The Instigator
bethanie.miller
Con (against)
Winning
3 Points
The Contender
xxmillerxx
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points

Resolved: The US should end Plan Colombia

Do you like this debate?NoYes-2
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 1 vote the winner is...
bethanie.miller
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/13/2017 Category: Education
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 531 times Debate No: 98934
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (1)
Votes (1)

 

bethanie.miller

Con

Plan Colombia:Drug War Is A Fail
Plan Colombia: Washington"s Latest Drug War Failure Ted Galen Carpenter is vice president for defense and foreign policy studies at the Cato Institute July 27, 2001
https://www.cato.org... november 15 2016
The centerpiece of the Bush administration"s "supply side" campaign against illegal drugs is staunch support for the Colombian government"s "Plan Colombia." But the facts show that the plan is a waste of time and money.
Washington is backing Plan Colombia to the tune of $1.3 billion, primarily in [the]military aid. Green Beret personnel are training several anti-drug battalions, U.S. funds have helped the Colombian military buy Black Hawk helicopters and other hardware, and employees under contract to the State Department[is]fly dangerous aerial spraying missions to eradicate drug crops.
Plan Colombia"s goals are certainly ambitious. Since December, more than 75,000 acres of drug crops have been sprayed with an herbicide. U.S. satellite data suggest that there are about 340,000 acres of coca (the raw material for cocaine) under cultivation throughout the country. Colombian officials express the hope that the eradication campaign will cut that acreage at least 50 percent by 2002.
But evidence has recently emerged that Plan Colombia"s claims of success are erroneous-or at least irrelevant. Even as President Andres Pastrana and other leaders boasted of the plan"s achievements, reports were leaking out that a new study, funded by the United Nations, indicated that there were more than 340,000 acres under cultivation.
Even more to the point, previous U.S. estimates of total cocaine production in Colombia-580 tons annually out of total world production of 780 tons-were too low. The new study concluded that Colombia"s actual cocaine production was between 800 and 900 tons per year.

Plan Colombia: A success?
Marcus Sales 2013 masters graduate in Intelligence and Security Studies http://www.colombia-politics.com... november 17, 2016
But production has reduced in more recent years
Yes; analysts attribute this to a switch in focus from aerial eradication campaigns to more intensive, manual eradication. This strategy is more effective than aerial fumigation as it both kills the plant directly, and has the knock on effect of building a more significant government presence on the ground.
Risks, are however, higher as the military are more exposed. FARC and ELN guerrillas work to sabotage efforts, routinely laying mines and IED"s in coca fields. Such dangers may explain why manual eradication has been on a downward trend since 2010, despite its proven success.
Production is also down because of the increase in the presence of the security forces and the fact the guerrilla groups have been pushed back from areas they once controlled.
Statistics compiled by the US and the UN suggest Plan Colombia has been effective in reducing the production and trafficking of cocaine. The discrepancy in figures between the two bodies however, troubles us. To understand the full success a more transparent and detailed methodology for data collection is needed

The failure of plan colombia
Jens Gould regularly contributes to The New York Times, correspondent for Platts energy publications april 19,2007 http://prospect.org... november 10 2016
Seven years ago, the U.S. government launched a $4.7 billion anti-drug effort in Colombia, which provides more than 90 percent of cocaine that enters the United States. The program's pride and joy is an aggressive aerial spraying campaign to destroy coca, the raw ingredient in cocaine that ends up on American streets. Just three days before I arrived, U.S.-funded airplanes had dumped chemicals on La Balsa crops, and, in some areas, even on the village structures themselves.
But Jorlin Giovanny, one of the some [of] 300 peasants who live there, was already rescuing the seeds from his dead coca plants, methodically chopping centimeter-wide branches on a wooden block with a machete that left a metallic ring in the sultry air. The sun-tanned 27-year-old [they] soaked the cut-up pieces in water and replanted them that very afternoon in tidy rows in the red dirt behind a half-finished house he was helping to build for his mother. "There's no other option," said a calm Giovanni, who was well-accustomed to this post-spraying ritual and expected the seeds to sprout again in a month's time. "What else are we going to do?" Virtually every family in town continues to grow coca, even though they say planes have sprayed their crops at least five times in the past five years.
Coca farming persists in La Balsa because selling the plant remains practically the only way to make a living. In fact, farmers[said] told me the aggressive spraying campaign actually encourages them to continue cultivating the illegal crop because it makes them dependent on coca profits to buy basic food staples. This is because the planes' toxic herbicides, in addition to hitting coca plants, often kill off less-resistant legal crops such as plantains, cassava, and sugarcane -- the [the] community's main sources of food. Even aside from that risk, producing legal crops is a losing prospect here because there is no infrastructure to make transporting them to the cities cost effective. "So what else can you do to give your little kids something to eat?" asked Uber Buila, who runs a small laboratory near the town's entrance where villagers use gasoline and acid to turn coca leaf into cocaine base, the first stage of cocaine production. "The government should find another method of eradicating coca."
xxmillerxx

Pro

I dont believe in your evidence at all. Therefore none of it is true. here is my reasons. Since the Pro will be advocating a total ban of Plan Colombia, they will need to justify their position which will in most cases, point to a collection of failures and tragic outcomes arising from the policy. But the Con side, needs to advocate we should NOT ban Plan Colombia. The most obvious justification for the position, in light of Pro claims of failure, is we should not ban it because we still have work to do. While this may seem trite, the evidence shows that despite the much publicized failures, Plan Colombia has had some remarkable successes and we will argue it has turned an important corner on the road to stability, peace and economic viability. We need to understand, the objectives of Plan Colombia have been a bit of a moving target, at least for the purposes of political expediency. However, there are several key and strategically important objectives that have been present from the beginning, and these are being met. Moreover, though I may not do so in this analysis, Con can legitimately argue, that many of the criticisms levied by Pro are not failures of the plan itself, but rather failures of the Colombian government to conduct its operations in such a way as to minimize collateral harms. For example, its fairly easy to claim from the comfort and quiet of a U.S. classroom, the so-called "scorched earth" tactics of the Colombian security forces was excessive and result in numerous human rights violations. It is much more difficult to assess whether those tactics were in keeping with present capabilities and if the heavy-handed tactics ended up helping more than hurting. After all, internal conflict had been going on for a half-century and there was no end in sight. In fact, there was a reasonable expectation that the Communist FARC may succeed in toppling the government. The Pastrana administration came along at a critical juncture, when the people were already crying out for an end to FARC.
Debate Round No. 1
bethanie.miller

Con

Just because you don't believe in it doesn't mean that the facts aren't wrong. Also, your evidence is going for my side. There for my evidence must be true.
xxmillerxx

Pro

Where are all your evedince to make these "true statements" true?
Debate Round No. 2
bethanie.miller

Con

All three of my evidence states there qualifications and websites they came from
xxmillerxx

Pro

thank you I'm done
Debate Round No. 3
bethanie.miller

Con

Since your argument is for the side I'm arguing that is why I can only see a con ballet and I have no argument that were possibly able to respond to.
xxmillerxx

Pro

okay well I guess so you won I have nothing else to say thank you for this debate and you're time.
Debate Round No. 4
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: Some_Confused_Kid// Mod action: Removed<

5 points to Con (Arguments, Sources). Reasons for voting decision: I believed that both side were equally nice. Both sides had good grammar. Con made more convincing arguments while pro spended round 2 talking about what con did and not believing his evidence. Con had sources while Pro did no so Points go to Con.

[*Reason for removal*] (1) Arguments are insufficiently explained. The voter must specifically assess points made by both debaters to determine the outcome. The voter kind of does that for Pro, but never specifies anything Con stated in the debate. (2) Sources are insufficiently explained. Even if only one side provided sources, the voter must explain how those sources were reliable (i.e. applicable to the debate) in order to award these points.
************************************************************************
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Hayd 1 year ago
Hayd
bethanie.millerxxmillerxxTied
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: Pro concedes the debate. Thus Con wins arguments