The Instigator
themoderateamerican
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
passwordstipulationssuck
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Should the U.S. go to war with North 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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/26/2017 Category: Politics
Updated: 10 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,172 times Debate No: 101414
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (4)
Votes (0)

 

themoderateamerican

Pro

I will be arguing that the U.S. should go to war with North Korea. Whoever accepts this debate will be arguing that the U.S. should not. Round 1: Acceptance. Round 2: Opening claim. Rounds 3-5: Rebuttal and argument.
passwordstipulationssuck

Con

I accept the debate.

as part of my acceptance, I will be establishing some basic ground rules for the debate.
1. No ad hominems
2. standard debate rules regarding new arguments in final speeches apply.
3. standard rules regarding dropped arguments apply.
Debate Round No. 1
themoderateamerican

Pro

I will be arguing that the U.S. should go to war with North Korea. North Korea has continued to progress in their nuclear program, despite sanctions, and plan to go further. The recent missile tests show that North Korea is planning for an attack. North Korea would have hit a U.S. base in Japan, if they would have fired from the eastern coast [1]. North Korea has repeatedly defied U.S. sanctions, which is ground for warfare [2]. Recent propaganda videos released by the North Korean government showing U.S. military on fire are signs of aggression. There is only one way to stop the advance of the North Korean nuclear program, and that is by uniting with our allies in the south, and going to war.
Sources:
1-http://www.foxnews.com...
2-http://www.cbsnews.com...
passwordstipulationssuck

Con

I will be arguing that we should not go to war with North Korea yet if ever. If we lived in a fantasy world where we could disallow nuclear weapons and allies, I would say: Sure! go for it! get the bastards! but we don't. As of now the Nation of North Korea is allied with a slightly bigger threat called China. If you recall the events of the Korean War where we did indeed go to war with North Korea, we almost had them beat when their sole military ally marched across the border and drove us back. I think we can all agree that a war with China (and due to their friendly diplomatic relations, Russia.) would be the United State's greatest military nightmare. While what goes on inside the border of North Korea is regrettable, we are in no position to invade.

Now moving on to my opponent's case. My opponent has pointed out that N.K. has defied U.S. sanctions and that this is grounds for warfare they also tied this into their point on N.K. Nuclear program. the increased development of N.K. nuclear weapons is not threatening. With the deployment of T.H.A.A.D. (terminal high altitude aerial defense system) we would blow their missiles out of the sky before they got past their border. At that point, with them violating U.N. accords and being the obvious aggressor; China would likely not risk war with NATO over N.K.

My opponent also has brought to our attention the anti-American propaganda that N.K. produces. again, I would point out that these threats are all talk. We could defeat North Korea but as long as we are the aggressor, N.K. allies (China and its allies.) would be justified on the global scale for declaring war on the United States.

My opponent's main points have been over N.K. nuclear program but T.H.A.A.D. has all but neutralized N.K. nuclear potential.

www.MDA.mil
Debate Round No. 2
themoderateamerican

Pro

My opponent said "I think we can all agree that a war with China (and due to their friendly diplomatic relations, Russia.) would be the United State's greatest military nightmare. " Would this be our greatest nightmare, or our greatest accomplishment? The purpose of WWII was to defeat communism, can we agree that North Korea and China are communist? Russia is no longer an enemy, they have helped in the fight against ISIS and other terrorist organizations with the U.S. Voters, I would like to point out a violation of the rules by my opponent. My opponent said " standard rules regarding dropped arguments apply." However, he dropped my argument of uniting with South Korea and my argument that North Korea almost hit a U.S. base in Japan. The missile that almost hit this base was not detected by THAAD. My opponent's main argument is that war is unnecessary due to the invention of THAAD, but this is false. South Korea has refused to pay for THAAD, leaving them vulnerable for attack[1]. My opponent also said "the increased development of N.K. nuclear weapons is not threatening." North Korea is unstable, how can you explain that North Korea's possession of a nuclear arsenal is not threatening. Our allies in Asia, as do out bases, do not have THAAD.
My next argument is that North Korea is not only capable of performing nuclear attacks, but they are also capable of performing terrorist attacks[2]. Recent assassinations carried out by the North Korean government are signs that they are capable of performing them in the U.S.
Sources
[1]-http://thediplomat.com...
[2]-http://www.cnn.com...
passwordstipulationssuck

Con

My opponent has argued that rather than being our greatest military nightmare, WWIII would be our greatest accomplishment. (and indeed due to military alliances it would be WWIII) My opponent has as such argued that sending innumerable soldiers to their deaths for the sake of honor and pride is justifiable. When you adopt that mindset you have adopted a primitive, ancient, and archaic mindset.

He has also pointed out that Russia is not an enemy. No. Nor are they a friend. They ARE however increasingly becoming friends with china. That was my point. The fact that they fight terrorism. (and support Assad) is not relevant to this discussion.

next, My opponent accused me of dropping one of his arguments. This is not factual. The argument he claimed I dropped was encompassed in my point about N.K. nuclear capabilities. and that T.H.A.A.D. had not picked them up. well, one reason T.H.A.A.D. had not picked them up, was because they weren't there yet. It was the missiles in Japanese waters that prompted the deployment of T.H.A.A.D.

Next, My opponent states that T.H.A.A.D. has not been deployed. I knew this to be false, so I followed the link he provided. It's two years old. My opponent has provided outdated information that is no longer relevant. T.H.A.A.D. has been deployed.

My opponent also brings up potential assassinations and terrorist attacks carried out by the North Korean government. My opponent fails to recognize, however, that these attacks would be few and far between. North Korea would fear defectors (as they always have) especially now that one of their top diplomats has defected. Furthermore, the damage they could cause wouldn't hold a candle to the devastation that the war my opponent is suggesting would cause.

My opponent has also stated that our allies won't have T.H.A.A.D. however, in a situation where war is inevitable (which it's not) my opponent would have to recognize that thaad was designed to be globally deployed at a moments notice. Also, I would like to answer my opponent's question about how I can say that N.K. nuclear weapons aren't a threat to our allies in Asia. Simple. the Missiles have to be fired from N.K. at which point they would be intercepted by T.H.A.A.D. as they are capable of shooting down short to intermediate-range missiles which according to all known intel, is all that they have. therefore, our deployment of T.H.A.A.D. in South Korea would cover all of N.K. nuclear attempts.

I hold that in any case, against any enemy, war should always be a last resort.

US to deploy THAAD missile battery to South Korea a source from 2017
https://www.army.mil...
Debate Round No. 3
themoderateamerican

Pro

First, I would like to point out the flaws in my opponents' argument. They said "My opponent also brings up potential assassinations and terrorist attacks carried out by the North Korean government." Notice the use of the word potential. The attacks I am about to mention are not potential, they have already happened. Has my opponent forgotten of the widely covered assassination of Kim Jung-Un's half brother[1]? Has he heard that the North Korean government stole $81 million from a bank in New York[2]? (VOTERS) My opponent ends with a lie. "US to deploy THAAD missile battery to South Korea a source from 2017." Is it a source from 2017? No! It is a source from July 11, 2016. He attacks me on outdated information, and then provides it. The last and most major flaw, my opponent fails to provide an argument, only a rebuttal.
To my argument, North Korea is not only a military power, but they are also a cyber power. It has now been discovered that they has ties to a bank heist in New York. How far will we allow them to push our buttons. It is time to draw the line and attack. North Korea views the U.S. as weak, we need to prove to them that we will do what is necessary to keep our nation, and our allies, safe.
Sources (Actually from 2017)
[1]-https://www.nytimes.com...
[2]-http://www.foxnews.com...
passwordstipulationssuck

Con

Firstly, my opponent uses the term flawed rather loosly by stating that since I used the word potential, that my arguments were invalid. However, I was referring to potential FUTURE attacks. I thought that might have been implied but I guess not. as for the points my opponent made about the attacks that N.K. has committed; he brought up the south Korean reports that North Korea had ordered Kim jong nam's assassination and the new york bank heist (they were actually trying to steal from Bangladesh.). even if both of these are true, (and both are under investigation at this point.) you have to ask yourself: is what they're doing worth starting WWIII over? Are we willing to start a war in which innumerable people will lose their lives, while we're already busy in the middle east providing military support there?

2. Next, he accuses me of lying. while I admit, I did mix up the dates on my sources. For this debate alone I have about seventeen tabs open, and I looked at the wrong one when I wrote the date down. The difference between what I did and what my opponent did, however, was that while my information is still correct, his was incorrect. See the difference? Being outdated doesn't necessarily mean that your source is old. all it means is that it's no longer true. my evidence was therefore not outdated as it remains true.

3. He says the "most major flaw" in my argumentation, is that I did not provide a new argument in my previous statement. However, I believe (and this is the way I always do things.) that refuting every single one of my opponents points while he has failed to successfully refute a single one of mine, is a more than adequate way to state my case as it has allowed me to further my argumentation and furthers my position.

and finally, he once again brings up North Koreas Cyber program. I assure you, with a 600 billion dollar defense budget and a rather large amount being invested in our Cyber program, we will be more than a match for them. Rather than starting a large scale war, I believe we should develop our own programs to counter theirs. Less loss of life that way.
Debate Round No. 4
themoderateamerican

Pro

I intend to honor the rules put in place by the opponent regarding final attacks, I hope my opponent will do the same.
In conclusion, voters, the time has come to draw the line and stand up for ourselves. We can no longer allow other countries to press our buttons and antagonize us. The U.S. is now viewed as weak, we not only need to defy this reputation, but never have this reputation again. The U.S. is too great of a country to be bullied by North Korea. Eventually North Korea will have that nuclear arsenal that they dream of, it needs to be ended. North Korea does not care about sanctions, so there is one way to stop them. Join South Korea and Japan before they perform an attack. This has been an interesting debate, I love a challenge and that is what I have received. I enjoy practicing debating against ideas I do not believe in. Voters, make the right decision. When you vote for who had the better grammar, do not base it on who you agree with, but be fair.
passwordstipulationssuck

Con

In compliance with my Guidelines, I shall be utilizing this final statement to give you some main voters. The first voter will be morality. throughout the course of the debate, I have argued that we should not become warmongerers. Sending our soldiers to their deaths in what will likely be a large-scale war. My opponent has stated the opposite, referring to the war as "our greatest achievement. The second voter will be over attacks and rebuttals. Throughout the debate, I have refuted every point my opponent has offered while he has successfully refuted few if any of mine. North Korea is simply not threatening enough to risk war with real threats just to assert dominance over other nations. The most important thing to remember when giving the order to go to war is that the death toll isn't a statistic. it is representative of lives lost. Of families destroyed. It's simply not worth the devastation.
Debate Round No. 5
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by passwordstipulationssuck 10 months ago
passwordstipulationssuck
1. the source is real. I can provide the full link for you now.https://www.mda.mil...

2. keep the debate in the rounds. not in the comments section.
Posted by themoderateamerican 10 months ago
themoderateamerican
My opponent's source in Round 2 is not a real source.
Posted by themoderateamerican 10 months ago
themoderateamerican
My opponent's source in Round 2 is not a real source.
Posted by MakeDebatingGreatAgain 10 months ago
MakeDebatingGreatAgain
Going to war would be a last resort, at best.
No votes have been placed for this debate.