The Instigator
ComradeJon1
Pro (for)
Winning
27 Points
The Contender
bigbass3000
Con (against)
Losing
22 Points

Russia has become a threat to US interests

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  
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: 2/10/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 3,987 times Debate No: 2529
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (4)
Votes (14)

 

ComradeJon1

Pro

Through empirical analysis and hard evidence, I will show you several interests of the United States of which Russia has become a threat to, proving an affirmation of the resolution. The following interests are named as such by President Bush on the official White House website.
•US Interest #1:
Countering global proliferation of arms

We see that Russia has been a huge part of the spread of ballistics materials throughout the world. According to an article from the Spectator on July eleventh of last year, Russia has built and tested new ballistic weapons that are capable of striking targets up to thirty eight hundred miles away. While Russia maintaining its military is by no means a threat itself, it's what is done with these weapons that makes Russia dangerous. According to a January 08 article from the Asia Times website, Russia is the largest supplier of arms in the world and concentrates its sale mainly to high violence areas such as the southeast of Asia, Middle-Eastern countries and Latin America. Later in that article, Dr. Ariel Cohen of the JCPA went on to speak of the recent sales between Russia and middle-eastern countries. In the late 90's, Vladimir Putin, the current president of Russia, sold a large stock of military equipment to the nations of Saudi Arabia and Syria, a prime enemy of the United States. In March of last year, the sale resumed, again with Putin as the auctioneer. A new supply of anti-tank missiles, rocket propelled grenade launchers, anti-aircraft missiles, tanks and Russian satellite codes have been on a steady distribution to these nations.
•US Interest #2:
Sustaining oil and gas prices

According to the aforementioned article from the spectator, Russia is sitting on the largest stretch of gas reserves in the world. European nations rely on Russia for approximately one fourth of their oil, the European Union for about half and Germany and France alone rely on Russia for 80 percent of theirs. In a 2007 statement before congress, secretary of state Condoleezza Rice and undersecretary Robert Gates portrayed the effects of how Russia is using its oil and gas sales as a political weapon against small European nations that can't afford the inflated gas rates. In late 2006, Russia, without warning, inflated their prices to the nations of Ukraine, Belarus, Estonia and Georgia. When Georgia, Estonia and the capital city of Kiev, Ukraine couldn't make their payments, the gas flow was cut off for over 6 weeks. If this OPEC-like action were to be taken at any extent on the larger nations of Europe, those countries would be forced to use more of their alternative sources, the same ones that the United States already use.
This high demand for a limited product would essentially make the price of gasoline soar. Sue Pleming of the International Business Times predicts that the current price of 98 dollars per barrel could sky-rocket to over 300 dollars were Europe to start relying on Canadian and Middle-eastern energy sources to a larger extent.
•US Interest #3
Ballistic Defense

Last year, President Bush and NATO authorized the building of a Ballistic Missile Defense Shield in eastern Europe that would consist of a Polish based missile launching site and a Czech radar site. The purpose of the BMDS would be to intercept Iranian Missiles that could possibly threaten Israel and US interests in Turkey. The Russian Army Chief Yuri Ball-ev-ski said that the base in Poland could force a retaliatory strike from Russia. It's safe to assume that the General did not mean that Russia would directly attack the US, but rather he was referring to the inferior Missile Detection system of Russia that hasn't been upgraded since 1970's. According to Eric Hundman of the Carnegie Endowment, Russia is concerned about their defense system's ability to distinguish offensive and defensive missile strikes which reacts automatically in retaliation when it senses ballistic activity. This danger led the US to suspend the building of the BDMS.
•US Interest #4
UN Security Council hegemony

Russia has inherited all of the Soviet seats at the UN Security Council. Those seats have given them the power of a veto that only five total nations have. The Bush administration, in September of 2006 began asking for economic sanctions to deter Iran from enriching uranium. According to Ian Bremmer of the Eurasia group, Iran has been using China and Russia as blocks to keep these economic sanctions from occurring.
•US Interest #5
Security of US allies

This interest mainly steams from the others that have already been mentioned. Georgia's oil block, Kosovo's fight over independence and Israel's lack of a Missile Shield in Europe produce significant threats to their physical and economic security.
bigbass3000

Con

• US Interest #1:
"Countering global proliferation of arms", Well I do not argree with this for two reasons, one , here is a quote from our own government."We need to take account of what is working in our relationship with Russia but also to be very clear about where we disagree with the Russian leadership -- whether it's on the lack of democracy inside Russia itself, the declining fortunes of the democrats in the Russian political spectrum; whether it's on Russia's attempts to, we think, be overbearing at times in their relations with their neighbors; or whether it's the recent Russian reaction to our attempt to establish a modern missile defense system in Europe, not aimed at the Russians themselves, of course, but aimed at the threats that emanate from Iran and other countries to the south of Russia. A balanced picture of the U.S.-Russian relationship would take account of the following. That on the two major issues that we face globally -- our ability to defend ourselves against terrorist threats, and our ability to restrain countries from becoming nuclear powers -- Russia is one of our strongest partners worldwide", This is from R. Nicolas Burns,Under secretary of political affairs. Russia is our biggest ally in keeping countries from becoming nuclear. They do deal with Iran, but the time period, they were dealing was between 2002-2005. This is a long, time ago, Russia has realized the threat coming from Iran and has stopped it, by stopping trade.

• US Interest #2:
Sustaining oil and gas prices
First off you mention small countries, this are small countries, not larger ones, so how can you compare small countries, to larger countries, you can't. Also Russia was not the only one too inflate prices, everyone did, it is rising because of speculation. Second of all, the majority of Russia's economy is in oil, if they cut it off from their buyers, their larger buyers, they would not have any money and their economy would shatter, they rely too heavily on oil. So they are not going to us it on the U.S., because, we give them money without it, they have no money and they fail, we at least have alternatives.

• US Interest #3
Ballistic Defense
First off, if they are preventing this interest, then why are we going along with it already, we already have shaken hands with Poland and Czech republic. Also their own Defense secretary, said they . "We have the capability to surpass any antimissile system," said Sergei B. Ivanov, Russia's defense minister. So they really are contradicting themselves, they are not a threat, because since we are pushing forward with this plan, they can't stop it, which does not make them a threat.

• US Interest #4
UN Security Council hegemony

Yes, they were, but did you know after the new N.I.E. reports from our countries they have rethought their position and soon, are going to impose sanctions.
• US Interest #5
Security of US allies

This shield is already being built as we speak, and Russia, can't do anything about why, because they just are not a threat and they should not be, we are more friends now, then we ever were in the Cold War and this is not a new war.

Now onto my case

"That Russia has become a threat to U.S. interests"
To clarify the round, we offer the following definitions:
Russia: The Federation of Russia
Become: Come into existence
Threat: A source of danger
United States: United States of America

Contention 1: A balanced picture
Sub Point A: A Friend
The US and Russia are strategic partners on a number of different issues. They are often partnered to defeat a common enemy, radical Islamist terrorists. Russia has had its fair share of problems with the same brand of threat we face from radical Islamists. They have been one of our best friends in the War on Terror. Although there is some difference on issues like Iran and Iraq, Russia has been a great ally. Simply put, Russia is more often our friend than an enemy.

Sub Point B: Missile Threat, not

Most of the recent press has focused on the proposed missile defense system that the US wants to open in Poland and Czechoslovakia. Russia has made the claim that if the defense system is built, they will target their missiles towards our friends in Europe. President Bush himself has downplayed this threat and believes it is unrealistic. Russia is no threat to our friends in Europe.

Sub Point C: Russia helps us with Nukes

A big threat from Russia in general is their nuclear weapons program. The tremendous buildup of the Cold War left thousands of warheads and tons of bomb-making material. There continues to be a concerted effort by all to secure all of this material. Primarily led by the US, the Russians have taken a number of steps to protect their arsenal. In fact, evidence in the file argues that all the facilities should be safe by 2008. The nuclear threat from Russia has been diminished. They are highly unlikely to sell weapons to terrorists because they would be a likely target.

Sub Point D: Iran

Up to this point, Russia has provided Iran with non-weapons ready nuclear material. They have been utilized for peaceful, power generating purposes. As you might remember from the December topic, the US Intelligence Estimate stated that Iran hasn't been pursuing nuclear weapons. Iran is not a serious threat to the US, Russia's economic alliance with the country provides no threat to our interests.

Conclusion-Russia is not our threat, they are a friend, they work towards are interests and they are not going to let Iran make nuclear weapons. They understand the situation, and they work with us.
Debate Round No. 1
ComradeJon1

Pro

1) How does this prove that russia isnt proliferating arms? You gave a quote from an American, i have given you cited evidence that says Russia is still proliferating weapons.

2) My point is that they have a past of extorition in oil with small countries and as these larger countries depend more and more on russia, it becomes a looming threat that a similar situation would destroy the world oil markey. I agree other countries have done it before, but seeing how Russia has become such a big supplier, their extortion would kill american oil prices. Im not insinuating that they would cut their entire oil supply, but they could, by all means, coner some markets that have no other option (like france and germany as i said) but to turn to saudi and canadian oil after such a situation.

3) i dont understand your argument. of course were allies with Czech and poland, but their inability to control their ballistics supplies due to faulty equipment impedes our ability to build the BMDS

4)Even so, the sancitons come under terms that we have to provide funding to Russian oil cos. This shows that theyre willing to impede on our interests at the UN for personal gain

5)??? Sheild wasnt built. If it were, theres a chance that the russian ballistics arsenal would involuntarily go off. After that, i cant understand a word you said.

def) im sure were all quite aware of the definition of "russia"

1) Russia is only opposed to islam because of thier own Chechnian issues. They could care less about Iran and have been huge suppliers of their arsenal. The BMDS threat is not that Putin will nuke our friends in Europe but that his crappy missile reaction system will go off involuntarily. its not necesarily up to the government, russian scientists in siberia could be the salesmen of nuclear goods. Whether or not you believe we should take action, i think its safe to assumeIran is a threat in a number of ways. The sale of plutonium is somewhat disturbing, but the sale of ballistics material is the real worry.
bigbass3000

Con

"1) How does this prove that russia isnt proliferating arms? You gave a quote from an American, i have given you cited evidence that says Russia is still proliferating weapons. ", Right I was going to get to that, the Resolution says they have become, Russia has had Nukes and has been proliferating nukes since the 1950's, so have we, but we work together to prevent weaker countries from producing weapons, Read the NPT. So this threat should be disregarded because of the wording. I forgot this sorry, you need to prove that they have become, meaning they wern't a threat, now they are. How did they become a threat, they have always had Nukes, so why do I care about that, we pratically sign treaties and comply to them as such are the start treaties, which we follow as does Russia, in lowering are arsenals, but they have always been a nuclear threat, as have we to them, so this arguement should be disregarded. Not just a American a individuals who works diplomatically with Russia with our government, not just some American.

No, we always have Arctic oil, and besides as I already stated, they cannot cut oil, without feeling the hurt themselves, even, if they cut a little like you said, it will have a negative impact on their economy. They would not do so. They do not intend to harm our interests, you still have not proven they intend to harm us. Plus, according to the D.O.E., we are going to have no more oil by 2100, so we are preparing already for less oil, so maybe it will help are interests. This theory falls flat, why because O.P.E.C. has 40% of Oil in the world. Saudi Arabia is a great ally, they would not let them do this, if it even were considered. They can only affect small countries, not bigger ones, so you say we will rely on them more, when we are cutting are dependence at the same time, does not make sense.

No, they are going to put sanctions on Iran, they are not impending anything, really, they are, our friends

They have agreed in doing the shield, look on the moscow times, it came out Feb.4, We were negotiating, now we agree to have them, Russia is made, because they want a part of it, Russia would be a threat if the Missile defense system was not being built, but it is going to be built or it is scheluded to be built.

First, off their is no evidence, about it. Their could be scientists, could, but that is not a threat. As I mentioned in my own arguement, Russia is working on this probelm, so if it is working with it, then it is not a threat, all my arguement stand. It is a crappy system and the U.S. and Russia are talking about installing a new Missile defense system in Russia. Also OMG, Missiles are being sold, the U.S. does arms deals in the middle east as well, in fact we have done deals with Israel and Saudi Arabia with missiles, but Iran having weapons, makes Iran a threat, not Russia.
Debate Round No. 2
ComradeJon1

Pro

1) So you agree they are a threat? The resolution doesnt say when they became a threat, jsut that they became one. If we agree they are a threat to our interest of countering proliferation, than they "became a threat".

2) Theyve already cut oil to Kosovo, Georgia, Estonia and Ukraine. Theyre fully capapble of this and reamin a threat in this sense. Russia is not an OPEC member so Saudi arabia has no effect over them (not that they would anyway)

3) You can say that as often as youd like, but they simply have displayed aggresive political tendencies to counter our hegemoic force in the UN. And yes, there is a deal is place in which russia has to sell oil stock to the US in exchange for Russias vote, but the point is that this shows russia isnt afraid to go against the US for personal gain. That makes them a threat to that interest

4) They are CONSIDERING a shield in israel as to not provoke the russian
arsenal, but that keeps us from defending turkey so its not adequate.

5) You just said they were selling uranium to iran...

Russia has a crap hole economy and even crappier military basis. They cant afford a revamped system, thats why it hasnt been changed in over 30 yeas.

If russia is selling arms to a threat, they are a threat.
bigbass3000

Con

Public Forum topics are about topics that are current, ot the 1950's, so okay since you did not define, when they were a were a threat, fell form a threat, and then became a threat again. You have failed to prove this, and thus, you are a crappy debater, the judges will know, this. It is a broad topic as well, as it says interests. So, sure i will give you one of many interests in a mine. "Theyve already cut oil to Kosovo, Georgia, Estonia and Ukraine. Theyre fully capapble of this and reamin a threat in this sense. Russia is not an OPEC member so Saudi arabia has no effect over them (not that they would anyway)", look it up. OPEC has 40% of all the oil on this earth. So they can switch to OPEC or other suppliers. Their economy relys too much on poil, to use this influence on larger countries.

"3) You can say that as often as youd like, but they simply have displayed aggresive political tendencies to counter our hegemoic force in the UN. And yes, there is a deal is place in which russia has to sell oil stock to the US in exchange for Russias vote, but the point is that this shows russia isnt afraid to go against the US for personal gain. That makes them a threat to that interest", No,interests is broad, we have many, how does Russia hurt Africa, human trafficking, Terrorism, they wrok with us on Terror, they work with us on proliferation, they work with us on many issues, so we have a few issues, that have not even happened yet, just speculation from my opponent, no, it just is not true, we have similar interests.

What the heck are you talking about it was all over the moscow news and CNN, they have agreed to make this sites already with poland and Czech republic, if Russia was a threat, would they stop this, they haven't stopped this at all.

"Russia has a crap hole economy and even crappier military basis. They cant afford a revamped system, thats why it hasnt been changed in over 30 yeas.", They are fixing it with us, go to the state department and learn.

"If russia is selling arms to a threat, they are a threat.", No if a bad guy buys a gun legally from a gun store owner. Who is the threat, the guy that sold the gun or the buyer. The buyer, and besides, they have started to stop suppling them.

Well, I think there is a big difference between Russian foreign policy and Soviet foreign policy. I think there is a big improvement. I mean, Russia is a state. I think it has a sense of its national interest, or it's groping for a sense of its national interest. It doesn't have this Leninist ideological thrust to disrupt the Western position all around the world. So even I, who worry about it, I can see a big difference.
Russian President Vladimir Putin said last weekend that Russia would resume its Cold
War stance of targeting its missiles at Europe if Washington goes ahead with basing parts of the planned shield in the Czech Republic and Poland. But Bush told reporters at the start of a Group of Eight (G8) summit in Germany that "Russia is not going to attack Europe," and is "not something to be hyperventilating about."
From the beginning of his presidency in January 2000, Putin pushed the idea of a
concerted campaign against terrorism with American and European leaders. He was
one of the first to raise the alarm about terrorist training camps in Afghanistan and to warn of linkages between these camps, well-financed terrorist networks, and Islamic militant groups operating in Europe and Eurasia. Russia also actively supported the Northern Alliance in its struggle with the Taliban in Afghanistan. In December 2000, Moscow joined Washington in supporting United Nations sanctions against the Taliban and later appealed for sanctions against Pakistan for aiding the Taliban. After the attacks on the United States, Putin went so far as to suggest he had been expecting a massive terrorist strike—it had only been a matter of time. The events of September
11 were a shock, but not a surprise. Putin's support for Bush was consistent with his efforts to draw world attention to the terrorist threat.

This is a regime that -- even with its many very real, even gross flaws -- is the most open and liberal in the country's history. The press is free from government censorship. The opposition, no matter how radical, can publish and campaign for office. Free and fiercely competitive multi-candidate elections are the norm at both the local and national levels. After 1,000 years of authoritarianism and totalitarianism, Russia is radically decentralized, yet whole, with political power dispersed both geographically among the regions and among diverse centers of power on the national level. No party (much less person, even the president) can dominate and mold Russian national politics at will. A longer and broader view yields different observations. There is a great deal in today's Russia that, to the citizen of a mature liberal democracy, appears flawed or even appalling. Yet the progress is undeniable and enormous.

Russians, US working together to protect nuclear material Corera in 2005 Corera, Gordon. [Security Correspondent]. "Loose nukes' fear spurs US-Russia
action." January 5, 2005. BBC News.http://news.bbc.co.uk.... Accessed January 10, 2008.
Meeting in London on 4 January were the two top officials involved in the US-Russian efforts - US Secretary of Energy Spencer Abraham and Director of the Russian Federal Atomy Energy Agency Aleksandr Rumyantsev. They told the BBC news website that they were accelerating their protection programme and expanding the scope of co-operation between their two countries to try to ensure that no nuclear material could fall into the wrong hands.

If there is a looming threat, it is not one of confrontation but of lost opportunities and a waste of time. It is one of our drifting further apart before we resume cooperation on a whole range of international issues on mutually agreed terms. The ultimate source of optimism is the fact that all nations are natural allies in the face of global threats and challenges such as terrorism, poverty and climate change. What is totally unacceptable are attempts to imply that Russia is to blame for our partners' difficulties. We have been through tough times ourselves, but rational people have always blamed fate rather than foreign governments for the absolute folly of our
own ruling elite.

Russia is not underestimating the nuclear threat from Iran
Blackwill in 2008 Blackwill, Robert D. [Former deputy national security advisor for strategic planning]. "The three Rs: Rivalry, Russia and 'Ran". January 11, 2008. Asia Times. http://www.atimes.com.... Accessed January 10,
2008. Nevertheless, the Kremlin agrees that a nuclear Tehran would be a real danger. After meeting with Sarkozy, Putin conceded that not only is a nuclear-armed Iran not in Russia's interest, but opined that it would pose a greater threat to Russian national security than to European or US vital national interests. So it is up to the West to convince Russia that, regarding Iranian nuclear ambitions, Moscow's long-term equities are best served by comprehensive and full-fledged cooperation with the West. But we only have a chance of doing that if we substantially narrow our policy differences with Russia on many of these other matters.

Garamone in 2007
Garamone, Jim. "US, Russia Not Headed for New Cold War, Gates Says." October 24,2007. American Forces Press Service.
http://www.defenselink.mil.... Accessed January 10,
2008. The US relationship with Russia is not in danger of becoming a new Cold War, Gates said. During the heyday of the Soviet Union, the United States was in the midst of an ideological war with communism. The Cold War took place in a different world, the secretary said, and while some of Russian President Vladimir Putin's rhetoric has been strong, Russia still is cooperating with the E.U.
Debate Round No. 3
ComradeJon1

Pro

Russia being a threat is a very current topic. I dont make the resolutions, i just debate them, and if we agree that Russia is a proliferation threat, i win this one too.

Dont tell me how to debate PF, ive broken at emory and gone to nats, stick to the topic, pal.

i said if they do this to other nations than georgia or estonia, we have a major problem. theyve done it before and Europe relies on this oil to a relatively large extent. If oil were retracted, prices would hit the roof. i dont know how many times i must explain this.

you dont seem to understand anything about anything. russia isnt a threat to all interests, but they are a threat to some. glad to see you agree with that though.

I refuse to explain this about the BMDS again. The argument has been made and repeated in every round now.

thats not true. stop lying for your purpose.

If the seller knows what the buyer is doing with thhose guns, theyre both at fault

im not saying its the same as the soviet era, that doesnt mean they arent a threat. and i dont care what you think to that regards, ive provided evidence to support myself.

"Russian President Vladimir Putin said last weekend that Russia would resume its Cold
War stance of targeting its missiles at Europe if Washington goes ahead with basing parts of the planned shield in the Czech Republic and Poland."

So theyre threating us, but they arent a threat? Make some sense, pal.

Instead of just copying and pasting evidence from West Coast Debate, you should consider reading before you respond to me and making actually logical rebuttals.

And to your extrenuous comment, you have no right or ability to say that a jewish source isnt reliable because it is anti-russia. Your racism is not only offensive, but comes to a misguided conclusion.

Either way, thanks for your time. good luck
bigbass3000

Con

"Russia being a threat is a very current topic. I dont make the resolutions, i just debate them, and if we agree that Russia is a proliferation threat, i win this one too.", Yes, but they have always been a threat,so it shopuld be dropped,because it refers to after the soviet Union, they fell form being a threat, now, they are one now. You have failed to prove this. And you don't win on one threat, it says interests, their are many, other than the ones you posted. I will post the priorities for you to do some research and why you lose.

"Dont tell me how to debate PF, ive broken at emory and gone to nats, stick to the topic, pal. ", If you have broken, then maybe you should work on this better, because you aint breaking with this case. With the nuclear threat.

"i said if they do this to other nations than georgia or estonia, we have a major problem. theyve done it before and Europe relies on this oil to a relatively large extent. If oil were retracted, prices would hit the roof. i dont know how many times i must explain this.", If they do, but I already proved that they won't because it would destroy their economy.

"you dont seem to understand anything about anything. russia isnt a threat to all interests, but they are a threat to some. glad to see you agree with that though. ", I'm glad to see, I am only giving you Nuclear, because they have always been a nuclear threat. The resolution says, has become, meaning they became a threat(Soviet Union), then weren't a threat(fall of Soviet union), now are a threat(Today). You are wrong they are not a threat to other interests.

"So theyre threating us, but they arent a threat? Make some sense, pal.", wrong, just because a country threatens us, doesn't mean they are a threat, they have to have the power to do it. If Tahiti was threatening us, are they threat no and even you said they have a "crappy economy and military"

I didn't say it was anti-russian, I said it was anti-Arab, which it is, it blames the arab world for everything to Israel. They are racist, because to them anyone who helps a arab country is evil. It says it on the website, I would like everyone to see it. That is why it is unreliable, plus it is a source from a article. I have provided examples from the state department and our country, now onto the debate.
DEFINITION: US INTERESTS – 2)

US interests are comprised of four priorities
1. deterrence and power projection-Russia has a crappy military
2. free market expansion-They follow Trade agreements
3. transformation of the western hemisphere-Democracy
4. close relationships with allies-We are strengthening ours with Russia.

Coronado, Professor and Researcher at the Department of Ibero-Latin American Studies at the University of Guadalajara, 2005 [Jamie Preciado, Between Soft Power and a Hard Place Dilemmas of the Bush Doctrine for Inter-American Relations, Journal Of Developing Societies 21(3–4) http://jds.sagepub.com...]
Finally, Rice pointed out that the notion of the ‘national interest' should de refocused to reflect new priorities. 1) The first was to make sure that the US military apparatus played a deterrent (and perhaps compelling) role, projecting US might. Should deterrence fail, military force would be readily at hand to defend and protect US interests. 2) A second priority was to boost both free market expansion and an international monetary system consistent with these principles. 3) A third priority was the inclusion of the western hemisphere as a vital area of national interest for the USA. 4) Finally, an important priority was the renewal of close relationships with allies around core values and responsibilities, redistributing tasks in different areas, such as security and defense. Rice's strategic proposal could describe to a significant extent, the broader foreign policy directions of the Bush administration, especially after the 9/11 attacks.

US interests as defined by George W. Bush:
It is in the US national interest to reduce our dependence on foreign oil
Bush, 43 president of the United States, rd2006 [George W., Remarks by the President at Bob Riley for Governor Luncheon, Sept 28, http://www.vote-smart.org...=]
What we're beginning to see is a change in how we fuel our automobiles. We're spending a lot of money at the federal level, your money, to try to advance new technologies to make us less dependent on oil. It's in the national interests that we become less dependent on oil from overseas. After all, a lot of the oil we get is from parts of the world that don't particularly care for us right now.
Aid to Venezuela is in US national interests
Bush, 43 president of the United States, rd2006 [George W., Memorandum for the Secretary of State, Sept 18, http://www.vote-smart.org...=]
I have also determined, in accordance with provisions of section 706(3)(A) of the FRAA, that support for programs to aid Venezuela's democratic institutions is vital to the national interests of the United States.
Winning the War on Terrorism is in US national interests
Bush, 43 president of the United States, rd2006 [George W., President Bush Meets with Recently Returned Military Service Personnel, July 21, http://www.vote-smart.org...=]
(In progress) -- and this country supports you and admires you, and appreciates your dedication. You're doing some hard work. It's hard work to defeat terrorists, killers that wanted to achieve their objective. But we'll succeed, we'll prevail. I want our troops to understand that not only does the country support them, but

we'll -- we'll win. It's in our national interests that we win. And we will. We've got some powerful, powerful weapons on our side. We've got the men and women who wear the uniform, people who bring such dignity and honor and bring compassion to people who have been suffering under tyranny and are now wondering whether or not the future is bright for them. And we've got freedom on our side, too. And freedom is a powerful weapon. People want to be free.
It is in the US interest to help Iraq
Bush, 43 president of the United States, rd2006 [George W., President Bush Thanks Military on Independence Day at Fort Bragg, North Carolina Iron Mike Plaza, July 4, http://www.vote-smart.org...=]
There's more work to be done in Iraq. The Iraqi people face deadly enemies who are determined to stop Iraq's new unity government from succeeding. They can't stand the thought of liberty. Our strategy is clear, our goals are easy to understand: We will help Iraq's new leaders, we will help the people of Iraq build a country that can govern itself and sustain itself and defend itself as a free nation. Our troops will help the Iraqi people succeed because it's in our national interests. A free Iraq in the heart of the Middle East will make America and the world more secure.
Promoting freedom around the world is in US national interest
Bush, 43 president of the United States, rd2004 [George W., President's Remarks at Ask President Bush Event (Part II), Aug 18, http://www.vote-smart.org...=]

This are our interests, your hard research, has not been enough. And this is not all of them. All of your arguements fail, and your nuclear arguements should be dropped from the round.
Debate Round No. 4
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by ComradeJon1 9 years ago
ComradeJon1
Lots of proliferation on the pro im guessing? my debates a district qual on friday
Posted by mrmatt505 9 years ago
mrmatt505
I hate PFD, why would you taint debate.org? Why? just kidding, the PFD topic was actually fun to debate.
Posted by bigbass3000 9 years ago
bigbass3000
Also this nevedence you provide is from a article from the JCPA or Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs. I only wanted to point out that this is a anti-arab website, thus is a bias and thus should be dropped from the round. And they focus on how things hurt Israel, not the U.S., as they say in the part about their website and why it exists.
Posted by ComradeJon1 9 years ago
ComradeJon1
This is going to serve as practice for my real debate, so id appreciate any challangers to my AFF case. Thanks!
14 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by kingpinnn 7 years ago
kingpinnn
ComradeJon1bigbass3000Tied
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 BlackMask 7 years ago
BlackMask
ComradeJon1bigbass3000Tied
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:24 
Vote Placed by hauki20 8 years ago
hauki20
ComradeJon1bigbass3000Tied
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 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 aodanu16 9 years ago
aodanu16
ComradeJon1bigbass3000Tied
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 twinkiesunite 9 years ago
twinkiesunite
ComradeJon1bigbass3000Tied
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 rnsweetswimn1 9 years ago
rnsweetswimn1
ComradeJon1bigbass3000Tied
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 NM1023 9 years ago
NM1023
ComradeJon1bigbass3000Tied
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 DaPofoKing 9 years ago
DaPofoKing
ComradeJon1bigbass3000Tied
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 Mcornwell 9 years ago
Mcornwell
ComradeJon1bigbass3000Tied
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 blond_guy 9 years ago
blond_guy
ComradeJon1bigbass3000Tied
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