The Instigator
Scorbie
Pro (for)
Winning
10 Points
The Contender
LiberalJoe
Con (against)
Losing
2 Points

Who will start World war III

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...
Scorbie
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/5/2012 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,477 times Debate No: 21752
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (1)
Votes (4)

 

Scorbie

Pro

I am starting a debate because I was disappointed at the unsupported and speculative argument of the previous "who will start world war III" argument. This argument will be based upon factual social, economical, and political evidence. I will start by stating my opinion unsupported. I think the united states will Start world war III.
LiberalJoe

Con

Thank you for creating such a fascinating debate.

I will be taking the position, "Iran will start WWIII." I believe that their cultural relationship with Israel and the US's foreign aid there will trigger a massive conflict.

Please note that I will not be structuring this the way I might structure a different debate; it will be difficult to organize contentions in an argument mainly based on assumptions. However, I will do my best to refute your ideas in round #3.

Good luck!!
Debate Round No. 1
Scorbie

Pro

Hello and thank you LiberalJoe for accepting this argument with me. I hope it will be both enjoyable and enlightening for the both of us. Also thank you for your timely response I didn't expect to be answered this soon.

First I would like to take a look at some of the Fear tactics being used by the United states right now to incite public support for a war on Iran. The United States claims that Israel is in immediate danger from Iran(Source 1) Completely ignorant of the fact that Israel has nuclear armaments and the surrounding countries have none I would want a nuclear weapon if I lived in Israel and Pakistan, Syria, and Iran had nuclear weapons. The country that is in immediate danger is Iran. We have multiple examples as a fact Iran has lost 5 nuclear scientists to assassinations in the past 4 years and has not retaliated. Also Iran hasn't made an aggressive act of war in 200 year( Source 2). The United States claims Ahmadinejad is a madman (which is where I would agree) and threatens to attack at any given moment due to mistranslations and misunderstanding. In fact we over estimate his power when he couldn't keep a campaign promise in 2007 to allow females into soccer matches(Source 3). Ahmadinejad Has no control over military forces to cause such an attack and his opinion is his own.

My second point is that it would be completely ignorant of Iran to attack Israel due to its weak military, economy, and weak immediate allies. Iran had completely dropped its pursuit of a nuclear weapons program in 2003. (source 4) The Nuclear program it is seeking now was originally for green energy because Iran's economy was so bad it had to export its fossil fuels to get them refined and import them back due to no refineries. Nuclear energy would have been a clean and cheap alternative to what they had, but now they have possibly shifted back to nuclear research due to probing from its enemies. When Iran's Military budget is compared to that of the US and Israel it is very troubling The US have 2,883,613 active troops(active and reserve), Israel has 741,500, and Iran has 2,323,000. You will notice Iran and Israel have a very large military for per square mile because they are a conscription military.( Source 5 & 6) When compared to military spending the number gets even more astounding 700 billion per year by the United states, 13 billion per year by Israel, and 7 billion year by Iran.(Source 7) When Budget is divided per active duty military personal this gets scary the US on average spends 2,427,510 per soldier, Israel 17,532, and Iran 3,013 per soldier.

I believe I will save future arguments for other rounds I didn't realize just how much 8,000 characters really is.

Sources: http://www.postandcourier.com...
http://warisacrime.org...
http://www.nytimes.com...
http://articles.latimes.com...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...


LiberalJoe

Con

Thank you Pro for starting us off. I will begin with my rebuttals, then my prediction of the events leading up to and during WWIII, and finally an explanation of my reasoning.



REBUTTAL

"My second point is that it would be completely ignorant of Iran to attack Israel due to its weak military, economy, and weak immediate allies."

I disagree. Iran's allies include strong relationships with China (GREAT relations), Russia, North Korea, Syria, and Lebanon [3]. These nations are incredibly powerful! In fact, China alone has over 40,000 nuclear warheads [4] and hundreds of thousands of ground troops.

And a weak economy? Iran BANKS on oil and natural gas and has a GDP of 331 billion and growing [5]. This number is expected to increase very rapidly as a result of the myraid of resources in Iran's mainland. And finally, its military has almost as many troops as the US, only a few hundred thousand short [6]. Although you did make a point that their military spending isn't huge, it could certainly grow along with their resource output and GDP.

"When Iran's Military budget is compared to that of the US and Israel it is very troubling The US have 2,883,613 active troops(active and reserve), Israel has 741,500, and Iran has 2,323,000. You will notice Iran and Israel have a very large military for per square mile because they are a conscription military. When compared to military spending the number gets even more astounding 700 billion per year by the United states, 13 billion per year by Israel, and 7 billion year by Iran. When Budget is divided per active duty military personal this gets scary the US on average spends 2,427,510 per soldier, Israel 17,532, and Iran 3,013 per soldier."


To add on to the point that I just made, Iran actually is more prepared then you might think. As I stated before, Iran's allies make up a military force much greater than that of the US [7], [8], [9], [10]. Also, Russia, China, and North Korea have a substantial stockpile of nuclear and checial weapons [2]. Together, these ground troops and ICBMs could easily destroy nations and pose a serious threat to Isreal and the US.





SUMMARY

(my sources/reasoning will be in the Explanation section)

In 2012 Barack Obama will be elected president of the United States of America. The next four years will go as expected; new taxes will be implemented on the wealthy to protect our plans for infrastructure development, unemployment will gradually decrease, and the economy will slowly improve, despite colossal additions to our national debt. However, America's growing need for energy independence will be looming over us like the night sky. To combat this, the UN will form a world-wide treaty organization advocating the development of natural gas, called the World Natural Gas Association. Huge progress in the natural gas field will be made in middle America, a very rich gas area. In Iran, president Obama will be pressuring the officials to give up the suspected nuclear program and pursue other sources of energy. Of course, tensions in the Middle East between Iran and Israel will be increasing at the same time. President Obama will try his best to use diplomatic efforts to restore peace, but one day, Iran will launch four nuclear weapons from the Bushehr nuclear plant into Haifa, Tel Aviv, Ashdod, and Rishon Leiyyon, each some of the biggest cities in Isreal. These nuclear weapons will destroy a significant part of the nation, killing about 1.5 million people. Immediately after this, Iran will send some 2,000,000 troops into Jerusalem and the surrounding area in an effort to overthrow the government and seize all military power. Palestine will also receive support from Iran in an effort to drastically increase its borders. The United Nations, specifically the US, the UK, and Canada, will try to make a decision about a retaliation. They will consider the fact that Iran would likely shut off the Strait of Hormuz in the event of a UN attack, but after factoring the recent developments in WNGA production, they will decide to send troops into Iran and Jerusalem to aid the Israelis. To add on to all of this, the treaties signed by North Korea, Syria, and Iran will create a real "World War," with Syrian and NK troops being deployed throughout the area to give Iran support. Even China, having good relations with Iran, will receive a monetary incentive to move towards UN bases in Afghanistan and Pakistan.





EXPLANATION


"In 2012 Barack Obama will be elected president of the United States of America."

Well this one isn't too hard to grasp. In two national polls, one Obama v. Romney and one Obama v. Santorum, Obama was the clearcut winner [11], [12].


"the UN will form a world-wide treaty organization advocating the development of natural gas, called the World Natural Gas Association."

This is not unrealistic. Actually, Middle America has 237,726 billion cubic feet of gas – enough to supply current U.S. demand for about 10 years [13]. Plus, the Obama administration is focusing keenly on our energy demand. What could be better than clean, efficient natural gas in our own nation?


"Of course, tensions in the Middle East between Iran and Israel will be increasing at the same time. President Obama will try his best to use diplomatic efforts to restore peace..."

Obama, while "threatening" war with Iran, has been mainly for diplomatic efforts towards peace, if possible [14].


"Iran will launch four nuclear weapons from the Bushehr nuclear plant"

-First of all - why would Iran be developing nuclear energy in the first place? It seems completely pointless to me considering they have the third most oil of any nation in the world at about 132.5 billion barrels (in reserves) [15]. That's over 10% of all of the oil in the world [15]! Not to mention the natural gas reserves in Iran, which is the second largest amount in the world [15]. And they still need nuclear energy? Yeah right.
-There is also a great deal of primary evidence proving that Iran is looking to build nuclear weapons.
-As you can see here [16], numerous British Intelligence reports confirm what we already know. Prime Minester Cameron (of the UK) says it himself: "Iran is seeking to build a nuclear weapon. Tehran's ambitions are dangerous to the Middle East." [16]
-President Obama's CIA reports confirm it as well. As you can see here [17], the Bushehr Nuclear Power Plant is well equipped for nuclear weapon fabrication.
-"We consider sanctions as opportunities ... We will continue our [nuclear] path more decisively," says Iran's chief nuclear negotiator, Saeed Jalili. (I will continue next round, I'm out of space)


[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...

[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...

[3] http://www.irandefence.net...

[4] http://online.wsj.com...;

[5] https://www.cia.gov...;

[6] http://en.wikipedia.org...;
[7] http://www.globalsecurity.org...
[8] http://www.globalfirepower.com...
[9] http://www.globalfirepower.com...;
[10] http://www.globalfirepower.com...;
[11] http://www.realclearpolitics.com...;
[12] http://www.realclearpolitics.com...;
[13] http://www.truebluenaturalgas.org...;
[14] http://worldnews.msnbc.msn.com...
[15] http://en.wikipedia.org...;
[16] http://www.guardian.co.uk...;
[17] http://www.globalsecurity.org...;
Debate Round No. 2
Scorbie

Pro

Thank you for your response before my rebuttal I would like to mention Con has failed to address the issues and historical evidence posed in paragraph one. Also I would like to add even with cited sources Con's argument is completely speculative.

Rebuttal

"And a weak economy? Iran BANKS on oil and natural gas and has a GDP of 331 billion and growing."

That 331 billion is one third of its total GDP of 928.9 billion compared to the united states 15.04 trillion. This shows how weak the economy is, when an economy is solely dependant on one resource it is unstable[2]. Using your source the CIA fact book. "Iran's economy is marked by an inefficient state sector, reliance on the oil sector, which provides the majority of government revenues, and statist policies, which create major distortions throughout the system." [1] To add to this fact Iran consumes half of the oil it produces further hurting its economy.

First of all - why would Iran be developing nuclear energy in the first place? It seems completely pointless to me considering they have the third most oil of any nation in the world at about 132.5 billion barrels (in reserves) [15]. That's over 10% of all of the oil in the world [15]! Not to mention the natural gas reserves in Iran, which is the second largest amount in the world [15]. And they still need nuclear energy? Yeah right. Due to the fact it consumes half of what it produces the economy would receive a huge benefit from nuclear energy allowing more oil to stimulate the economy. You also mentioned natural gas can power the U.S for ten years not to get off topic but natural gas is bad for the environment. [3] Using Nuclear energy at double the energy consumption the United states would last 500 billion years. [4] This would allow Iran to prosper.

"President Obama's CIA reports confirm it as well. As you can see here [17], the Bushehr Nuclear Power Plant is well equipped for nuclear weapon fabrication."

This only shows that it is possible for nuclear enrichment, but even if they developed a warhead it would be used as a deterrent just as every other country uses them for, Minus the U.S who has the only history of using nuclear weapons (Hopefully a source won't be needed for this).

Also the argument was who will start World War III and for all your reasoning you have appeared to agree with me. "In Iran, president Obama will be pressuring the officials to give up the suspected nuclear program and pursue other sources of energy." <<<Instigating, also
"President Obama will try his best to use diplomatic efforts to restore peace..." And your reasoning for this statement "Obama, while "threatening" war with Iran, has been mainly for diplomatic efforts towards peace, if possible" This is also war agitation from sanctions and military war games proves the United states will start World War III.

"As I stated before, Iran's allies make up a military force much greater than that of the US [7], [8], [9], [10]. Also, Russia, China, and North Korea have a substantial stockpile of nuclear and chemical weapons [2]. Together, these ground troops and ICBMs could easily destroy nations and pose a serious threat to Isreal and the US."

I love the website in your source because it reinforces my argument. When the United states is contested with Russia it is no contest, (strictly looking at technology and manpower excluding nuclear arms) with conscription we have the available manpower of 145,000,000 vs 70,000,000.[5] As for Syria we are currently involved helping support the rebels much like Libya. Why aren't we helping other countries with humanitarian aid. Maybe their is invested interest. I will assume after the revolt we will have a democratic supporter in the middle east, possibly not due to Russia blocking resolutions. As for North Korea we have an ally who will get involved if they come in called south Korea with stronger manpower and technologies called south Korea. As for China we are the number one Exporter of their goods going to war with us would cripple their economy although I do think they will back up Iran.[6] I doubt any of these alliances gives Iran's incentive to strike. I believe that all comes down foreign intervention in their affairs.


New Points

As stated in opening Iran has not instigated acts of war in 200 years, for all intent purposes lets compare with that of America Russia, Syria 1949, Big one hear Iran in 1953, Tibet 1950s, Guatemala, Cuba, Congo, Iraq 1963, Brazil, Ghana, Iraq 1968 (we got it wrong the first time), Chile, Afghanistan, Iraq 1975 (3rd times the charm?), Argentina, Afghanistan, Iran 1980, Nicaragua , El Salvador, Cambodia, Angola, Philippines. All During the Cold war lets not get into what happened afterward. Now after looking at Historic evidence is it not too far fetched to think America will be the agitator in a war? [7]

also what would Iran gain by going to War with Israel I think this is the biggest question we should ask. The only person who would benefit from a war would be Israel and the United states. [8]

Iran was planned to be taken out a decade ago with other countries that we are currently involved in Iraq, Iran, Libya, Syria.[9]








Sources: https://www.cia.gov...
http://iranprimer.usip.org...
http://atomicinsights.com...
http://nextbigfuture.com...
http://www.globalfirepower.com...
http://www.ustr.gov...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://current.com...




LiberalJoe

Con

LiberalJoe forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
Scorbie

Pro

Vote Pro thanks for the debate liberaljoe.
LiberalJoe

Con

LiberalJoe forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
LiberalJoe

Con

LiberalJoe forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Scorbie 4 years ago
Scorbie
IF anyone wants to do a full debate with me on the issue please challenge me you would have the upper hand being able to use this one as reference.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by 1dustpelt 4 years ago
1dustpelt
ScorbieLiberalJoeTied
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:40 
Reasons for voting decision: ff
Vote Placed by imabench 4 years ago
imabench
ScorbieLiberalJoeTied
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:42 
Reasons for voting decision: FF but con did use a crap load of sources before he FF...
Vote Placed by Zaradi 4 years ago
Zaradi
ScorbieLiberalJoeTied
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: FF
Vote Placed by larztheloser 4 years ago
larztheloser
ScorbieLiberalJoeTied
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: ff