The Instigator
ehspfer
Pro (for)
Losing
7 Points
The Contender
Danielle
Con (against)
Winning
41 Points

failed nations are a greater threat to the united states than stable nations

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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/27/2009 Category: Politics
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 3,707 times Debate No: 9848
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (7)

 

ehspfer

Pro

As the host i will allow my opponent to go first
Danielle

Con

Because the Pro/Instigator has offered no opening arguments, I'll provide a quick summary of my position and we'll take this debate from there. In terms of "threatening" the United States, we can assume that this resolution is aimed at either the American economy and/or safety and well-being (military). That said, let's examine the list of the 10 most unstable nations; ratings are based on 12 social, economic, political and military indicators, such as: institutionalized political exclusion; "brain drain" of professionals, intellectuals and political dissidents fearing persecution or repression; massive and endemic corruption or profiteering by ruling elites; widespread loss of popular confidence in state institutions; deterioration of essential services (such as health, education, sanitation and public transportation); and widespread violation of human rights [1].

-- Most Unstable Nations --

1. Sudan
2. Iraq
3. Somalia
4. Zimbabwe
5. Chad
6. Ivory Coast
7. Democratic Republic of the Congo
9. Afghanistan
10. Guinea

In observing that list, Pro has the burden of explaining how these nations pose more of a threat than stables ones. The dictionary defines stable as: not likely to fall or give way as a structure, support, or foundation; firm; steady [2]. In other words, a nation that's not going to "fall." I submit China and Russia to be stable nations. For that reason, I will explain why these two 'stable' countries are a bigger threat to the U.S. than the list of the top ten most unstable nations combined.

Economically speaking, China is a power house. Some people suspect that China will overtake the U.S. as the world's largest trade economy in a few years; China's rise in this respect means Americas decline. Additionally, another concern are the large and growing U.S. trade deficits with China. People feel that China uses unfair trade practices to flood U.S. markets with low-cost goods and to restrict U.S. exports, and that such practices threaten American jobs, wages, and living standards [3]. In that sense, China is a threat to the U.S. economy.

Regarding our safety, China has the largest military in the world, meaning they could crush us in a land war. The world is trying to stifle China from ever developing a good navy; if they did, they would possibly pose the biggest military threat on the planet. On that note, their buddy Russia (who along with China has always been particularly hostile with the U.S.) has nuclear intelligence, bombs, missiles, etc. Lots of em. They easily have enough weaponry, technology and intelligence to take out the U.S., along with the incentive. In fact, that's the biggest reason why these stable nations and others pose the biggest threat to the U.S.; not only do they have anti-American sentiments, but actually the ability to severely hurt us in many ways.

Indeed the unstable nations I have listed pose a threat because they're easy hubs for terrorist organizations. However, terrorists can and do exist in every country. Terrorists live and exist in the U.S. The point here is that just because these nations are more susceptible to mob rule and the like, doesn't mean that the nations themselves are to blame but rather the bad organizations that infiltrate them or take over. In fact, one of the reasons terrorist groups have such a hold in the Middle East is specifically BECAUSE of stable nations like Russia. The United States is considered to have the best military in the world, at least in terms of superior intelligence, technology and ability to fight/win a war. So, a nation that isn't even stable enough to effectively protect its own country is not going to be able to harm a world super power like us militarily or economically.

I think I'll give Pro a chance to respond or at least present somewhat of an argument before I continue negating the resolution :)

Sources:
[1] http://www.cbsnews.com...
[2] http://dictionary.reference.com...
[3] http://www.fas.org...
Debate Round No. 1
ehspfer

Pro

I don't have enough time for this debate so I forfeit to my opponent and congratulate them on their win.
Danielle

Con

Thanks, I guess.
Debate Round No. 2
ehspfer

Pro

Thanks for the resources tho they came in quite handy for my pf partner and I.
Danielle

Con

I figured that was your reason for starting the debate.
Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by Alexby1 7 years ago
Alexby1
"People feel that China uses unfair trade practices to flood U.S. markets with low-cost goods and to restrict U.S. exports…"

Why "people feel?" Why not make the argument instead of relying on popular belief (which weighs pretty close to zero in a debate)?
Posted by Danielle 7 years ago
Danielle
Regarding land war, I meant man to man combat without the use of superior technology.
Posted by Mirza 7 years ago
Mirza
Unstable nations are definitely not a greater threat to the U.S. than stable nations, and I agree with Con on this.

I disagree with one statement Con made though: "China has the largest military in the world, meaning they could crush us in a land war"

First, it is correct that China has the largest number of active troops in the world, but not if you count reserve forces and paratroopers. Second, it is absolutely wrong that China would crush the U.S. in a land war. This is about quality not quantity. The U.S. troops have very advanced military equipment, while a big part of the Chinese troops lack advanced/modern equipment. There are also more reasons for why China wouldn't "crush" the U.S. in a land, but I just wanted to point it out briefly.
Posted by Maikuru 7 years ago
Maikuru
As both the instigator of the debate and the Pro position, it is generally understood that you present your argument first.
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by Mathwiz25 7 years ago
Mathwiz25
ehspferDanielleTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 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:07 
Vote Placed by Pogosama 7 years ago
Pogosama
ehspferDanielleTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 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:07 
Vote Placed by Alexby1 7 years ago
Alexby1
ehspferDanielleTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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:06 
Vote Placed by trivea 7 years ago
trivea
ehspferDanielleTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 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:07 
Vote Placed by Vi_Veri 7 years ago
Vi_Veri
ehspferDanielleTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 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:07 
Vote Placed by Conor 7 years ago
Conor
ehspferDanielleTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 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:70 
Vote Placed by Danielle 7 years ago
Danielle
ehspferDanielleTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 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:07