The Instigator
bluesteal27
Pro (for)
Losing
7 Points
The Contender
Ore_Ele
Con (against)
Winning
19 Points

The United States should not provide aid to Japan

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 4 votes the winner is...
Ore_Ele
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/5/2011 Category: News
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,471 times Debate No: 16310
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (9)
Votes (4)

 

bluesteal27

Pro

The United States should not provide aid to Japan for the following 3 reasons.

1) Japan has the economy and financial means to help itself.
2) America does not have the financial means to help Japan.
3) The recent disasters are not that bad.

I await my opponents arguments and rebuttals
Ore_Ele

Con

I will take the view that we should not be REQUIRED to help, but that we should help anyway.

1) Japan can help itself, but the more people that share the burden the better it is for all (health insurance is a shared burden which is mutually benefitial).

2) The US does have the financial abilities to help to some degree. And finances is not the only type of help.

3) Worst Earthquake in Japanese history, and one of the most powerful disasters in the world.

All points refuted.
Debate Round No. 1
bluesteal27

Pro

My opponents first argument supportes my 1st argument which means that I win this aspect of the debate. He also states the more people that help, the better it is for everyone, but the US is not being benefitted by aiding Japan.

My opponents second point is that the US does have the abilitiy to help. But the more we help, the deeper we go into debt which will increase inflation and interest rates.

Finally, it may have been the worst earthquake, but the tsunami was what caused the damage.
Ore_Ele

Con

1) the US is benefiting for aiding Japan. We trade a lot with them. The faster they recover, the better for our economy. Remember, that we are in a global economy and have many trade dependencies with Japan. Their pain is our pain because of that link. So it is in our interest to help.

2) We can weigh how much help will "harm" us to how much it will help Japan (and in turn help us through trade with them).

3) His final point only adds to mine. That it was more than a common disaster.
Debate Round No. 2
bluesteal27

Pro

First of all, our trade hasn't been hindered since the tsunami hit Japan. Therefore, all the money that is being pumped into Japan from the US doesnt help the US.
My opponents 2nd point says that we will recieve more than we give, but we aren't recieving anything by helping Japan since I have already proven that trade has stayed consistent.

Finally, my opponent previously stated that the earthquake was the worst in history, but the tsunami actually affected Japan and didnt do a lot of harm.
Ore_Ele

Con

The earthquake and tsunami have had an impact on our economy [1][2]. Therefore, we have received harm from it. And therefore, providing some help to mitigate that harm would be benefitial, in our best interest, and should be done.

[1] http://www.marketwatch.com...
[2] http://www.themoneytimes.com...
Debate Round No. 3
bluesteal27

Pro

My opponent has provided a good piece of evidence, however, i would like to point out that it has nothing to do with this debate. He has proven that the US has been harmed a little bit, but he has not shown how the US's presence in Japan will help the US. We are not arguing whether or not the US has been harmed because of the earthquake, we are arguing whether or not the presence of the US will give us anything in return which it hasnt and it wont.
Ore_Ele

Con

My opponent just "moved the goal posts." The original debate was whether we should help or not. Not whether a particular type of help will ultimately be benefitial. There are many, many forms of help, some which are benefitial, some which are not.

Since my opponent accepts that the damage to Japan has harmed the US, he accepts that helping Japan must, in turn, help the US. Whether help plan A or B is better or not, is not part of the original debate.

Extend previous arguments.
Debate Round No. 4
bluesteal27

Pro

my opponent must prove in order to win that by helping Japan, the US is benefitted in some way based on his previous arguments. He has not thus far. Therefore, the Pro should win this debate.

Vote PRO
Ore_Ele

Con

It has already been shown that Japan's economy is tied to our own. Therefore, helping them will help us (because we are tied together, as shown, and not refuted). Providing help to them is helping them (indentity principle and a tautology). I'm not required, by this debate to show that a particular form of help will be successful, since the OP already stated that we are "helping."

So if helping Japan, helps us, then we should do it, since we like to help ourselves.

Thank you.
Debate Round No. 5
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by Koopin 5 years ago
Koopin
*gasp*
Posted by i8JoMomma 6 years ago
i8JoMomma
they should not provide aid to anyone...........worry about ourselves first
Posted by ilovedebate 6 years ago
ilovedebate
haha this debate is moving all over the place
Posted by Ore_Ele 6 years ago
Ore_Ele
Either way, I'm glad that the debate is moving.
Posted by Ore_Ele 6 years ago
Ore_Ele
I think because I started with "Japan can help themselves" however I followed that with "but..."
Posted by Marineboy21 6 years ago
Marineboy21
Wait how did OreEle support him with that argument??
Posted by Ore_Ele 6 years ago
Ore_Ele
exactly 0 characters left in R2, lol.
Posted by Marineboy21 6 years ago
Marineboy21
Well the matter of the US helping Japan is not required as OreEle stated, but we should support then because they are a social ally of the US. I also understand that the US is in debt as well but if another country that the US is associated with is in trouble, why not help that country so the US can possibly get something in return?
Posted by lovedebate 6 years ago
lovedebate
i think just reading the resolve for this debate...i take the aff side...but i would love to be surprized by a great neg...cant wait to see the result!!!

good luck
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Ryanconqueso 6 years ago
Ryanconqueso
bluesteal27Ore_EleTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: All points go to Con. Pro had BOP which he did not provide. He shifted his argument and was beat again on a technicality. Also, I don't know who's not catching it but spelling and grammar also go to con. Pro's arguments were personal, emotional, and unsourced. Clear victory for Con.
Vote Placed by mcgrif15 6 years ago
mcgrif15
bluesteal27Ore_EleTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: pro had better arguments.
Vote Placed by Cliff.Stamp 6 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
bluesteal27Ore_EleTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: "my opponent must prove in order to win that by helping Japan, the US is benefitted in some way " - not really, you have to show the resolution it true, Con just has to show your argument is not sound. As you have made assertions without referenced support Con could have just put up the Lyrics to Friday and won the debate.
Vote Placed by reddj2 6 years ago
reddj2
bluesteal27Ore_EleTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Con-made a better argument and use a sources Pro had BOP and didnt provid a good argument