The Instigator
Jifpop09
Pro (for)
Winning
6 Points
The Contender
Tophatdoc
Con (against)
Losing
3 Points

We should annex or exercise greater control over the old pacific trust territories

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...
Jifpop09
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/31/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,308 times Debate No: 45024
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (18)
Votes (4)

 

Jifpop09

Pro

1. Acceptance/Introduction only.

I am of the opinion that we should annex or exercise greater control over the old pacific trust territories. These countries include the Republic of Palau, Federated States of Micronesia, and the Republic of the Marshall Islands. Once annexed, they will be organized into territories and be allowed to govern themselves, with congress retaining full control.
Tophatdoc

Con

I accept. I assume my opponent has the burden of proof since this is a proposal to exercise greater control over territories.
Debate Round No. 1
Jifpop09

Pro

During WW2, the United States took the pacific trust territories from Japan. 3 years later, the trust territories were formally handed over to the US. The United States continued to administer them for over 40 years, before finally releasing them to be on there own. After signing a compact of free association, they were independent. Now that I have given a bit of history, I will list my arguments.


Military Defense
-------------------
- Under the compact of free association, the United States were given full military control over these nations. The US is fully responsible and have full control over any military related action that needs to take place. I feel that the US got the bad end of the stick with the compact of free association. I feel that if the US is already taking all this responsibility, then the US should have a little more influence on how they run themselves.

Economic Ties
-----------------
The Micronesian nations are strongly linked to the US. A huge chunk of there income comes from the united states military. They are already using the US dollar and they receive tons of economic aid from the US. They have a inseparable link to the US economy and should be brought in further to the fold. By joining the US, they can be relieved of some of the economic pressure facing these country's, and the US can protect it's investments better by having some control over the islands.

Very little influence on the economic stage
---------------------------------------------------
These Nations have almost no influence on the world stage. All three country's have less then 200,000 people combined. They don't have there own military, and there economy's are based off of selling fish to countries that already are rich in fish. There influence would increase greatly if they were organized territories of a major superpower.

They would still be able to govern themselves.
--------------------------------------------------------
Currently the US territory of Puerto Rico is able to govern itself, like all other US territories. The Micronesian nations would still be able to govern and represent themselves, but they would also gain the perks of being a part of a superpower. They might even be able to get a non voting member in congress.




Tophatdoc

Con

I will not dispute the history my opponent has presented. However, I will dispute Pro's other points.

"Military Defense: Under the compact of free association, the United States were given full military control over these nations. The US is fully responsible and have full control over any military related action that needs to take place. I feel that the US got the bad end of the stick with the compact of free association. I feel that if the US is already taking all this responsibility, then the US should have a little more influence on how they run themselves."

The United States would have to take on more responsibility by annexing these nations. It is one thing to manage defense. The United States already manages the defenses of several nations in the Asia Pacific region. Most notably, Japan, where the United States has over 20 military bases[1]. Offering security to a nation is not enough reason to annex it. The United States does not control the Japanese Diet, the Congress of the Philippines, or the South Korean National Assembly. But the United States has multiple military installations and bases within those countries.

[1]http://militarybases.com...

"Economic Ties: The Micronesian nations are strongly linked to the US. A huge chunk of there income comes from the united states military. They are already using the US dollar and they receive tons of economic aid from the US. They have a inseparable link to the US economy and should be brought in further to the fold. By joining the US, they can be relieved of some of the economic pressure facing these country's, and the US can protect it's investments better by having some control over the islands."

The United States would be required to invest more in the Micronesian nations according to this scenario. That means the United States will be held liable for all risks that these countries have currently and will have. When these countries suffer economic losses, the United States too will incur this loss. According to the CIA Factbook, the Micronesian nations are dependent on U.S. aid[2]. The Micronesian nations currently take in a $1.3 billion grant from the United States. That is not a sign that the United States should annex these countries. It is better if the United States were not responsible for these nations any further. It would only mean a loss in the long term according to the history of the Micronesian nations.

[2]http://www.ciaworldfactbook.us...

The economic ties with the Micronesian nations is inconsequential compared to other countries in the Asian Pacific. Such as Japan and the Philippines. Out of all Asia Pacific countries, the Philippines is given the most foreign aid and has the strongest mutual relationship with the United States[3].

[3]http://www.state.gov...

"Very little influence on the economic stage: These Nations have almost no influence on the world stage. All three country's have less then 200,000 people combined. They don't have there own military, and there economy's are based off of selling fish to countries that already are rich in fish. There influence would increase greatly if they were organized territories of a major superpower. "

The influence of these countries would grow if the United States annexed them. But what would the United States gain from such an agreement?

"They would still be able to govern themselves: Currently the US territory of Puerto Rico is able to govern itself, like all other US territories. The Micronesian nations would still be able to govern and represent themselves, but they would also gain the perks of being a part of a superpower. They might even be able to get a non voting member in congress."

What evidence is there showing that there would be a celebration from such an annexation? Even in Puerto Rico terrorism and guerrilla activities have taken place[4]. Let us not forget a there would be more armed resistance from these Micronesian nations because they already govern themselves. Conflict and armed disputes would develop as the result of U.S. annexation.

[4]http://www.trackingterrorism.org...
Debate Round No. 2
Jifpop09

Pro

Computer Freezes if I use the writer. Had to rewrite all of this.


https://docs.google.com...
Tophatdoc

Con

"Unlike these other nations, the United States has full control over their military. If the government passes a law that incites war, it is now a US problem. These nations are too small to take care of themselves as far as military goes. "

This only adds more problems to annexation. The United States will be fully accountable for a nations that are incapable of protecting themselves.

"Remember the Hawaii annexation. Planters were grateful that the US annexed them, because they benefitted from the wealth they received. The micronesian nations are underdeveloped and have yet to modernize. They have many industries to exploit, some of which are very valuable. Nothing in this scenario means the States would have to invest more money. "

The conditions which brought about the annexation of Hawaii are different. Hawaii, was originally a kingdom until the late 19th century[1]. There was a private group who decided to overthrow the kingdom. This event led to the annexation of Hawaii in the long term. We should not be under any assumption that majority of the Hawaii residents were delighted when their Queen was overthrown.

If Micronesian nations are underdeveloped as Pro claims that definitely means more investment. How will the resources be of any use if there is no infrastructure to transport those resources? The United States would have to invest in infrastructure(roads, highways) and a large port to export the resources. No investment will result in no infrastructure rendering the resources inconsequential because they can not be transported for trade.

Also who would on these resources? It doesn't seem like a private corporation from what my opponent has implied. It seems the United States will have to manage the extraction of resources. Therefore the United States will have to invest money into the equipment to extract the resources. Then the United States will have to invest money into the trucks and ships to transport the resources. Then of course, most importantly, the United States will have to pay the employees who will be engaging in this entire process. This will cost quite a large sum of money. I assume tens of millions of dollars will be needed considering the cost of trucks and ships alone.

[1]http://www.hawaii-nation.org...

"Palau: Palau is inhabited by over 20,000 residents. Most of them are subsistence farmers. There is potential for growth in many areas in fishing, tourism, etc."

"FSM: The Federated States of Micronesia show more potential than any of the 3 nations. It’s exciting how many industries can be exploited."

"Marshall Islands: The Marshall Islands have just begun to transition to new industries. Mainly due to US investments."

If you read Pro's arguments he had not produced on iota of evidence supporting how these islands are currently turning a profit in any of the industries he has mentioned. Instead, Pro offers us one result which he gives no evidence to back at all. Pro ha focused on potential growth for industries. He wants our faith. This is more than reckless. The nited States will annex these countries and invest in them when there is no evidence they will turn a profit.

I ask, can the United Stated afford to take a risk based on potential growth? It would be wise to remember the United States failed by investing in an American solar company, Solyndra. The United States invested over five hundred of million American tax payer dollars into a company which went bankrupt[2]. To put it mildly, this is embarrassing. But at least, Solyndra no longer operates. If we listen to Pro and there is a significant loss, the United States will be stuck with it since we would of annexed these nations. These nations couldn't go bankrupt. Can the United States afford such a risk when it has a over $17 trillion owed in debt[3]? It would not be a thought out decison for the United States to annex these nations when we do not even possess any factual information on growth from these Micronesian Nations.

[2]http://www.huffingtonpost.com...
[3]http://www.usdebtclock.org...

"Money, power, and expanded markets. "

This is not a fact. This is only speculation my opponent has offered. The United States will have to cover more costs by annexing these countries. That is a fact, not speculation since the United States will have to invest more in these nations once they are U.S. territories like other U.S. territories(Ex. Puerto Rico).

" They would rather be annexed then have there US aid revoked. Micronesian governments have also banned guns that aren’t for hunting."

How does Pro know this? Pro has just stated people would rather give up their sovereignty to prevent US aid from being revoked.

"The idea of armed resistance against the US from these 200,00 citizens seems a bit ridiculous to me. They rely heavily on US aid right now, and would probably accept annexation due to pure necessity."

My opponent gave us the image of limited guns in the Micronesian nations. We all should know why the amount of firearms is limited. There is a limited amount of trade taking place. If the United States, the country with the largest gun manufacturing companies in the world, decides to annex the Micronesian nations, firearms will become prevalent[4]. When the United States annexes the Micronesian nations, the laws will have to change. So the current firearm ban might not exist any longer.

[4]http://www.theblaze.com...

Let's sum up this debate and why you should vote Con based on the resolution:

1. There are better nations to annex(Japan, Philippines, South Korea, Taiwan).
See Round 2.

2.The Micronesian nations are not profitable.
See Rounds 2 & 3.

3.The Micronesian nations are insignificant compared to the grander scheme of American affairs.
See Rounds 2 & 3.

4.The United States has a limited amount of resources which it should not spend on annexing the Micronesian nations.
See Round 3.

5.The United States will have to invest millions into Micronesia.
See Round 3.

6. Annexation of the Micronesian nations could result in rebellion.
See Rounds 2 & 3.

7. Pro failed to meet his burden of proof.
Pro was proposing for the United States to annex the Micronesian nations but failed to provide enough evidence of why these nations in particular should be annexed. Pro gave us only speculation when we require data and hard facts to even consider annexing these nations. The United States should not consider annexing these nations based on mere conjecture.

I would like to thank Pro for hosting this debate. Thanks to the voters and observers who took the time to read this as well. If you agree that Pro failed to meet his burden of proof, Vote Con. If you came to the conclusion that the Micronesian nations shouldn't be annexed, Vote Con.
Debate Round No. 3
18 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Jifpop09 3 years ago
Jifpop09
I'm glad I convinced someone. It's hard making a proposal like this. I actually had to consider the disenfranchisement, and I reasoned that they could forward some of the profits back to the citizens, for any company's headquartered outside of the FSM. Micronesia has more fish then it has use for, and I don't see how they can develop into new industries without either a higher population, or allowing foreign companies to conduct business there.
Posted by wrichcirw 3 years ago
wrichcirw
This was an interesting debate about something I know little about.

I thought PRO was convincing in that FRM looks like a very solid business opportunity. The infrastructure developments and etc that PRO mentioned are basic and do not entail execution risk. CON brings up valid points on resistance and terrorism, but it's simply not a notable problem for either Hawaii or Puerto Rico. I also looked up tax revenues the US earns from Puerto Rico...$3 billion last year....so there is a valid case to be made about infrastructure development leading to a more profitable and thus taxable economy in the future.

When PRO brought up how large corporations could take over the local fishing industries, I immediately imagined the locals protesting such a development. To be "freed" from their livelihood through disenfranchisement is an extreme negative, regardless of how PRO paints it. This substantially weakened his case, IMHO.

CON's point about added responsibility was not convincing, given that we already are militarily responsible for these islands. Economic development, and the ability to tax such development, would make economic sense. Furthermore, all business plans are speculative, so I did not see CON's assertion as being a strong argument.

I currently only score for conduct, and only for the winner had they deserved conduct as well. Conduct was fine on both sides, so no score.

Had I scored this debate, I would have easily given S&G to CON not only for better grammar and using "there/their/they're" appropriately, but also because his source footnotes were proper. I would have given arguments to PRO - I found his detail to be more convincing and thorough. The rest, tie.
Posted by Jifpop09 3 years ago
Jifpop09
Vote for me, I have the cooler profile pic. This will be true no matter how many times I change it.
Posted by Jifpop09 3 years ago
Jifpop09
i'll research into another way in posting my arguments. A way which can't be edited.
Posted by Tophatdoc 3 years ago
Tophatdoc
Understandable. I didn't think you would try to change your document.My apologies, I probably came off a bit unclear and hostile. I was mentioning the editing because I forgot people can edit the document at anytime. I can easily see some people abusing it in the future. Believe me, this will be abused in the future if someone can think of it.
Posted by Jifpop09 3 years ago
Jifpop09
Sorry if I was a little over the edge when I wrote that. I so badly wished I had a round 4. Anyways, I had some personal stuff going on so I was acting a little bit different then usual. I really can't use anything but google drive though, and I don't know what else I can use. When I was first debating, I had to rewrite the whole argument, just because the computer froze at the end. Trust me though, I have the integrity not to make changes. Not to mention it records them.
Posted by Tophatdoc 3 years ago
Tophatdoc
Also let it be noted. Google Doc was used is not credible considering my opponent could alter the information anytime this week as he sees fit to adjust his argument.
Posted by Tophatdoc 3 years ago
Tophatdoc
I always find it strange how someone tries to tell someone else what they did or didn't do. I didn't know you had ESP to tell me I didn't read your argument. Last time, I checked I did read it.

You have not provided any other fact on the economy aside from the one I pointed it out. If the facts exist, where else did you provide evidence on the economy? You only provided information on the fishing industry. Don't say the sources because they are supposed to be used as a reference only. What page number and paragraph? Also don't attempt to distort the Google Doc to suit your taste now. That is why I already took screenshots of the Google Doc and downloaded it as well.

The debate is already over I am not debating it any longer. At least not here.
Posted by Jifpop09 3 years ago
Jifpop09
You obviously did not read my debate or sources then. Currently these nations are supporting two industries, and many groups have stated that Micronesian nations, if they had the population to move into new industries, would be very profitable. I said that the United States would not have to give more money for a reason. Guam for example, is independently governed and receives little money directly from the US. Yet they are a territories. Samoan Islands too. You stated that we would have to give more money, and used Puerto Rico as a example. The difference is, Puerto Ricans get all the rights that US citizens do. That's why we pour more money into them. Annexing these countries does not mean we would be forced to give them healthcare and other benefits. They would most likely be handled how Guam is. We are talking about 200,000 citizens living on islands that could support millions. All they need is the population to support new industries. Do you think the US would be giving Micronesia so much money, if they believed the islands could not become wealthy? The government already shows faith in the islands, something you claim they do not.
Posted by Jifpop09 3 years ago
Jifpop09
You obviously did not read my debate or sources then. Currently these nations are supporting two industries, and many groups have stated that Micronesian nations, if they had the population to move into new industries, would be very profitable. I said that the United States would not have to give more money for a reason. Guam for example, is independently governed and receives little money directly from the US. Yet they are a territories. Samoan Islands too. You stated that we would have to give more money, and used Puerto Rico as a example. The difference is, Puerto Ricans get all the rights that US citizens do. That's why we pour more money into them. Annexing these countries does not mean we would be forced to give them healthcare and other benefits. They would most likely be handled how Guam is. We are talking about 200,000 citizens living on islands that could support millions. All they need is the population to support new industries. Do you think the US would be giving Micronesia so much money, if they believed the islands could not become wealthy? The government already shows faith in the islands, something you claim they do not.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Buckethead31594 3 years ago
Buckethead31594
Jifpop09TophatdocTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: A tough decision, indeed. I feel that Pro has adequately explained why we should annex said territories. Military responsibility seems to indicate as such. Had Con addressed this properly, they may have won my vote.
Vote Placed by wrichcirw 3 years ago
wrichcirw
Jifpop09TophatdocTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: see comments. Good debate.
Vote Placed by janetsanders733 3 years ago
janetsanders733
Jifpop09TophatdocTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Very tough debate to judge. Con I think showed the downside to what would happen with these kinds of establishments. Pro did make pretty good arguements, and provided good info, but much of what would happen if annexation through old pacific trust were to happen was speculation than evidence. Again, this was very tough and well fought out. I really want to make this a tie, Great job to both sides!
Vote Placed by donald.keller 3 years ago
donald.keller
Jifpop09TophatdocTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct was well on both ends. Spelling and Grammar was also fair. Both sides made great arguments, but I felt like Pro's argument stood after the last round. Especially when Con said we'd have to be completely militarily responsible for them, which did little seeing as we were already completely militarily responsible... While Con's argument kept me from shifting in opinion, it didn't seem to completely convince me Pro's arguments didn't hold. Both sides had good sources.