The Instigator
tejretics
Pro (for)
Winning
21 Points
The Contender
Lexus
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

WAR GAME SCENARIO: United States v. Chosen Nation

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 3 votes the winner is...
tejretics
Voting Style: Open Point System: Select Winner
Started: 3/15/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,674 times Debate No: 71640
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (34)
Votes (3)

 

tejretics

Pro

This is a war debate. It is impossible to accept this debate. If you want to accept, please send me a PM. If you somehow find a way to accept this debate, you will automatically forfeit the complete 7 points. Tell me what country you will represent and tell me why I should choose you to be my opponent; give me a very good reason as to why you want to do this debate and why you would be a worthy opponent. I am the United States of America. Comment if you are interested. If you want to debate, message me.

If you are a member of the Art of War (AOW) debate group [created by @The-Voice-of-Truth], then you must vote on this debate. If you are a member of AOW and accept this debate, then state your win/loss ratio.

If you are interested in joining AOW, message @TheRussian or @The-Voice-of-Truth. The primary prerequisite to join this group is: you have to have participated in AT LEAST ONE war debate. If you are a member of AOW, you must vote on other members' war debates unless a valid reason is given. You can challenge other members to debates related to war game scenarios.

There is a Moderator who will ensure that this debate follows the below rules. For this debate, the Moderator is @The-Voice-of-Truth

There are some strict rules that apply. Voters must penalize any violation of the rules.

1. When you accept the debate, state your country, and state the numbers of your armed forces (aircraft, men, ships, etc.). Use this source for military numbers ONLY, as it is the most reliable: http://www.globalfirepower.com......;

2. Each country's turn can range from about 3 days to 60 days long, so all actions must be in accordance with this time period. (DO NOT try to win in one turn! Take into account that your opponent is also a living, thinking being that can adapt to a situation.)

3. Morale is a key factor in your armed forces' effectiveness.

4. You may produce more military forces (soldiers, ships, aircraft, tanks/humvees/cavalry), but it depends on your military budget, your country's population, and how industrialized your nation is.

5. You may choose to invade or defend.

6. The defender makes the first move.

7. The defender's primary military objective is to remove the attacker's forces from the defender's territory. The attacker's primary military objective is to annex the other country, or destroy it (physically, economically, etc). Secondary military objectives can be made by the debaters if they wish. Fulfillment of the military objectives is victory. If either side fails to fulfill their set objectives, the voters are free to reasonably determine the winner based off of who was more successful in completing their objectives.

8. If a nation's capital is destroyed/liberated, this does not necessarily mean that the war is won; the capital could be recaptured. If one of the debaters destroys or controls the administration of the opposing country, OR if the opposing country is destroyed to the point of no administration, then that debater is immediately guaranteed a 7-point victory.

9. Every aspect of the war must be realistic and must remain within the parameters established by the rules and the title. Any unrealistic action and actions deviating from the rules will cause the entire action to be void. Any further deviation after the first void action will result in a complete debate forfeiture.

10. Weapons of mass destruction are NOT allowed. A WMD is defined as:

-Radiological weapon or a radiological dispersion device
: any weapon designed to spread radioactive material


-Nuclear or Thermonuclear weapon:
an explosive device that derives its destructive force from nuclear reactions


-Chemical weapon
: a device that inflicts chemicals designed to harm or kill humans/animals


-Biological weapon
: the use of biological toxins or infectious organisms to inflict damage.


Non-conventional detonation of conventional weapons IS allowed.


11. No allies (NATO, UN, Muslim Brotherhood, or otherwise) under ANY circumstances. Annexation of other countries or agreements that allow formations of larger nations and/or direct military intervention is NOT allowed. Personnel and forces CANNOT be supplied by other nations.

You CAN have military or diplomatic agreements and/or treaties with other nations (agreements not to interfere etc). Radical groups, militant organizations, paramilitary factions et cetera are NOT allowed.

Religion is NOT a factor. No economic sanctions from any other nation, but economic warfare is allowed.

12. Cyberwarfare is allowed. Electronic warfare is limited to radar/radio jamming and interception; NO EMPs.

13. The country chosen must be one of the 206 sovereign states recognized by the United Nations as of 2015. Former states such as the USSR are not accepted, nor are territory-controlling factions not officially recognized by the United Nations, such as the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL, currently the Islamic State), and Gaza Strip, controlled by Hamas, but recognized by the UN as a part of Palestine. You cannot choose my nation.

14. Appropriate conduct MUST be maintained: no insults, cursing, profanity, vulgar language or trolling. Any violation of appropriate conduct WILL BE REPORTED to DDO authorities.

15. If you fail to follow the rules once, you will be given a warning and your actions in that round will be void. Further disobedience of ANY of these rules WILL result in an immediate loss of the debate.

16. The Instigator is Pro.

17. These debates are strictly Force versus Force; no civilian action is allowed unless Total War is declared.

18. TOTAL WAR can be declared in situations of major threat and only as an absolute last resort. Total war is defined as the complete mobilization of all available manpower of the country. In a state of total war, every able citizen either joins the military personnel or the military labor workforce.

19. All scenarios MUST be realistic; there MUST be an established reason for conflict.

20. We may either follow the date-time storyline format, or state the events that occur directly as realistically possible in a period of 45 days.

21. This is a Category 2 AOW debate, which does not allow the usage of WMDs.

I will provide my numbers in this round:

MANPOWER
Total Population: 320,202,220
Available Manpower: 145,212,012
Fit for Service: 120,022,084
Reaching Military Age Annually: 4,217,412
Active Frontline Personnel: 1,430,000
Active Reserve Personnel: 1,100,000

LAND SYSTEMS
Tanks: 8,848
Armored Fighting Vehicles: 41,062
Self-Propelled Guns: 1,934
Towed Artillery: 1,299
Multiple Launch Rocket Systems: 1,331

AIR POWER
Total Aircraft: 13,892
Fighters/Interceptors: 2,207
Fixed-Wing Attack Aircraft: 2,797
Transport Aircraft: 5,366
Trainer Aircraft: 2,809
Helicopters: 6,196
Attack Helicopters: 920

NAVAL POWER
Total Naval Strength: 473
Aircraft Carriers: 20
Frigates: 10
Destroyers: 62
Corvettes: 0
Submarines: 72
Coastal Defense Craft: 13
Mine Warfare: 11

RESOURCES
Oil Production: 7,441,200 bbl/day
Oil Consumption: 19,000,000 bbl/day
Proven Oil Reserves: 20,680,000,000 bbl/day

LOGISTICAL
Labor Force: 155,400,000
Merchant Marine Strength: 393
Major Ports & Terminals: 24
Roadway Coverage: 6,586,610
Railway Coverage: 224,792
Serviceable Airports: 13,513

FINANCIAL (in USD)
Defense Budget: $577,100,000,000
External Debt: $15,680,000,000,000
Reserves of Foreign Exchange & Gold: $150,200,000,000
GDP (PPP): $16,720,000,000,000

GEOGRAPHY (in KM)
Square Land Area: 9,826,675 km
Coastline: 19,924 km
Shared Border: 12,048 km
Waterways: 41,009 km

http://www.globalfirepower.com......;

My opponent will be @Lexus as Switzerland. She has chosen to defend and as the defender makes the first move, she must make her move in Round 1 to strengthen her defenses.

MAY THE WAR BEGIN!

Lexus

Con

Thanks for starting this debate, tejretics.

I am going to be the Confederation of Switzlerand against the United States of America.

Fire Power: [3]
Total population: 8,061,516*
Available Manpower: 3,615,595
Fit for Service: 2,952,959*
Reaching Military Age Annually: 89,147*
Active Frontline Personnel: 135,000*
Active Reserve Personnel: 77,000*

Tanks: 224*
AFVs: 1,032*
SPGs: 224*

Total aircraft: 189*
Fighters: 67*

Reserves of Foreign Exchange and Gold: $536,300,000,000*
Purchasing Power Parity: $371,200,000,000*

* = will change after my orders of business.

Orders of Business

March 16, 2015
The Confederation of Switzerland notices the hostility it is being faced from by the Americans, and because of this, and because of a worrying increase in the number of Sovereign Citizens on the earth, the Parliament enacts a bill which makes ALL people on the Earth, except for those born in the USA and currently are resigning in the USA, citizens of Switzerland.

March 17-20, 2015
In response to the passing of this bill and the speculation behind it, all other nations of the EU pass similar laws that say that all citizens of their home country are hereby citizens of Switzerland, and are placed under their laws and actions, WHILE RETAINING CITIZENSHIP AND RESIDING RIGHTS of their mother country. This is allowed because the nation has not increased in size, as per the rules.

March 22, 2015
The Parliament passes a bill which seizes ALL of the money that is owned in swiss bank accounts in an effort to collect some money in anticipation that the US will become more aggressive. Indians alone have over $1.4TRILLION in dark, illegal money, so that is added to our total reserves [1]. The two largest banks combined have assets worth $2.5TRILLION, which is added atop of the illegal Indian dark money which is not accounted for in these findings [2]. This means that the total amount of "reserves of foreign exchange and gold" is changed from a mere $0.5TRILLION to $4.4TRILLION.
We take 20% of this figure and add it on top of the defense budget, which means that we have an increase from $4BILLION to $884BILLION. This is notably higher than the amount of money that the US on hand in defense, which is only $577BILLION.

March 28, 2015
Donations from the private citizens of the EU and the rest of the world (notably, North Korean citizens donate a lot of money) accumulate to over $13BILLION which is all used to buy exactly 1733 more tanks, which cost $7.5MILLION each [4]. This means that we have a total of 1957 tanks, and then we can call onto our labor force to create a few more in the next few days to create even more.

April 2nd, 2015
The Labor Force has created 43 more tanks from recycled materials in some warehouses' offtime. This makes the total amount of tanks owned by Swizerland 2000, which is notably lower than the amount of tanks owned by USA.



[1]: http://en.wikipedia.org...
[2]: http://en.wikipedia.org...
[3]: http://www.globalfirepower.com...
[4]: http://www.dailymail.co.uk...;(I got my number from here)


(Yes, I have followed all of the rules. I am not making an alliance with EU nations since I declared them citizens, this is allowed because it also has an out-of-war application [sovereign citizens]. You are not allowed to fight me about this issue, I have read the rules, I am allowed to use this to my advantage).
(I am allowed to liquidate the assets owned by Swiss banks, because they are within my borders and this magical thing called sovereignty exists, where I can create basically any law I want that is justifiable, which mine is because we are in a time of war).
(We are allowed to take donations. You would too if you had a total number of citizens [before change] being only 8MILLION).

Back to you, PRO.
Debate Round No. 1
tejretics

Pro

None of the NATO countries will realistically join Switzerland, as they are all aligned towards the United States, nor will any major non-NATO ally or any countries aligned toward the United States. All the citizenship given to people have to be dual citizenship with their own countries. Therefore, they are considered part of those countries. As DIRECT INTERVENTION is not allowed, this is still considered false. Nonetheless, I will show you the flaws of this scenario:

In response to the passing of the bill and the speculation of the bill, all other nations of the EU pass similar laws that say that all citizens of their home country are hereby citizens of Switzerland and are placed under their laws and actions WHILE RETAINING CITIZENSHIP AND RESIDING RIGHTS of their mother country.

While this is technically allowed, 22 of the 28 EU member states are members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization of which Switzerland is not a member. As all NATO members are aware of individual military actions of each other, 22 US-aligned states of the EU are aware of the "increasing hostility from the United States." In a realistic situation, therefore, NATO is politically an enemy of Switzerland. While it cannot exercise direct intervention, it realistically will not support Switzerland in any political or economic way. Therefore, 22 EU member states, i.e. 77.57% vote in the EU, will be against this strengthening of ties with a United States enemy and, therefore, a NATO enemy. By rules 19 and 9, every aspect of the war must be realistic. This aspect is completely unrealistic.

Donations from the private citizens of the EU and the rest of the world amount to $13 billion.

It is likely that all 28 NATO member states will ban donation to Switzerland. Therefore, 22 of 28 EU nations will not supply donations and it is likely that nations such as Germany, France, and UK can supply the most money. To ensure fair relations with NATO, the EU will ban donations entirely in a realistic situation, as will the 53 Commonwealth nations, being economically supportive of the UK's allies. Therefore, this aspect is also entirely unrealistic.

Rebuttals:

Australia, New Zealand, South Korea, Japan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Israel, Pakistan, India, South Africa, and Brazil are the countries most heavily dependent on the United States, along with all NATO and EU members, and Mexico. According to a political analysis, China is careful not to DIRECTLY antagonize the United States because its economy is 175.6% dependent on the United States. [1] All the BRICS nations and the stock markets of various countries are heavily reliant on the USD. [2] Therefore, for fear of economic retaliation, most UN member states will declare the Swiss proclamation invalid to their nation and forbid donations and drafting of troops.

Therefore, as these scenarios are unrealistic, by Rule 9, I give you a warning and declare your moves in Round 1 void. Any further violation will result in Con's complete debate forfeiture. I allow Con to strengthen her defenses in Round 2 without making offensive moves. I will begin the war in Round 3.

Sources:

[1] http://www.forbes.com...;
[2] http://orientalreview.org...;
Lexus

Con

You keep talking about hyper-realism and how we must make it so that this war would occur in real life and have strategies that are real... but in what instance would the US declare WAR on a neutral country such as Switzerland? Because there would never be war, this ENTIRE DEBATE is declared void. You cannot win a nonexistant war, since war itself has been declared void.

"it [NATO] realistically will not support Switzerland in any political or economic way"
And they are not. They are increasing my civilian total, which is allowed per the rules. NATO is not funding me. Its citizens are. That's totally fine. That's like saying that there will not be US investment worldwide, just because a nation is being hostilized by another one.
Also, you said that there can be NO alliances, NOR enemies! This means that, who cares if NATO doesn't want to fund me, the nations are SOVEREIGN and are allowed to rule themselves, and pass their own laws.
Your accusations are declared VOID!

"NATO is politically an enemy of Switzerland"
NATO would not be politically an enemy of a nation that tries to be peaceful in times of hostility. There is no war yet, and there never will be due to declaration of war being VOID. NATO might only be politically an enemy if we engage in hostile acts, which we have not done at all, yet. We are allowed to liquidate all bank accounts. We are allowed to make all non-US people on earth citizens. NATO has no say and they won't be an enemy for our own, private acts.

"Therefore, 22 EU member states, i.e. 77.57% vote in the EU, will be against this strengthening of ties with a United States enemy"
United States is not my enemy.
The EU has no say. The nations themselves pass bills, but the nations just so happen to be in the EU. Sovereignty is intact for these nations. Your accusations that nobody would increase citizenship are declared VOID.

"It is likely that all 28 NATO member states will ban donation to Switzerland. "
Why would they? There is no war. There is no hostility on our side. If anything they would break ties with the US.
Your accusation is declared VOID.

"EU will ban donations entirely in a realistic situation"
Why would they? Again, there is no war and there never WILL be a war. Your point is VOID.

"China is careful not to DIRECTLY antagonize the United States "
And neither will Switzerland. Just because I have ~7,000,000,000 new citizens does not mean that they must be hostile.
I didn't ask China to fund me, I did not ask China to supply me troops. They did not and I will not ask them. I don't see your point at all...
Your point is VOID because it is completely tangential to the debate.

"All the BRICS nations and the stock markets of various countries are heavily reliant on the USD"
This does not matter at all. Who cares if they are reliant? There will be no war, so your point is completely tangential and considered VOID.

"Therefore, for fear of economic retaliation, most UN member states will declare the Swiss proclamation invalid to their nation and forbid donations and drafting of troops"
We're not drafting troops. We are just taking these things called Sovereign Citizens (which claim to not be under ANY LAWS in ANY country) and making sure that they are citizens of Switzerland, so they can at least have a place to live. This is not evil and our intentions are valid, so your point is VOID. The UN does NOT declare the Swiss proclomation invalid!

"Therefore, as these scenarios are unrealistic, by Rule 9, I give you a warning and declare your moves in Round 1 void"
Nothing I have done is unrealistic, nor void. You are wrong.
However, everything that you do after this is VOID, because war would never start, and you are supposed to start a non-existant war!

Everything you do after this is VOID and I win the debate. Thanks for trying to declare war on the Swiss, but it will not work.
Debate Round No. 2
tejretics

Pro

This is a hypothetical situation. Hence, this is called a War GAME Scenario. So, any situation can be taken in that MIGHT happen realistically. But your moves are COMPLETELY unrealistic. You say the US has started hostilities and have been making moves for me. Since you blatantly refuse to begin your defenses, I will begin the scenario. The war ISN'T real; it is a fictional scenario. This is subject to the SCENARIO. I haven't declared war; the point of this debate is to CREATE a scenario that puts the US in a position of war against Switzerland.

You said the EU passes a bill that says "all citizens of the EU are hereby citizens of Switzerland and are placed under their laws and actions ...."

Countries will not accept to be placed under another country's laws and actions. This is completely unrealistic.

The rule says all aspects of the war must be realistic, not the declaration of the war itself. This is an aspect of the war in all technicality because of the accumulation of forces and defenses. Therefore, my actions are NOT void.

A reconnaissance satellite of the NRO shows a major security alert in the Swiss military. US intelligence detects the liquidation of Swiss banks and fears the mobilization of Swiss forces against American military bases near the Mediterranean. The US begins mobilization of forces from its naval bases in Italy and Greece. It makes a military agreement to station troops in Germany and France and begins naval movement from the eastern garrisons of the United States.

The United States threatens the Swiss government with economic sanctions, but Switzerland continues its military mobilization, threatening nearby military bases of the US.

4 Arleigh Burke-class destroyers are moved to the Northern Sea, in between the UK and France. The destroyers are armed with BGM-109 Tomahawk cruise missiles, each with a warhead of a BLU-97/B Combined Effects Bomb or a filling of 1000 pounds of pentaerythritol tetranitrate. 7 ballistic missile submarines with conventional UGM-133A Trident II SLBMs. The destroyers also have RIM-66 Standard MRs tipped with blast fragmentation warheads. Mk 41 VLS launchers are also deployed for launching the missiles. There are also RIM-161 Standard Missile IIIs.

The aircraft deployed are Boeing F/A-18/F Super Hornets, Boeing EA-18G Growlers, Lockheed-Boeing F-22 Raptors, Lockheed MC-130E Combat Talon Is, and Lockheed MC-130H Combat Talon IIs. A squadron of Boeing EA-18G Growlers is sent to jam satellite and radar communication. The jam is successful, shutting down and intercepting communications. RIM-161 Standard Missile IIIs are deployed as ASAT weapons to destroy satellite targets. All Swiss satellites are destroyed, crippling Swiss communication means and shattering the Onyx intelligence system.

The United States launches a cyber strike on the weak Swiss cyberspace. The destruction of satellites has crippled the Swiss cyberspace, allowing for easy access of cyberwarfare in various power stations. Power stations are shut down, shutting down electricity in Geneva, Zurich, and Berne. The cyber strike cripples the Swiss digital infrastructure, shutting down military bases etc. Communications have been completely shut down and crippled. US Land Forces are stationed at the French-Swiss border.

I sincerely request Con to react as in a normal military situation with military moves.
Lexus

Con

Aspect: a particular part or feature of something.
A particular part of war is its start.

War has not been started, because the beginning of war is, by definition, an aspect of war. You must realistically describe all aspects of the war. You have not done this.
You say that the US arms itself because the Swiss decide to liquidate their own banks within their own borders, within their own sovereign rights. This is not believable. Your action is declared VOID. War is declared VOID.

All of your Round Three is declared VOID. You do not mobilize any troops or any materiel. You do not threaten the Swiss government with economic sanctions.

The Swiss do not take any action this round, except for this:
We give all of our tanks to the Holy See, as they are a very small nation that depends on outside governments to protect them.
The nation of Switzerland has 0 tanks after this round.

"I sincerely request Con to react as in a normal military situation with military moves."
Request denied. War does not start, military personnel are not moved, nothing is mobilized on either side. I will not react without reason.

Back to you, pro.
Debate Round No. 3
tejretics

Pro

No, the United States reacts to war because of the fictional mobilization of Swiss troops that may affect the military strategies of United States armed forces in nearby military bases.

If you refuse to act, there is no point in accepting this debate. Since you are not planning on doing anything, there is no point to this debate. I suggest that you forfeit this debate entirely, since you don't seem to want to do this scenario.

Since there is no reaction on Switzerland's part, with the increased alert continuing and EU economies crippling (Switzerland is essential for EU economies), the US declares war on Switzerland. NATO, UN etc declare neutrality in the conflict. The events of the previous round ARE NOT VOID. It is realistic and fair, and you have misinterpreted it.

The US sends squadrons of aircraft to Geneva, Zurich, and Berne, and military forces occupy the cities. All Swiss military movement is attacked with GBU-43/B Massive Ordnance Air Blast bombs and BLU-97/B Combined Effects Bombs. Conventional fragmentation Tridents are launched to strike military bases across Switzerland. Switzerland is crippled because of the cyber attack.

The Swiss military cannot react, and communications are shattered. The military swiftly captures Berne, Zurich, and Geneva, and renders the Jungfrau and Meiringen bases dysfunctional. Soon, all bases cripple and are shut down. The United States does not send any Land Forces and sends Switzerland its terms of surrender, that state that Switzerland becomes an autonomous direct democratic external district of the United States.
Lexus

Con

" I suggest that you forfeit this debate entirely, since you don't seem to want to do this scenario. "
I do. You are not following your own rules, yet expect me to follow them. This is not acceptable. I will not forfeit.

"Switzerland is essential for EU economies"
No it is not. Switzerland does not use the Euro.

" the US declares war on Switzerland"
This is not realistic. The Euro has not crumbled and neither has the EU, for the point that I explained above.
You have broken Rule 9 which says that you must keep all actions realistic. You declaring war is VOID.

"The US sends squadrons of aircraft to Geneva, Zurich, and Berne, and military forces occupy the cities. All Swiss military movement is attacked with GBU-43/B Massive Ordnance Air Blast bombs and BLU-97/B Combined Effects Bombs. Conventional fragmentation Tridents are launched to strike military bases across Switzerland. Switzerland is crippled because of the cyber attack. The Swiss military cannot react, and communications are shattered. The military swiftly captures Berne, Zurich, and Geneva, and renders the Jungfrau and Meiringen bases dysfunctional. Soon, all bases cripple and are shut down. The United States does not send any Land Forces and sends Switzerland its terms of surrender, that state that Switzerland becomes an autonomous direct democratic external district of the United States."
This does not occur because war was never declared, which is necessary for an invasion.
This is not realistic without war, so this is VOID.
All of Round 4 has been declared VOID because you have broken your own rules.

My actions this round are this:

The Swiss government sees how the future for technology is booming, and they decide to reallocate a lot of their funds from the sudden liquidation of funds into a donation to Bill Gates, which means that he has an increase of funds of $3TRILLION.
This sudden fluctuation of money that goes into the economy sets off mass speculation in the stock market, which means that people pull all of their money out before their stocks are worth nothing (this happened before, so you can't say this is not realistic, just look at 1929 in the USA). The stock market crashes in the USA, stocks are worth nothing.
The USD is not worth anything after the crash.
The USA is crushed financially, and must take out its funding to military and bring it into help containing the riots that are going to be present all around the country.
Because I have crushed the USA financially, I have won this debate.
A war was never necessary.
Debate Round No. 4
tejretics

Pro

Why would people pull out their stocks? SWITZERLAND has donated massive amounts of money to Bill Gates. What speculation? Be specific and describe the details accurately.

Switzerland is the EU's fourth largest trading partner. Switzerland accounts to 5.2% of the EU's imports. 47.2 billion euros worth imports of the EU were from Switzerland in 2008, with a constant increase rate. [1] A process of hasty liquidation of banks will cripple banks. This will destroy solvency of banks and the absorption of liquidated banks' money into the government instead of the usual process of redistribution begins crippling Swiss economy. This will result in a steep fall in the stock market. [2] Since the EU is so dependent on Switzerland, only if Switzerland frees its banks will the EU's economy rise. The EU is a major trade partner of the US and so this affects the US directly. Therefore, I did not break the rules.

What speculation? Such an economic depression in the US must be described in detail. In 1929, the economic crash was caused by the hasty liquidation of banks and nothing else. [3] Since you have not described it, I will consider it a void action; you may repeat it in the next round with explanation.

Since this is a conflict of rules, I ask the debate moderators (@TheRussian and @The-Voice-of-Truth) to check the rules and make the final decision as to the situation followed. Nonetheless, I will continue the strategic expansion of war. And ALL Swiss communications have been crippled and shut down. The cyber strike has rendered all Swiss digital infrastructure crippled and dysfunctional. All intra- and international communications have been shut down. Therefore, you have not won the debate. Your economy is crippled and shattered. I now announce the shutting down of all trades of the United States with Switzerland. The JEC is shut down. The Trade and Investment Cooperational Forum Agreement is invalid. Banning of Swiss exports and imports has a major impact on Switzerland; most of Swiss energy reserves are from the US. [4] Switzerland gains $53 billion worth of goods annually from the US. Swiss GDP (PPP) is $371.2 billion, so US trade makes up for 14% of Swiss economy figures. Swiss trade makes for a mere 0.257% of US economy figures. The absorption of all bank money into the Swiss government's use has left many people virtually bankrupt, resulting in a major economic crash. In response, people stop investing in the Swiss stock market, thus resulting in a stock market crash. Switzerland investments are crippled, so Switzerland has no way to donate to Bill Gates to cripple American economy (which is very far-fetched).

Continuing the War:
I send an additional squadron of fixed-wing attack aircraft and Lockheed MC-130H Combat Talon IIs, dropping GBU-43/B MOABs in all primary combat zones and releasing soldiers to annex Geneva and Zurich. Northwest Switzerland has low mountain density, so the target is from the French border personnel of the USAF. Soon, soldiers from both cities prepare to send forces to Berne.

Sources:
[1] http://ec.europa.eu...
[2] http://www.britannica.com...
[3] Frank, Robert H.; Bernanke, Ben S. (2007).Principles of Macroeconomics (3rd ed.). Boston: McGraw-Hill/Irwin. p. 98. ISBN 0-07-319397-6.
[4] https://ustr.gov...
Lexus

Con

You are striving for hyperrealism but when I give you realism you do not accept it.
I tell you that your war proclomation is invalid, yet you continue to fight a non-existant war. None of your actions are valid, because they MUST have a war in order to be started, and there was no war.
People pull out stocks because there is a person in the United States who went from $60BILLION to $1TRILLION. This is not a healthy economy.. if you understood how economies worked then you would agree that this massive increase in wealth is not healthy.

This is the worst debate I have ever taken part in, everything you are posting is so unrealistic it is unbelievable, but you are using small technicalities to bring down my case.
All of your case has been declared VOID because the actions must have a war proclomation and there has not been one. Declare war then fight. You cannot do what you are doing without war.

I win this debate for one reason: you have made no points that are even valid. You have taken no actions that are valid, while I have. Liquidation of banks is a valid move, you attacking me without war is not.

(I sense imminent bias from those who are going to vote on the debate because they are in the same "group" as you for war-type debates and made the rules. "I ask the debate moderators to check the rules and make the final decision". Okay, cool cool...)
Debate Round No. 5
34 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by bluesteel 1 year ago
bluesteel
===================================================================
>Reported vote: Prodigy0789 // Moderator action: Removed<

Voted for Pro. {RFD = Reasons for voting decision: Lexus pulled a trademarked move, called, "The Prodigy." The Prodigy ( as described in the dictionary): When one partakes in a war debate but sees that someone has pointed out that his reasoning is wrong and it actually is. But instead of acknowledging it, they hide behind a false facade of truth. I would like to partake in a war debate, and later join the AOW, now that time is not my most limited resource.}

[*Reason for removal*] This RFD has nothing to do with the debate. The user merely wrote an ode to himself.
=====================================================================
Posted by bluesteel 1 year ago
bluesteel
====================================================================
>Reported vote: Dynasty2468 // Moderator action: Removed<

Voted for Pro. {RFD = Reasons for voting decision: LExus did not state his argument and follow the rule.}

[*Reason for removal*] Given that there were 21 rules, that Con argued he did not break any of them, and that the core of this debate was about whether both sides could adhere to all the rules, it is an insufficient RFD to just say that Con did not follow the rules. Running 21 rules is like running 21 arguments. It would be insufficient to just say "Con made a bad argument, therefore I vote Pro." This is what Dynasty's RFD amounts to. More specificity than this is required for a valid RFD, in order to provide meaningful feedback to the debaters.
====================================================================
Posted by Gabe1e 1 year ago
Gabe1e
I will vote.
Posted by Dynasty2468 1 year ago
Dynasty2468
I'll be voting as soon as possible. I contacted airmax and now waiting for his action.
Posted by Lexus 1 year ago
Lexus
"@Tejretics, I have no real feedback to give to you. Your actions held true to realism. Good Debate."
Lol.
Posted by The-Voice-of-Truth 1 year ago
The-Voice-of-Truth
---------------MESSAGE FROM THE MODERATOR---------------

Sorry about the double-post; ignore the second one.
Posted by The-Voice-of-Truth 1 year ago
The-Voice-of-Truth
---------------MESSAGE (AND RFD) FROM THE MODERATOR CONTINUED---------------

@Tejretics, I have no real feedback to give to you. Your actions held true to realism. Good Debate.

@Lexus, if you do so desire to continue doing war debates, I suggest that you conduct research on military stratagem and tactics. Read books about wars and what really happened, and analyze battles and attempt to formulate ideas in your mind about what could have been done better by either side. Study the military forces of nations and formulate scenarios in your mind. Study diplomacy and politics to help you formulate realistic scenarios. Try to create some realistic scenarios in your mind based off of the information that you have acquired from research.
Posted by The-Voice-of-Truth 1 year ago
The-Voice-of-Truth
---------------MESSAGE (AND RFD) FROM THE MODERATOR CONTINUED---------------

@Tejretics, I have no real feedback to give to you. Your actions held true to realism. Good Debate.

@Lexus, if you do so desire to continue doing war debates, I suggest that you conduct research on military stratagem and tactics. Read books about wars and what really happened, and analyze battles and attempt to formulate ideas in your mind about what could have been done better by either side. Study the military forces of nations and formulate scenarios in your mind. Study diplomacy and politics to help you formulate realistic scenarios. Try to create some realistic scenarios in your mind based off of the information that you have acquired from research.
Posted by The-Voice-of-Truth 1 year ago
The-Voice-of-Truth
---------------MESSAGE (AND RFD) FROM THE MODERATOR---------------

OK, as Moderator, I declare that @Tejretics wins this debate.

1) @Lexus' move making all inhabitants of the Earth (except for those of the U.S) would not have stood in real-life. There are nations (such as Russia) that would hate this immensely. Realistically, these nations would take militarized action against Switzerland, while allied with the U.S (since this war began as U.S vs. Switzerland), which would result in the total annihilation of Switzerland. This is a WW3 scenario. @Lexus does not take this into account. This action is rightfully declared void, as it is unrealistic, and a violation of rule 9.

2) @Lexus' move in increasing arms production and numbers IS CONSIDERED AN ACT OF WAR. Thus, there was a war. @Tejretics also openly declared war before responding to @Lexus' actions (which were declared void by @Lexus); His actions were justified and were not void.

3) @Tejretics was correct in declaring that a majority of the EU nations are in NATO, and would naturally lean towards the United States in a war, even though allies are not allowed. @Tejretics was correct in declaring @Lexus' actions regarding making all inhabitants of the Earth (except for those of the U.S) citizens of Switzerland void.

4) @Lexus' declaring all inhabitants of the Earth (except for those of the U.S) as citizens of Switzerland IS against rule 11. Since this action makes all people (again, other than those of the U.S) citizens of Switzerland, all other nations, though with independent governments, are obligated by international law to protect and support the citizens of Switzerland, which makes those countries allies with Switzerland. Allies are against rule 11. This action is void.

@Lexus is in violation of rules 9 and 11. The violation of 2 rules (@Lexus was given a warning, but violated another rule) results in the complete forfeiture of the debate by @Lexus.
Posted by tejretics 1 year ago
tejretics
"Since there is no reaction on Switzerland's part, with the increased alert continuing and EU economies crippling (Switzerland is essential for EU economies), the US declares war on Switzerland." Here I clearly said I DECLARED WAR. So, her rebuttals are void.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Gabe1e 1 year ago
Gabe1e
tejreticsLexus
Who won the debate:Vote Checkmark-
Reasons for voting decision: Basically, there was no war. Both sides argued over if the debate was a void or not. However, Con then attempted to make the entire world population citizens of Switzerland and then tried to act upon that, which was violating Rule 19. However, this is highly unrealistic, and the USA would never go to war with Switzerland. There is really no intention. But, it was Con's choice to pick Switzerland in the first place. So Con really made the whole debate a void. Overall, no war happened whatsoever, but Con 1. Broke the rules, and 2. Set the whole debate up as a void herself.
Vote Placed by TheRussian 1 year ago
TheRussian
tejreticsLexus
Who won the debate:Vote Checkmark-
Reasons for voting decision: This was not really a war debate so I ask that tejretics does NOT include this debate in his War Debate Record. I give the victory to Pro for the following reasons: 1) Con said "Switzerland notices the hostility it is being faced from by the Americans". What hostility? This is not a reason for war. 2) Con violated Rule 19 because of her attempt to make the entire world population citizens of Switzerland and then tried to act upon that. I would not consider this a violation if she didn't continue arguing that. I agree, if Con was just going to make a scandal out of the situation, she shouldn't have accepted.
Vote Placed by The-Voice-of-Truth 1 year ago
The-Voice-of-Truth
tejreticsLexus
Who won the debate:Vote Checkmark-
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in Comments.