The Instigator
kaileyanne2016
Pro (for)
Winning
10 Points
The Contender
Aerogant
Con (against)
Losing
3 Points

Unilateral military force against nuclear proliferation

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 3 votes the winner is...
kaileyanne2016
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/15/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 471 times Debate No: 60517
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (3)

 

kaileyanne2016

Pro

Unilateral Military force is required for nuclear proliferation based solely off the most blatant of reasons, that innocent civilians have the possibility to be killed in a terrorist attack by these bombs. Though America is highly secure we aren't a impenetrable fortress, therefore we can still be victims of a terrorist attack. There are many countries that support terrorist groups and not many are in alliance with us. http://en.wikipedia.org...

Therefore we must take action to protect ourselves and our country by enforcing military action to reinforce our safety. Considering all this I hope you vote for Pro.
Aerogant

Con

Throwing around Einstein's toys like we understand them is just selfish and foolish. They are people - when I imagine myself in their shoes; being trapped in a place full of enemies that are targeted by someone with bigger power, I can see that acting upon the fear against innocent bystanders by "securing our safety" would render us unjustified, immoral and not worth saving, for we did not save our own humanity.
Debate Round No. 1
kaileyanne2016

Pro

I wouldn't consider it "throwing around Einstein's toys." Its not just anyone picking up a gun and hunting out some bombs, its trained men and women who have given their lives to protect "our own humanity." But when others are threatening their own kind it gives us justification to defend ourselves. Yes, they are human just like us, but they are the one's creating bombs and targeting schools and businesses for whatever their reasons may be.
Aerogant

Con

You act upon fear of your own safety, this is not what humanity is. That's animosity. There are five stages in living: Animosity, Humanity, Insanity, Self-Humility and Nobody.

You become so attached to yourself and your safety, that you lose face of reality. You become paranoid and lose focus on what really matters through patience, diligence and acceptance that there will be many things that go on in this world that make us want to vomit our heart out, but you must understand that we cannot fix everything and wanting to just cut to chase because you cannot face consequences that are inevitable isn't going to guaranteed that it will make things better - it may make things worse!

Do you know why this is even a reality right now? The U.S couldn't keep their damned noses out of other people's businesses, so they killed Saddam Hussein, thinking he was bad - see what happens when monkeys get a hold of power and convince people they know what they are talking about because they wear military suits and talk like robots? No, they have no idea what they are talking about - talking like they do is the result of having no humanity and being made of 100% psychopathy.

You need to wake up and understand the heart of war's existence. It's a mental conflict within ourselves that we project unto the real world. People live their bloody fears in a world that has no relation to their own undoing, but it's happening and people are suffering for these lunatics that do not understand how to deal with their anguish on the inside! If there was no idiots following war chiefs, there wouldn't be any wars!

He who wants power, has not any; he who does not seek power, has it all.
Debate Round No. 2
kaileyanne2016

Pro

Though there is thought of ones safety in mind, that does not mean we are attached. When we see these things that make us want to " vomit it our hearts out" shouldn't we do something about it? Why must we sit behind computer screens or on our couches and let others fight out battles for us? I do not consider this nosiness, I consider this putting our big boy pants on and taking actions to prevent harm to the ones we love.
The U.S were not being nosy and snooping in other world affairs, I believe that we were connected to Iraq in multiple ways. One being they are our oil providers, and two they were abusing the unalienable rights of the Iraqis. You say we "thought" he was bad, but did you actually know what he did? http://en.wikipedia.org...

If you don't stand up for what's right, who will?
Aerogant

Con

It's called accepting one's limits. By acting as you do, you're being rash - do you want to be on your death bed and have to tell your peers "my existential butt has a rash on it; long ago I made a mistake..."

Uh, you do know that being nosy is why this is happening? Need I remind you that we're trading them guns for their oil? Did it ever occur to you that the U.S are nothing but liars and greedy monkeys lining their pocket while lining our graveyards with the people they deceived?

Yes, they were most certainly being nosy. Their unjustified steps on their soil is what lead to 9/11. If George Bush wasn't such a monkey and our population wasn't full of needy neanderthals - none of this would be happening. Now the people will have to face their consequences for allowing a greater evil to be born. It's all the people fault - they need to face their bloody consequences, for all the blood they have taken granted will one day come right back at them.

There's no standing up while you're between two evils.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by FuzzyCatPotato 2 years ago
FuzzyCatPotato
kaileyanne2016AerogantTied
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:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro had a source. Con was offensive. Con never defeated "bombs kill people, we must stop bombs".
Vote Placed by AlternativeDavid 2 years ago
AlternativeDavid
kaileyanne2016AerogantTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:33 
Reasons for voting decision: I did not find either argument particularly compelling. However, I have to award Con with the points for better argument because I do not believe that Pro fulfilled his burden of proof. Pro gets sources because Con used none. Pro also gets conduct points because Con used ad hominem arguments in round three.
Vote Placed by birdlandmemories 2 years ago
birdlandmemories
kaileyanne2016AerogantTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: Once again, con had bad conduct and kept ranting, puttinf forth weak arguments.