The Instigator
Krieg01
Con (against)
Tied
6 Points
The Contender
Robdog_1996
Pro (for)
Tied
6 Points

World involvement in vietnam was not necessary!

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 3 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/13/2013 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 807 times Debate No: 40495
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (7)
Votes (3)

 

Krieg01

Con

As this is mine and robdogs first debate please voters go easy on us!

First round for acceptance

Second round and tird round for arguments

4th and 5th for arguments and rebuttals!
Robdog_1996

Pro

I accept this challenge from krieg. Good luck to my opponent!
Debate Round No. 1
Krieg01

Con

The war in Vietnam was necessary because America made a pledge to protect and help the South Vietnamese in their time of need, and due to the fact that the North Vietnamese attacked them it was a sign of war, so America protecting the pledge to the south Vietnamese went to war on the North.

If America didn't go there would have been men, women & children slaughtered for no reason so if that is why the involvement was necessary because if they though it wasn't all of that bloodshed would have been on America's hand for not upholding the pledge that they made to the South.
Robdog_1996

Pro

The fact is that the Vietnam war was a civil war. JFK was against sending troops for this reason. But when he was killed, Lyndon B. Johnson sent troops over to be slaughtered over a civil war. Which America should not have been involved in.
Debate Round No. 2
Krieg01

Con

America decided to join the war because of their pledge to South Vietnam, If America didn't join the war south Vietnam would have been destroyed by the north and as I said before America wouldn't want the blood of another country that they could have protected on their hands.

They joined the war thinking that it would've ended quickly without having to pour too many recourse's into this campaign against the north.

So Americas involvement was necessary to:

1) Uphold their Pledge to the south Vietnamese!

2) To not have the blood of south Vietnamese on their hands when they could have protected them from the atrocities of the north!
Robdog_1996

Pro

http://www.anzacday.org.au...

First paragraph "The Vietnam War arose out of more than a century of foreigners" occupation of Vietnam. It was a war for Vietnamese independence, but also a civil war between two competing philosophies."

No other country had the right to enter, it was a civil war.
Debate Round No. 3
Krieg01

Con

Yes we know it was a civil war But, other countries do not care if it is a civil war they will join in at will to help who they please & when they please.

This is not the first time another country has joined a civil war so I don't see why you bring it up, The words Civil war is just a few words saying that it is still a war but it is between themselves, as it is still a war other countries will join in the dispute as they please.

To countries this is all a game of who they wish to keep as their friends at the end of the road and have their enemies Dead before them!
Robdog_1996

Pro

"Yes we know it was a civil war But, other countries do not care if it is a civil war they will join in at will to help who they please & when they please."

I am pretty sure that I have won this argument by now
Debate Round No. 4
Krieg01

Con

It was a civil war, BUT nobody cares that it is a Civil war they just hear the word WAR and think of it as an all out slaughter fest, between the north and the south and that they could join at any time of the battle.

People don't care for words, "The strong eat the weak" or "The strong pray on the weak" both of these explain how the world was and is today.
Robdog_1996

Pro

What happened in Syria? no one helped but the problem sorted itself out. And trust me, what the Syrian government did was much worse then what the North did to the South
Debate Round No. 5
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by ararmer1919 3 years ago
ararmer1919
No prob
Posted by Krieg01 3 years ago
Krieg01
Thanks for the feedback on the debate!
Posted by ararmer1919 3 years ago
ararmer1919
I feel both sides could have done far better but I understand that this is the first debate for both of them. Neither of them really gave much detail on why their side is right however I have to give argument to Con since he was correct in his statement that the US had an obligation to assist South Vietnam. Pro your entire argument pretty much rested on that this was a civil war and np other nation had any business there. I'm sorry but this is incorrect. Not only are there many cases of countries aiding or other wise influencing another countries civil war (you brought up Syria but this played against you since several dozen nations are actively involved in this civil war) but the argument could be made that this really wasn't even a civil war. More of a reunification war. Yes North and South used to be one but that does not change the fact that prior to the war there were two SEPARATE counties. North and South Vietnam. Each had they're own identity and form of government and this can not be argued. Another undeniable thing is that when NV, acting as the aggressor and starter of the war, invaded SV they were invading a sovereign nation and thus were open to any of the normal practices of war throughout the world. SV was a major ally to the US. SV asked the US for help. The US answered the call. This is completely acceptable warfare and has been done a thousand different times throughout human history. In short any nation that got involved in the war was legitimate since this was a war between two separate and sovereign nations. Spelling and grammar as well as conduct are tied. As is sources. Pro was the only one to use one however I did not find it to help strengthen his argument whatsoever and I don't score sources just because someone had more then their opponent.
Posted by Krieg01 3 years ago
Krieg01
Robdog, Both sides of the Syrian civil war have been getting there recourses from other countries.

Other countries have been helping the Syria from the sidelines by supplying them with weapons and food and other things!
Posted by ararmer1919 3 years ago
ararmer1919
Another hint I recommend is use sources. A good source can double or even triple your credibility.
Posted by Krieg01 3 years ago
Krieg01
@Ararmer1919 thankyou for that helpful info, I will keep that in mind for the duration of this debate!
Posted by ararmer1919 3 years ago
ararmer1919
Just a Friendly observation just to give you guys a hand in the rest of your debate. A lot of people here are really critical about proper spelling and Con I already saw some spelling errors in your 1st round so proofreading is very important here. Have fun in the rest of your debate and good luck to you both.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by AndrewB686 3 years ago
AndrewB686
Krieg01Robdog_1996Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: No strong arguments for either side and con had multiple errors in spelling, grammar, and punctuation. Con also didn't use any sources, pro used one, even if it was used quite briefly and without real effect.
Vote Placed by ararmer1919 3 years ago
ararmer1919
Krieg01Robdog_1996Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments.
Vote Placed by yay842 3 years ago
yay842
Krieg01Robdog_1996Tied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:33 
Reasons for voting decision: Well, Pro didn't really expound on his argument statement and provided no other reason for why the war was unnecessary. Both sides made many errors, but Con had a lot of grammatical errors, punctuation errors, and spelling errors. Con had more arguments although he should have also gave facts to why they were correct.