The Instigator
Con (against)
0 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
2 Points

Should we take ANY military action in Syria at this time and day?

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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/21/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 783 times Debate No: 37979
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (8)
Votes (1)




Contention 1: Death and illegal traveling are two major ideas in the aftermath of what happens if
unilateral military force by the United States was taken to prevent nuclear proliferation. The definition of nuclear proliferation is According to encyclopedia Brittanica is the process by which one nation after another comes into possession of, or into the right to determine the use of, nuclear weapons; each nation becomes potentially able to launch a nuclear attack upon another about 84% of people in a apocalypse would run or exit their homes. If we were in a crisis many people would pack their bags and leave that country .If America were to take action we would cause more people crossing the border and causing over populated countries deducting major cash out of our countries pocket potentially pushing us more in debt to even care for ourselves and allowing non welcome people to sneak into our country, that would be a cause leading to sneaking terrorists and another World War due to suicide bombers and fallen allies .Think back to the cold war.When two countries were fighting America had to step in policing the world and causing more trauma and drama in that country. Civilians all around the world were scared to live in that region because of the fear of another country bombing them or invading their homes leaving them frozen in time and thinking nothing but to get out. According to there are exactly 17,300 nukes in the world that can be detonated. This source also states that the United states has exactly 56 allies of today. 0 of those countries own nuclear missiles or power.. If we went to war with any of those countries our allies would make the decision of dropping out or fighting with us causing more deaths to civilians than it would if the affirmative used nuclear warfare. The affirmative side would save more people than the negative would because if we didn't use our nuclear missiles, no country would feel the need to bomb us. If we did take nuclear action, these countries would potentially murder the U.S. and any surrounding allies and our world trade policy and travel. There are many data points that can be proven through this.More people would die due to all uncontrolled nuclear missile fire all across the world this is common sense. More people would be injured miles away due to radioactive land and and nuclear blast. According to Malicah a Hiroshima survivor he was on the other side of the mountain but still got knocked unconscious because of chemicals in the air.Not only death but injury could be a problem in a situation like this,Contention 2: Our country could damage our hegemony and citizen reassurance. To live in a country strong and powerful like Russia, China, Japan, U.S, and Korea according to you wouldn't want a damaged reputation. If you ruined your hegemony, citizens would stop losing trust and faith into government potentially weakening the government because of careless citizen participation and then causing an outburst like an opression. The great depression happened the same way. I know this because tells me that in the time of the great depression it happened from World War 1 which is a situation like the resolved case i am speaking about. If that happened to a strong country like the ones mentioned above countries would start burning money to get other resources then making citizens travel to other countries looking for someone to ensure their safety and to get a job and to make money for not only themselves but for their family. Nuclear power is a huge deducting in cost also leading to more debt problems and that country heading to debt to cause yet another depression and oppression due to money and it not being put away correctly. Harvard University quote The Nieman Foundation for Journalism at Harvard .... less regulation, and less spending as well as vowing that Cold War d"tente would give way to a drive to crush godless Communism. The definition of communism according to is 1. a theory or system of social organization based on the holding of all property in common, actual ownership being ascribed to the community as a whole or to the state.Contention 3: Possible extinction of the human race is a high risk and is at stake if unilateral military force was taken.. A word war like this could possibly end the exists acne of humans. Our lives are strongly at risk and terribly at danger if nuclear warfare was used due to chemical power. CNN 2013 Syriashows graphs how many civilians would be killed if the united states exposed syria and Bombed them but we would save more people . A graphic organizer I found on says that we could possibly end human race possibly setting off bombs in Syria making other countries mad causin a world war 3 and the worse war yet because it would be from all nuclear warfare. Hiroshima was a devastated land because they bombed Pearl Harbor but we felt the need to bomb neck because we wanted to end a world war. Then , is the only case where the world threw us some slack. Other than that America always steps into situations therefore thinking it's making it better but thereby making it worse. You should vote affiliate because our evidence is current and precurrent and we can save more lives and pull ourselves a little more out of debt as a country due to the purchase of chemical warfare. We would save over 1 million lives if you vote our side. The negative side would save approx . Half of that. We save more people and keep all countries international policy under control . We also control our democracy in relations to government and keeping our people at peace knowing another war is not going to go down. That's why you should vote affirmative side and not negative.


Ok, I'm only taking this because the above argument was, well, not to be rude but ridicules. I'm sorry dude but what are you talking about? There were a number of things that you said that were completely incorrect and and another number of things that you said that either don't make sense or are completely irrelevant to the debate you've started. So Ill just take a crack into this.

Your main problem with US military intervention in Syria seems to be nuclear missiles for some reason. I have difficulty understanding this sense Syria is NOT a nuclear armed country[1] and the US has no intention of using nuclear missiles on Syria[2]. Why the heck would we? Why is this even a concern for you?

You make the claim that if, and I cant stress the if since this is a completely far fetched and unrealistic possibility, nuclear weapons were used it would cause some form of economic crisis due to our population mass evacuating the country to escape the nuclear attacks. Well the problems with this are first Syria has no nukes so there's no danger of that what so ever and second even if they did why would the American people flee from the country with the worlds most advanced anti missile defense system[3]. You seem to think that some how IF this mass exodus did happen our enemies and suicide bombers would some how be able to sneak in here easier and attack us. 3 things on that. First off the nuclear threat and the mass evacuation would never happen since there are no nukes. 2nd if the US is being attacked by nuclear missile strikes why in the hell are our enemies trying to come HERE??? So that they can get vaporized too? And third even if all of this were true it would not make it easier for them to sneak in. A smaller population means a smaller population to watch so it would be far easier to see all these enemies and suicide bombers sneaking in while everyone else is running out. And I have no idea what you meant by "Fallen allies."

All the things you said about the people living in fear and being "frozen in time." Irrelevant and non important. This is war. That's what war is. People don't just say "war is hell" cause it sounds cool. Get over it.

"the United states has exactly 56 allies of today. 0 of those countries own nuclear missiles or power."
This was my biggest issue and the main reason I took this debate. WHAT? There are currently only 8 countries in the world that maintain nuclear weapons. The US, UK, France, Russia, China, India, Pakistan, and Israel. Of these 8 countries 4 of them are allies of the US. The UK, France, Israel, and Pakistan. And India is on pretty good terms. And out of all of these countries the US has more nukes then all of them combined. We win.

The rest of your argument is nothing but IMHOs and non sequitur and so I'm not even really going to address them. They were all completely irrelevant and most of them were just flat out incorrect and the only thing worth addressing is your claim that US intervention would automatically mean far more innocent people would die. Prove it. How do you know that? 100,000+ are already dead [5].

Anyway thats all I got for this so lets see what else you got.





Debate Round No. 1


Sorry, the topic was wrong. The real topic is is Unilateral Military Force Justified To Prevent Nuclear Proliferation. But then, my case is right :) Sorry I had to do this to you but im dropping a big huge bomb on your case right now. Con
Resolved: Unilateral military force by the United States is Not justified to prevent nuclear proliferation.
The effectiveness of using military force to stop must outweigh the disadvantages of such force and the dangers it poses not only to Americans but to the lives of all world soldiers and civilians.
The United States using unilateral military force to stop nuclear proliferation would cause death of soldiers and civilians through the force itself and increased acts of terrorism, as well as block the very lucrative nuclear energy market.

Contention I
Using military force would cause the death of those involved
soldier statistics- % of survival, % of crippling injury
civilian death- Airstrike, conventional ground
Massive death of soldiers and civilians
Unilateral military force would lead to the death of American soldiers and international civilians who may have been protected by their country's possession of nuclear weapons.

Contention II
Leads to further acts of terrorism and more Anti-American terrorist groups
M-11, 9-11, Terrorism
WW1-WW2, Nazi party takeover
Anti-American resentment/Not winning the war on terror and WW3
Anti-American terrorist groups form from Anti-American resentment of the people.

Contention III
Would block the lucrative clean energy market
Nuclear energy profits/Output statistics
World Environmental impacts
Nuclear Energy
Saving the environment from harmful effects of fossil fuels by promoting nuclear energy can help solve the world energy crisis.

The effectiveness of using military force to stop must outweigh the disadvantages of such force and the dangers it poses not only to Americans but to the lives of all world soldiers and civilians.
Stopping the proliferation of nuclear weapons can prevent civilian death, improve hegemony, and give the world a profitable advantage on cleaner energy.
66,000 Dead at Hiroshima (69,000 injured) out of population 255,000
135,000 Casualties
39,000 Dead at Nagasaki (25,000 injured) out of population 195,000
64,000 Casualties
(August 6, 1945 bomb) equivalent to 12.5 kilotons of TNT (trinitrotoluene)
(August 9, 1945 bomb) equivalent to 22 kilotons of TNT (trinitrotoluene)
(History of the cold war)
Nuclear power NEI
15,000 clean energy jobs
Average plant generates $470 million in power sales
Beneficial to local community
Every dollar spent by the plant creates $1.04 in the local community through worker purchase of goods/services
Costs 2 cents per kilowatt hour
Only 28% of production costs are fuel for nuclear (80-90% for fossil fuels)
(2011) 440 reactors supplied 14% of the world"s energy
x reactors could power the earth
(2010) More than 430 Soldiers died in Afghan war
(Hiroshima, 1945) bomb contained only 64 kg of explosives equivalent to 15 kilotons of chemical "conventional" explosives
Non-Nuclear weapons treaties (1963, 1968) have been unsuccessful
Nato Allies with nuclear weapons
United Kingdom
September civilian casualties so far (2013): 684
All by non-nuclear conventional weapons
(2013) United States: 7,700
(2013) Russia: 8,500
(2011) UK: 225
(2012) France: 300
(2013) China: 300
(2013) India: 100
(2013) Pakistan: 110
(2013) Israel: 200
(2013) North Korea: Less than 10
Total nuclear weapons: 17,325


I concede this debate on the grounds that it was not what I thought I was signing up for. No hard feelings but I'm not much of an expert on nuclear proliferation lol.
Debate Round No. 2


officialniaaa forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by officialniaaa 3 years ago
UMMM sorry it was re-worded. Is there a problem? Just forfeit! I made a mistake. No need to argue with a teenager . @aramer1919 and it clearly says in my 1st paragraph the resolved case in the first sentence. Pay attention to detail.
Posted by officialniaaa 3 years ago
UMMM sorry it was re-worded. Is there a problem? Just forfeit! I made a mistake. No need to argue with a teenager . @aramer1919 and it clearly says in my 1st paragraph the resolved case in the first sentence. Pay attention to detail.
Posted by ararmer1919 3 years ago
Ok whoa whoa. What just happened??? Your changing the debate in the middle of it? I accepted to argue US intervention in Syria not nuclear proliferation. Umm. Yeah what's up?
Posted by Kenneth_Stokes 3 years ago
Sorry for the repost.
Posted by Kenneth_Stokes 3 years ago
I don't believe Con knows what Con is talking about...
Posted by Kenneth_Stokes 3 years ago
I don't believe Con knows what Con is talking about...
Posted by Kenneth_Stokes 3 years ago
I don't believe Con knows what Con is talking about...
Posted by emj32 3 years ago
Paragraphs are you friends.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by slin2678 3 years ago
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:02 
Reasons for voting decision: Wow. Don't even know where to begin with this. Con was the instigator and couldn't even get the topic right? Conduct points to Pro for that. Con's opening statement is one long paragraph/run-on sentence. Though Pro had some spelling/grammar issues (sense vs since), I have to give S&G points to Pro. No point in giving source points as there was really no debate.