The Instigator
anton1998
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
numberwang
Con (against)
Winning
4 Points

US aiding Mexico in Drug war

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
numberwang
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/11/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 857 times Debate No: 54469
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (3)
Votes (1)

 

anton1998

Pro

So. I think that US should put in way more effort in battling Drug wars in Mexico. Not just trying to clear drugs in the US, but preventing it from the roots in Mexico
numberwang

Con

I'd be happy to take this challenge and would like to take the this, the first round of my first debate, to accept the debate clarify what exactly we are debating here.

My opponent has taken the position that the United states should be more involved in the drug war; I'd ask that he clarify what exactly the objective of increased American effort would be. I believe that my opponent's position is basically increasing the US effort in Mexico would prevent the drugs from reaching the US and therefore win the war on drugs, but I'm not totally sure so he should clarify. His responsibility will be to defend that statement and I believe that he should have the burden of proof as he is the instigator who is making the claim (if my understanding of his position is correct). If he fails to convincingly justify his position then I will have won.

My responsibility will be to defend the maintenance of the current level of involvement or reduction of American involvement in Mexico, or to generally show that increased involvement would be bad for the US/Mexico and would fail to fulfill whatever objective my opponent claims it will accomplish. I do not believe that I necessarily have to do anything beyond show that the US should not increase their efforts in the drug war. If I fail to convincingly justify my position then he will have won.

I think Round 2 should be for arguments, Rounds 3 and 4 can be for rebuttal and Round 5 can be wrap up. If my opponent is willing to agree to that set up (it's really up to him but he didn't really define a set up so I dont see why he'd object) than we can get this thing started. I wish my opponent good luck and I'd ask that if I am doing this wrong someone please comment and tell me. Cheers.
Debate Round No. 1
anton1998

Pro

anton1998 forfeited this round.
numberwang

Con

Well I"ll try to keep this brief since my opponent may have gone AWOL. My opponent holds that increased US involvement in Mexico (whatever THAT means) would allow the US to win the drug war by eliminating the problem at its source. He says the focus should not be on the US but rather on fixing the problem in Mexico. I assume that he wants an increase in involvement on top of the already existing extensive US involvement in the drug war, which includes joint operations to take out high level targets and more or less unrestricted drone surveillance of Mexico by the US. I do not know exactly what he means by put "way more effort" into Mexico (military, diplomatic, economic aid?) so I"ll just try and make the case that the US should focus more on their end of the drug war which would do more to end it than involving themselves more in Mexico.

The main US involvement of the US in Mexico is supporting operations to capture high priority targets. This plan has been successful in taking out some of the higher level cartel members but ineffective at reducing violence (some say it has had the opposite effect including the President of Mexico (2) or reducing the border activity. The current president, Pena Nieto, has scaled back security efforts and the level of violence had reduced. This is one indication that an increased US security presence would cause more violence. Even though there has been a rise in extortion since the homicide rate fell, the drop is an improvement (1). The US has also made considerable attempts to help finance bilateral efforts through the Merida Initiative. The Merida Initiative has made the training and improvement of the Mexican police and federal forces a priority (5) and has been semi successful in doing so. Pena Nieto has also attempted to grow and improve the Mexican security forces, trying to streamline their organization and redirect all official US business through the Foreign ministry (8). The US cannot do much more than they already are doing, besides continuing to give the Mexicans money and intelligence support to help them in this respect. An increase in American involvement may not be the best thing for a reorganizing Mexico, maintaining the current amount of support is probably the ideal, as the Merida Initiative was designed to help the Mexicans deal with the problem as they saw fit; the US was supposed to follow the lead of the Mexican government (5). Since increasing US military involvement would likely destabilize the situation as they did in 2006, when increased efforts led to 120,000 deaths a year to date (half of which were directly linked to gang activity), this is probably not the best solution, and considering the US is already helping Mexico financially there is no big reason for an increase (or putting in "way more effort") in support this way. The US would be best to shore up the US-Mexico border.

Currently the US is the leading supplier in Mexican weapons, and weak border security allows guns to flow pretty freely into Mexico. Approximately 250,000 guns cross the border illegally (purchased legally in America and are illegally smuggled) annually, investing in reducing this number would do more to reduce violence than more intervention militarily (3). The current estimate for contraband weapons confiscated at the border is 14% (4). Attempts to further reduce the amount of drugs coming across the border couldn't hurt either. Decriminalization of marijuana in the US may also cut down on the wealth of the cartels, as weed is their one of their two main exports, and Uruguay and somewhere else in South America legalized and saw no increase in drug use (7/8).

Anyway that"s all got. I"ll make a stronger case if my opponent comes back, I was kind of lazy with this one.

1 http://www.cfr.org...
2 http://www.theguardian.com...
3 http://fpc.state.gov...
4 http://catcher.sandiego.edu...
5 http://www.wilsoncenter.org...
6 http://seattletimes.com...
7 https://www.ncjrs.gov...
8 http://www.csmonitor.com...(page)/2
Debate Round No. 2
anton1998

Pro

anton1998 forfeited this round.
numberwang

Con

Sorry to see that happen, carry argument forward.
Debate Round No. 3
anton1998

Pro

anton1998 forfeited this round.
numberwang

Con

carry arguments forward.
Debate Round No. 4
anton1998

Pro

anton1998 forfeited this round.
numberwang

Con

Forfeiture by Pro, vote Con!
Debate Round No. 5
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by Ragnar 3 years ago
Ragnar
Just "extend all arguments" until pro comes back.
Posted by Brendan_Liam 3 years ago
Brendan_Liam
to clarify-the us govt WANTS Mexico to keep sending us drugs-if they dont, how can they lock up Americans for no real reason and finally remove their rights?

You have to use reason, not just allow your reasons to parrot the ones given to you by corrupt media who like our govt, use us, not work for us, they exploit their citizens and use the media to indoctrinate you to believe it's normal and makes sense to punish some kid for smoking pot, the same as a rapist, etc....

There is very little our govt does that is to our benefit-and in those cases, its necessary for indoctrination, or an accidental side effect of something else.
Posted by Brendan_Liam 3 years ago
Brendan_Liam
lol you think its about drugs? think again. We have the biggest agency for drug enforcement in the world, yet we also have the biggest drug addiction problem -- which has GROWN every year since the DEA (drug enforcement agency) was created. there is no dispute or debate, that DEA actually makes things worse... there is no data for DEA to be argued as effective, none, ,it all says the opposite-yet their funding grows every year and most departments pale next to their funding..... And this department that is acknowledged as ineffective by our govt, not only survives and gets more money yevery year, but was among the few govt agencies that was so 'critical' it stayed open during the shut down....

So what's going on? Well, as you demonstrated, indoctrination for starters. 2nd it is directly related to and answers to all these questions can be found by realiziing, DEA is designed to deal with those pesky freedoms Americans have that make it hard for a tyrannical govt to rule. We have the worlds largest percentage of people in prison (nearly 1% of our citizens are in prison) and the single largest prison population anywhere on the planet, despite having a relatively small population... 3 million Americans are locked up because of how exaggerated a crime drugs are considered in America-not to protect you, but actually to harm your rights. So rethink that.

So, realize it's got nothing to do with drugs.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Wylted 3 years ago
Wylted
anton1998numberwangTied
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