The Instigator
danielawesome12
Pro (for)
Losing
2 Points
The Contender
LotusNG
Con (against)
Winning
8 Points

Was Vietnam an American victory.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 2 votes the winner is...
LotusNG
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/25/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,542 times Debate No: 32917
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (8)
Votes (2)

 

danielawesome12

Pro

I believe America won the Vietnam war
Round 1 is for introduction
No Trolling.
LotusNG

Con

Thank you for making such an interesting debate topic. I'm happy to accept it.

I'm going to assume by Vietnam you mean the Vietnam war in which the Communist North Vietnam fought with Democratic South Vietnam during the Cold War.
Debate Round No. 1
danielawesome12

Pro

I believe the major reasons the Vietnam war was an American Victory is because 1. The U.S. never lost a battle. If you don't lose a battle how can you lose a war. 2. The U.S. killed over 1,000,000 soviets and injured 600,000 while the Soviets killed under 60,000 and injured 300,000.
LotusNG

Con

"I believe the major reasons the Vietnam war was an American Victory is because 1. The U.S. never lost a battle. If you don't lose a battle how can you lose a war."

You don't have to lose a battle to lose a war. Storm of Swords (a work of fiction by George R. R. Martin) illustrates this perfectly. Dispelling fiction, you can lose a war without losing a battle by losing popular support, running out of soldiers to fight with (ask King Pyrrhus of Epirus ), or losing enough morale that your troops basically can't fight, to name a few. Number of loses on either side did not matter, we had the numbers, and so did they. I don't believe we won every single battle of that war, but I don't have to bring that up. They beat the American troops and people psychologically.

The war overall was a loss because South Vietnam merged with North Vietnam, making Vietnam completely communist. The U.S. failed their mission, and until you can prove that this is incorrect, that our goal was achieved, there is no debate.
Debate Round No. 2
danielawesome12

Pro

The Paris Peace Accords
The US war in Vietnam ended in 1973 with the signing of the Paris Peace Accords. The accords gave the United States what it wanted, therefore there was no reason to continue the war
The reunification of Viet-Nam shall be carried out step by step through peaceful means on the basis of discussions and agreements between North and South Viet-Nam, without coercion or annexation by either party, and without foreign interference."
The accords gave the United States the victory. The treaty also showed the United States had no need to interfere with Vietnam again. In 1975, North Vietnam invaded South Vietnam again, but South Vietnam was no longer an ally of the United States. South Vietnam was practically fighting a second war against the North Vietnamese.
"Two years later the fourth Vietnam war began with a full scale North Vietnamese invasion of the south. The United States did not become involved in this conflict which meant that the United States could not have won or lost the fourth war. The war was fought exclusively between the north and south Vietnamese governments and could only have been won or lost by them."
The United States fought in the third war in Vietnam. The first two wars were World War 2 and the revolution against France. This clearly proves that the United States won the war in the form of a glorious victory, it did not lose it.

The statistics showed earlier backup my true argument "I believe the major reasons the Vietnam war was an American Victory is because 1. The U.S. never lost a battle. If you don't lose a battle how can you lose a war. 2. The U.S. killed over 1,000,000 soviets and injured 600,000 while the Soviets killed under 60,000 and injured 300,000."

However, I believe there is no true argument on your side because the Soviets were in a hot climate, the troops were much more depressed, there were much more injured to tend to, and less alive to tend to them. Most Americans were pleased with the way the war was going they even smoked Marijuana that grew naturally on Viet-Nam
LotusNG

Con

"The accords gave the United States what it wanted..."

You say it gave them what they wanted, but you don't say what it is they wanted. They wanted to stop the spread of Communism, and they eventually failed. The Accords only slowed the inevitable merging between North and South Vietnam, it never gave the U.S. what it wanted.

"The January accords, titled the 'Agreement on Ending the War and Restoring Peace in Vietnam,' neither ended the war (except for the United States) nor restored the peace. A little over 2 years later, 30 North Vietnamese divisions conquered the South and restored peace in Vietnam. The American commitment to defend South Vietnam, described as unequivocal by Nixon and Kissinger, had been vitiated by the Watergate scandal and Nixon's subsequent resignation." (http://future.state.gov...)

That quote dismantles the remainder of your argument. The U.S. never won the war, they only were given a free ticket out of Southeast Asia. You also said that the U.S. was not allied with South Vietnam during their forth war, which is false. They swore to protect South Vietnam, but failed to deliver.

"However, I believe there is no true argument on your side because the Soviets were in a hot climate, the troops were much more depressed, there were much more injured to tend to, and less alive to tend to them."

This is untrue as (from what I could find, feel free to correct me in the comments. NOTE: I am GIVING you an extra round, basically) there were few, if any, Soviet Union soldiers in Vietnam. Also, from what I read, the Soviet Union wasn't even at the Paris Peace Conference. You'd think that if they lost that many men, they'd bother to show up to the conference to discuss peace.
Debate Round No. 3
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by davidw 4 years ago
davidw
Actually, by the US *loosing* the war, and letting the North take over the south, it became evident that communism doesn't work, and now Vietnam is a great trading partner. So, by loosing, America actually won in the long run.

If the US 'won' the war, it would have been the evil overseer, with a client state. Instead of communism becoming the enemy, it would be capitalism. The country would be torn by decades of futile hope for an ideal communism that would be thought to save them. It would have been a disaster as Russian and perhaps Chinese influence would have kept gorillas fighting forever in Vietnam.
Posted by ianm2 4 years ago
ianm2
America the International Bully

Did you know that part of the poem on the statue of liberty is as follows:
"Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she
With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"
Now think of the highlighted lines. It says that The United States of America wants peoples tired, poor and homeless. Today"s America wants the rich and completely rejects the poor or homeless. Poor immigrants from Mexico are not even allowed into the country. People even went as far as to put up series of walls, patrols, and guards to make sure they do not come in. Technically, America cannot completely ban immigration so they put in place a series of rules and regulations seriously discouraging immigrating.
Next, lets think of the term bully. Bullys according to society is someone who pushes someone else around. America has this fine habit of going overseas and fighting in their wars. They generally wreck havoc and they make many of our own soldiers die. Are they doing this for justice? Or just to make every country like how they think a country should be like?
Think about this next time America decides to go to another war that they have no right to fight.
Posted by LotusNG 4 years ago
LotusNG
@4saken If the ultimate goal of Vietnam was to be unified, then a war would not have happened. All of Vietnam would have worked together to kick out the U.S.
Posted by 4saken 4 years ago
4saken
@GeekiTheGreat: Vietnam's ultimate goal was to unify the North and the South. The result was the North absorbed the South. So I can't see how it is "Vietnam also did not really win".
Posted by GeekiTheGreat 4 years ago
GeekiTheGreat
Well once again i agree with Lotus. Only people that think america is the country of the "msot perfect men and women of ever existed in the suth of eva, 'merica" will argue. The schools will even say that america did not win the Vietnam war, but Vietnam also did not really win.
Posted by LotusNG 4 years ago
LotusNG
I'm debating this because I recently studied Vietnam, and because I need to complete two more debates before I can vote. This is one of them.
Posted by Anjou 4 years ago
Anjou
How could you two even argue over this? The American goal in Vietnam was to secure the democratic south from the communist north vietnam. They failed, and the democratic south vietnam was absorbed into the communist North. America practically gave up and the war was over. How can this even be classified as a win.
Posted by Ragnar 4 years ago
Ragnar
To decrease schematics, I suggest adding in a term of acceptance that it was a war.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by imabench 4 years ago
imabench
danielawesome12LotusNGTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: pro's arguments relied completely on twisting history based on a personal perspective to make his case, which con quickly and effectively dismantled. Arguments to the con and sources to the con since hes the only one who used any while pro had some faulty information
Vote Placed by po.osullivan 4 years ago
po.osullivan
danielawesome12LotusNGTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:23 
Reasons for voting decision: Even though his Con's arguments are clearly better, his round 2 was abysmal