The Instigator
Fate1919
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Nd2400
Con (against)
Winning
6 Points

Should we go to war with North Korea

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 2 votes the winner is...
Nd2400
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/31/2017 Category: Politics
Updated: 8 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 617 times Debate No: 104705
Debate Rounds (1)
Comments (4)
Votes (2)

 

Fate1919

Pro

I think we should go to war with North Korea, there leader is a spoiled child who wants to "tame the United States", here are my points that support war with them.

1. North Korea has a nuclear warhead capable of hitting Guam, Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan.
2. They are KILLING there own people right now, many are starving while others are working to death.
3. They openly threatened the US, South Korea, Japan, and Australia.
4. We are still technically at war with them.
5. Korea has offered to sell ICBM's to IRAN.
6. They are a threat to the world because of there allies and there leadership.
Nd2400

Con

I'm against a preemptive strike or war on North Korea. Why because if the US strike first, it would look very bad on the US part in the international community. Russia and China would not accept this outcome. The US will be risking a war not with just the North Korea, but with China, with relations with China is stress already. Not to mention South Korea and Japan would lose millions of lives, in a US, North Korea war. The other reason I'm against this is China and Russia, and even Pakistan have nukes. Which one of these countries have used them, none?
"They openly threatened the US, South Korea, Japan, and Australia"
The US should not engage in a war because of empty threats.
North Korea Will not attack anyone. Period. SO NO GOING to war.
Debate Round No. 1
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by RichardCypher 8 months ago
RichardCypher
Here's a debate anyone can participate in simply by providing a list of 5 words in the comment section:
http://www.debate.org...
Posted by John_C_1812 8 months ago
John_C_1812
In the years to come it is very possible that China will be forced to deal with North Korea, much like the United States had been forced to deal with Iraq. The United Socialist Soviet Republic created such a threat of chemical warfare in the region, an Iraq purchased of chemical raw materials globally and assembly of these chemical, then to be turned and used on people living in Iraq. Set a path that could not be easily changed.

The question of international debate. How does nuclear exchange intergrade with chemical warfare?
Posted by levi_smiles 8 months ago
levi_smiles
Are you advocating first strike? Traditionally, the US has gone to a lot of trouble to avoid the appearance of striking first. Certainly, Kim is hoping the US attacks first since that's the only way to lock in Chinese participation & Chinese participation is the only way NK survives a week of war with US.
Posted by NDECD1441 8 months ago
NDECD1441
This debate may probably get you killed. There is a reason I dont do these debates. Good luck anyway.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Unstobbaple 8 months ago
Unstobbaple
Fate1919Nd2400Tied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: In short debates you really need to have knowledge ahead of time to vote since there is so little sourcing and specific information. I feel comfortable saying that I agree with Con that the death toll in South Korea and Japan would be very high. I agree that this would very quickly escalate tensions with Russia and China. I'll also agree that it's empty talk from North Korea and it's unlikely that they will take military action as it would be against their own interests. Pro is essentially arguing that North Korea has made aggressive actions that warrant a first strike. Con was able to rebut this by saying that a first strike is a toxic move in the international community and that the consequences of a war would be far more disastrous than anything that North Korea is likely to do. Arguments to Con.
Vote Placed by RichardCypher 8 months ago
RichardCypher
Fate1919Nd2400Tied
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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: NK is all talk because it knows the US cannot invade it without a UN backing, neither will Congress declare an act of war on NK without the UN support. Thus, NK is playing the game of making the US look like sitting pussies. Con is correct: it's empty threats [for their domestic political gains].