The Instigator
JanaeS5
Con (against)
Losing
6 Points
The Contender
UUAA
Pro (for)
Winning
18 Points

The United States should boycott the Beijing Olympics.

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
Con Tied Pro
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: 5/29/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 919 times Debate No: 4268
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (2)
Votes (8)

 

JanaeS5

Con

The US should NOT boycott the beijin olympics because they want to enjoy doing sports as much as we do. Everyone should be able to do what they want because it a free country,!
UUAA

Pro

"They were raped, they put cotton in their mouths and then they lit the cotton on fire." - The Identity of this Darfur genocide victim was withheld.

A genocide is defined as the complete and systematic extermination of an entire race or interest group. In the year 1933 Adolf Hitler boldly declared that one race should be held as superior and that certain "dirty" characteristics must be exterminated from the human race in order preserve said race. Thus began the greatest slaughter the world had ever known starting with the racially inferior and escalating to the near complete annihilation of thousands of gypsies, Jews, mentally ill and homosexuals. While in the midst of horror beginning with the subtle breaking of treaties to test the strength of the Versailles treaty, many nations simply ignored the happenings in Germany, some even continuing to support the Nazi regime. The problem may not have been that no one cared, but that nobody was willing to act upon their displeasure.

In the twenty-first century we are faced with our own plights. While the holocaust still lingers in our memory we cannot help but recognize the hatred of others as they undergo their very own systematic destruction. But what can we do? Why should we attempt to change the way the world is? Is it really worth it in the end? What is the significance of our actions. The answer is simple. Every weapon that is available in the Darfur region is quickly taken by officials with the purpose of continuing the brutal murder of hundreds upon hundreds. Every dollar collected goes directly toward the continuation of what may be the worst form of ethnic cleansing since that terrible holocaust. Many countries have understood this principle and have worked to cut the supply of the Sudanese government in order to stop the violence. History shows that unsupplied regimes do not last long.

However, the genocide continues. Why? Because some continue to refuse to care. such is the position of the People's Republic of China, arguably the fastest and most productive growing world powers. As the world watches, china openly supports the continuation of the violence by suppling the regime with enough supplies to continue. At the same time the country is readying itself for its declared place in the world at the upcoming Olympic games. Many are proclaiming said games as 'the genocide Olympics' and have been deploying fierce campaigns against the Chinese actions. Since the campaign, reports NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF of the New York Times, the Chinese government has shifted its policy slightly to make a slightly significant change in the region's outcome. However they continue supply monetary and weaponry support to the regime. Our success shows us that continued change may be possible, but the status quo tells us if we do not continue in a complete boycott of the genocide Olympics we cannot expect to achieve an end to the violence.

My opponent supplies essentially three arguments -

1- "The US should NOT boycott the beijin olympics because they want to enjoy doing sports as much as we do"

This argument is flawed on the basis that we do not force them not to participate in athletic activity through boycott. A boycott is simply a refusal to participate ourselves in such events which could possibly send a signal to china and to the rest of the world that we do not stand for genocide and that we must and will reject those who do under all circumstances.

2- "Everyone should be able to do what they want because it a free country,!"

Again we do not limit through boycott free choice. In addition what should 'everyone' be able to do? Slaughter those thought to be inferior? Rape the weak? Hell no! we must be adamant that we cannot stand for this sort of action.

3- "it a free country,!"

I attack this independently because I view it as an independent argument upholding the previous claim. The PRC is not the USA. The people of china live in a mock system of half communism, half totalitarian capitalist rule. This is similarly true with the Darfur region. If we should value freedom as a warrant for any action, freedom must be valued in our efforts to bring freedom to every man and woman on earth and to stop violence that fuels continued slaughter of innocent lives.

It is my position that in order to accomplish the goal of peace and prosperity we must continue to oppose the Chinese actions in Africa in the form of a peaceful boycott. This is just one of the many things we can and must do in order to repulse actions that mirror those horrible years known as the holocaust.
Debate Round No. 1
JanaeS5

Con

JanaeS5 forfeited this round.
UUAA

Pro

A robust intellectual frame of resistance to mass slaughter is the only chance for averting a host of scenarios for collective extinction
Ketels, Associate Professor of English at Temple University, 1996
[Violet B., The Annals of The American Academy of Political and Social Science, November, p. l/n]
Even though, as Americans, we have not experienced "by fire, hunger and the sword", the terrible disasters in war overtaking other human beings on their home ground, we know the consequences of human hospitality to evil. We know about human perfidy: the chasm that separates proclaiming virtue from acting decently. Even those of us trained to linguistic skepticism and the relativity of moral judgment can grasp the verity in the stark warning, "If something exists in one place, it will exist everywhere." That the dreadful something warned against continues to exist anywhere should fill us with an inextinguishable yearning to do something. Our impotence to action against the brutality of mass slaughter shames us. We have the historical record to ransack for precedent and corollaries—letters, documents, testaments, books—written words that would even "preserve their validity in the eyes of a man threatened with instant death." N21 The truths gleanable from the record of totalitarian barbarism cited in them may be common knowledge; they are by no means commonly acknowledged. N22 They appear in print upon many a page; they have not yet—still not yet—sufficiently penetrated human consciousness. Herein lies the supreme lesson for intellectuals, those who have the projective power to grasp what is not yet evident to the general human consciousness: it is possible to bring down totalitarian regimes either by violence or by a gradual transformation of human consciousness; it is not possible to bring them down "if we ignore them, make excuses for them, yield to them or accept their way of playing the game" in order to avoid violence. The history of the gentle revolutions of Poland, Hungary, and Czechoslovakia suggests that those revolutions would not have happened at all, and certainly not bloodlessly, without the moral engagement and political activism of intellectuals in those besieged cultures. Hundreds of thousands of students, workers, and peasants joined in the final efforts to defeat the totalitarian regimes that collapsed in 1989. Still, it was the intellectuals, during decades when they repeatedly risked careers, freedom, and their very lives, often in dangerous solitary challenges to power, who formed the unifying consensus, developed the liberating philosophy, wrote the rallying cries, framed the politics, mobilized the will and energies of disparate groups, and literally took to the streets to lead nonviolent protests that became revolutions. The most profound insights into this process that gradually penetrated social consciousness sufficiently to make revolution possible can be read in the role Vaclav Havel played before and during Czechoslovakia's Velvet Revolution. As George Steiner reflects, while "the mystery of creative and analytic genius . . . is given to the very few," others can be "woken to its presence and exposed to its demands." Havel possesses that rare creative and analytic genius. We see it in the spaciousness of his moral vision for the future, distilled from the crucible of personal suffering and observation; in his poet's ability to translate both experience and vision into language that comes as close as possible to truth and survives translation across cultures; in the compelling force of his personal heroism. Characteristically, Havel raises local experience to universal relevance. "If today's planetary civilization has any hope of survival," he begins, "that hope lies chiefly in what we understand as the human spirit." He continues: If we don't wish to destroy ourselves in national, religious or political discord; if we don't wish to find our world with twice its current population, half of it dying of hunger; if we don't wish to kill ourselves with ballistic missiles armed with atomic warheads or eliminate ourselves with bacteria specially cultivated for the purpose; if we don't wish to see some people go desperately hungry while others throw tons of wheat into the ocean; if we don't wish to suffocate in the global greenhouse we are heating up for ourselves or to be burned by radiation leaking through holes we have made in the ozone; if we don't wish to exhaust the nonrenewable, mineral resources of this planet, without which we cannot survive; if, in short, we don't wish any of this to happen, then we must—as humanity, as people, as conscious beings with spirit, mind and a sense of responsibility—somehow come to our senses. N25 Somehow we must come together in "a kind of general mobilization of human consciousness, of the human mind and spirit, human responsibility, human reason."

Vote Con to oppose genocide and any kind of direct or indirect support of systematic racial destruction.

Extend previos arguments.

- UUAA
Debate Round No. 2
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by UUAA 8 years ago
UUAA
Cooljpk,

The current predicament has nothing to do with the so called "cease fire" greek tradition. Among the Greek city-states, the olymic games sometimes served as a point of unity when they could set aside their differences for a moment of mutual enjoyment. However, in the case of the Genocide Olympics to be held in bejing such an ideal to justify U.S. participation is inherently flawed. First, the greeks agreed to cease, for the games, acts of war. The acts of the chinese are silent acts of genocide by accomplice thus, they would not stop. Second, the Olympic games never actually stopped a battle, it just postponed it, thus the genocide would continue. Finally, my arguments are based upon boycott as a politicall attack that has a long history of succes. The Olympics in themselves have occured for years with little or no change to the global environment.

- UA
Posted by cooljpk 8 years ago
cooljpk
the ancient greek Olympics were made to have a "cease fire" for the lack of better words. It stopped political and military disagreements. it should do the same thing here!!!
8 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Vote Placed by bexy_kelly 8 years ago
bexy_kelly
JanaeS5UUAATied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by slayer54321 8 years ago
slayer54321
JanaeS5UUAATied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Hreha827 8 years ago
Hreha827
JanaeS5UUAATied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by chevy10294 8 years ago
chevy10294
JanaeS5UUAATied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Derek.Gunn 8 years ago
Derek.Gunn
JanaeS5UUAATied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by Pluto2493 8 years ago
Pluto2493
JanaeS5UUAATied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Vi_Veri 8 years ago
Vi_Veri
JanaeS5UUAATied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by UUAA 8 years ago
UUAA
JanaeS5UUAATied
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