zimbabwe – Robert Mugabe? Last time I checked it was in depression rate hyperinflation. The country is very, very economically unstable but not at all a failed state. America, as a last resort may invade Zimbabwe to remove Mugabe.
3. Sudan – One of my Favorite Countries, recovering from two Civil Wars. Has recently opened trade with China, now its leading Oil Funder. It's also the second fastest recovering Country in Africa. If war breaks out in Israel, it will become a likely ally of Iran, if it doesn't fall to civil war first.
4. Chad – The most corrupt government in the world.
5. DRC – On going civil war and humanitarian crisis… ect (blah blah the works)
6. Iraq – Need I say? USSR effect.
7. Afghanistan – Need I say? USSR effect.
8. Central African Republic – Former third poorest country in the world it's now losing debt sustainably.
9. Guinea – Failed Government, stable under Toure and Cont´┐Ż governments, but now a militarian government run by Military fascists.
10. Pakistan – A better form of its Neighbor Afghanistan, quite Stable but with increasing Taliban activities there is an increasing treat.

The Index only lists "how likely a country is of failing." Even Countries like the US (159-Moderate risk) and Iran (38-Warning Risk) are on the list. Though suppose, you're right about the list, does that mean I win? [Citation: http://www.fundforpeace.org...]

3. Uranium enrichment and plutonium separation- I'm not sure if you know what this means. Uranium enrichment and plutonium separation are just a means of Isotope separation, which is the main form of modern Chemistry. An Isotope is just a variation of an Atom. When the Atomic mass of an Atom is different, then it is an Isotope. Uranium and Plutonium are Actinides advanced variations of the Atom Actinium. Actinides are unstable atoms with a half life, they radiate until they "die". All Uranium enrichment means is to change Uranium-235 to Uranium-238 by "enriching" it. Plutonium separation is just a means to recycle vast amounts of energy by speeding up it death and changing the atom without releasing much energy. They are both forms of nuclear reprocessing, used for:
•Producing plutonium for nuclear weapons.
•Producing plutonium for nuclear energy.
•Recycling all actinides for fast breeder reactors, closing the nuclear fuel cycle.
•Recycling plutonium once as MOX fuel for thermal reactors, extending energy extracted.
•Allowing separate management (destruction or storage) of nuclear waste components.

4. No, I didn't and if you're talking about Iran then please see my second, first round post. What I meant was "normal stable nations" like the G8, 1st world and 2nd World Countries. See- Reinforcements for full argument.

As for Israel and Iran, it's simple.
Who has signed and ratified the Nuclear Non-Proliferation treaty? Iran. Who hasn't? Israel.

Who has a larger military expenditure in GDP? Israel has. Who hasn't? Isreal. [Citation: https://www.cia.gov...]

It's really not that hard.

-Conclusion-
Resolve Negated (by Fact-Ignore Misconceptions) please vote PRO
Debate Round No. 3
24 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Zetsubou 6 years ago
Zetsubou
*shudder*
Posted by Itsallovernow 7 years ago
Itsallovernow
I know, right? I would've like to have taken this debate. I would have exampled the hell out of Germany after WWI, coming back to take over the world and the like. LOL!
Posted by Koopin 7 years ago
Koopin
There was a lot of vote bombing.
Posted by Zetsubou 7 years ago
Zetsubou
Did I really...?

Don't answer that.
Posted by B-ball_Grl78 7 years ago
B-ball_Grl78
The reason I won by so much is because you agreed with my arguements. There was only one person that voted on here that was from my class.
Posted by Zetsubou 7 years ago
Zetsubou
I don't know. But I think 4 of 6 of the voters are from her class.

Oh well.
Posted by Xer 7 years ago
Xer
Why did Con win by so much.?
Posted by Zetsubou 7 years ago
Zetsubou
Sorry, not Stable but Existing Nation
Posted by Zetsubou 7 years ago
Zetsubou
Acording to the Failed State index, Somalia is the most likely Stable Country to Fail.

@B-ball_Grl: I need not, though I can. If you want to, feel free. See my Attack on your 10 failed states on argument 3.

Examples:
Nation - Date of Fail
USSR - 1992-1994
Ziare - 1997
Yugoslavia - 1941, 1992, 2003 (To hold the Name)
Confederate States of America - 1865
ect ect,
Posted by Glitchy 7 years ago
Glitchy
Waaiit... From your second argumenr, Pro, I'd say you were arguing that Somalia is not failed...
9 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Vote Placed by FrenchAbortion 7 years ago
FrenchAbortion
B-ball_Grl78ZetsubouTied
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:70 
Vote Placed by Nails 7 years ago
Nails
B-ball_Grl78ZetsubouTied
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 skyrider 7 years ago
skyrider
B-ball_Grl78ZetsubouTied
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:70 
Vote Placed by kcrox 7 years ago
kcrox
B-ball_Grl78ZetsubouTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:60 
Vote Placed by lelanatty 7 years ago
lelanatty
B-ball_Grl78ZetsubouTied
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:52 
Vote Placed by jillardwillard 7 years ago
jillardwillard
B-ball_Grl78ZetsubouTied
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:61 
Vote Placed by Shingure 7 years ago
Shingure
B-ball_Grl78ZetsubouTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:31 
Vote Placed by B-ball_Grl78 7 years ago
B-ball_Grl78
B-ball_Grl78ZetsubouTied
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:70 
Vote Placed by Alexby1 7 years ago
Alexby1
B-ball_Grl78ZetsubouTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:20