The Instigator
Terminal
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
CiRrK
Pro (for)
Winning
24 Points

South Korea and North Korea should reunite within the next 5 years.

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  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision - Required
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/24/2011 Category: Politics
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,367 times Debate No: 15566
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (3)
Votes (4)

 

Terminal

Con

Resolved: South Korea and North Korea should reunite within the next 5 years.

I will be on the Negation of the resolution; contender will be on the Affirmation. I will try to convince that advocating for the resolution is, on balance, a bad idea. The Affirmation (contender) will, on the other hand, convince the voters that advocating for the resolution is, on balance, a good idea (excuse my simpleton language).

Format of the debate:
Round I. Introductions (no case; simply say, I accept the challenge)
Round II. Case
Round III. Rebuttals
Round IV. Rebuttals/Summary/Voting Issues

Definitions:
"Reunite" - To come together again (Source: Merriam-Webster Dictionary)
In this debate, it will mean, for S.K. and N.K. to have a unification process, in which they unify their territories, government, citizens, etc.
Let us not focus too much on the semantics, if possible.

Good luck to the contender!
CiRrK

Pro

I accept, and look forward to a good debate : )
Debate Round No. 1
Terminal

Con

Terminal forfeited this round.
CiRrK

Pro

Well, he forfeited his round. However, I will still post the AC


The framework for the round will be one of Deontology:

FW1) Duty to protect rights

Fagan, Human Rights Center writes:

National and international institutions bear the primary responsibility of securing human rights and the test for successfully fulfilling this responsibility is the creation of opportunities for all individuals to lead a minimally good life. The realization of human rights requires establishing the conditions for all human beings to lead minimally good lives and thus should not be confused as an attempt to create a morally perfect society. While the object of individual human rights may be modest, the force of that right is intended to be near absolute. That is to say, the demands of rights are meant to take precedence over other possible social goals. rights as trumps expresses the fundamental ideal of equality upon which the contemporary doctrine of human rights rests. Treating rights as trumps is a means for ensuring that all individuals are treated in an equal and like fashion in respect of the provision of fundamental human rights. Fully realizing the aspirations of human rights may not require the provision of 'state of the art' resources, but this should not detract from the force of human rights as taking priority over alternative social and political considerations.

AND FW2) Duty to protect freedom

Sylvester Petro, professor of law at Wake Forest University, Toledo Law Review, p. 480

However, one may still insist, echoing Ernest Hemingway – “I believe in only one thing: liberty.” And it is always well to bear in mind David Hume’s observation: “It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once.” Thus, it is unacceptable to say that the invasion of one aspect of freedom is of no import because there have been invasions of so many other aspects. That road leads to chaos, tyranny, despotism, and the end of all human aspiration. Ask Solzhenitsyn. Ask Milovan Djilas. In sum, if one believes in freedom as a supreme value, and the proper ordering principle for any society aiming to maximize spiritual and material welfare, then every invasion of freedom must be emphatically identified and resisted with undying spirit.




1. North Korean Human Rights Violations

civilliberties.about.com write:

"North Korea is in all likelihood the most oppressive regime on Earth. The North Korean government enforces loyalty and obedience through its Ministry of People's Security, which requires citizens to spy on each another, including family members. Anyone who is overheard saying anything perceived as critical to the government is subject to a reduced loyalty group rating, torture, execution, or imprisonment in one of North Korea's ten brutal concentration camps. The North Korean government divides its citizens into three castes based on their perceived loyalty to the Dear Leader: "core" (haeksim kyechung), "wavering" (tongyo kyechung), and "hostile" (joktae kyechung). Most of the wealth is concentrated among the "core," while the "hostile"--a category that includes all members of minority faiths, as well as descendants of perceived enemies of the state--are denied employment and subject to starvation. As many as 3.5 million North Koreans died of starvation."


Thus, affirming the resolution will take out the oppressive North Korean regime, which will protect rights


2. Reliance on Domestic Regime Change is Futile

Taylor, Comparative Strategy writes:

"Advocates of a more deliberate approach to regime change, however, could rightly argue that predictions of an impending DPRK leadership collapse served as one of the primary rationales for US acceptance of the 1994 Agreed Framework, and that such an outcome never eventuated. They could point out that the regime has already survived a decade of severe national economic hardship, and that it could well endure considerably longer. Moreover, they could also note that the interests of North Korea’s neighbors, particularly China, lie with preventing a complete economic implosion. Likewise, Beijing clearly remains apprehensive over the flood of refugees that could result from any significant degree of economic dislocation in the DPRK."

Debate Round No. 2
Terminal

Con

Terminal forfeited this round.
CiRrK

Pro

Well extend all my arguments.
Debate Round No. 3
Terminal

Con

Terminal forfeited this round.
CiRrK

Pro

Extend arguments again. Thx. : )
Debate Round No. 4
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by CiRrK 5 years ago
CiRrK
ok, the formatting got really messed up with the highlighting, so srry, but its readable.
Posted by wolfhaines 5 years ago
wolfhaines
Neither South Korea nor North Korea want reunification. The view of unification stems from western nations, who view the Korean War as not yet being won, or resolved. The North Koreans, as pointed out by brian_eggleston are perhaps too indoctrinated to want unification, but the actual government of North Korea, even a democratic capitalist one, would probably want to keep independence.
South Korea do not want unification as that would result in a mass influx of North Koreans into the South, it would also add unpleasant cost to the South Koreans in redevelopment of the North. The best we can hope for is the collapse of the current regime in NK, and being replaced with a better system, which improves conditions itself. It will be generations before anybody can even think of reunification, and then the time period having spent seperated will result in less people viewing reunification as 're-unification' and more unification of two seperate nations.
Posted by brian_eggleston 5 years ago
brian_eggleston
It's an interesting topic.

I doubt the reunification North and South Korea will be like the reunification of East and West Germany as the East Germans were clamouring for freedom whereas (most) North Koreans are too indoctrinated to renounce their beliefs and faith in their system of government - although obviously they are not free to show any dissension, of course.

Furthermore, although the South has double the population of the North, former North Koreans would have a strong voice in any unified democratic government and may insist on certain socialist policies being implemented nationwide that would be very unpopular with the former South Koreans.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Zarroette 2 years ago
Zarroette
TerminalCiRrKTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: ff
Vote Placed by BennyW 5 years ago
BennyW
TerminalCiRrKTied
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: forfeit
Vote Placed by quarterexchange 5 years ago
quarterexchange
TerminalCiRrKTied
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: Obvious, Con instigated the debate and wasted Pro's time by forfeiting while Pro posted legitimate arguments.
Vote Placed by socialpinko 5 years ago
socialpinko
TerminalCiRrKTied
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 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: Waste of a good debate. He also brought no arguments to refute pro's contentions.