The Instigator
ChristianM
Pro (for)
Losing
25 Points
The Contender
rougeagent21
Con (against)
Winning
61 Points

Scenario Debate

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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: 3/6/2009 Category: Politics
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,103 times Debate No: 7271
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (13)

 

ChristianM

Pro

In this debate there is no pro or con. Nor is there a right or wrong. Instead of voting for which side is better, vote for which person comes up with the best proposals.

Ex. Scenario: There is a ball hurdling towards your head.
PRO (Speaker 1): Duck. (support goes here)
CON (Speaker 2): Catch it then chase them down and peg em' (support)

WINNER: IS SPEAKER 1. (more logical and beneficial)

Soooo, lets give this a shot.

Scenario: China has 500 ballistic missles aimed at Taiwan Threatening to fire if they do not join china per the "One-China" Policy. Considering that the US is a major trading partner and ally with Taiwan, what should we do?

Your job as the Contender is to reply "I accept for round 1" then debate in round 2. In round 3 i will alter the scenario and we will debate in round 4. Just say "I accept in round 3"
rougeagent21

Con

I accept for round 1.

What are our scenarios being judged on? Realistic? Logical? Beneficial? To the doer of the deed?
Debate Round No. 1
ChristianM

Pro

For the view of the voters: You should judge on logic and sustainibility. Because this is a scenario, there are no real statistics out yet. Read each proposal and vote for the proposal you think is best.

I do thank my opponent for joining this NEW premiere debate and wish him good luck.

With the current situation we are facing, we must think for the best of the United States. Now, one of the United States main objectives ever since the establishment of our government is according to Federalist Papers No.2 "to promote the better good of humanity and to protect its allies. My fellow constituents, what i propose that we do today is begin Economic Sanctions on China or that if China does not stand down, we back Taiwan as our ally, using soldiers and forces based in Afghanistan, to prevent an imminent attack.
============================================================================

According to a BBC News article of December 5, 2008 "China's main power in this World today is its economy and trade. Without these, China is practically a scratch of land." By cutting trade with China and encouraging other countries to do so as well we may actually be able to force them to stand down or we will continue the economic sanctions. As John Locke once said "A man without his money, is nothing." As a matter of fact, an Economist article reported on February 4, 2009 that economic sanctions work approximately 63% of the time and if ever, there were to be an economic sanction on the People's Republic of China, it could possibly ruin them. Furthermore, the United States is known to China as the number 2 exporter of US goods to China. By enabling this proposal, my fellow constituents, we are attempting to end this potentially deadly conflict in a peaceful and civilized manner. The world is already in turmoil, so instead of sending troops and causing more casualties, we should begin economic sanctions and attack the core of Chinese substantiability.
============================================================================
This brings me to second part of my proposal, that if China still does not stand down and does pose a threat to Taiwan after economic sanctions, then, and only then, will we send military aid and bolster the Taiwanese army. The US Department of Defense states that the enactment of the Taiwan Relations Act of 1979 required the US to trade arms with Taiwan. However, even with the trade of arms, an attack from China will still crush them. While my opponent might ask "How will we get the man power?" I say, "Bring them home, then back out!" That's right. In President Obama's speech on February 24, 2009, he stated that the US army will be fully withdrawn from the middle east by August 2010. This would give up the sufficient manpower to fight back.

I urge you to vote for my proposal (PRO). Thank you and Good luck to my opponent again.
rougeagent21

Con

Wow, uh, that isn't like you said it would be. I thought it would be really laid-back. Given your proposal, you only allow me to say that we should stand back and watch. That is rather unfair. I will try my best!

When looking into this situation, Taiwan has not requested US aid. Not once in my opponent's sources do they actually request our aid. Is it possible that the US should not be policing the world? Is it possible that the rest of the world's affairs might not be ours? my opponent gave me no room to propose anything realistic, so I will add on a vital piece of information to his proposal, making the amended proposal my own. I propose that we take action as my opponent suggested, only if and when Taiwan asks us. They may have a strategy, plan, or other device to work things to their benefit. If we go barging in on their affairs, we might interfere with the good of Taiwan. I propose we take all necessary action, ONLY IF AND WHEN Taiwan requests it. Thank you.

(Might I suggest a new scenario for next round? Something less one-sided?)
Debate Round No. 2
ChristianM

Pro

I do say, that was not too shabby. Again, I will again reiterate that this is not a one sided debate but merely your opinion and why its right.

Again, I must reiterate my point that it IS the US's job to protect Taiwan per the Taiwan Relations Act of 1979. My proposal holds water and my opponents does not as just ignoring them would be unconstitutional.
rougeagent21

Con

Alright, so I will address what my opponent has said this round.

"Again, I must reiterate my point that it IS the US's job to protect Taiwan per the Taiwan Relations Act of 1979."
This is not necessarily true. Please note the following: "The act stipulates that the United States will "consider any effort to determine the future of Taiwan by other than peaceful means, including by boycotts or embargoes, a threat to the peace and security of the Western Pacific area and of grave concern to the United States" but does not mandate that the United States intervene in these situations." Note the "NOT MANDATE." This neutralizes my opponent's first statement.

"My proposal holds water and my opponents does not as just ignoring them would be unconstitutional."
Unconstitutional? Where in our constitution does it say we will always act on Taiwan's behalf? Warrant please.

Having negated my opponent's argument, and seeing as he does not attack mine, I urge a negative ballot. Thank you.
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by rougeagent21 7 years ago
rougeagent21
There wasn't anything to attack in round two! (for you, I got to attack you)
Posted by ChristianM 7 years ago
ChristianM
I attacked every point in my second round.
13 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by cjl 6 years ago
cjl
ChristianMrougeagent21Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:23 
Vote Placed by mm95 6 years ago
mm95
ChristianMrougeagent21Tied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by The_Booner 7 years ago
The_Booner
ChristianMrougeagent21Tied
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 TFranklin62 7 years ago
TFranklin62
ChristianMrougeagent21Tied
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 Bjork-Taco 7 years ago
Bjork-Taco
ChristianMrougeagent21Tied
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 philosphical 7 years ago
philosphical
ChristianMrougeagent21Tied
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 s0m31john 7 years ago
s0m31john
ChristianMrougeagent21Tied
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 Angrypants66 7 years ago
Angrypants66
ChristianMrougeagent21Tied
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:61 
Vote Placed by Debatenewbie14 7 years ago
Debatenewbie14
ChristianMrougeagent21Tied
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 resolutionsmasher 7 years ago
resolutionsmasher
ChristianMrougeagent21Tied
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