The Instigator
aodanu16
Pro (for)
Losing
10 Points
The Contender
Vi_Veri
Con (against)
Winning
45 Points

Resolved: North Korea should reunite with South Korea

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
Pro Tied Con
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: 3/6/2008 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 6,364 times Debate No: 3112
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (8)
Votes (13)

 

aodanu16

Pro

1) The Korean War is still going on

this war is a waste of time and US troops. the DMZ (de-militarized zone) at the 39 parallel is the spot where these troops are stationed at and they are just sitting there. they are not physically fighting there, they might as well be going to Seoul and drinking soju... oh that's right, they are...

2) Socialism

this union of north and south should create socialism. the north is communist and the south is capitalist... when they unite, they will have socialism, the in between.

3) end to 6 party talks

this will end the 6 party talks because now the country of north Korea will not be a nuclear threat to countries because it wont be a country any more. moreover, since they are already starting to disassemble the nuclear arms, if they unionize the country, they will successfully stop the nuclear arms threat.
Vi_Veri

Con

Both my opponent and I seem to agree that communism is a problem in N. Korea.

N. Korea has a desperate economy, starving people, and a megalomaniac dictator, Kim Jong-il. Kim Jong-il's father, Kim Il-sung, is dubbed eternally the leader of N. Korea and worshipped as such. The country has problems with torture, starvation from a horrible economy, and isolation from the rest of the world.

FIRST SOLUTION NEEDED FROM MY OPPONENT: The first problem my opponent has to solve is the problem of combining the two states. Of course, everyone knows that N. Korea has a problem with its leader's worship (just another fuzzy form of god-worship but in the form of a human-being. Another very obvious example would be Stalinist Russia). Because of this, the N. Korean leadership will hardly think of giving up it's established power. It fought a war to keep its communism, and has let its people suffer just to appease itself. Unless another war (or civil war within N. Korea, or workers strikes like in Poland and Russia) is started to uproot the government there, N. Korea will remain under this communist control.

Because talks will not have Kim Jong-il relinquish his unlimited power in the state, and physically uprooting him seems to be the only plausible solution at the moment, we can move on to: why would we remove the troops then? If workers strike, they will need the troops to help protect them if they need to flee. If a war breaks out, the troops will need to be there to protect the South, and again, fleeing refugees.

SECOND SOLUTION NEEDED FROM MY OPPONENT: The problems of socialism are many. Why should we remove the capitalism in Southern Korea when the country is flourishing so well? The economy of South Korea is the 4th largest in Asia and the 12th largest in the world as of 2007. Why would we want to take this booming economy away from South Korea when socialism would rid the country of this?

Another problem of socialism is the hurt it causes to individual rights. When all of the wealth in the country must be distributed by the government (very much like communism). A critique on Socialism was offered by Friedrich Hayek (a famous British Economist and Political Philosopher) when it was brought up as a plausible idea for Britain.

"…a socialist policy is abhorrent to the British ideas of freedom. Socialism is inseparably interwoven with totalitarianism and the object worship of the state. It will prescribe for every one where they are to work, what they are to work at, where they may go and what they may say. Socialism is an attack on the right to breathe freely. No socialist system can be established without a political police. They would have to fall back on some form of Gestapo, no doubt very humanely directed in the first instance."

(Source: Alan O. Ebenstein. Friedrich Hayek: A Biography. (2003). University of Chicago Press. ISBN 0226181502 p.137)

This, to me, sounds very much like the problems already present in N. Korea.

So, my opponent made a mistake by wanting to combine Capitalism and Communism (which, will NOT and SHOULD NOT combine to make Socialism).

What S. Korea has escaped is the manic power of its government over every little thing that they do. This is the main problem with N. Korea's economy [this control]. A problem to its growth, being no incentives for working more or working better, is what communism and socialism doesn't help remedy. Only Capitalism gives workers incentives for better, more productive work. If a worker is given incentives for their work (example: more money that they can use to aid themselves,) the economy would no doubt rise accordingly. If a hard worker is getting the same pay and same benefits as a worker who is doing the minimum, they will eventually stop working to their best and do what the other guy is. Why not? They are getting the same things.

So, my opponent must explain to me how we will remove the dictatorship from N. Korea, how a socialist government will not harm S. Korea's booming Capitalistic economy (take as example Western and Eastern Germany‘s problem with Socialism - and how Eastern Germany had to invest so much money into bringing its economy to the level of the West, and how they finally decided that Capitalism, not Socialism, was best for the country), and how removal of troops will keep S. Korea safe from N. Korean corruption.

In my opinion, the best solution would be as follows:

1. Aid the opposition inside N. Korea by encouraging the people to peacefully strike against the government (such like what happened in Poland with the Union workers striking against communistic economic laws and winning). If that doesn't work (and gets violent), aid them in a civil war against their government.

2. Keep U.S. (and other NATO nation's) troops that are already on the border in order to protect S. Korea from any troops that wish to advance into it, and also as an aid for fleeing N. Korean refugees.

3. Once the government has been taken over, encourage Capitalism in N. Korea (if they wish to keep N. Korea as a separate country), OR help integrate N. and S. Korea into a Capitalistic country if they wish to combine into one country.

In my next argument, I will have a testimony from a friend of mine who was a U.S. Army soldier stationed on the border of N. and S. Korea, and his thoughts (from first hand experience) about what the troops should be doing there, what they are doing to help, and how the problems can be solved using the steps I have presented.

Cheers,

Vi
Debate Round No. 1
aodanu16

Pro

I concur with my opponent when she says that communism is a problem, however, she seems to be confused on the topic of socialism. Socialism is a cross between communism and capitalism. When they meet, they keep some of the communist ideals and some of the capitalist ideals. If we take US for example, we see that it is quite socialist. First off, it offers public education. if it were not socialistic, then it would make people pay for education. It's just one example how it is socialist. Moreover,"The United States tops the overall ranking in The Global Competitiveness Report 2007-2008" (Global Competitiveness Report 07).My opponent also seems to be forgetting that China is number one in economic terms in Asia (Lobe 03). Also, the Chinese are communist. My opponent also says that capitalism is the best way to go, but that just inst the case. If ROK is number four in Asia while being capitalist, then look at how much better it will be if they are socialist. They might not ever be number one, but they can get up there.

I do not think that any type of war would be a good way to solve the problem of unionization of the Korean Peninsula. The best way is to continue diplomatic talks of the two countries and to have the United States play a small part by continuing to play a small part in lowering it's isolationist policy. Then, when they are weakened, they can unite with the ROK and thus making one country of Korea once and for all. If we also look to the fact that the US can create a "sphere of influence" in the DPRK, then they will start to weaken their communist regime and go towards socialism because the US is a "socialist" country due to the fact that the US Federal Government funds programs. Such as public education.

"Adding a cultural wrinkle to the diplomatic engagement between the United States and North Korea, the New York Philharmonic plans to visit Pyongyang, the North Korean capital, in February, taking the legacy of Beethoven, Bach and Bernstein to one of the world's most isolated nations" (Walkin 07)(New York Times 10 December 2007). What this means is that they will start to integrate western culture into them.

Also, what my opponent seems to be missing is that she says that the system of socialism is against "British ideas of freedom." however, she seems to be forgetting that Britain is a socialist country as well. Thus, totalitarianism should exist in current day England, but it doesn't so that should be dropped from the debate.

My opponent also says that it is impossible to link communism and capitalism together to make socialism, but a historic fact, Germany did after the collapse of the USSR. The east and west met and thus Germany was socialist. Moreover, my opponent also seems to be mistaking the fact that socialism doesn't mean taking away incentives to work. The free market is still existent, but not 100% in use. the government still runs the important stuff, but the free market is still there.

My opponents plan for this debate is wrong due to the fact that:

1) She is in favor of linking the two countries together. She wants to aid civil war and "peaceful" protests against the governments, but this can only end like the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia where Nicholas II and his family was brutally killed! THIS IS NOT THE ANSWER TO UNITING THE KOREAN PENINSULA!

2) If the US and NATO countries aid refugees, then the union of North and South will occur because the people will still be going and immigrating towards it. And thus, My honorable opponent's point falls.

3) Finally, she advocates tat the countries should reunite under capitalism. She is agreeing to the resolution and thus upholds my side of the debate.

Now on to my case:

My respective opponent says that The troops need to be on the DMZ to protect them from any possible movement from the other side. However, she fails to recognize that the US' troops on the DMZ could be coming home or going to places that actually need troops like the Middle East to fight the "War on Terror."

Next, I have already covered why socialism is the best way to unite the Korean Peninsula. Please cross apply that augment to this point.

Finally, my opponent also drops the point about the 6 Party talks and how this will be beneficial to any county around the country of North Korea. Thus she agrees with me and should be counted as a voter for the affirmative side.

Thusly, i urge an affirmative ballot

아어다누 (셐시비스트)
ao danu (sexy beast)
Vi_Veri

Con

There are no "pure" capitalistic states, and no "pure" socialist states, and no "pure" communist states. The communist state of N. Korea has a large "totalitarian" government shadow looming over its corpse. So, when my opponent argues that they should create a socialist state, he is talking about a MOSTLY socialist state (which America is not, and Germany is not, and Britain is not). Even the country of Germany is getting rid of socialist programs like their national health care now, with the help of it's new chancellor. Countries with a majority of capitalistic standards have higher standards of living for their citizens. Socialism and Communism, again, do not deal with the human condition.

My opponent had said: "Moreover, my opponent also seems to be mistaking the fact that socialism doesn't mean taking away incentives to work. The free market is still existent, but not 100% in use. the government still runs the important stuff, but the free market is still there." That is not socialism.

Def of socialism: http://www.merriam-webster.com...

Main Entry: so�cial�ism Pronunciation: \ˈsō-shə-ˌli-zəm\ Function: noun Date: 1837

1: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods

2 a: a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b: a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state

3: a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done

Note, that it says it is a system between Capitalism and Communism, not a mix of the two. And note how it says that there is no "free market" but everything is owned by the government. What my opponent was describing is a mix between Capitalism and Socialism.

My opponent has also pointed out that China has the "best economy" in Asia, but failed to state how working standards are in China. My opponent also failed to recognize that China is wanting, and slowly trying, to move its economy to Capitalism. (An article on this phenomenon: http://www.rieti.go.jp...)

America topping the world in ranking doesn't come as a surprise as it is a *mostly* capitalistic society. But when my opponent mentioned free school he was wrong. Socialism makes people (all citizens) pay a tax for education (and all children are, by law, suppose to go to school until a certain age). Therefore, that's not "free" school but a government instituted standard that all citizens pay for. Now college in America is more capitalistic. The individual pays if the individual wishes to go. The system there works better as they don't have the problems of teacher shortage, teacher pay, and school funding like elementary, middle, and high schools in America. Private colleges have the best professors, the best education provided (because the professors get incentives for working there… higher pay, help in advancement of their research with better equipment, etc). The list could go on and on about how the system offers better education. If there were more private colleges, there would also be more competition, and lower prices because of this competition.

In Socialism, there is no real incentive to strive, merely to maintain the functional status quo. America's economy is not like this. Standard of living, of course, comes before profit. Capitalism supplies this.

As for our troops: The DMZ zone is there specifically to stop border incursions. The fact the US led forces are not fighting means it is working. Remove the DMZ and watch N. Korea reinstate expansion programs. Can anyone say Israel and Palestine? The notion that removal of a border and calling it "Korea" will usher in socialist paradise and their embracing and mixing of their two systems, is absurd. At its most basic, S. Korea is a developed Asian nation. It's economy is secure, and it's standard of living high. N. Korea, to name a very few of it's problems, is a struggling nation, it has trouble feeding its population, and it has trouble providing basic human services. It is on par with, say, Indonesia. What this means is that border removal would, assuming a centralized government, mean that the S. Korean infrastructure props up N. Korea, you essentially create a mass class system discrepancy between North and South. I should also point out that N. Korea is not a communist nation but a Dictatorship. Majority Dictatorship Government + Majority Capitalism Government = corruption and oligarchy underlying the government (i.e. Russia present)...not socialist "paradise".

I'm going to take this chance to show my 1st steps again for my opponent, because from his copy-cat comments, it seemed he ignored to give me credit for it:

1. Aid the opposition inside N. Korea by encouraging the people to peacefully strike against the government (such like what happened in Poland with the Union workers striking against communistic economic laws and winning). If that doesn't work (and gets violent), aid them in a civil war against their government.

My opponent said, and I quote:

"I do not think that any type of war would be a good way to solve the problem of unionization of the Korean Peninsula. The best way is to continue diplomatic talks of the two countries and to have the United States play a small part by continuing to play a small part in lowering it's isolationist policy."

I never said that they should have to go to war. I said that if it is needed, if the strikes do not work, a civil war will be the best thing against it's corrupt government. My opponent mentioned showing the isolated country parts of western society. What my opponent must realize is that when the people start learning what they are being deprived of, they will rebel. The leader knows what he is doing when he isolates them.

My opponent accused me of, quote:

"My opponents plan for this debate is wrong due to the fact that:

1) She is in favor of linking the two countries together. She wants to aid civil war and "peaceful" protests against the governments, but this can only end like the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia where Nicholas II and his family was brutally killed! THIS IS NOT THE ANSWER TO UNITING THE KOREAN PENINSULA!""

I am in the fault for wanting the countries linked together? I believe my opponent is advocating the same thing when he talks about uniting the countries under socialism. And if it weren't for the revolution in Russia… I am puzzled as to why my opponent considers the October Revolution a bad thing? Info: http://en.wikipedia.org...

To quote his next point:

"2) If the US and NATO countries aid refugees, then the union of North and South will occur because the people will still be going and immigrating towards it. And thus, My honorable opponent's point falls."

How does my opponent go from critiquing me in wanting to join the two countries to saying my point fails because the two countries will be united? Maybe he needs to clarify. Does my opponent know that the steps are to eventually unite the countries?

And my opponents final "step" quoted:

"3) Finally, she advocates tat the countries should reunite under capitalism. She is agreeing to the resolution and thus upholds my side of the debate."

I do not hold to his side of the debate because I do not agree with his first 3 points. One, he said that our troops shouldn't be there. I disagreed to this. Two, he said that the countries should unite under Socialism. I disagreed to this. And three, he mentioned that this socialism would resolve the 6 party talks, which my arguments can explain for themselves that joining the countries under S. Korea's type of government would nullify.

I do not agree with him.
Debate Round No. 2
aodanu16

Pro

ok... I will concede all but one part of my opponents case(seeing as how i have lost on those points)!
point 1)

what this debate boils down to is the economics of the countries. we must only look to the economics of the debate because that is what we have focused on the majority of the time. my opponent brings up 2 flawed pieces of evidence why socialism is wrong...

1) she says that "There are no 'pure' capitalistic states, and no 'pure' socialist states, and no 'pure' communist states." i do acknowledge that there are no "pure capitalist" countries, but there are "pure socialist" countries. i will touch more on this in my next point. is a country is not communist or capitalist, then it is socialist. see diagram

Diagram 1)

Communism--------------------------Socialism-------------------------Capitalism
<----more equal to everyone more for the individual---->

notice that socialism is in the middle.thus it is a mixture of the 2. please note that my opponent my revert to this diagram if she needs to. it is very self-explanatory.

2) my opponent's definitions are in direct conflict with one another. one says that it is communist and another says that it is "a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done."

the word "transition" implies that the system is a MIXTURE or an in between of the two! moreover, my opponent says that what i am describing is a mixture of socialism and capitalism. i hate to break it to her, but that is still socialism!!!! also, if the goods are not equally distributed, then not only does it show capitalism, but since it is on the way to the establishment of communism, it shows that socialism is between capitalism and communism. thus, if the two countries unite, socialism will occur...

point 2)

When my opponent says that China doesn't want to be communist anymore and are in fact socialist, then we can show that the best economy in Asia is in fact SOCIALIST and that a socialist economy is the key to economic success. Thus, if the DPRK and the ROK combine into one Korea, then their economies will flourish and become a huge economic power in the world... moreover, this encompasses my opponents point of civil war. seeing how Karl Marx was a socialist/communist theroist, the says from his book The Communist Manifesto on the very last page...

"Let the ruling classes tremble at a Communist revolution. the proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win. WORKING MEN OF ALL COUNTRIES UNITE!"

this means that a revolution or a civil war would have to ensue in order for socialism to have its start. this socialist revolution would cause the breakdown of the two governments in both Koreas and thus mean unite.

diagram 2)

North:

Communist--> workers angry at ow wages--> people revolt--> GVMT weakened-->
need a less drastic form of economics--> socialism adopted--> Union of Korea to prevent loss of power (protection from outside threat)

South:

"Capitalist"--> workers tired of bad work conditions (either present or possible of happening)--> GVMT weakened--> Union of Koreas to prevent loss of power(protection from outside threat)

point 3)

my opponents also states "In Socialism, there is no real incentive to strive, merely to maintain the functional status quo." however, the point still remains that not all of the factors of production are under state control, just some of them are... thus, the free market still remains and the status quo is still kept in check! moreover, there is a thing called strikes that also ruins my opponent's clever argument. lets take schools for example. if the students don't like the way a teacher is instructing, then all of the students can strike against him/her and the teacher must change or she will not teach and thus not get paid... if it were a capitalist system, then the fault would be on the students and they would be kicked out of school for defiance and the teacher would be fine... or a job also. people can strike if they don't like it, but in a capitalist society, the workers would be fired and replaced! this is a detriment because these people have to survive and if they are fired for trying to promote the status quo, then that is not the best thing!

thus i urge the following plan to be enacted:

1) the people of North and South Korea must wage a socialist revolution sparked by the encouragement of the USA.
2) this will be funded by the US Federal government
3) the countries of North and South Korea unite under socialism
4) The US and other ally nations will help the new Korean government to enact this system to its fullest extent
5) Kim Jong-il and Roh Moo-Hyun (the current leaders of both Koreas) in order to have knowledge of both extremes of the economic spectrum.

thus, i urge an affirmative ballot.
Vi_Veri

Con

Socialist states of the world (because my opponent couldn't supply us with an example)These are those that actually follow the ideals instead of just stating it in the constitution and using a bit of it in their government. These states may be considered "communist" in the West:

1. China - People's Republic of China 2. Cuba - Republic of Cuba 3. North Korea - Democratic People's Republic of Korea 4. Laos - Lao People's Democratic Republic 5. Vietnam - Socialist Republic of Vietnam

Any of them ideal to you?

I will continue by noting errors and contradictions in my opponent's arguments:

MINE: "My opponent has also pointed out that China has the "best economy" in Asia, but failed to state how working standards are in China. My opponent also failed to recognize that China is wanting, and slowly trying, to move its economy to Capitalism."

HIS: "When my opponent says that China doesn't want to be communist anymore and are in fact socialist, then we can show that the best economy in Asia is in fact SOCIALIST and that a socialist economy is the key to economic success"

See any discrepancies in his translation? I believe I have already pointed out that China does not want a socialist society. That is the entire point of its increasing Westernization; to move away from such idealism. China is advancing. He wants Korea to compromise it's economic ideals. Note that China and Korea in that sense are travelling in the opposite direction in his scale.

Communism--------------------------Socialism-------------------------Capitalism
<----more equal to everyone more for the individual---->

Then there is him saying two totally different things:

"this means that a revolution or a civil war would have to ensue in order for socialism to have its start. this socialist revolution would cause the breakdown of the two governments in both Koreas and thus mean unite."

"She is in favor of linking the two countries together. She wants to aid civil war and "peaceful" protests against the governments, but this can only end like the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia where Nicholas II and his family was brutally killed! THIS IS NOT THE ANSWER TO UNITING THE KOREAN PENINSULA!"

Please note that he now advocates political instability for both North and South Korea.

I can finally give you a testimony that will cover this next argument of his:

"My respective opponent says that The troops need to be on the DMZ to protect them from any possible movement from the other side. However, she fails to recognize that the US' troops on the DMZ could be coming home or going to places that actually need troops like the Middle East to fight the "War on Terror."

My soldier friend in Korea says:

"well let me start off by saying... YES The Korean war is still going on. there is currently an armistice and has been for just over 60 years.

item of interest number 2.... its the 38th parallel not the 39th but that is just nitpicking

item of interest 3.... until about a year ago we were doing monthly alarms in case of an attack. ie its 3am you are sleeping and a siren goes off, you grab all your gear get dressed and run downstairs. they expected this stat. you would be war ready in 10 minutes.

item of interest 4.... while the DPRK is poor, it is the most militaristic nation ever. with the largest army per capita. they have to serve 8 years active and then until they are 65 in the reserves, unless they are not medically sound. ie missing a leg

item of interest 5.... there are caves that the DPRK has dug under the dmz that could unleash well, several divisions into the ROK.

item of interest 6.... yes, we party hard and drink lots of soju, but then.... i am within artillery range at all times, within 15km of the worlds most heavily defended border. that has had an unstable past. and if anything were to go down. i would probably be dead within a day or two. wouldn't you drink excessively?

item of interest 7... when we are not drinking soju we are generally in the field training. we train more than any other unit in the army, hands down. true, we don't deploy to Iraq... because we are deployed here.

item of interest 8... the worlds best alliance is between the ROK and the US. this is the only alliance that agrees to cross train each other. their soldiers train with us, we train with them. trust me its there.

bottem line.... is it a waste of US money? no. due to the alliance that we have as well as all the tech we get out of the ROK it is in our best interests to help defend it. we don't have that much there. but it is our presence that keeps the DPRK out.

i could go on and on. but then why? i might die in the next minute. so im going downrange to enjoy it."

My opponent has also said:

"Finally, my opponent also drops the point about the 6 Party talks and how this will be beneficial to any county around the country of North Korea. Thus she agrees with me and should be counted as a voter for the affirmative side."

What he has failed to address is exactly how a instable country struggling to reunite, with half of the country under former dictatorship, economic mess, no political infrastructure in place, is a safer environment for nukes to exist? One might almost argue the situation is perfect for arms dealers.

Now let me show you the steps in his plan:

1) the people of North and South Korea must wage a socialist revolution sparked by the encouragement of the USA.
--as we have discussed above, he now encourages revolution after opposing me--

2) this will be funded by the US Federal government
--Why would the US fund this war on policy? We are already trillions in debt and going because of a war--

3) the countries of North and South Korea unite under socialism
--again, I'm not sure if I need to expand here...--

4) The US and other ally nations will help the new Korean government to enact this system to its fullest extent.
--U.S. is against South American states trying out socialism. Why would it try and help Korea?
Articles:http://www.internationalviewpoint.org... and http://www.nzherald.co.nz...)

AND finally, his biggest mistake:

5) Kim Jong-il and Roh Moo-Hyun (the current leaders of both Koreas) in order to have knowledge of both extremes of the economic spectrum.

--Why would you want Kim Jong-il as co-president when he's the main reason for all the problems:

"Kim Jong-il has been routinely criticized by world governments and international NGOs for human rights abuses carried out under his rule, as well as for North Korea's production of nuclear weapons, contrary to previous legal, international obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and his own commitment to make the Korean Peninsula free of nuclear weapons. Camp 22 is North Korea's largest concentration camp, where up to 50,000 men, women and children accused of political "crimes" are held. Reports of gross violations of human rights by the guards have been reported, such as murdering babies born to inmates." - wikipedia --

Oh and I must say transition does in NO WAY imply mixture. Definitions are not implied. Transition is the movement of one stage to another and can be discrete. Even if we go by his erroneous assumption, the only way he can prove this is if the process sustains movement "it is on the way to the establishment of communism." i.e. He is saying that a united Korea will eventually revert to communism.

And as for Karl Marx's quote... I give you, to finish our debate, Ayn Rand.

"Capitalism demands the best of every man – his rationality – and rewards him accordingly. It leaves every man free to choose the work he likes, to specialize in it, to trade his product for the products of others, and to go as far on the road of achievement as his ability and ambition will carry him."
Debate Round No. 3
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by aodanu16 9 years ago
aodanu16
very good debate... i have to admit you are very good!
Posted by sadolite 9 years ago
sadolite
To reunite the two countries you would have to everyone lower the standard of living for one country in order to raise the standard for the other one.
Posted by Vi_Veri 9 years ago
Vi_Veri
I refrained from talking about workers strikes because they are only possible in a free government -- the economic ideal doesn't matter. i.e. -- communist states probably wouldn't allow strikes like democratic. My opponent was wrong when he said it wouldn't work in capitalism. It actually works better..
Posted by aodanu16 9 years ago
aodanu16
its fine that you don't post your case for a while. i get it, you need fun and a break so take a load off.
Posted by Vi_Veri 9 years ago
Vi_Veri
lol I had to cut a lot from my last reply as it was a page of word too long for debate.org... which is sad, because I had so much more I wanted to argue *sighs.*

So, my second round is 2/3rds of what it was originally.
Posted by Vi_Veri 9 years ago
Vi_Veri
Would just like to inform my opponent that I'm on spring break so he does not think I am avoiding the topic on my large lapses of time before replies! lol sorry, will post as soon as I can!
Posted by Longhorn4Life929 9 years ago
Longhorn4Life929
wow. I'm actually from South Korea, And i concur that they should be together but being a socialist state is a pure mistake.
Posted by Vi_Veri 9 years ago
Vi_Veri
I'll have my arguments soon :)
13 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Vi_Veri 8 years ago
Vi_Veri
aodanu16Vi_VeriTied
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 LaSalle 8 years ago
LaSalle
aodanu16Vi_VeriTied
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 aodanu16 8 years ago
aodanu16
aodanu16Vi_VeriTied
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 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 Danielle 8 years ago
Danielle
aodanu16Vi_VeriTied
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 Tainted 9 years ago
Tainted
aodanu16Vi_VeriTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Creator 9 years ago
Creator
aodanu16Vi_VeriTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by twinkiesunite 9 years ago
twinkiesunite
aodanu16Vi_VeriTied
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 Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by Higgins 9 years ago
Higgins
aodanu16Vi_VeriTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by bigbass3000 9 years ago
bigbass3000
aodanu16Vi_VeriTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Crust89 9 years ago
Crust89
aodanu16Vi_VeriTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03