The Instigator
Rousseau
Pro (for)
Winning
48 Points
The Contender
GOOFYTU
Con (against)
Losing
27 Points

The U.S. should leverage its hard power against Iran, in order to stop Iran nuclear capabilities.

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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
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
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/21/2007 Category: Politics
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,244 times Debate No: 758
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (5)
Votes (25)

 

Rousseau

Pro

First off, let me clarify what I mean. It is my belief that we should leverage our hard power against Iran, in order to prevent them from furthering their nuclear capabilities. To explain a little, I think that attacking Iran would be foolish, and result in little more than angering their people and creating even more of a vaccuum towards the ever growing anti-Americanism views growing oh so prevalent in the Middle East. What I really mean by leveraging our hard power against Iran, is that we should engage in aggresive diplomatic talks with Iran, and demand that we get a guarentee that they will not go nuclear. We need to issue an ultimatum: either give us what we want, or face our wrath.

If we leverage hard power against Iran now, we potentially save many many people. As the saying goes, it's better to be safe than sorry, and it is widely acknowledged that Iran, at the very least, has the technology to go nuclear. Action is extremely relevent because of the Middle East's history of nuclear proliferation, and their extremely undiplomatic negotiating. If we do something against Iran, we risk seeing an increase in the quality of Terrorism that we heretoforth haven't even dreamed of. Let me explain: If Iran proliferates, than it is likely that terrorists will get their hands on nuclear weapons. This, suffice to say, would be terrible for America, as it is the main target for terrorist groups. Not only this, but terrorists aren't the only potential nuclear threat to the U.S. We also have to deal with the fact that Iran isn't exactly in love with us, and may very well attack us. The real question in this debate is: "Are there any other options outside of hard power?". Well, if there was any chance of Soft Power working, than I would be all for it. Unfortunately, U.S. soft power is a thing of the past, specifically in the Middle East region, and therefore has no real way of working. One can't be expected to win a gun fight with no ammo, metaphorically speaking of course. There is simply no way that the extremist leaders of Iran will actually be willing to do what we need them to do, unless of course we leverage our military resources against them. This leaves the only option being the aformentioned propping up of hard power and using it as a metaphorical shield, eschewing Iran from nuclear capability. We have a moral and diplomatic duty to not only our citizens, but the denizens of the world as well, to stop Iran from becoming a nuclear power, that will inevitably lead to increased tensions not only in their region, but throughout the nuclear community as well.
GOOFYTU

Con

Going into hard power against Iran simply means the declaration of another war in the Middle East. Even with negotiations, which is currently failing due to the United States diplomacy, there is no guarantee that Iran will halt its nuclear capabilities. First of all, Iran has one known nuclear testing site that is used, under NATO and EU's management, only for civilian power. Iran will never truly stop its nuclear programs and to leverage hard power upon Iran and its programs is an act of aggression defined by the United States.

Also, your point that Iran will have down-looks upon Americanism is also irrelevant. The only non-American situations are from extremists. Continuing with the extremist:

I ask:

Do you know the type of government Iran is under, and who the main head of the government is?

If you do not know either of those, then it is obvious you are uneducated on the fact that Iran will never have a non-biased negotiation or diplomatic cross fire with the United States.

Diplomacy will never change the views from the public, instead it often times creates aggression. Changing the diplomacy of Iran or attempting to strengthen the failed U.S. stand point with Iran is failure. The only way to manage this problem is to regulate Iran's nuclear programs, not to prevent anything.

Now, while I say that U.S. diplomacy is failure, you must realize what President Bush has done to negotiate with Iran:

One November 23 of this year, President Bush tried to revive the Middle east peace process with a conference in Annapolis, Maryland. Israeli and Palestinian envoys were invited. However, no Iranian members were included. This conference was on the urgency to make progress on the extremists backed by Iran.

Unless you can specifically tell me when in the George W. Bush' s presidency that the U.S. has successfully with all guarantees that Iran will stop its nuclear testing programs, you must forfeit this point.

Now guaranteeing that Iran will have no nuclear programs is highly doubtful. First of all, there are secret testing sites. Now you may bring up the most recent NIE, but it states directly in it:

"We judge with high confidence that in fall 2003, Tehran halted its nuclear weapons program; we also assess with moderate-to-high confidence that Tehran at a minimum is keeping open the option to develop nuclear weapons"

Now with the option to keep nuclear weapons and a government that, under its constitution, supports any extremist groups such as Hezbollah, there is no choice but to attack Iran.

Based on all of this information and points, the public must know that the United States should not leverage its hard power against Iran, in order to stop Iran nuclear capabilities.
Debate Round No. 1
Rousseau

Pro

First off, just to ask YOU a question: You several times reference "secret nuclear facilities"... however, if they are secret, how does a citizen know about them, and how can you suggest that our military isn't well-aware of them?

In your first paragraph you basically just say that using hard power against Iran will lead to war, and then state some other points that are very, very random. In fact, I disagree with these points, and I would love to see some evidence on it. Now, because debate is about either providing logically sound arguments (in which your first argument is, I beleive, not) or providing credible literature to support your stance (which you have not), your point is moot, until you bring up evidence or the logic. You jumped from Iran only having one site to saying that Iran will never give up its power. What? It has one nuclear power plant, thats great. What about that statistic makes you think it would never give up its nuclear power? Are there not other sustainable methods of deriving energy? Also, do you have evidence that leveraging Hard Power is an act of agression? Because I completely disagree with that. Also... just leveraging Hard Power against Iran doesn't guarentee war. This plan was proposed by me, and so I act as the policy-maker. Now, as the policy-maker I explicity said that the U.S. shoudl NOT enter war, as it would foolish. You misunderstand what I want done.

"Also, your point that Iran will have down-looks upon Americanism is also irrelevant. The only non-American situations are from extremists." Never made a point that Iran will look down upon us, just that they do already, and thats going to be bad. I obviously am not getting your argument here, maybe you could word it a bit differently..

Second point - "If you do not know either of those, then it is obvious you are uneducated on the fact that Iran will never have a non-biased negotiation or diplomatic cross fire with the United States."

Well I'm glad you think that. However, just this year, a U.S.-Iranian relationship was opened up over Iraq. Obviously we can talk to Iran. I find it actually kind of abusive that you claim I am uneducated on this matter when you were unaware of this fact yourself.

Third Point - "Diplomacy will never change the views from the public, instead it often times creates aggression. Changing the diplomacy of Iran or attempting to strengthen the failed U.S. stand point with Iran is failure."

Once again, you make statements with no literature or even an explanation of logic. Please refrain from making statements, only make points. Anywho, my response: Basically you are talking about how Soft-Power won't work. Thats the only empirically proven diplomatic talk to not work. The fact remains that Hard Power talks haven't been tried yet, and therefore you can't say that without a doubt, they will fail.

Fourth Point - "Unless you can specifically tell me when in the George W. Bush' s presidency that the U.S. has successfully with all guarantees that Iran will stop its nuclear testing programs, you must forfeit this point."

What?? No, again completely wrong. This point is all over the place! You jump from Annapolis, to saying that I must forfeit a point if I don't provide evidence on George Bush guarenteeing the stoppage of Iran Nuclear Capability. In fact, George Bush hasn't issued a guarentee, and no smart president would. It is impossible to guarentee, only see which things are more liekly and support the most likely. The plan that is most likely to work is leveraging Hard Power, because attacking would fail, sanctions have already been used, and leveraging Soft Power has empirically failed. If you are trying to say that U.S.-Iranian relations have not happened, and will never happen, than it is out of ignorance of the fact that they already have happened. Google the string "Zalmay Khalilzad Iran Iraq" and you will see a multitude of credible sources saying otherwsie. Lack of relations on Nukes isn't because they can't happen, but more thru lack of trying on the two sides.

Fifth Point - This is the point on "secret facilities", and again I pose the question up above. Added to that, the report is quite obviously not saying that Iran is going to be benign. http://www.cnn.com...

Sixth Point - "Now with the option to keep nuclear weapons and a government that, under its constitution, supports any extremist groups such as Hezbollah, there is no choice but to attack Iran."

Contradictions galore! You say my plan leads to war, and then say that war is our only option. So why does my plan not solve?

Based on all of this information and points, the public must know that the United States SHOULD leverage its hard power against Iran, in order to stop Iran nuclear capabilities.
GOOFYTU

Con

GOOFYTU forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
Rousseau

Pro

Well, I guess you still have another round to present yourself, and so therefore I won't say anything like "he forfeited all the points, I should win right now", but I do think it is important to note that the arguments should speak for themselves. I beleive that in using just the arguments presented in the debate (using none from outside research on the voters part) that I should win this debate. However, I won't hold anything against him for not having the time to respond during holidays (which I'm sure is the case). Anyway, happy holidays from Springfield!
GOOFYTU

Con

sorry, i'm on vacation. So if you would like to win the debate you may. Springfield? Illinois? or Missouri? i am in Missouri!.

Merry Christmas.!!

Sorry I can't debate any further. I have friends that may debate the same topic if you re post it, I'll have my friends have a go.
they say your name is intimidating :)

Merry Christmas and have a Happy New Year!:):):)
Debate Round No. 3
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by GOOFYTU 9 years ago
GOOFYTU
frickin a!

im still losing!

quick people vot foe me
Posted by Pyrodogg 9 years ago
Pyrodogg
I am the only one here with a life....... that guys smiley face didn't work did it... darn i was gonna do one.
Posted by Rousseau 9 years ago
Rousseau
Well, I know for a fact I do know you. I could help you on the PuF topic, but I don't know what it is really. By the way, I don't want to say my name, but I wasn't kidding when I told you who I am on facebook. :D
Posted by GOOFYTU 9 years ago
GOOFYTU
No, im sorry, but i am still in highschool. I am also in Missouri so quite possibly, we may know each other. :)

I hope you may be able to help me out in school tournaments. Could you get some arguments on our topic this month?
Posted by Rousseau 9 years ago
Rousseau
Well, the object never really was to win, just to refine my views on the subject. I do appreciate the goodwill, as debates tedn to get a little heated. I'm actually from Missouri. Maybe we know each other?
25 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Conservative 9 years ago
Conservative
RousseauGOOFYTUTied
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 
Vote Placed by SexyLatina 9 years ago
SexyLatina
RousseauGOOFYTUTied
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:30 
Vote Placed by or8560 9 years ago
or8560
RousseauGOOFYTUTied
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:30 
Vote Placed by Bean 9 years ago
Bean
RousseauGOOFYTUTied
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:30 
Vote Placed by Partyboat 9 years ago
Partyboat
RousseauGOOFYTUTied
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:30 
Vote Placed by colsen112 9 years ago
colsen112
RousseauGOOFYTUTied
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:30 
Vote Placed by MikaelHatterDeux 9 years ago
MikaelHatterDeux
RousseauGOOFYTUTied
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:30 
Vote Placed by batman_is_dumb 9 years ago
batman_is_dumb
RousseauGOOFYTUTied
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:30 
Vote Placed by Paine 9 years ago
Paine
RousseauGOOFYTUTied
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:30 
Vote Placed by AndrewNietzsche 9 years ago
AndrewNietzsche
RousseauGOOFYTUTied
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:30