The Instigator
Pro (for)
7 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

Resolved: The U.S. should seek military action against the Democratic People's Republic of 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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/1/2011 Category: Politics
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 902 times Debate No: 15009
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (3)
Votes (2)




As seen above, the resolution is: The U.S. should seek military action against the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, namely North Korea

First round is just the acceptance. Actual argumentation starts Round 2

Also, if you dont intend on finishing the debate, please do not accept.

Good luck and lets have a good debate!! :D


I accept.
Debate Round No. 1


Resolved: The U.S. should seek military action againt the DPRK

The framework for the round will be one of Deontology in terms of a duty to protect rights

Fagan, Human Rights Center writes:

National and international institutions bear the primary responsibility of securing human rights and the test for successfully fulfilling this responsibility is the creation of opportunities for all individuals to lead a minimally good life. The realization of human rights requires establishing the conditions for all human beings to lead minimally good lives and thus should not be confused as an attempt to create a morally perfect society. While the object of individual human rights may be modest, the force of that right is intended to be near absolute. That is to say, the demands of rights are meant to take precedence over other possible social goals. rights as trumps expresses the fundamental ideal of equality upon which the contemporary doctrine of human rights rests. Treating rights as trumps is a means for ensuring that all individuals are treated in an equal and like fashion in respect of the provision of fundamental human rights. Fully realizing the aspirations of human rights may not require the provision of 'state of the art' resources, but this should not detract from the force of human rights as taking priority over alternative social and political considerations.

This means weighing protection of rights and a duty to do so comes first in the round

1. North Korean Human Rights Violations write:

"North Korea is in all likelihood the most oppressive regime on Earth. The North Korean government enforces loyalty and obedience through its Ministry of People's Security, which requires citizens to spy on each another, including family members. Anyone who is overheard saying anything perceived as critical to the government is subject to a reduced loyalty group rating, torture, execution, or imprisonment in one of North Korea's ten brutal concentration camps. The North Korean government divides its citizens into three castes based on their perceived loyalty to the Dear Leader: "core" (haeksim kyechung), "wavering" (tongyo kyechung), and "hostile" (joktae kyechung). Most of the wealth is concentrated among the "core," while the "hostile"--a category that includes all members of minority faiths, as well as descendants of perceived enemies of the state--are denied employment and subject to starvation. As many as 3.5 million North Koreans died of starvation."

2. Reliance on Domestic Regime Change is Futile

Taylor, Comparative Strategy writes:

"Advocates of a more deliberate approach to regime change, however, could rightly argue that predictions of an impending DPRK leadership collapse served as one of the primary rationales for US acceptance of the 1994 Agreed Framework, and that such an outcome never eventuated. They could point out that the regime has already survived a decade of severe national economic hardship, and that it could well endure considerably longer. Moreover, they could also note that the interests of North Korea’s neighbors, particularly China, lie with preventing a complete economic implosion. Likewise, Beijing clearly remains apprehensive over the flood of refugees that could result from any significant degree of economic dislocation in the DPRK."

3. U.S. Military Superiority

Taylor [2] writes:

"Proponents of imposed regime change can argue that the United States not only has a clear interest in using force to dislodge the Kim Jong-Il regime, but that it can also do so effectively. This line of thinking rests on the premise that the military preeminence
America currently enjoys is unprecedented in the modern history of international politics. This unrivalled strength comes not only from the advanced nature of the systems operated by the US armed forces, but also from the innovative manner in which this weaponry is applied, the high standard of training given to its operators, and the depth of the intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance assets that America has at its disposal. Supporters of regime change in North Korea would be correct in pointing out that, taken together, this extraordinary combination of capabilities gives the US the ability to exert decisive leverage in almost any combat theater. However, while the DPRK’s military machine does not want for quantity, most of its capabilities are aging rapidly, and many are already obsolete. There are also numerous indications that the level of training of the North Korean armed forces is deteriorating. Moreover, morale amongst North Korea’s personnel appears to be generally low."



Why would we fight Korea? Human rights? Please. Korea is close bonds with CHINA. if we fight Korea... Just who's with them. We just got over a war. A little peace wont hurt.
Debate Round No. 2


1. If we attack North Korea then China wuld go to war with us

--> Wrong, China has reduced its ties wih North Korea and has increased ties with South Korea

Taylor [3]:

Since the ending of the Cold War, however, Chinese and Russian ties with
North Korea have weakened, while concurrently their relations with South Korea have
strengthened considerably. In 1992, for instance, Moscow officially recognized Seoul,
thereby essentially abandoning its alliance with Pyongyang. Likewise, although China
remains North Korea’s largest trading partner and a major source of economic aid, two-
way trade between the PRC and South Korea is currently 40 times that between China
and North Korea, while the PRC is also now second only to America as a destination for
South Korean foreign investment.Further, Beijing’s attitude toward North Korea has
reportedly hardened in recent times based on a perception that Pyongyang’s approach to
the current nuclear crisis is threatening these and other Chinese economic interests.


Extend points 1, 3, and 3 he dropped all of them



I dropped 1,2,3 because they don't matter. We just got done fighting(which YOU dropped). We don't got the best army.
Wrong, China has reduced its ties with North Korea and has increased ties with South Korea
Maybe not. But is it enough? Where's your source? Who else might join the war? What about Wall Street? What about the turmoil that will come? Fight the battle thats inside the US.
Debate Round No. 3


1. He says points 1, 2 and 3 do not matter

--> He dropped the framework which means the points he dropped outweigh his nebulous statements. Remember the framework dictates tht we have an obligation to protect human rights. Thus, points 1, 2 and 3 all link back to this framework. North Korea is worst human rights violator, the alternative of domestic change wont work, and we have the ability to. We have uality of forces and reserve troops on the korean peninsula plus South Korean Troops.

2. He says I dopped the argument that we just got done fighting

--> I dont know what he is referring to, but if he means the middle east, then his analysis is still wrong because we would need only minimal infantry, since air and naval would be sufficient since North Korea is a peninsula surrounded by 3 of our allies.

3. "We dont got the best army"

--> Myers writes: "A North Korean attack would stall after a few intense days and South Korean forces would soon be in position to overrun North Korea. American air and naval power would ensure the rapid collapse of the North Korean army."

--> Extend the 3rd point that the North Korean military and weapons technology is outdated and obsolete, and also that our quality of military technology would ensure north korean defeat

4. He says my China analysis is wrong

--> My source was Taylor from Comparative Strategy

--> South Korea and Japan woumost likely join the fight as allies of the U.S. China would be neutral because they have better economic ties with South Korea and has no incentive to protect North Koea anymore.

--> What about Wall Street? There would be basically no economic impact from this war...since no wall street comapnies have ties to North Korea since its n isolationist and communist nation

--> What battle is happening in the U.S.? Im confused....are you drunk?


Framework => protect human rights first => U.S. military action needed to liberate North Korean people from human rights abuses => we have the capability to overthrow regime

Thank you



My point is that we can't fix everyone problems. How about we fix the problems will borders( the war in the US) and all sorts of things. STOP FIGHTING. Your not the god of Earth. Let Korea fix the issue. Kim Jong Il on his last legs.
Debate Round No. 4
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by CAPLlock 5 years ago
I got school so TTYL
Posted by CiRrK 5 years ago
lol @ void
Posted by BlackVoid 5 years ago
Military action against Kim Jong Il? This is madness!
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Cliff.Stamp 5 years ago
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Nothing but assertion from Con.
Vote Placed by TheAtheistAllegiance 5 years ago
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Con did not address barely any of Pro's arguments, nor did he effectively illustrate a constructive case for his point of view. Pro also had a better organizational format, spelling, grammar, etc. Neither side used any sources, so this vote must remain a tie.