The Instigator
angela.siebrecht
Pro (for)
Winning
14 Points
The Contender
DrStrangeLuv
Con (against)
Losing
10 Points

The USFG should substantially reduce its military presence in Japan

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 4 votes the winner is...
angela.siebrecht
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/27/2010 Category: Politics
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 4,124 times Debate No: 13489
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (12)
Votes (4)

 

angela.siebrecht

Pro

I affirm the resolution. United states presence in japan promotes violence agianst women. thus the plan: the usfg should completely withdraw from japan. contention one is patriarchy. us presence in japan condones patriarchal policies and violence against women. leaving japan would end this violence. we must first end gender violence before we can solve other socail problems. vote aff on gender equality, saving lives, and saving money.
DrStrangeLuv

Con

I'd like to thank Pro for posting this topic, its something I feel strongly about, and also for adjusting the vote time. I see this is your first debate, so I'd like to say welcome to DDO.

==Pro Contentions & Introduction==

Pro begins by claiming there are gender and social problems in Japan, and it is due to US presence. No citations are provided, and any claims are of the opinion of Pro. Suggestions by Pro for fixing this supposed problem seem to be hypothetical in nature. The burden of proof of the mistreatment of women is on Pro, and so far no evidence is shown that there are any problems with the social atmosphere in Japan.

My contentions will disprove Pro, and actually show that US presence is of huge benefit, and necessary to Japan and Japanese women.

==Con Contentions==

A) Crimes by Servicemen
---For this debate, I think its appropriate to put some focus on the current controversy surrounding the Marine Corps. Air Base in Futenma, Okinawa, and how its presence has affected the local populace. For those not familiar with it, 3 marines were charged with gang raping a 12 year-old girl in 1995. Since US-Japan foreign policy dictates that US servicemen cannot be charged with crimes by Japan, there was a great uproar by the Japanese people. The marines were, however, turned over to Japanese authorities and convicted.

1) For my first contention, I will make the suggestion that if the US were to repeal this immunity given to US servicemen, attitudes towards the Americans being stationed in Japan would be much more tolerable. Instead of moving the entire US military presence out of Japan, it seems that stricter enforcement of crimes by servicemen would be a more efficient method.

2) Due to the unique relationship between the Japanese and the US, and the fact that Japan has the only pacifist constitution in the world, it is very necessary that the US remain in Japan. The Japanese spend 1% of their GDP on defense and would be completely helpless in an invasion of their own land. They have an agreement with the US, in which the US provides military assistance to Japan (1960 US-Japan Security Treaty). US troops act as a deterrent and in the case of war, are prepared to defend the Japanese Islands as if it were American soil.

3) Areas surrounding any sort of military institution tend to have higher levels of violence regardless of whose military it is. The fact is, the marines in Okinawa and all over Japan are prepared to give their lives for the Japanese people, and while this does not justify rape, it is something to consider. In place o this base, who knows what will be built, perhaps a smaller Japanese base? In which case the area will still be volatile. BUT, even if the base is removed, conditions in the IMMEDIATE area may improve, but I seriously doubt the overall national atmosphere will suddenly throw itself at the rights of women.

B) Moving the Bases

1) Moving the US military presence from Japan would require time and money, something that would put unneeded strain on a US economy that is faltering.

C) Traditional and Modern Values of Japan

1) Traditional Japanese culture has often shone a negative light on female sexuality. It even came to the point where gay homosexual relationships were considered more "honorable" than heterosexual relationships [1]. Since Japan had little outside influence until it was opened by the West in the late 1800's, it is safe to assume that prejudice against women has long been a part of Japanese culture.

2) During WWII, which was obviously a time of very limited US social interaction, the Japanese committed atrocious war crimes. One such particular event was the "Rape of Nanking". During the Japanese raids on the city of Nanking, soldiers would rape thousands of women, force incest among family members, sexually mutilate women's bodies, and murder tens of thousands of Chinese for sport [2]. I did not know it was possible for humanity to sink so low.
a) To make matters worse, Japan did not officially apologize for this massacre until 1995.

3) I need not make references to blatant sexism and stereotyping in modern Japanese culture, because it is so obvious. Japanese manga and anime are a creation of Japan, and showcases the very worst in the sexual repression Japan has had over the years.

D) US Interventions

1) To say the US presence in Japan is detrimental to women is an absolute lie. After Japan's surrender to Allied Forces in 1945, Japan's new constitution, penned by General Douglas MacArthur, gave explicit freedoms and equality to women that was never realized in Japan until that point [3]. It is very clear that the US does not condone patriarchy, and does not condone violence against women. As a matter of fact, if it were not for the US, Japan would have taken a much longer time to adopt these universal rights, or not have adopted them at all.

2) Even before this, however, it is considered that feminism in Japan is a Western idea, and that if it were not for the opening of the country in 1868 that it would have never been introduced, or at the very least, taken much longer to realize [4].

E) Pro Contentions would not solve anything

1) Given the evidence presented in the arguments above, would Pro's suggestion of the US withdrawing from Japan solve anything? It is more than obvious that US influence has given women a better standing in Japanese society.

2) It would not save money. Moving military bases is an expensive endeavor.

3) Patriarchy had always been a cornerstone of Japanese soceity, until the US removed it through the 1947 Constitution.

==Conclusion==

It is apparent that Japan has always had a prejudice towards women, and that US intervention has greatly improved the lives of women there. A US presence is not only good for Japan, it is required, and moving troops from Japan would serve no purpose, other than the waste of time and money. From my arguments and research, gender equality is already guaranteed in Japan, at least as far as it can go currently, so I do not know from whence Pro takes her stand.

I await rebuttal.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[4] http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 1
angela.siebrecht

Pro

First, I'd like to provide the con with evidence and cites for my claims, sorry I didn't provide them earlier.
Contention One: The US militaristic presence in Okinawa is imperialistic and justifies and perpetuates unthinkable abuses against women.
Party for Socialism and Liberation, 3/4/08, http://www.pslweb.org...
The United States military presence in Japan has stoked fresh anger and resentment after a recent series of attacks on women. Staff Sgt. Tyrone Luther Hadnott, 38, was arrested on Feb. 10 amid the outcry of the people of Okinawa for the rape of a 14-year-old girl. Shortly thereafter, another U.S. soldier was accused of sexually assaulting a Filipino woman at a hotel—the second such incident in less than ten days. Four months earlier, U.S. servicemen from the Iwakuni U.S. Marine Corp Air Station gang raped a woman in Hiroshima City. The population's justified rage has forced the U.S. military to take face-saving measures restraining its occupying forces. The U.S. military limited some 45,000 troops, civilian employees and their families to bases, workplaces or off-base homes indefinitely on Feb. 20, going beyond a midnight curfew already in place. On Feb. 29, prosecutors released Hadnott and dropped charges against him, reportedly because the victim chose not to pursue the case. By March 3, the military had already announced an end to the curfew for civilians and a relaxation of the curfew for military personnel to only cover late night and early morning hours. The announcement came despite violations of the curfew, including one where an intoxicated soldier smashed an office window with a steel pipe. More often than not, U.S. soldiers are permitted to do as they please and criminal actions are hushed up or the offender is given a slap on the wrist. These heinous criminal acts only add to the grievances behind decades of opposition to U.S. presence on the island chain. It is a typical trend for U.S. military personnel camped out on foreign lands to abuse the local population. Such incidents rarely surface. Violence against women is a common offense committed by imperialist soldiers. Such recurring criminal acts are not merely coincidental nor do they spring from a handful of "bad apples" such as Hadnott. Violence against the local population near U.S. military bases abroad is the direct result of the racism each soldier is indoctrinated with, and women are particularly vulnerable. The Army does its fair share to create the conditions for such crimes. The U.S. military uses 7,000 Filipinas to serve its soldiers in Okinawa. During the first Gulf War, rest-and-recreation ships were reportedly floated for the U.S. servicemen with 50 Filipino women each. As of one year ago, 900 Filipinas worked for $200 a month at "massage parlors" inside U.S. camps and bases in Iraq.

I have more cites on my claims of gender violence if you wish me to provide them.

Now, on to the con's contentions.
1) The con would like to suggest that we change Japan's policies in order to solve for crimes by servicemen. There is no sense in changing military policies that we have had for years. It's far easier and solves more problems to instead pull out of Japan to end violence towards women, not just make sure it goes punished.
2) Remaining in Japan enforces the patriarchal and imperialist mindsets that cause war in the first place. That fact will always outweight anything the con brings up in round.
And, dismantling the American empire takes precedence over any other priority; we must change because what is perceived as solutions through an imperialist framework is in reality a failure. Action is the only avenue of solvency

Robert William Jensen is a professor of journalism at the University of Texas at Austin College of Communication. Jensen also is director of the Senior Fellows Program, the honors program of the UT College of Communication. 6/15/10, < http://www.commondreams.org...;
Yes, the world can change --- if the dominant military power in the world, the United States, can change. If the United States could give up the quest to consume a disproportionate share of the world's resources and disavow its reliance on securing that unjust distribution of wealth through the largest and most destructive military in the history of the world, things could change. That's why most U.S. elites are interested in non-proliferation, not abolition. The goal of abolition will remain safely out of reach, on the horizon, just beyond our ability to accomplish in the near future -- while the United States continues to imagine a future in which the rest of the world accepts U.S. domination. Since countries threatened by the empire won't accept non-proliferation unless there is a meaningful commitment to abolition and a scaling back of imperial designs, the U.S. policy will fail. That's because it's designed to fail. U.S. policy is designed to keep a hold on power and wealth, and the people running the country believe nuclear weapons are useful in that quest. That's why the Nuclear Posture Review of the Obama administration is not all that different from the Bush administration's, as Zia Mian (an analyst at Princeton University's Program on Science and Global Security) pointed out at a gathering of activists preceding the May 2010 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference. That's why Obama's policy includes a commitment to nuclear weapons, conventional missile defense, and modernization of the nuclear complex.
3) Combating the military's blatant exploitation of women is the first step towards women taking a stand and representing their nation as equal citizens, and not just objects to be used for whatever needs we deem necessary.
B) As I have stated earlier, we must reject the military's exploitation of women before any other steps can be taken. This takes precedence over all else; we can't solve for things like money problems and the economy until we stop viewing our fellow humans, no matter their gender, as less than us.
C) We need to stop our exploitation of women in Japan. This is the first step in allowing them to become an equal part of their nation along with men. Just because something is in a counties traditions, doesn't mean it is justified.
D) Its not a lie to say US military presence is detrimental to women, I have provided evidence to say it is. Just because the men of Japan might exploit women, does not justify it by our forces. American need to take this first step towards women's liberation in Japan.

Just because a country has always done something, does not mean it is justified for another country to do it as well. Patriarchy and US imperialism are ruining our relations with Japan and exploiting women.

To add, my opponents "sources" are from Wikipedia, not exactly the most reliable source seeing as that anyone no matter their credentials can edit it. I would also like to thank my opponent for accepting this debate.
DrStrangeLuv

Con

I will try to address Pro's argument as orderly as I can.

==Pro Contentions==

1) Pro admits that "Army does its fair share to create the conditions for such crimes" after detailing a series of rapes committed by US servicemen. My contention for this is to have stricter enforcement for servicemen overseas, or at the very least remove their immunity to local laws.
a) Like I stated before, removing military bases will only improve the conditions in the immediate area. Removing US troops will not improve the national attitude towards women, which I might add has still not been addressed by Pro.
b) Pro makes mention of prostitution ships being funded and manned by the US Navy. I find this HIGHLY unlikely and I would debate the sources she is using. http://www.pslweb.org... seems to be of a radical ideology. I would also like to add, in order to bring out the foolishness of these prostitution ships, that why doesn't the US use local women instead of bringing Filipino women halfway around the world? Just some food for thought.
c) At any rate, I feel that I have countered her argument well in advance of her actually posting it. I stand by my original contentions about this matter.

==Pro's Counter==

I will move down my list of contentions and see where Con actually debates anything.

A) Crimes by Servicemen

1) I did not say we change Japan's policies, I said we change US military policies. Pro seems to be of the persuasion that you cannot and should not change something because its been there for a long time. It is not easier nor does it solve more problems to pull out of Japan entirely, and how this will change the national mood on women, which is still undefined, remains a mystery to me.

2) Pro does not address this issue, I assume she cedes it to me.

3) "Remaining in Japan enforces the patriarchal and imperialist mindsets that cause war in the first place. That fact will always outweight anything the con brings up in round."
--- I have clearly shown that the US was instrumental in bringing about the end of the patriarchy in Japan, and giving rights to women. Once again, Pro has no proof for her assertions. Pro then talks about US imperialism, which is irrelevant to the current topic. She also does not make any solid connection between women's rights and imperialism, which only adds to the irrelevancy of the matter.

A&B&C&D) Pro just rambles on about the matter. No citations, no proof, nothing. She repeatedly denies truths I presented before, and makes wild claims about how removing troops will solve anything. I don't even think my opponent understands what patriarchy is. You know what, I don't even think my opponent knows what the treatment of women in Japan currently is, aside from some rape cases detailed on an anti-US website. I really don't know what to say as Pro has almost ignored my entire argument. Pro refuses to accept the fact that the US brought women's rights to Japan.

===========

If you want to debate this matter your going to have to do a lot better. Just because you feel you have a better political ideology does not mean you can just ignore opposing logical arguments. I'm not going to make the effort to type out what you did not address if your going to just throw it at me again without any proof or logic. My previous contentions stand as my current argument.

Oh also, Wikipedia is a means to an end, the website itself condenses knowledge which is cited on other websites. Citations to outside sources are included on the wiki page.
Debate Round No. 2
angela.siebrecht

Pro

It seems apparent to me that the con doesn't understand where I stand in this debate. The con would rather assert his "intelligence" over others than actually have a debate of substance. Next time, read my contentions
DrStrangeLuv

Con

I read your contentions, Pro, and I have tried to counter them as best I could with "Intelligence" (as you put it), since without sources and logical arguments we could just say yes and no to each other all day long. You say its hurting women that the US is in Japan, you cited some cases of rape, and called it a day. I'm making the contention that there are better ways to solve this than removing the entire military installation, as you suggest. I provide ideas, and then move to say that the US is in reality a force of good in the lives of the Japanese people, while providing EVIDENCE as well.

Besides the several cases of rape you presented, you make no effort to explain the current situation of women's rights in Japan. If you don't understand the foolishness of this, let me give an example: I make a debate and claim that bananas are bad for soceity and must be banned and only then soceity may move forward. When questioned why they are bad I respond by saying several people choked on them. When questioned why I think that removing them will make soceity move forward, I only make the contention that it will. When given alternatives to banning bananas, which are healthy and provide many nutrients and would be foolish to ban, I say you are misunderstanding me and refuse to debate and instead talk about how bananas are being grown in too many places in the world. In addition, I keep insisting bananas are making the world a bad place, without reference as to why.

This is what you sounded like when you just debated me. You make no sense.

I ask that the voters put aside their personal feelings about bana--- er... this topic and base their decision on the facts presented, and not the whimsical assertions of Pro.

Vote Con
Debate Round No. 3
12 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by angela.siebrecht 6 years ago
angela.siebrecht
Thanks(:
Posted by dinokiller 6 years ago
dinokiller
lol self voter, you have shown yourself how much you suck.
Posted by angela.siebrecht 6 years ago
angela.siebrecht
You included? Just because you did PFD doesn't mean you rule the world.
Posted by DrStrangeLuv 6 years ago
DrStrangeLuv
this isn't the NFL. Some people have no idea what your talking about.
Posted by angela.siebrecht 6 years ago
angela.siebrecht
There should be a rule against PFD'ers debating policy kids.
Posted by DrStrangeLuv 6 years ago
DrStrangeLuv
there should really be a rule against vote bombing for yourself >_<
Posted by SuperRobotWars 6 years ago
SuperRobotWars
Pros arguments made no sense and were clearly refuted (thy made sense but were just plain illogical) and what does the U.S. military have to do with patriarchy it makes no sense! Q
Posted by DrStrangeLuv 6 years ago
DrStrangeLuv
that was fun... i guess?
Posted by dinokiller 6 years ago
dinokiller
lol, if i were at Pro position, i would be left speechless :P
Posted by DrStrangeLuv 6 years ago
DrStrangeLuv
thanks
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by angela.siebrecht 6 years ago
angela.siebrecht
angela.siebrechtDrStrangeLuvTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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:70 
Vote Placed by Vania.Ruiz 6 years ago
Vania.Ruiz
angela.siebrechtDrStrangeLuvTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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:70 
Vote Placed by TheParadox 6 years ago
TheParadox
angela.siebrechtDrStrangeLuvTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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 
Vote Placed by SuperRobotWars 6 years ago
SuperRobotWars
angela.siebrechtDrStrangeLuvTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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