Should U.N. keep on sending aid( food/Money) to North Korea?
Debate Rounds (3)
I will begin by countering his case sentence-by-sentence.
First of all, my opponent does not specify in his opening statement what Kim Jong Il is being carelesss about. Thus, this claim is invalid.
Secondly, while my opponent uses the term "than", he does not compare any two quantities. Thus, this claim is incomplete and has no bearing on the debate.
Third, my opponent does not cite a source for his claim that the food in North Korea is only 1 out of the 3 foods provided. Thus, this claim is invalid.
Fourth, 1 out of 3 is not a specific number; thus, it cannot be "all [of] the people" in North Korea.
Fifth, 1 out of 3 is 1/3, not 1/2, meaning this claim is also invalid.
Sixth, there is not communist country IN North Korea. North Korea ITSELF is a communist country. Furthermore, my opponent does not cite any sources for his claim that Kim Jong Il suffers from mental illness; thus, he is not 'crazy', as my opponent has not substantiated this claim.
Seventh, this sentence seems to be a command, not a statement. Here, my opponent is apparently telling the United States "keep on threatening North Korea because North Korea has Nuclear weapons". Thus, he is urging the U.S. to threaten North Korea. This is a command, not a claim or argument.
Eigth, I disagree with my opponent's claim that we should avoid sanctions on North Korea because we should think about the civilian there. I believe we should consider ALL of North Korea's civilians in making decisions, not just this one civilian my opponent mentions. Also, it appears that here, my opponent directly CONTRADICTS his previous command to the U.S. by stating that they should NOT sanction North Korea even though he just stated that they should in the form of a command. My opponent has contradicted himself.
Thus, my opponent's entire statement is invalid.
My opponent does not state a clear resolution or make any clear arguments. Based on this debate's title and their PRO status, I shall assume the resolution is "The U.S. should keep on sending aid (food/money) to North Korea". I will negate this resolution.
I will now move on to my argument.
ARG1: America must enforce sanctions on North Korea to deprive Kim Jong Il of food and fuel. This must be done due to the massive danger he poses to his own people and the world at large. While Kim Jong Il may not look dangerous, the intrepid reporters of The Onion, America's finest news source, have reported that Kim Jong Il is, in fact, a giant robot with ICBM and vaporization capabilities, among others . If we can deprive Kim Jong Il of food and fuel through sanctions, we can deprive him of the energy needed to utilize his robot form. This will allow the United States to liberate North Korea from its oppressive government without the danger a giant robot would pose to our armed forces. While death of North Korean citizens may occur, death is unavoidable in dealing with Kim Jong Il. The number of lives that could and likely would be lost by allowing this giant robot/tyrant to survive far outweighs the amount that would be lost through imposing sanctions. In summary, we must impose sanctions on North Korea to disable Kim Jong Il's robot form.
I will end by thanking my opponent for this debate and the viewers for their time. Please vote CON.
kevin1110 forfeited this round.
my next reson is we should sanction because U.N. need to prevent from nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons is strongest. How strong is Nuclear weapons?
A: Nuclear explosions produce both immediate and delayed destructive effects. Immediate effects (blast, thermal radiation, prompt ionizing radiation) are produced and cause significant destruction within seconds or minutes of a nuclear detonation. The delayed effects (radioactive fallout and other possible environmental effects) inflict damage over an extended period ranging from hours to centuries, and can cause adverse effects in locations very distant from the site of the detonation. These two classes of effects are treated in separate subsections.
My opponent said " ALL of the North Korea's civilians making decisions....." I totally disagree what my opponent said because North Korea civilian cannot make their own decision. North Korea is a communist country.
Also, My opponent said" they should NOT sanction North Korea...." but U.N. need to prevent from Nuclear Bombs. By sanctioning North Korea their going to realize their mistakes. That Nuclear Bomb could damage whole asia.
We shall not give aid to North Korea because of Kim Jung Il
the list of the things that he did.
1.been caught twice shipping weapons — reportedly including man-portable surface-to-air missiles — to Iran, apparently for the use of its terrorist clients;
2.sent a hit squad to assassinate a prominent defector in South Korea;
3.threatened civilian air traffic to and from South Korea;
4.threatened to turn the capitals of various neighboring states into "sea[s] of fire;"
5. tested a nuclear weapon and multiple ballistic missiles in flagrant violation of at least three U.N. Security Council resolutions;
6. sank a South Korean warship and killed 46 members of her crew
I know North korea rejected a Aid from U.N. and Now, there is no point of sending aid. If U.N. keep on sending aid to North Korea then there going to give out food unfairly. My reason is that We don't know where the food is going to.
Also, sending aid is a waste because they rejected the food.
My opponent said"my enitre statement is invalid" and thats not true. This is total fallacy what my opponent is saying. If North Korea Rejected food then why should we help them?
civilian doesn't have any power to decide unless it's uncommunist country.
Again, Sanctioning North Korea could make them realize their mistakes.
so Vote Con!!!!!!
My opponent has apparently decided to join the CON side, as many of his arguments here are apparently in favor of sanctioning North Korea. This is directly in contradiction of the PRO. The debate's title is "Should U.N. keep on sending aid (food/Money) to North Korea?". A PRO stance implies an affirmative answer. Thus, the PRO for this debate states that "The U.N. should keep on sending aid to North Korea", and the CON is "The U.N. should not keep on sending aid to North Korea". Many of his statements in R3 indicate his reversal to the CON. I will elaborate upon this later.
I will respond to my opponent's attempted counter of my statement. First of all, my opponent blatantly misquotes me. A quick use of your computer's "find" function will reveal that I never stated anything about North Korea's civilians making decisions. I merely stated that we should consider all of North Korea's civilians IN making decisions, rather than my opponent's rather inconsiderate proposed method of only considering "the civilian in North Korea". I reiterate that we should consider more than just one civilian in North Korea in making decisions, especially when dealing with a giant robot such as Kim Jong Il.
My opponent makes another attempt to deceive viewers by construing my words "they should NOT sanction North Korea" as a PRO statement when, in fact, I was showing a contradiction in my opponent's statement, not stating my argument. My opponent has thus far not once, but TWICE attempted to trick viewers into misconstruing my statements.
My opponent's research and data on North Korea's nuclear bombs only serves to aid CON's case. North Korea's nuclear capabilities combined with their giant robot leader make sanctions the only way of showing to them that the world will not tolerate their violent threats, as well as deprive their leader of the energy necessary to change into his robot form.
I disagree with my opponent's claim that what I am saying is "total fallacy", as he has not successfully countered my statements and has strangely switched sides mid-debate. Many of my opponent's statements in R3, such as "sanctioning North Korea could make them realize their mistakes", show a decidedly CON stance.
To summarize my opponent's statement, he has failed to counter my case and has actually made statements and provided evidence aiding the CON side.
I will now weigh the debate.
PRO has not made any clear arguments, and his statements have all either been countered by CON or are in agreement with CON's stance. However, CON's argument has gone unchallenged and still stands. Thus, I recommend a CON vote for Convincing Arguments.
PRO failed to clarify the resolution and has not thanked CON for the debate. CON has thanked PRO for the debate multiple times and has attempted to aid PRO in clarifying the resolution. Thus, I recommend a CON vote for Conduct.
PRO has made numerous spelling and grammar errors throughout the debate, such as "grammer", "thats", and "This is total fallacy what my opponent is saying". CON's spelling and grammar have been comparatively strong. Thus, I recommend a CON vote for Spelling/Grammar.
SOURCES: CON and PRO have both cited reliable sources throughout the debate; as a result, I recommend viewers cast their Sources vote either as a tie or as a point supplement for the convincing arguments vote.
I will end by thanking my opponent for the debate and the viewers for their time. Please vote CON.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by GeorgeCarlinWorshipper 6 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||7|
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.