The Instigator
Johnny_Hellfire
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
socialpinko
Pro (for)
Winning
34 Points

Should we give aid to Japan?

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 5 votes the winner is...
socialpinko
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/9/2011 Category: Society
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,043 times Debate No: 15860
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (5)

 

Johnny_Hellfire

Con

BOP

Pro must prove that we should give aid to Japan, while Con argues that we (the United States Of America, should not.

Argument------

1. It is not the problem of this country. Why should we be forced to help a problem that in no way concerns this country?

Imagine this- you walk up to a guy with a mild case of acne and give him 5000 dollars for treatment.

That's what the Japan quake is- a minor problem. Let's look at some statiscal figures about Japan.

"On 21 March, the World Bank estimated damage between US$122 billion and $235 billion." (Wikipedia)

2. Assuming the average of 122 and 235 as a figure, we receive this- 178.5, rounded to $179,000,000,000. The GDP of Japan is $5,390,000,000,000. (Wikipedia) This is approximately 3 percent of Japan's GDP. This is a minor loss for a country with an established base economy involving high-value products such as Nintendo. The country can easily recover itself.

Japan also has a high population to recover from all deaths with.

This makes a summarization of my points, all arguments to be furthered in R2.
socialpinko

Pro

To begin I will refute my opponent's arguments and then move on to produce my own.

Contention 1
It is not the problem of this country. Why should we be forced to help a problem that in no way concerns this country?

First, no one is being forced to aid the country of Japan. This is not a debate on whether or not some outside body should force the United States to help other countries in need. This is a debate on whether or not the United States *should* aid Japan.

Second, it is a problem of our country in that it has negatively affected our close allies. If a rival country were to attack Japan unprovoked, would not the U.S. step in to help their allies? The only difference here is that instead of a country, it was a natural disaster which took the lives of so many Japanese souls. I doubt that my opponent is advocating a completely isolationist foreign policy where the U.S. completely ignores the rest of the world.

//"Imagine this- you walk up to a guy with a mild case of acne and give him 5000 dollars for treatment."//

This is a gross over-estimation and my opponent brings no evidence to prove that this analogy is equivalent.

//"That's what the Japan quake is- a minor problem."//

12,000 deaths, 14,000 missing, 190,000 buildings destroyed, over 1million homes have lost access to water, and over 4million homes left without electricity.[1] Hardly a minor problem.

Contention 2
Japan has only had minor economic problems as a result which can be easily offset.

//"Assuming the average of 122 and 235 as a figure, we receive this- 178.5, rounded to $179,000,000,000. The GDP of Japan is $5,390,000,000,000. (Wikipedia) This is approximately 3 percent of Japan's GDP. This is a minor loss for a country with an established base economy involving high-value products such as Nintendo. The country can easily recover itself."//

Japan has incured damages of as much as 3% of it's GDP. This may not sound like much as it is a small percentage but Japan as most states do has a public debt. This debt is as much as 225% of it's annual GDP.[2] This is the highest GDP as compared to a countries public debt in the world. Now my opponent has states that Japan's GDP is $5,390,000,000,000. Multiply this by 225% and one arrives at this figure: %12,127,500,000,000. With a debt in the trillions can Japan afford to lose even 3% of it's GDP in damages? My opponent's claim that the economic problems incured as the result of this disaster is only a 'minor problem' is clearly erranous and fallacious.

My opponent's contentions that this is not at all our problem and that Japan will do fine without help have been proven false. I have also shown that as an allie, we have a duty to help them in their time of need. I have affirmed the resolution and thus you all should vote Pro.

[1]http://en.wikipedia.org...
[2]http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 1
Johnny_Hellfire

Con

Johnny_Hellfire forfeited this round.
socialpinko

Pro

Extend arguments. Vote pro.
Debate Round No. 2
Johnny_Hellfire

Con

Johnny_Hellfire forfeited this round.
socialpinko

Pro

Extend arguments. Vote Pro.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by quarterexchange 5 years ago
quarterexchange
Johnny_HellfiresocialpinkoTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Obvious
Vote Placed by TUF 5 years ago
TUF
Johnny_HellfiresocialpinkoTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 
Reasons for voting decision: This could have been a great debate.
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 5 years ago
RoyLatham
Johnny_HellfiresocialpinkoTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Con lost every contention and forfeited.
Vote Placed by boredinclass 5 years ago
boredinclass
Johnny_HellfiresocialpinkoTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: forfeit
Vote Placed by Cliff.Stamp 5 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
Johnny_HellfiresocialpinkoTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 
Reasons for voting decision: askbob needs to take up forfeits as his pet peeve