The United States has a moral obligation to mitigate international conflicts
Debate Rounds (5)
National Security is defined as "A collective term for the defense and foreign relations of a country, and protection of the interests of a country " Going on with some other definitions. Moral is defined as "concerning or relating to what is right and wrong in human behavior." Obligation is defined as "something that you must do because it is morally right" Mitigate is defined as "to cause to become less harsh or hostile" International conflict we will define as not just as a series of individual conflict, but as conflict as a whole. The complete term encompassing all conflict. So when we talk about mitigating conflict, we are talking about limiting international conflict as a whole.
And finally, I will define the United States as the US government since the population can not directly vote on foreign affairs. The government has the most direct relation with foreign policy, so we should define the US as the government of the United States.
My criterion today will be that of social contract. Social contract is defined as "an agreement, entered into by individuals, that results in the formation of the state or of organized society, the prime motive being the desire for protection, which entails the surrender of some or all personal liberties" In other words, it is when the people give up some of their freedom so the government can keep them safe and secure.
Ct. 1: Social Contract
This is extremely important in today"s round. The base idea behind social contract theory is that the people give up some of their freedom, for instance their privacy at airports, so the government can keep them and their nation secure. Now as a point of clarification, social contract theory is only the case in a democratic or republican form of government, where the people are represented in the government, and the government has agreed to uphold the national security of the people. That being said, the government has a moral obligation by social contract theory to uphold national security. But how can the government uphold the national security in an effective and reasonable manner? This leads me into contention two.
Ct.2: International Stability leads to national security.
One of the biggest factors in determining national security is the stability of the world around the nation. If the world around them is stable, meaning conflict is low or at a minimum, then the nation will be secure. For this I have 3 applications
Application 1: Pax Romana. The Pax Romana was a period in Ancient Rome under the rule of Augustus Caesar, where Rome was extremely stable and extremely secure. The main reason behind this security was because there was practically world peace. There were no large conflicts present, and as a result, the Roman Empire was very secure.
Application 2: The roaring 20s. As you probably know, this time of extreme prosperity, stability, and security, began shortly after WW1. After this large war, many countries around the world were extremely stable, making a large world power like the US, extremely secure.
Application 3: The 90"s boom. This stage of prosperity and security also was a result of the extreme international stability that was present. Most world powers around the world were at a state of stability, and as a result, the US was very secure.
This concept is extremely basic. If there are no or few countries currently attacking you, then you are secure and safe. And whenever there is war, there is bound to be international instability, but as I have explained in the last 3 applications, when there is not an abundant amount of war, then the world is stable, and as a result, countries like the US are secure, keeping people like you and me secure.
Ct. 3: Mitigation leads to international stability
It is very important that you keep in mind that mitigate does not mean "to get involved" or to "send military aid to" but instead means "to make less severe." This means that if we fail to make something less severe, we have not mitigated it. If we transfer this to the resolution, it means that we must make international conflict as a whole less severe, and if we fail to make it less severe, we have not mitigated it. But failure is not unavoidable. So what if we do mitigate, or "make less severe" international conflict? What does this do? As I briefly explained in my last contention, the less international conflict you have, the more stable the world is, which ultimately means the more safe people like you and me are.
So what have we seen today? We first saw how important national security is. We saw how important your safety, and my safety is. We then looked at the social contract theory, and that because of it, that the government is morally obligated to uphold our and our nation"s security. We then saw how international stability leads to national security, and how mitigation of international conflict results in increasing international stability. So overall, we saw that mitigating international conflict results in national security, which is what we are shooting for. So please, vote with me, vote for your security and safety, vote that yes the United States has a moral obligation to mitigate international conflict, and vote affirmative, thank you,
For example, he presents the Roaring Twenties as a period of great stability and economic growth. I agree with this assertion: the 1920s were indeed a period of great prosperity and stability " in the United States. The European States which had hitherto been the world"s premier great powers however, did not experience this prosperity, nor the accompanying stability. Russia, for example, was embroiled in a bitter civil war following the Bolshevik Revolution which would eventually result in the Soviet Union. Germany too, was in chaos with the Weimar Republic having no less than 22 different governments in a period of just over a decade. The entire central slab of Europe from the Baltic in the north to the Adriatic Sea in the south, an area formerly occupied by the now vanished German, Austrian-Hungarian and Russian Empires, was now a "wild east" of emerging states desperately seeking global recognition while at the same time trying to defend their slowly forming national borders. The victorious European powers, Britain and France, were, despite their triumph, utterly exhausted and in debt. The same point could be made about the Pax Romana or the 90s boom, that, despite being a period of stability for one, it can equally be seen as a period of great upheaval for another.
International stability in the instigators view seems to equal preserving the status quo for (in this case) United States. But the US is merely one state, whereas all states seek to maintain their national security as defined by the instigator. The Islamic Republic of Iran, for example, sees the current Syrian conflict as a threat to its foreign relations (that is to say the Assad government) and the balance of power within the Middle East. There is no argument [not] derived from personal opinion which says that Iran"s "needs" in this respect are subservient to the US"s, who would prefer a democratic country to emerge from that civil war.
The reality however, is that the United States is the world"s only remaining superpower with a clear material, industrial, economic, technological and military superiority over every single other existing nation. Which means it is in the position to exert influence (or more) in every corner of the globe if it so pleases, at the cost of nations with conflicting desires. Which is a luxurious and privileged position " for those in the United States. That the United States [can] do this, doesn"t automatically mean that it [should] as what is to be considered "moral" is utterly subjective.
If the US has any obligation, it is to safeguard its citizens. If that requires anything from political pressure to the invasion of a foreign country, then so be it, but the US is not obliged to play the part of a global policeman or mediator. Every nation on earths seeks to achieve what they consider the best for their country. That is the least the citizens of any state should expect, to do more than that under the cover of something as personal as "morality" is illogical at best and pointless at the worst.
Under his argument of the roaring 20s, I'm glad we agree that it was a period of great stability and economic growth, however, he seems to think that for many other parts of the world, it was not. This is not true. Germany was the only country experiencing hardship during the 20's, and tho Russia had a civil war going on, this war was small and did not affect the "stability" of the Russian government. Plus, this civil war was mostly over before the 20s even started. Britain and France were in debt, yet that does not mean they are not stable. Stable is a point of staying the same, with some progressive growth. Since Britain and France had just gone through a war, they were only focused on growth and their economy, and even though they were in debt, they were still stable.
Once again, we are talking about the US here, not Iran or any other country. Our national security is the most relevant to us because that is the country we live in. This is simply a resolutional analysis error on my opponent's part.
I didn't say "just because we are powerful and can mitigate international conflict we should" I said, we have a moral obligation to mitigate international conflict for our own national security. It is moral because of social contract, which because my opponent did not respond to this argument, stands on my side for the rest of the debate.
I agree exactly with the last paragraph of my opponents speech. It was a paragraph of beautiful rhetoric supporting my side. It is exactly because we are "safeguarding our citizens" by mitigating international conflict. And yes it is moral, based on social contract theory, which, again, you did not respond to so stands on my side for the rest of the debate.
In summary, lets look at the round so far.
My opponent did not respond to Ct. 1 directly, so that argument flows to my side. That proves that the US have a moral obligation to uphold national security.
My opponent, in response to Ct, 2, only refuted application 2, so the other 2 applications I mentioned flow to my side. In addition, I proved why application 2 does indeed stand, so in the end, all 3 of my applications here flow to my side.
My opponent did not directly respond to Ct. 3, only saying that we should only mitigate conflict if it is for "safeguarding our own citizens" that is exactly what I am saying here. This is for the safeguard of the citizens.
And finally, my opponent was calling morality illogical and pointless. As any voters are reading this round, you need to keep in mind how important your security is. If you vote for me, you are voting for your safety and your morality. If you vote for con, then you are voting for "pointless morality" and "national insecurity" The choice is very clear. Vote for safety, vote for your morality, vote for affirmative. Thank you.
On to the debate proper;
Firstly, some corrections on what appears to be your personal version of European history.
The Russian Civil War had about 3 million casualties. That"s a number bigger than the combined total of all the US-service men who have died in every war the United States has ever fought since its foundation. I would not term that as being "small". The years that followed it saw mass deportations to Siberian gulags and through various communist reforms thoroughly and utterly changed Russian society in what can only be described as a maddening chaos. As for the situation of the United Kingdom and France; following the war interest payments formed 40% of all British government spending. The value of the pound fell by two thirds. In 1926 there was a general strike, in which 1,700,000 workers put down their work to protest the economic dreadful situation. In France socialist agitators would become a mainstay of the French political scene, while the country"s demographics would not undergo any recovery until after 1945.
I don"t which to dwell on history too much, but I feel it must be clearly brought forward that what I wrote in my opening argument was true, and that my opponents assertions that this was not the case are clearly, and utterly, false. The 1920s cannot be characterized as being a period of "stability", politically or economically, in Europe and therefore serve no purpose in supporting my opponents argument.
My main points in this debate are clear:
1)My opponent claims that the US has a "moral obligation" to uphold national security for its citizens, and that it, in doing so, needs to intervene in the worlds affairs to preserve the status quo in (what he considers, but does not define) favor of the United States.
I say that there is no such thing and cannot be such a thing as a total/universal geopolitical status quo as every country on earth (some more effectively than others) continually pursues its own interests. Hence pursuing this phantom is pointless to begin with.
2)My opponent claims that the US has a "moral obligation" intervene in international conflicts as a sort of global policeman or mediator.
My position is that the only true obligation the US has is towards its own citizens and that I would very much like my opponent to explain the exact nature of this "morality" and more specifically in which way this moral philosophy supposedly forces the US to play the role of any form of international constabulary.
I would say that my version of European history is precisely what happened, while your "version" has some incorrect facts
First of all the Russian Civil War had a little over 1 million casualties (John Grenier The First Way of War: American War Making on the Frontier (Cambridge University Press) pg 195"200), and seeing how my opponent did not bring up any evidence, my source is the one that stands. So more US men have died than occurred in the Russian Civil War. Second of all, concerning all his other arguments saying the "world wasn't stable during the 20s" he is misinterpreting the term "international stability" I don't mean "each and every country in and in itself being stable" because that is not what "international stability" means. Obviously my opponent does not have a very good understanding of this term, and should not be attempting to debate it until he does. International stability is INTERNATIONAL. Meaning its countries being stable with other countries, not just one country being stable by itself. Indeed, during the 20s INTERNATIONAL STABILITY was at a high. Because WW1 had just concluded, not many countries were at war with OTHER countries. Sure countries had debt, sure countries weren't economically stable, but they were stable with other countries, resulting in INTERNATIONAL STABILITY.
Moving on to his main points
1) 2 things are apparent here. Number one: My opponent does not value your or my security, as he is saying we shouldn't mitigate other conflicts just for national security. Second, my opponent thinks mitigate and intervene are the same thing. Plz smart up before you reply to my argument. Also please reread my first argument so you know my definitions and my interpretations. Yes mitigating conflict will result in more national security, which obviously my opponent does not want.
2) I already responded to this argument, but seeing how my opponent lacks attention span, I will repeat this argument. We are not being a policeman for other countries. That is the job of the UN and the UNSC. We are simply mitigating conflict so that we can uphold our national security.
Lastly he asked me to expound upon the idea of "morality" and where it comes from" I will gladly do this. Social contract, which my opponent says he agrees with, clearly states that the people will give up some of their freedom so the government can keep them safe. That is the "right" thing for the government to do. We know then because of that that the government has an obligation to uphold national security, and because of my definition of morality, they also have a moral obligation. (moral being defined as concerning right or wrong)
Ct.1 My opponent has not responded to this except in agreement, so we will move on. This is why the government has a "moral obligation"
Ct. 2 His arguments are based on the assumption that international stability is each country being stable, while as I defined it and other dictionaries defined it, this is not the case. International stability is stability between nations. Also he had uncited and faulty evidence, only lowering his credibility. He also hasn't responded to application 1 or application 3, making them automatically flow to my side.
Ct. 3 He hasn't directly responded to this contention, and so it flows to my side.
Lets take a look at the facts
1. Of the five points to my original case, my opponent has responded to 2 of them. Since we are following Lincoln-Douglas debate format, he has lost his chance to bring up the remainding 3 arguments.
2. He has faulty evidence and is also not reading my cases clearly and therefore is misquoting my claims and definitions
3. He obviously does not value security very highly as he doesn't think we should uphold it.
So the choice should be clear. Do you want to vote for someone who upholds your and my security, and values your morality, and believes that the US security is important, or do you want to vote for someone who is misinterpreting facts, bringing up faulty evidence, dropping arguments, undervaluing morality and security, and is not citing his evidence. The choice is clear. Please vote for your safety, vote for your future, vote for affirmative.
Given that the Russian Civil War is hence over a century beyond its time scope and light-years away from the books subject; which appears to be the "conquest of the Indian peoples east of the Mississippi" no-one with any sensibility will find that reliable. The Russian Civil War (p.286) by E. Mawdsley, The Russian Civil War 1918-22 (p.137) by D. Bullock and Party, State, and Society in the Russian Civil War (p.404) by D. Koenker all clearly note a casualty figure of 3 million, or above. Yet even [if] my opponent had his figures right (which he obviously and undeniably does not) and the Russian Civil War had indeed had (in my opponent"s words) "only" a million casualties; I would never, ever, would dare to term that a "small" war. In any case, this argument is not about the Russian Civil War; it"s about debunking a false argument by the instigator in which he claims that periods of "international stability" are good for national security, which is clearly not so and therefore completely undermines his own stance.
My opponent therefore now twists and somewhat desperately tries to reshape his argument. Suddenly, having "international stability", he says, does not mean that there is an overall stability in the world, but that it refers to, and I quote: "countries being stable with other countries". He then once again proceeds to cite historical examples to build his case, while we"ve seen by now that my opponent"s grasp of these matters is debatable at best. The instigator again returns to his post-World War I argument (again) claiming that this was a period of international stability because, and I again quote: "not many countries were at war with other countries."
Yet, we"ve already seen that the period following World War I was
1) .. one of political instability in Germany and France.
2) .. one of political instability and civil strife in eastern and central Europe, particularly Russia.
3) .. one of economic instability in the United Kingdom, which had enormous debts.
In closing of the historical argument, I would like to quote the French field marshal Ferdinant Foch, who " after signing the Treaty of Versailles " remarked: "This is not a peace. It is an armistice for twenty years". History has proven him right, almost to the day, and this concludes the assertion that the world of the 1920s was one of international stability.
Returning to my main points;
1)My opponent still claims that the US has a "moral obligation" to uphold national security for its citizens, and that it, in doing so, needs to intervene in the worlds affairs to preserve the status quo in favor of the United States.
1a He has still not defined this ideal status quo and I cordially challenge him to try a second time.
1b My opponent defines "what is moral" as the difference between "right" and "wrong". Anyone with any affinity with the concept of morality will know that conveys the mind of a child. Morality is not a choice between "right or wrong". Moral choices are not black and white, they are astonishingly grey. He does he think this/his concept of morality is applicable in the real world of real international politics.
2a My opponent no does no longer claim that the US has a "moral obligation" intervene in international conflicts as a sort of global policeman or mediator, contrary to his earlier stance. He now says (in an astonishing non-sequitur) that "this is the job of the UN and the UNSC" and that "we (=the United States) are simply mitigating conflict so that we can uphold our national security". In other, less clouded, words: Policing the world is the job of the UN but the US should intervene when it suits them. Meaning my original assertions was completely correct: my opponent does claim that the US has a "moral obligation" intervene in international conflicts as a sort of global policeman or mediator.
2b I again repeat my position that the only true obligation the US has is towards its own citizens, and I repeat my question to my opponent which was that that I would very much like him to explain the exact nature of this "morality", that is, the moral philosophy behind his idea that the US should play the role of any form of international state police.
Jump up ^ Overy, R.J., The Dictators: Hitler's Germany and Stalin's Russia, W.W. Norton & Company (2004), ISBN 0-393-02030-4, ISBN 978-0-393-02030-4, p. 446:
Jump up ^ John M. Thompson, A vision unfulfilled. Russia and the Soviet Union in the twentieth century (Lexington, MA; 1996) 159.
Jump up ^ Cover Story: Churchill's Greatness. Interview with Jeffrey Wallin. (The Churchill Centre)
Jump up ^ i0;k2;l3;k7;k6;l0;l5;, h0;l3;k7;l2;l9;k7;l1; i2;k2;l2;l9;l0;l4;l6;k4;l0;m5;. A biography of Kaledin (in Russian)
Jump up ^ Geoffrey Wheeler, The Modern History of Soviet Central Asia (New York: Frederick A. Praeger, 1964), 103.
Jump up ^ The Czech Legion
Jump up ^ Mawdsley, p. 27
Jump up ^ W. P. and Zelda K. Coates, Soviets in Central Asia (New York: Philosophical Library, 1951), 72.
Jump up ^ Wheeler, The Modern History of Soviet Central Asia, 104.
Jump up ^ P. and Coates, Soviets in Central Asia, 70.
Jump up ^ P. and Coates, Soviets in Central Asia, 68"69.
Jump up ^ P. and Coates, Soviets in Central Asia, 74.
Jump up ^ Edward Allworth, Central Asia: A Century of Russian Rule(New York: Columbia University Press, 1967), 226.
Jump up ^ Mawdsley, p. 35
These are some of the many sources explaining the statistics for the civil war. For my opponent to question these statistics would be preposterous and absurd. Also to state that the amount of deaths in one civil war surpasses all the deaths that the US has experienced in all world wars, civil wars, and other conflicts. That is what is preposterous and absurd. However, even though these statistics are contradicting, and it would take further clarification to straighten out these figures, this argument is not important. Russian civil war happens in one country, involves one country, effects one country, and is only potentially harming one country. This then, is not an international issue, and this should be dropped from our debate. In my opponents first speech, he did not reply to my definition of international stability, so it stands for the rest of the round. International stability is the condition of multiple countries not changing with each other. During a war, they are changing all the time, as they are attacking or getting attacked. After a war however, most countries are just focused on growing their economy and not getting involved in more conflict. My opponent also seems to question my historical knowledge, when that is not his place to do. Seeing how he does not know me, calling my historical knowledge debatable "at best" is not his place to do. He is extremely arrogant when he is saying he is right and my historical knowledge debatable. He is being extremely disrespectful and rude.
So moving on to the 3 applications for the roaring 20's
1) Germany had national instability and so did France, yet they were still focused on pure economic growth, and were not changing, making them stable. International stability is the condition of countries staying the same politically with other countries.
Same with central Europe, which he did not bring up any exact countries so this argument can not be directly refuted. There was not a war or conflict, because many countries were just focusing on enlarging their slices of economic pie, instead of sacrificing some of their economic pie for conflict. If they are focusing on economic growth, they are most likely a stable country. In the case of France, Russia, Great Britain, the US, Italy, Austria, Hungary, Ottoman, Bulgaria, Serbia, Australia, and New Zealand, they were focusing on enlarging their slices of economic pie, making these countries stable.
3) The UK had an enormous debt, that is true. But like I said, they were focusing on enlarging their economic pie, excluding them from any conflict, making them focusing on constant growth making their economy go in one direction, up.
I would like to pause from my opponents arguments and point out an important fact. Out of the 3 contentions and 3 applications I brought up in my first speech, he responded to 2 contentions and 1 application. That leaves 1 contention and 2 applications that go unresponded. Seeing how we are now in rebuttals, he can't respond to these, and they flow to my side. Even if his arguments for this application of the roaring 20s were correct, which they are not, then there are still 2 applications that I have won.
Back to the case. The Treaty of Versailles was called "the treaty of peace" if it was called that, why is my opponent questioning that. Also this is not the point. Peace and international stability are different. International stability can occur without peace, its all based on the decisions the country makes and their attitude to enlarge pieces of economic pie. War is breaking out in the middle east, but Israel is still stable because of their economic growth.
Moving on to my opponents main points
My opponent obviously has a problem with upholding national security. Security mostly deals with relations with other countries, and to become secure, one of the best ways to do it is to eliminate conflict that threatens your security. But seeing how my opponent is not fond of your and my security, I suppose he doesn't think that eliminating conflict that threatens security is a justifiable cause.
I will most definetely define the ideal status quo IN TERMS OF NATIONAL SECURITY- Defining the whole status quo of the whole nation would take a lot more than I have room for. The status quo in terms of national security is being a state that is not as extreme as privacy is violated unreasonably, but not so little that an attack like 9/11 happens again. Somewhere in that range is close to the Status Quo.
Obviously my opponent did not pay attention to my definitons or any other definitions. This is absurd.
IT IS NOT THE JOB OF THE US TO INTERVENE INTERNATIONAL CONFLICTS FOR THEIR PURPOSE OF THEIR SECURITY. THAT IS THE JOB OF THE UN AND UNSC. It is the purpose of the US to MITIGATE international conflict for OUR PURPOSE of national security.
My opponent thinks that the only true obligation the US has is towards its own citizens. EXACTLY! They have an obligation to their own citizens, to uphold their general welfare, and to UPHOLD THEIR SECURITY!
Finally, we are not the police. We are the upholders of national security. We don't mitigate conflicts to police other countries. We do it to uphold national security. As I have explained many times, social contract is the "nature of morality" and seeing how my opponent did not respond to this argument, this flows to my side.
So lets sum up. First, he dropped 1 of my contentions and 2 of my applications. He has dropped half of my arguments! He has not responded to this and can not respond to the dropped arguments because we are in rebuttals. As any readers can see, he does not think national security is important based on the claims he has been making. Also he has failed to read my definitions or contentions, and therefore misinterpreted my claims and facts. So who do you want to vote for? Someone who upholds your national security and morally? Someone who is shooting for a status quo of safety? or Someone who doesn't value your security, someone who doesn't respect your morality. The choice is clear. Vote for safety, vote for your well being, vote of affirmative. Thank you
In his last rebuttal the opponent cites a wide array of sources, supposedly to support his case. But what the instigator has done is simply copied a list of references of a Wikipedia article. In other words, he has cited sources he does not know in support of a claim that even this Wikipedia article, which itself sets the total amount of casualties at 3 million deaths, clearly denies. Adding to that, the statement made by the opponent, that the Russian Civil War (and I quote) "happened in one country, involved one country, effected one country, and was only potentially harming one country" is ludicrous. To even suggest that the impact of the Russian Civil War and its outcome only affected Russia is preposterous and shows a complete lack of knowledge of modern world and US-history.
In this discussion the most pivotal case to be made is that about the nature of [morality], but I find it impossible not to chastise the instigator at this point.
My opponent claims that the post-World War I world was one of great international stability (and therefore, as claimed by the instigator, that international stability equals safety for US citizens) has been utterly proven to be false. The opponent however has not gone on to concede the point or " in line with a common debate tactic " avoided mentioning it in following rebuttals, but has lowered himself to ignoring authorities sources while providing false citations "in support" of what can only be described as his own uninformed, historically incorrect and ridiculous opinion.
This is not how a proper debate is held and I consider this behavior shameful and " in light of the obvious and blatant incorrectness of the statements made - shameless.
The true matter at hand:
1)My opponent still claims that the US has a "moral obligation" to uphold national security for its citizens, and that it, in doing so, needs to intervene in the worlds affairs to preserve the status quo in favor of the United States. He has yet (this is the 3rd time I ask for this) to explain the exact nature of this supposed moral obligation to intervene in world affair nor has he defined this ideal status quo and I cordially challenge him to try a third time.
2)Though he has yet again tries to obscure the fact, the opponent still claim that the US has a "moral obligation" intervene in international conflicts as a global policeman or mediator. I repeat yet again that the only true obligation the US has is towards its own citizens, and I repeat my question to my opponent (again, for a third time) for him to explain the exact nature of this "morality", that is, the moral philosophy behind his idea that the US should play the role of any form of international state police.
To this I add, in light of my opening in this rebuttal, that I would find it insulting, not just towards me but towards any reader, if the instigator in his closing remark would still have shamelessness to again claim the veracity of any of this previous historical assertions.
My two points are clear and remain unaddressed, I suggest you direct your mental capacities towards doing that, instead of historical fraud.
Additionally, lets address the other side of this. The troops that did enter Russia, most of them entering Russia in 1920, withdrew later that SAME YEAR. Keeping foreign troops at a minimum help reduce foreign impact. Lets look at some economics supporting this claim. Russia's government as a "Soviet Union" was established 1920 and 1921.This whole idea was a communist idea, and became a communist government. Communism economics is based, as you hopefully know, on a classless, moneyless, social order based on common ownership on the means of production, among other things. So when the majority of this war was fought (1918 to 1925), they were under a communist government. Why does communism limit foreign impact? It is there sole economics of common wealth that make other countries not as affected by losses occurring inside Russia. The main reason other countries are affected so much, is because money is borrowed, troops are stationed, and money on aid is spent. But with common wealth, and the other two things I explained, all three of these are at least reduced. So of course there was some foreign impact, but not an extreme amount amount. Again my opponent is being disrespectful by saying I have a "complete lack of knowledge of modern world and US-history" that is extremely disrespectful and rude, only hurting him further. On his next point, again my opponent is being disrespectful. In future arguments I would appreciate if he would make his claim without being a twit about it. On to address the argument. My opponent is accusing me of dropping the argument of WW1, when that has been one of my and my opponent's main arguments. I have addressed it every speech, and now my opponent has the boldness to say I dropped it. That set aside, I will now explain why WW1 was during a period of international stability. Here is a list of 15 countries: France, Greece, Brazil, China, Russia, Germany, Italy, Liberia, Panama, Portugal, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, UK, and Cuba. Out of these countries, the ones that were unstable and their amount they were unstable were(approximately): France 25%, Russia, 80%, Germany 90%, Uk 30%. Like I said, these are only approximate, but they still show instabiilty. I have conducted research on these countries, and the ones that were unstable are listed there. The rest were getting along fine, and were mainly focused on growth, resulting in stability. In addition, the term "International Stability" is fulfilled by the fact that the 11 countries above that were stable, were not having conflict with each other. This is why we have international stability. Under his next point, unfortunately he never defined how a proper debate is supposed to be held, so he can not make any judgements. Second, my sources are from various articles, but they do not go unchecked. I do not blindly copy and paste the list in without researching the sources which I am using. Whats shameless is that he is judging when he never defined how a debate should go. He can not make this claim.Under his next point, I make an astounding discovery. My opponent is blind. He claims I have not explained this nature of morality nor have I explained the status quo idealisticly. Why is my opponent saying I didn't say something when it was clearly in my last speech? Maybe he is that desperate to win, and doesn't care about the readers' voters, and my security. This whole 1st point under his argument should be dropped because he was making false claims that any one with half a brain could prove wrong. Under his second point, He agrees the US has a moral obligation to its own citizens. EXACTLY! Because the US has a moral obligation to its own citizens, he is admitting, first, that countries can have a moral obligation, and second, that the US has a moral obligation to keep them safe (national security). Because the US has a moral obligation to keep the people safe, they have a moral obligation to the means by which they will do so. I will now proceed to explain morality in even further detail than I did in my last speech. Morality is a hard issue to grasp. I am sure my opponent agrees that we should all do whats moral. So if we should do whats moral, where does that leave the government. That goes into the government has different morals than us. For instance, we don't have a moral obligation to another state to protect their rights, but the government does. Like I have said so many times, but because my opponent is blind I am forced to say this again, we are not "policing" the world for the sake of "policing" the world. We are doing it to uphold our national security. We can not be international state police, because we don't have the responsibility to police the world. We only police the world when it is necessary, making us not have the dedication that international state police have. If we were international state police, we would have gotten involved in Syria, but because Syria didn't directly harm our national security, we didn't get involved. No police does that. Police are there for EVERYONE. The US is here for its people. Once again he claimed his 2 points remained unaddressed, when I have addressed both of them, further proving his blindness. I will now present 4 voting issues. These are 4 reasons why overall, voters should vote for pro on their ballot.
1. Dropped arguments
Let review a complete list of all the dropped arguments.
My original Ct.1: He agreed with making me win this argument
My original Ct. 2: He only addressed my second application leaving 2 other applications unaddressed.
My original Ct.3: He dropped leading to a running number of 3 dropped arguments
3 DROPPED ARGUMENTS! That's a big deal, because if he dropped these arguments, it shows one of three things. One, my opponent didn't read carefully enough and didn't respond because he didn't know that argument existed in the first place. Second, my opponent agreed with the argument so he dropped it. Or third, my opponent couldn't think of a way to refute it so he dropped it. In any of these circumstances, I would win the argument. Therefore, I already have 3 arguments that I have won.
2. Blindness sucks doesn't it?
My opponent is being extremely careless. He is claiming I have left arguments unresponded when I have clearly addressed them in my last speech. This shows either a deceitful attitude, or a careless mind. Either way, is that the person you want to vote for? Someone who is being careless with his work? I would think not.
3. No, guns are not necessary.
Guns are not necessary for anyone to be safe. It is the government's job to keep you safe, and to uphold your national security. According to my opponent, we shouldn't have our national security valued. He is saying that it is not moral for the government to keep you safe! Do you want to vote for someone who doesn't value your security, who believes the government doesn't have moral obligation to the means by which to keep you safe and happy? Again, I think not. If you vote for me, you are voting for your safety, your general welfare, and your security.
4. Lacking historical knowledge eh?
Here is an important point. Especially in the last couple speeches, there has been quite a mix up with the sources concerning my opponents and my evidence. But I want to make a very important statement. Sources are sources. As long as you reviewed the sources, which I most certainly did, and they are written by a scholar who has studied history, then they are credible. I don't know why my opponent has such a problem.
So lets sum up this entire debate round. I ran a value of national security, showing you I support and care about security. I ran a criterion of social contract, showing that I care about the people's and the government's morality. I have run an argument that shows I value security extremely highly. So the choice is yours. Are you going to vote for your security and morality. Are you going to vote for your happiness and general welfare. Or are you going to vote for someone who doesn't understand how important your security and morality is. The choice hopefully is clear. Vote for a safe future, vote for a moral future. Vote for a future where you know, that, no matter what happens in the world around you, your government will keep you safe, vote for Pro
As the most important of all questions namely what 'morality' obliges the US to risk the lives of its own people in intervening in world conflicts as a global law officer, has not been answered. While at the same time the main argument of the instigator, namely that periods of what he defines as 'international stability' provide security for the US has been completely debunked as the examples (nor the 'sources') provided by the instigator provide any reason to assume this presumption to be true in any way.
I 've tried my best to make the instigators point of view doubtful and/or unconvincing, and I'm very curious about its outcome. I thank you.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by MilesandMilesofMiles 3 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||3|
Reasons for voting decision: Pro seems to mitigate the tradition debate format for something resembling more of an angrily charged warmongering polemic in which arbitrary historical facts seem to matter more than the actual question at hand
Vote Placed by Naysayer 3 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||3||0|
Reasons for voting decision: This is the most horrifying debate I've seen on here. This was a long and lengthy debate with minimal of sources in a discussion that should have been laden with them. You began bickering like children and name calling. I don't agree with Pro at all about this so-called moral obligation, nor his attempts at saying a vote for me is a vote for morals. However, his basis was social contract which Con bought into at the end of round 2 and so lost the debate. If this argument had been about any country and it's morals, Con might have won, but being specifically about the U.S, he sunk himself. Work on your conduct, both of you.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.