The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
4 Points

The United States is justified in using private military firms abroad to pursue its military objecti

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: 3/23/2011 Category: Politics
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,075 times Debate No: 15553
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (1)




I'm an LD-debator, so sorry, whoever decides to do CON, I'll try to make this as good as possible.
I Affirm: The United States is justified in using private military firms abroad to pursue its military objectives. Merriam-Webster defined the following as: Military Objective (a strategic position to be attained or a purpose to be achieved by a military operation”), Private Military Firm (a private business organization, which markets military training and expertise, and in some cases, personnel and equipment, to foreign clients (e.g. governments of developing nations), usually in a counter-insurgency or internal security situation.”), and Justify (“To administer justice to”)

I value justice: defined as the proper reconciliation of due John Lock elaborates:

But though men, when they enter into society, give up the equality, liberty, and executive power they had in the state of nature, into the hands of the society, to be so far disposed of by the legislative, as the good of the society shall require, yet it being only with an intention in everyone the better to preserve himself his liberty and property; (for no rational creature can be supposed to change his condition with an intention to be worse.) the power of the society, or legislative constituted by them, can never be supposed to extend farther, than the common good, but is obliged to secure everyone’s property, by providing against those three defects above mentioned, that made the state of nature so unsafe and uneasy and so whoever has the legislative or supreme power of any common-wealth, is bound to govern by established standing laws, promulgated and known to the people, and not by the extemporary decrees by indifferent and upright judges, who are to deicide controversies by those laws; and to employ the force of the community at home, only in the execution of such laws, or abroad to prevent or redress foreign injuries, and secure the community from inroads and invasion. And all this is to be directed to no other end, but the peace, safety, and public good of all people.”

First, Lock suggests any action that is taken must first consider its impact on the community. Notions such as justice depend on people existing, if everyone were to die, justice would cease to exist. Second, people give up some form of autonomy or rights in exchange for the protection of the government, since their duty to ensure the protection of citizens.

Next, Private Military Firms allow people to die. Scott Peterson of Amnesty International reports:

On September 16, 2007, at least 17 Iraqis were killed near Nisour Square, Baghdad, after personnel of Blackwater reportedly shot several rounds from their armored vehicles.”

Next, the government has the right to determine whether people live or die. Michel Foucault writes:

“Obviously note that the sovereign can grant life in the same way that he can inflict death. The right of life and death is always exercised in an unbalanced way: the balance is always tipped in favor of death. Sovereign power’s effect on life is exercised only when the sovereign can kill. The very essence of the right of life and death is actually the right to kill: it is at the moment when the sovereign can kill that he exercises his right over life. It is essentially the right of the sword. So there is no real symmetry in the right over life and death. It is not the right to put people to death or to grant them life. Nor is it the right to allow people to live or leave them to die. It is the right to take life or let live.”

Thus the standard is protecting life for three reasons,

First, all just theories presuppose the intrinsic moral worth of persons on grounds we treat them some ways and not others.

Second, life is requisite to debating about justice and thus a necessary prerequisite for people adding to collective dialogues about justice.

Third, life is a physical prerequisite to all other rights, since we cannot exercise rights unless we are alive.

Sub-point A-Human death as a result of overpopulation is inevitable. Our timeframe is now. Jay Hanson (ecologist, 1998, Harvard graduate) writes:

“Around the year 2005, global oil production will “peak”, and the spike in oil prices will quickly exacerbate other major problems facing industrial agriculture. Food grains produced with modern, high-yield methods now contain between four and ten calories of fossil fuel for every calorie of solar energy. A staggering total of 17 percent of America’s energy budget is consumed by agriculture! By 2040 we would need to triple the global food supply in order to meet basic food needs, but doing so would require a 1000 percent increase in the total energy expended in food production. Guess what? Eleven billion people won’t be alive by 2040. The dependence of industrial agriculture on fossil fuels, the declining fertility of the land, and the positive feedbacks imposed by declining resource quality will force the economy to divert much more investment into agriculture and energy sectors.”

When human life is sustained beyond its carrying capacity the result is that death will occur to an extent that the population will fall to a lower level than was sustainable before overshoot. Paul Chefurka (2007, builds models involving energy, population, and GDP based on respected data sources World Energy and Population Trends to 2100" and "Peak Oil, Carrying Capacity and Overshoot: Population, the Elephant in the Room) elaborates:

“Populations in serious overshoot always decline. The population may actually fall to a lower level than was sustainable before the overshoot. The reason is that the unsustainable consumption while in overshoot allowed the species to use more non-renewable resources and to further poison their environment with excessive wastes. It is a common understanding of ecology that overshoots degrades the carrying capacity of the environment.”

Sub-point B- The only solution to the problem of overpopulation is the death of a portion of the population. Frank W. Elwell (2001, Frank W., Rogers State University, professor, areas of academic interest: social evolution, industrialization, cultural ecology, and social theory) writes:

“Our ability to produce children will always exceed our ability to secure food for their survival.” Because of this fact of human existence, population growth must always be checked. Not in the distant future, but always in the present and in the future. Always. There is simply no getting around this basic biological fact to check population growth.



I do policy so let's have a fun debate. But, I don't have time, ironically, I am at the state debate tournament, and so, I'll have to wait til next round to full debate, you can back up your claims all you want, and I'll try to refute them next round
Debate Round No. 1


WheelChairDebste forfeited this round.


boredinclass forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2


WheelChairDebste forfeited this round.


I negate:The United States is justified in using private military firms abroad to pursue its military objectives. Merriam-Webster defined the following as: Military Objective ("a strategic position to be attained or a purpose to be achieved by a military operation"),

I will start with his value- justice, first off, lock is flawed because as americans we live in a free society where we have equality, liberty, but not executive power. Also, he cannot value justice, because he never states that without PMFs we would all die. also, he then turns and says that some people have to die for justice to be upheald. But, the resolution deals with people in other countries dying, this has little to no effect on the country.
Also, he states that people give up rights for the protection of the government, this is completely false. Most people disagree with the patriot act and are not willing to surrender rights

In fact, he says that a signifigant portion of the population is to die anyway, this is fine, however he never provides evidence to say that we cannot kill alot of people without PMFs or that PMFs have had a huge impact so far from this debate is that they have killed 17 civilians.

Lastly, his criteria turns, he cannot value laws while he is breaking them. according to Article 47 of Protocol I (Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts) it is stated in the first sentence "A mercenary shall not have the right to be a combatant or a prisoner of war."

On 4 December 1989 the United Nations passed resolution 44/34 the International Convention against the Recruitment, Use, Financing and Training of Mercenaries. It entered into force on 20 October 2001 and is usually known as the UN Mercenary Convention. Article 2 makes it an offence to employ a mercenary and Article 3.1 states that "A mercenary, as defined in article 1 of the present Convention, who participates directly in hostilities or in a concerted act of violence, as the case may be, commits an offence for the purposes of the Convention

So, we cannot use PMFs because they are illegal, thus I urge a con vote
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 3 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: FF