The Instigator
zakkuchan
Pro (for)
Winning
48 Points
The Contender
NOK_Domination
Con (against)
Losing
25 Points

The United States should develop a missile defense system.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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: 3/31/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,630 times Debate No: 3460
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (20)
Votes (19)

 

zakkuchan

Pro

This debate is for Round 1 of Tournament 1 of the Facebook group "Online Debate Tournaments." It is over topic #7, "The United States should develop a missile defense system." I am advocating the PRO stance.

Clarification:

Missile defense systems are any systems designed to protect a nation against incoming Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles (ICBMs), which typically are designed to carry nuclear warheads across large distances through sub-orbital spaceflight. The idea of defending against nuclear warheads delivered in such a manner originated in the Cold War. Various missile defense systems have been developed by the United States over the course of the last 50 years or so, and there are systems under development today. However, the resolution does not stipulate that we must speak of systems that have been developed or are being developed; so there is no need for the PRO to defend those particular systems. The resolution, rather, leaves the details of a proposed missile defense system up to the PRO to fill in, so I will fulfill that burden before moving on to the justification for my stance.

Proposition:

The United States should develop a missile defense system with the intent of preventing a small-scale nuclear attack. As there are currently no nations with large-scale nuclear capabilities who would utilize those capabilities against the United States, small-scale defense is all that is needed to ensure the U.S. is safe against any upcoming nuclear powers that develop the means to launch their weapons onto U.S. soil. This means the defense system would have the capability to shield the United States against an ICBM nuclear barrage of perhaps ten warheads at any given time. This would be achieved primarily through the use of hit-to-kill vehicles equipped on satellites deployed in low orbit using GPS tracking to ensure they remain well distributed over the United States. The United States would also have a limited number of ground-based defense facilities, from which guided anti-ballistic missiles could be launched, in the event that an ICBM managed to penetrate the orbital defenses. This is all easily within the capabilities of American engineers.

Justification:

The major premise of my justification is that a nation's government has both a right and a responsibility to defend its citizens and land against external threats. This is a well-established concept in moral and political philosophy, and is absolutely necessary for the continuation of human civilization as we know it. For the purposes of this debate, I will back this concept up with social contract philosophy, upon which America was built and has been maintained. The important part of this for our purposes is that one of the government's obligations under this philosophy is to provide for the security of the people. The proposed missile defense system is directly pursuant to that obligation. I will solidify this justification with 3 points.

1. The proposed system could save lives. Obviously, it would be a catastrophe for a nuclear strike on the United States to be successful. This system would prevent the worst from happening.

2. The proposed system would provide a useful deterrent. If there is a defense system in place against nuclear ICBMs, this decreases the likelihood that any nation would launch such missiles against the United States; for if they were bound to be unsuccessful, there would be no reason to launch them.

3. The proposed system would put no innocent populations at risk. This system would be completely docile and harmless, unless there was an incoming ICBM – and in that case, the system's capabilities would be fully directed at ending that threat, not at attacking any innocents. This gives the system an inherent advantage over preemptive war, the other commonly promoted method for dealing with upcoming nuclear threats.

The reasoning behind the proposed missile defense system is clear. I now stand by for my opponent's rebuttal.
NOK_Domination

Con

Voy a atacar el hecho de que no hay barrera inherrent en la resoluci�n. La resoluci�n indica que "los Estados Unidos DEBEN desarrollar una defensa del misil." Es conocimiento com�n que los Estados Unidos tienen ya un sistema de defensa del misil, all� la resoluci�n se pone en ejecucio'n ya en el status quo que toma con la decisi�n posible para el juez. Es desafortunado que el creador de este torneo del discusi�n hizo una resoluci�n tan da�ada para que discutamos, pero debo discutir bajo t�rminos dados a m�, y bajo esos t�rminos los triunfos del con.

Ich werde die Tatsache in Angriff nehmen, da� es keine inherrent Sperre in der Aufl�sung gibt. Die Aufl�sung gibt an, da� "die Vereinigten Staaten eine Flugverteidigung entwickeln SOLLTEN." Es ist allgemeines Wissen, da� die Vereinigten Staaten bereits einen Flugverteidigungssystem haben, dort die Aufl�sung wird eingef�hrt bereits im Status Quo, der gegen die m�gliche Entscheidung f�r den Richter trifft. Es ist ungl�cklich, da� der Sch�pfer dieses Debatteturniers solch eine defekte Aufl�sung bildete, damit wir debattieren, aber ich debattieren mu� unter den Bezeichnungen, die mir gegeben werden, und unter jenen Bezeichnungen die Betr�gergewinne.

I'm going to attack the fact that there is no inherrent barrier in the resolution. The resolution states that "The United States SHOULD develop a missile defense." It is common knowledge that the United States already has a missile defense system, there the resolution is already implemented in status quo making con the possible decision for the judge. It is unfortunate that the creator of this debate tournament made such a flawed resolution for us to debate, but I must debate under the terms given to me, and under those terms the con wins.
Debate Round No. 1
zakkuchan

Pro

Well, I consider it rather unfortunate that my opponent refuses to have an actual debate on this important topic. This is the resolution that was given to us; and as such, we must debate it. However, since he has attacked the semantics of the resolution, I will defend that point.

The resolution and opening arguments propose "a missile defense system". The "a" is the important part here. This word, as I said in my opening argument, leaves the proposed system up to the PRO to fill in with more detail, as I did. If the resolution said, "The United States should develop the missile defense system that it has now", then clearly my opponent's claim would be valid; but since it leaves the proposed system open to interpretation, we don't have to talk at all about what systems the U.S. currently has in place. My opponent's attack on the resolution is thus completely invalid.

Please extend all of my Round 1 arguments. Thank you.
NOK_Domination

Con

So you're sAying we should hAve 2 missile defense systems? When we AlreAdy hAve A missile defense system in plAce then why would we put A missile defense system in. HAving Another missile defense system wouldn't help. So the detAils you filled in during your first round Are invAlid becAuse they Are detAils for A missile defense system thAt isn't necessAry becAuse we AlreAdy hAve one. In order to debAte something you must use evidence and sAying thAt we don't hAve to look At pAst or present systems would be illogicAl when trying to justify A new system. We AlreAdy hAve A system so why mAke A new one. So thAt is why con is the only possible side you could vote for. The Arguments my opponent Are extending Are thus invAlid.

PleAse extend All of my Round 1 Arguments in All 3 lAnguAges. ThAnk you.
Debate Round No. 2
zakkuchan

Pro

Again, I think it's unfortunate that my opponent refuses to put forth anything meaningful into the debate on this topic. I think at this point it's fairly clear how this is going to end up; but just to make sure all my bases are covered, I'm going to refute what my opponent HAS said with three major points:

1. Dropping arguments.

The ONLY thing my opponent even began to touch on in my opening argument was my clarification that missile defense systems currently in existence are not part of this debate (which I will solidify later). This leaves my proposition and justification completely untouched. In debate (especially when you have as much time as this online forum allows you), a lack of refutation on an opponent's point means that, for the purposes of the round, you agree with what they had to say. So again, please flow through all of my Round 1 arguments.

2. Abusiveness.

Since the point of the CON side is indeed to refute the truth of the resolution, it can sometimes be unclear whether any given attack on the resolution is abusive or just good debating. When an attack on the wording of the resolution is used as an excuse for providing nothing meaningful to the debate, however, it is rather clearly abusive. What my opponent has done disrespects the organizers of the tournament (who wrote the resolution, approved it, and gave it to the two of us to have meaningful debate on), myself (because I had no other choice than to challenge my opponent on THIS resolution, unedited, if I wanted to stay in the tournament), and the concept of meaningful discourse on issues. Furthermore, finding a loophole through which to avoid discussion on a topic is largely responsible for a great deal of what's wrong with America (see: Bill Clinton, Alberto Gonzales), and should not be encouraged.

3. Semantics.

Generally speaking, in debate, consideration of semantics is a secondary issue, and is unacceptable as a sole line of reasoning on which to base a claim. But even if you accept the abusive sort of resolutional analysis my opponent has provided, a closer look at the wording of the resolution (and definitions of the key terms) shows that even the objections my opponent has provided are invalid.

(All definitions are from the American Heritage Dictionary, Fourth Edition, as found on http://www.dictionary.com...)

a indef.art. Used before nouns and noun phrases that denote a single but unspecified person or thing: a region; a person.

"A", as this definition indicates, is an indefinite article (indef.art.), which "denote[s] a single but unspecified person or thing". In other words, in the resolution, "a" does not refer to any particular missile defense system that could be developed; rather, it leaves specification up to the PRO, as I noted and fulfilled in my Round 1 statement. There is thus a clear line of reasoning between the resolution and my clarification and proposal (beyond which point my case is untouched), based simply upon the definition of "a".

de�vel�op v. tr. To bring into being gradually: develop a new cottage industry.

This is the relevant definition of "develop", and it will help me demonstrate my final point on semantics. This definition clarifies my point that the development of a missile defense system means the creation of a new missile defense system, /without regard to existing systems/. Furthermore, even if you believe we must consider existing systems, this definition responds thoroughly to the objection that I am promoting having two systems in place. The fact that we're talking about something "gradually" happening (see definition) means that in the time it takes the U.S. to develop the missile defense system, the government can decide what to do with the old one - keep it and use it to augment the strength of the new one, or scrap it entirely in favor of the new one.

As a final note, I would like to point out that any new argumentation in the final round of a debate (that is, points that don't expand upon anything that has already been said in the debate) is generally unacceptable in both formal and informal debate. I have structured this final PRO statement around that premise; everything I have said here simply expands upon my Round 2 statement. Therefore, if my opponent makes a total about-face and actually attempts to fulfill his duty as CON, I would ask the judge to take his arguments less seriously than one normally would, since I have no chance to respond. I would also ask the judge to consider any such arguments to be yet another act of abusiveness on the part of my opponent. Thank you.
NOK_Domination

Con

I will begin by saying that I have not been abusive at any time during the debate. The definition from dictionary.com is:

using, containing, or characterized by harshly or coarsely insulting language.

At no point have I used harsh or insulting language. I however feel as if I have been abused by opponent suggesting I have not tried to debate this topic seriously. I feel disrespected by the way my opponent has talked down to me. However this is debate and the feelings of the two people debating are a non-issue. So without furthur ado I will begin to break down his case.

In his first point he stated that the only thing I touched on was the fact that the current system has everything to do with this debate. He also said I agreed with his proposition and justification. The fact is that his idea WOULD be a good idea IF there wasn't already a system in place. However it is common knowledge that a system is in place, making a second system (which is what he is proposing) completely unnessecary.

I already covered his second argument (if you can call it that) in my first paragraph. I have not at any point in this debate been abusive.

In his third argument he is still using harsh language by acusing me of abuse. This is probably his most important point in this round. Here is his definition of "a"

Used before nouns and noun phrases that denote a single but unspecified person or thing: a region; a person.

As you can see it denotes a SINGLE person or in this case thing. So to further understand the resolution I'll put the pieces together. He's saying the U.S.A should gradually usher in a single missile defense system on top of the current one. Meaning... He would like to see the United States having two missile defense systems. I ask you the question "Why build a second missile defense system when we already have one?" Here is an analogy of the situation. You are a single person living by themselves. You have a car so why buy a second car? would it be nice? yes, but is it really worth it to have two cars? no. You can't drive both of them at the same time so why have two? It is not financially sound. Considered the United States current economic state, a second missile defense doesn't make financial sense. What we have now is good enough to get us by, just like having one car is good enough to get you by. Then later he changes his position and says he would like to exchange the old system for a new one. Let me ask you a question, "How many times have we been hit by a missile?" The answer is none so obviously the current system gets us by. Right now the priorities of our government do not involve a NEW missile defense system. There are many more issues that the money used for a second system could be used for.

In his last round he insults me by insinuating that I have not tried to debate the topic. I feel very strongly about the topic and believe that it is best for the United States and its citizens to have one system NOT TWO. There so many things that the money could be used for. New Orleans, our troops, poverty, improved living conditions, etc... I am disappointed in his lack of respect for me as a debater.

Also in his last paragraph my opponent says that new argumentation is against the rules. I would like to point out that all my arguments in this round have defended my first statement that a second system is completely unnecessary. Furthermore he contradicted his own rule by adding the abusiveness argument that was not present in the first two rounds. My opponent is also attempting to tell the judge how to do her job by saying,

"I would ask the judge to take his arguments less seriously than one normally would, since I have no chance to respond. I would also ask the judge to consider any such arguments to be yet another act of abusiveness on the part of my opponent. Thank you."

In accordance to his idea of abuse, he is committing the same crime. He is disrespecting the ability of the judge to judge the round by insulting her intelligence when he states how she is to judge the round.

Also when he asks her to take my last arguments less seriously because it is my last argument is completely unfair. He was given the advantage to speak first and I have the opportunity to speak last. That is part of debate.

Thank you to all who have taken the time to read the arguments and decide the outcome of this debate. I would like to especially thank Mr. Luke Cumbee, who has spent so much time putting together this tournament and allowing me to participate.
Debate Round No. 3
20 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by NOK_Domination 7 years ago
NOK_Domination
I took the debate straight on Mr. gray. I don't see how a second missile defense system would help and never did he say how building another system on top of the one in place would be a good thing. I am appalled by the lack of respect you have for me as a person.
Posted by dgray 8 years ago
dgray
Strongly disagree? How could you possibly have your dignity after not only completely side-stepping the debate topic, but, attempting to make up for your apparent lack of research into the topic with semantics? You truly have no room to talk. Zakkuchan actually provided relavent support for his arguments and wonder of wonder he won. Quit making excuses and at least give your opponent the congratulations due for winning the debate.
Posted by NOK_Domination 8 years ago
NOK_Domination
HaHa, PublicForum sucked the other dudes d1ck. I strongly disagree with the judges decision. Public in no way did zakkuchan win the debate decisively. And pwed is not word.
Posted by PublicForumG-d 8 years ago
PublicForumG-d
Haha, Zakkuchan pwed the other dude
Posted by zakkuchan 8 years ago
zakkuchan
The judge decided Pro. This comment is now 25 characters.
Posted by Korezaan 8 years ago
Korezaan
Whats the judge's decision on this one???
Posted by zakkuchan 8 years ago
zakkuchan
I don't see how anything I said could be called a new argument. Pretty much the entire thing was just clarifying my thought process to Logical-Master.

Oh, and I'm not really hugging the tree (it's an aspen tree, and I'd rather not get white powder all over me); it could really be better described as leaning against it.

And for the record, I am definitely not anti-pirate.
Posted by NOK_Domination 8 years ago
NOK_Domination
And the reason I addressed my comment to you and not everyone is because they were voicing their opinion on the argument, not adding on more arguments.
Posted by NOK_Domination 8 years ago
NOK_Domination
Thank you for showing your lack of respect. I really appreciate that. I'm glad we can debate online so we don't have to use paper. You know the less paper we use, the more trees like that you can hug. You think because I'm a pirate I have no integrity? You're a rascist, tree-hugging hippy SOB. You can take that as "abusive".
Posted by zakkuchan 8 years ago
zakkuchan
I trust the judge not to read the comments before judging. And if you're really worried about that, your comment ought to have been directed at everyone who commented (as each of us made points that could sway a judge), rather than just me. Besides, I was responding to previous comments, not to your third round.
19 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by dgray 8 years ago
dgray
zakkuchanNOK_DominationTied
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 Snakepliston 8 years ago
Snakepliston
zakkuchanNOK_DominationTied
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 NOK_Domination 8 years ago
NOK_Domination
zakkuchanNOK_DominationTied
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 Logical-Master 8 years ago
Logical-Master
zakkuchanNOK_DominationTied
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 Danielle 8 years ago
Danielle
zakkuchanNOK_DominationTied
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 beem0r 8 years ago
beem0r
zakkuchanNOK_DominationTied
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 meganlg43 8 years ago
meganlg43
zakkuchanNOK_DominationTied
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 keenan 8 years ago
keenan
zakkuchanNOK_DominationTied
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 eweb53 8 years ago
eweb53
zakkuchanNOK_DominationTied
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 HadenQuinlan 8 years ago
HadenQuinlan
zakkuchanNOK_DominationTied
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