The Instigator
xlilmattx
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
alto2osu
Pro (for)
Winning
54 Points

Resolved: 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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 8 votes the winner is...
alto2osu
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/14/2009 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 10,895 times Debate No: 9690
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (1)
Votes (8)

 

xlilmattx

Con

Since i am con i will allow the PRO to go first and there case must follow the PF rules a 3 point case with subpoints and cititions in the case with facts. no rebutal speeches until the 2nd round i will repost my speech here after my oppitont post theres thank you
alto2osu

Pro

I thank my opponent for creating this debate, and wish him luck.

First of all, I decline to use the 3-contention method, as no such rule exists within the NFL rules for Public Forum Debate. My case will have two contentions. Also, my bibliography will be listed at the end of the case, as cards are also not a formal requirement of Public Forum (I simply read the materials and then assimilated them into my logical arguments). However, I can produce some if it is proved a necessity to affirming by my opponent.

-------------------------------------------------------------

Definitions:

Failed nations: two different entities qualify politically as failed states.

1) 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.

2. By stricter definition, a failed nation is also characterized as a people who share common customs, origins, history, and frequently language, but who lack the key component of a sovereign government (this definition would include significant terrorist organizations, revolutionary groups, etc.).

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.

--------------------------------------------------------

Hence, I affirm, resolved: Failed nations are a greater threat to the United States than stable nations.

I seek to prove that failed nations, as defined above, are of a much greater threat (in all senses of the word) to US security and stability than stable nations. I will refrain from using terms such as first or third world, as they tend to be inaccurate, especially considering the topic.

Contention 1: 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, the mentality of such a state or group is 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. Religious fundamentalists and ideologues are specifically characterized by their lack of compassion for populations of civilians in their targeted population.

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.

Contention 2: 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 waged 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 on sterile battlefields.

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 (as I state above) 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.

------------------------------------------------------

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.
Debate Round No. 1
xlilmattx

Con

xlilmattx forfeited this round.
alto2osu

Pro

Not shocking...the 3-hour turnover for argumentation was probably a bit of a mistake. Hopefully, my opponent will have a chance to respond in the upcoming round. In the meantime, extend my arguments.
Debate Round No. 2
xlilmattx

Con

xlilmattx forfeited this round.
alto2osu

Pro

Extend, please. I should be able to do this once more if my opponent forfeits another round, but if I go to bed and he forfeits, continue to extend, please.
Debate Round No. 3
xlilmattx

Con

xlilmattx forfeited this round.
alto2osu

Pro

Alrighty then. That was fun. Vote Pro. I will be forfeiting RD 5 as I will be sleeping.
Debate Round No. 4
xlilmattx

Con

xlilmattx forfeited this round.
alto2osu

Pro

alto2osu forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by alto2osu 7 years ago
alto2osu
You probably should have explained PoFo rules or something prior to posting this...
8 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Vote Placed by Mathwiz25 7 years ago
Mathwiz25
xlilmattxalto2osuTied
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 samantha_long2011 7 years ago
samantha_long2011
xlilmattxalto2osuTied
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 carley2010 7 years ago
carley2010
xlilmattxalto2osuTied
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:06 
Vote Placed by xfatalityx 7 years ago
xfatalityx
xlilmattxalto2osuTied
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 Chihuahuadogz 7 years ago
Chihuahuadogz
xlilmattxalto2osuTied
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 twsurber 7 years ago
twsurber
xlilmattxalto2osuTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Vote Placed by RennAmethyst 7 years ago
RennAmethyst
xlilmattxalto2osuTied
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 MistahKurtz 7 years ago
MistahKurtz
xlilmattxalto2osuTied
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