The Instigator
UtherPenguin
Pro (for)
Winning
11 Points
The Contender
cha-the-politician
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

THBT Japan should remove Article 9 of its constitution.

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 2 votes the winner is...
UtherPenguin
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/29/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 758 times Debate No: 75725
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (9)
Votes (2)

 

UtherPenguin

Pro

Burden of Proof is on me.

Failure to abide by the terms,format, or rules of the debate will result in a loss of conduct during the voting period.

If Con finds the terms to be inaccurate or unreasonable, then he or she may alter the terms (but only with an argument as to why)

Format of Debate:

Round 1: Opening Arguments

Round 2: Closing Arguments

Round 3: Rebuttals

Round 4: Closing Arguments,Counter-Rebuttals

Terms:

Article 9: The Article 9 of the Japanese Constitution (日本国憲法第九条, Nihon koku kenpou dai ku-jou) is a clause in the National Constitution of Japan outlawing war as a means to settle international disputes involving the state. The Constitution came into effect on May 3, 1947, following World War II.

Remove: Eliminate or take away

Constitution: A body of fundamental principles or established precedents according to which a state or other organization is acknowledged to be governed.

Once more to clarify, I will be arguing that Japan should remove article 9 of it's constitution and my opponent is to argue otherwise.
cha-the-politician

Con

I accept.
Debate Round No. 1
UtherPenguin

Pro

I thank Con for accepting the terms and rules of the debate. I will now begin with my opening arguments.

1. Sovereignty

Sovereignty is defiened by a nations right to autonomy, or "the right to rule". If an outside force interferes with the decisions of a country"s government, it therefore infringes on the nations right to rule.

Article 9 of the Japanese constitution was not established by the Japanese government willingly. This occurred during the short Allied Occupation of Japan in the late 1940"s. The article was established to prevent the remobilization of Japan"s military (did the even that Japan would be able to re-militarize occur). As a result, Article 9 was forced upon Japan after WW2 and the Japanese were given little choice in the way of re-interpreting the law (during the occupation that is).
Therefore, Article 9 was an infringement of Japan"s sovereignty as it denied the country the right to re-militarize even if under the event of national defense being required ( this was only recently allowed under Prime Shinzo Abe).

2. Self-Defense

Several months ago, the terrorist ISIS had caught and beheaded two Japanese hostages (Kenji Goto and Haruna Yukawa). The killings of two nationals by a foreign organization such as ISIS is a justifiable reason to mobilize a military on foreign soil. However, due to Article 9, the Japanese are unable to respond militarily. Contrast that with the United States, which formed a coalition against ISIS for future military campaigns. Japan may be able to join, but would be left unable to act much upon that affiliation.

Therefore, Article 9 infringes on Japanese sovereignty and the country's right to self-defense. Removal of this law may allow further establishment of Japanese sovereignty.

Sources:
1. http://iucn.org...

2. http://afe.easia.columbia.edu...

3. http://www.cnn.com...

4. http://en.wikipedia.org...

5. http://japan.kantei.go.jp...
cha-the-politician

Con

1, sovereignty. This simply doesn't make sense. This damages Japan's sovereignty? Well, if Japan was to reorganise a military, it would not only be country's sovereignty at risk. I think Japan, legal stuff aside, does not deserve right of military and IS NOT AFFECTED if a military reorganisation is not done. The international law was put down globally, not only by Japan, therefore has nothing to do with Japan's prime minister, meaning they either always have the right of a self defence army or Abe is breaking international law. The former seems more plausible.

2, self-defence. Japan could, by law, mobilise the self defence army and do something about ISIS. However, they chose not to, 1, because they do not have a stable enough ECONOMY inside of their country, and 2, they do not have enough self defence power. Japan could totally join ISIS coalitions, but their military is not strong enough for that. But what did they do when they HAD the power? Kill 9 million people in China alone and 3 million people in one incident? Also, the very fact that their national official television channel, NHK, LIED, DECEIVED, AND DIDN'T ADMIT their war crimes in China, proves that they are not mature enough for this article nine to be lifted.

This law, if lifted, will put us all at risk of war crimes.
Debate Round No. 2
UtherPenguin

Pro

(I would like to note to con that round 2 was for opening arguments, as Con was not yet supposed to do his rebuttals. I will proceed with my rebuttals in this round)

" This simply doesn't make sense. This damages Japan's sovereignty? Well, if Japan was to reorganise a military, it would not only be country's sovereignty at risk. "

It negatively effects Japan's sovereignty because they, as an independent country, are unable to mobilize their military. Due to a law that was forcefully asserted on Japan by a foreign power during WW2. Given that Japan is no longer a threat to countries in the Far East, and given that Japan shows little signs of returning to Expansionist policies. This therefore shows that Article 9 does actually damage Japan's sovereignty as an independent nation.

" I think Japan, legal stuff aside, does not deserve right of military and IS NOT AFFECTED if a military reorganisation is not done."

A country's right to mobilize it's military in self-defence or otherwise is usually a sovereign right of the country. Note that it explictly states on the second sentence of Article 9 that

"the Japanese people forever renounce war as a sovereign right of the nation and the threat or use of force as means of settling international disputes."

Even in the constitution, the government still acknowledged war to have been a soverreign right ( despite it's relinquishment)

"They do not have enough self defence power. Japan could totally join ISIS coalitions, but their military is not strong enough for that"

"But what did they do when they HAD the power? Kill 9 million people in China alone and 3 million people in one incident?"

That however, was in World War 2 when Japan was operating under a far more different cultural mindset then it is today. That is like saying that Germany should not operate a military because of WW2, or that Britain should not get involved against ISIS because of their imperialist past. Brining up a time when Japan was under a different government and cultural mindset is just as irrelevant as stated in my previous analogy.

"This law, if lifted, will put us all at risk of war crimes."

You had previously stated that:

" Japan could, by law, mobilise the self defence army and do something about ISIS. However, they chose not to, 1, because they do not have a stable enough ECONOMY inside of their country, and 2, they do not have enough self defence power"

However, this contradicts your final claim. How could Japan be capable of committing war crimes if their economy is unstable or if their military is not powerful enough? Secondly, this argument incorporates the Slippery Slope fallacy. You have not shown sufficient information to claim that such a series of events would occur if Article 9 were to be removed. Japan shows no signs of imperialist ambitions and no signs of returning to expansionist policies.

Sources:

1. http://japan.kantei.go.jp...
2. http://en.wikipedia.org...
cha-the-politician

Con

I didn't know round two was for opening arguments, and I apologise to Pro as you are not going by standardised formatting.

Yes, they, as an independent country, are unable to mobilise their army. However, it is vital to global peace that countries that once killed 9 million people, and to date, still do not admit to it's wrong doings. The very fact that Japan's current PM is still "imperialist" and never admitted to their wrong-doings just proves my point. Japan is mo longer a threat to countries in the Far East, and you talk as if it is a bad thing. Really, we deserve peace. It is a good thing that it is not returning to expansionist policies. This simply does not translate into damaging Japan's sovereignty. Also, I have said that it is not important if their sovereignty is damaged, and she deserves this punishment after what the country have done.

I would like to clarify that by 'is not affected' I meant economically. Even you said that it is USUALLy a sovereign right of the country. In this case, Japan does, in fact, deserve this punishment because of what it have done and continue to try to do in the present. I would also like to clarify that from the way this debate is worded, it is not focused on Japan's interests.

They say they gave up this right as a sovereign right meaning that they no longer recognise it as one, which means that they no longer recognise it as a sovereign right, which only supports my argument.

You talk about having a different cultural mindset, but I beg to differ on this one. Germany condemns their actions and apologised for what the Nazi government have done. To date, Japan still denies of the death toll in the Chinese invasion and is still not matured enough for militarisation. In fact, I would argue that even the self-defence force should not be there. However, that is another debate for another time. Britain never killed as many people as Japan, and have indeed apologised multiple times for their sins and is no longer doing anything similar, or at least, no longer supporting these actions. Japan did not exactly have a different government and cultural mindset, therefore proving your argument irrelevant.

I might not have made it clear enough, but their military would be way more powerful without this article, and their economy at this time is not exactly strong, but definitely, for a long time they have maintained a very good economy. I said they do not have enough self defence power for a fight against ISIS. This, therefore, does not contradict my first claim because at any given time it is important for us to be able to retain to security, and only at this time, does Japan have a poor economy. In fact we are talking about this right after Japan's GDP fell by one trillion US dollars. I know, the inflation argument, but one must remember that Japan's economy is not exactly healthy right now. I think history is sufficient information enough, and we must not risk global peace in a matter of coincidence.
Debate Round No. 3
UtherPenguin

Pro

In this round I'll be summarizing my main arguments in point form.

-Article 9 is an infringement of Japan's sovereignty.

-Article 9 was established by a foreign power, and hence is another infringement on Japan's sovereignty.

-Japan has seen various belligerent organizations (ISIS as an example) over the past 70 years, therefore, the eventual dissolving of Article 9 is necessary for the national security of Japan,

I thank Con for a strong and thought-provoking debate. Vote Pro.
cha-the-politician

Con

I apologise for the absence of a summary due to the lack of time on my part.

I thank Pro for this amazing debate. Vote Con.
Debate Round No. 4
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by cha-the-politician 1 year ago
cha-the-politician
Hi people! I finished this debate in kind of a rush and believe that pro certainly deserved his votes. I will remember to cite my sources next time, even though it could be a bore and, what can I say, I'm a procrastinater.
Posted by Diqiucun_Cunmin 1 year ago
Diqiucun_Cunmin
RFD:

Easy thing first: Pro wins sources because Con had none while having made quite a few assertions, such as the PM not admitting the deaths, that would require sources. For the arguments points, Pro wins the sovereignty argument. The self-defence argument was not won because Pro failed to respond to Con's statement that 'Japan could, by law, mobilise the self defence army and do something about ISIS,' thereby not meeting the BOP on this argument. Pro wins on the sovereignty point, though. He showed that the article was 'forced' onto the nation. Con, in R2, attempted to refute the argument by saying that Japan would not be affected, 'legal stuff aside' - but gave no reason as to why legal stuff should not be considered. Con failed to substantiate the point that other countries sovereignty would be adversely affected as well. What he wrote about the law being international did not really refute the point that it was 'forced' - it supports it, if anything. Con successfully refuted Pro's cultural mindset thing, but as Pro pointed out, he was still committing the slippery slope fallacy - he still hadn't shown that the removal of the article would, under this culture, lead to the repetition of Japan's atrocious crimes or threaten other countries' sovereignty to the point that it warrants the denial of their sovereign right. The last paragraph of the R3 was an attempt to show this, albeit a confusing and ineffective one - he failed to explain how his points related to Japanese aggression. His strawman at the beginning of R3, in which he claimed that Pro saw Japan's lack of power as a good thing, did not help the case either. Thus Pro wins the sovereignty point.
Posted by UtherPenguin 1 year ago
UtherPenguin
Oh wait, I misworded my format. This is the real format:

Round 1: Acceptance of terms

Round 2: Opening Arguments

Round 3: Rebuttals

Round 4: Closing Arguments,Counter-Rebuttals
Posted by UtherPenguin 1 year ago
UtherPenguin
Yes
Posted by cha-the-politician 1 year ago
cha-the-politician
Opening round is only for acceptance, right?
Posted by cha-the-politician 1 year ago
cha-the-politician
Interested. I will win if you let me debate.
Posted by Yassine 1 year ago
Yassine
- its*
Posted by UtherPenguin 1 year ago
UtherPenguin
I'll change that then.
Posted by TheJuniorVarsityNovice 1 year ago
TheJuniorVarsityNovice
@UtherPenquin the burden of proof should be on you, as you are the one making the proposition to change the status quo.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Diqiucun_Cunmin 1 year ago
Diqiucun_Cunmin
UtherPenguincha-the-politicianTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments
Vote Placed by TheJuniorVarsityNovice 1 year ago
TheJuniorVarsityNovice
UtherPenguincha-the-politicianTied
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:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Although con attempts to lessen the impacts of infringement of sovereignty, he fails to completely do so. Furthermore even if Japan wasn't effected by the infringement pro's whole point is that it is the right of a nation to be sovereign and we this right is being violated. Conduct to pro because con made rebuttals when he was restricted from doing so and in response I had to discount those arguments. This really hurts con. Instead of simply refuting claims he should have put out his own case.