The Instigator
I-am-a-panda
Pro (for)
Losing
31 Points
The Contender
Ragnar_Rahl
Con (against)
Winning
33 Points

The United States of America should go to War with China

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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: 9/20/2009 Category: Entertainment
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,427 times Debate No: 9524
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (9)
Votes (12)

 

I-am-a-panda

Pro

I thank whomever accepts this debate and wish them the best of luck.

===DEFINITIONS===

United States of America (U.S.A) : http://en.wikipedia.org...

China (PROC): http://en.wikipedia.org...

War: http://en.wikipedia.org...

===PRO ARGUMENT===

Firstly, such a move by the U.S.A would improve relations with China. Many of War's songs have a feel good theme to them, such as Low Rider and Why can't we be friends (Which is particularly suitable given the current standing between the PROC and the U.S.A.)

Possible Chinese attendees to such a concert could be Hu Jintao http://en.wikipedia.org...) and Yang Jiechi (http://en.wikipedia.org...). American representatives could be Bill Clinton (http://en.wikipedia.org...) and Barack obama (http://en.wikipedia.org...). It would certainly be a mans night out and give the two nations a chance to reconcile with each other.

Overall, it would be beneficial for the U.S.A to go to War with China.
Ragnar_Rahl

Con

Both the USA and the PROC are terms for NATIONS-- involuntary groupings of people based on whether they live in territory under a given government's jurisdiction. In order for the statement "The USA went here" or "The PROC went here" to make sense, the entire population of the country has to go there.

The estimated combined population of the two nations is over 1 billion, 600 million. Obviously, this greatly exceeds the safe capacity of any concert venue. If nomal speakers were used, many attendees to the War concert would be unable to hear. This means that they would be unhappy, and angry at the existence of the other nation that invited them to this ripoff. If somehow speakers that could reach that many people were invented, those closest to the stage would be deafened. Also, my opponent likes listening to the government about all kinds of things, including presumably fire codes, which would be ripped to shreds by such an occurrence, so perhaps he should reconsider.

Also, many people do not like such sappy music. They would make wry comments about how music like this is why we can't be friends, and thereby be hardened against such friendship.

The proposal to send a few individual politicians to a concert is irrelevant to the resolution, as it is insufficient to amount to the attendance of the nations.
Debate Round No. 1
I-am-a-panda

Pro

I thank Ragnar for taking up this debate.

The cornerstone of his argument is the use of language. He claims for the U.S.A to go to War with China, all people of each nation must be in attendance. However, consider the following sentences:

'The United States went to war (war in this case meaning an armed conflict) with Iraq'

'The United States has entered peace talks with North Korea'

In the first sentence, it doesn't imply every American citizen was armed and sent to Iraq to fight, nor does it imply every Iraqi citizen was armed to fight against the incoming Americans. It implies the two nations in fact went to war. In this context, representatives of the United States (Namely soldiers and the government) were at war with Iraq. The United States is not a general abbreviation for the people of the United States in most contexts, exceptions are:

'The United States was upset with the 2008 election outcome'

In this context, it is clear the people of the United States were upset, as it implied emotion, and as the U.S.A is technically an inanimate idea, it implies the people within the U.S.A, or the majority, were angry.

Context is the key to this. As the context implies no emotion, it implies that someone representing the states is involved rather than everyone.

To further my case, the definition I gave for the United States was http://en.wikipedia.org.... According to this, it says [the very first sentence] "The United States of America (commonly referred to as the United States, the U.S., the USA, or America) is a federal constitutional republic comprising fifty states and a federal district." . This means the U.S.A isn't an animate object, meaning it can't go to a War concert with the People Republic China, also an inanimate object. Instead it must send representatives of the State, as must China.

So, these resolution implies that both States (PROC and USA) should attend the War concert, however as they are not animate objects, they must indeed send representatives, such as Hu Jintao or Bill Clinton.

I wait my opponent's response.
Ragnar_Rahl

Con

"
'The United States went to war (war in this case meaning an armed conflict) with Iraq'
"
To be "At war" with someone, does not mean that you personally are shooting them. It means that someone who holds your allegiance is. Taxes are the mechanism by which the entire nation is at war with Iraq.

"

'The United States has entered peace talks with North Korea'"
The fact that this linguistic sloppiness exist does not automatically make it correct. Entering peace talks, unlike "entering a war," does imply personal talking, and the media's usage is simply incorrect on this account or at best imprecise. Debating resolutions, on the other hand, require high precision.

"
'The United States was upset with the 2008 election outcome'

In this context, it is clear the people of the United States were upset, as it implied emotion, and as the U.S.A is technically an inanimate idea, it implies the people within the U.S.A, or the majority, were angry.
"
"the people" can have no literal meaning but "the totality of people." Majorities are irrelevant. The United States was not angry about the election outcome. Certain segments within it were.

"
To further my case, the definition I gave for the United States was http://en.wikipedia.org....... According to this, it says [the very first sentence] "The United States of America (commonly referred to as the United States, the U.S., the USA, or America) is a federal constitutional republic comprising fifty states and a federal district." . This means the U.S.A isn't an animate object, meaning it can't go to a War concert with the People Republic China, also an inanimate object."
In other words, the resolution is meaningless and impossible by the definition you have just sourced. That does not further your case. Sending representatives is an ALTERNATIVE TO the resolution, not a FULFILLMENT OF the resolution.
Debate Round No. 2
I-am-a-panda

Pro

I thank my opponent for this grammatically engaging debate

"To be "At war" with someone, does not mean that you personally are shooting them. It means that someone who holds your allegiance is. Taxes are the mechanism by which the entire nation is at war with Iraq.

--> Partially true. The citizens of a state elect representatives to government. The choose these people to represent them in domestic, national and international affairs. They put trust in these people to make these decisions. If they choose to go to war, they are representing the people (or the majority) in their decision. If they go to war, they send representatives who fulfil the given agenda. In this case, it's kill people.

Furthermore, taxes are the mechanism in which everyone in the United States would take part, paying for the various expenses of such an endeavour as going to War with China.

"The fact that this linguistic sloppiness exist does not automatically make it correct. Entering peace talks, unlike "entering a war," does imply personal talking, and the media's usage is simply incorrect on this account or at best imprecise. Debating resolutions, on the other hand, require high precision."

--> Again, the United re sending representatives of the U.S.A to these talks, and the way in which every citizen contributes is through taxation for the bill involved.

"the people" can have no literal meaning but "the totality of people." Majorities are irrelevant. The United States was not angry about the election outcome. Certain segments within it were."

--> The United states was a generalisation for the majority of people within it. If my opponent attempts to use this sentence against me, again, this is implying emotion, something an inanimate object cannot express

"In other words, the resolution is meaningless and impossible by the definition you have just sourced. That does not further your case. Sending representatives is an ALTERNATIVE TO the resolution, not a FULFILLMENT OF the resolution."

--> The fulfilment of my interpretation of the resolution is sending representatives. The fulfilment to YOUR interpretation of the resolution is the taxation each American citizen would foot.

( And Ragnar, knowing you you'll attempt to discredit of taxation. But please, just not this topic :) )
Ragnar_Rahl

Con

"

Furthermore, taxes are the mechanism in which everyone in the United States would take part, paying for the various expenses of such an endeavour as going to War with China."
War, the state of affairs, and War, the concert of the band by that name, are completely different things. Taxes involve you in a legal state of affairs. They do not, however, teleport you to a concert venue. See the difference?

"Again, the United re sending representatives of the U.S.A to these talks, and the way in which every citizen contributes is through taxation for the bill involved.
"
Talks are a specific action. They may be involved in diplomacy in the general sense, but in the specific sense of talking this is not the case-- you cannot talk by paying taxes, talking is done with your mouth (unless you are Steven Hawking).

"The United states was a generalisation for the majority of people within it"
This is not true. I am a citizen of the United States, yet I am not a part of it's electoral majority.

"If my opponent attempts to use this sentence against me, again, this is implying emotion, something an inanimate object cannot express"
No inanimate object involved, just the distinction between majority and totality.

"The fulfilment of my interpretation of the resolution is sending representatives. The fulfilment to YOUR interpretation of the resolution is the taxation each American citizen would foot."
Neither is the case. A concert is a specific venue (as opposed to a generalized legal state of war), one cannot attend it via paying taxes. And one cannot attend it via sending representatives. Even if "the united states" referred solely to the majority, the wording still requires the majority to attend-- not their representatives.
Debate Round No. 3
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by niffith 7 years ago
niffith
I thought Panda's idea was clever and humorous, although I think that got muddled when the light of the discussion turned to debating semantics about whether USA meant the entirety of a country and it's population etc.
Posted by Danielle 7 years ago
Danielle
Still, it should be go to China with WAR!
Posted by patsox834 7 years ago
patsox834
Hmm, the argument I was going to make has been shot in the foot, due to the fact that I can't read any Asian dialects.
Posted by Kleptin 7 years ago
Kleptin
You should take down the videos XD
Posted by patsox834 7 years ago
patsox834
Uh, yeah...believe it or not, I read a debate before I accept it. Crazy, I know, but I enjoy living on the edge.
Posted by I-am-a-panda 7 years ago
I-am-a-panda
Please read the definitions before kamikazing into thsi debate.
Posted by patsox834 7 years ago
patsox834
I'm currently doing a little research, but if I get the answers I think I will, then I'll accept.
Posted by Danielle 7 years ago
Danielle
You obviously mean go to China with WAR :)
Posted by Freeman 7 years ago
Freeman
I would take this, but I'm currently debating with someone who thinks that farmers should go to war with the federal government. *giggles*
12 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Erick 6 years ago
Erick
I-am-a-pandaRagnar_RahlTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:06 
Vote Placed by I-am-a-panda 6 years ago
I-am-a-panda
I-am-a-pandaRagnar_RahlTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Vote Placed by Danielle 7 years ago
Danielle
I-am-a-pandaRagnar_RahlTied
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 spinnerclotho 7 years ago
spinnerclotho
I-am-a-pandaRagnar_RahlTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:11 
Vote Placed by niffith 7 years ago
niffith
I-am-a-pandaRagnar_RahlTied
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:61 
Vote Placed by Crust89 7 years ago
Crust89
I-am-a-pandaRagnar_RahlTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:25 
Vote Placed by atheistman 7 years ago
atheistman
I-am-a-pandaRagnar_RahlTied
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:07 
Vote Placed by mongeese 7 years ago
mongeese
I-am-a-pandaRagnar_RahlTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:23 
Vote Placed by greatstuff479 7 years ago
greatstuff479
I-am-a-pandaRagnar_RahlTied
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 Xer 7 years ago
Xer
I-am-a-pandaRagnar_RahlTied
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