The Instigator
Hastings_S.E
Con (against)
Winning
7 Points
The Contender
Reas0n
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points

resolved: failed nations pose a greater threat then stable nations

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
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: 11/13/2009 Category: Politics
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,194 times Debate No: 10111
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (1)
Votes (1)

 

Hastings_S.E

Con

The definition of a failed nation according to the BBC, 2009 report on U.S. foreign policy is a country that has combined high rates of the following: mounting demographic pressure, massive movements of immigrants and internally displaced people, legacy of vengeance, chronic and sustained human flight, uneven development along group lines, sharp and/or severe economic decline, criminalization of the state, progressive deterioration of public services, widespread violation of human rights, security apparatus as state within state, rise of factionalized elites, and multiple interventions of other states or external actors. The definition of a stable nation then is the opposite of the definition of a failed nation. The definition of a threat according to the Random House Dictionary is an indication or warning of probable trouble

Point 1: The amount of nuclear weapons stable nations have.

Stable nations have quite-a-few nuclear weapons. China has around 100-200 nuclear weapons. France has around 350. Russia has around 12,787. The U.K. has less then 160 deployed nuclear weapons. That is around 13,947 nuclear weapons. In addition, the U.S. has around 9,326 nuclear weapons. In total, that is approximately 23,273 nuclear weapons in the N.P.T. All according to the 2009 fact sheet published by the Arms Control Association.

Normally it would not matter if the countries in the N.P.T. had nuclear weapons, the only problem is, is that the U.S. has been at odds with every county mentioned above. Therefore, they technically have a reason to attack the U.S. if they wanted to.

Which is a major threat; because some of the damage done by just one nuclear bomb is change in air pressure and violent winds; the exposure of radiation; the intent heat that would exceed millions of degrees at ground zero; the effect of fallout particles; the electronic pulse; and the great amount of after fires. Failed nations do not present the same kind of threat that failed nation.

Point 2: The illegal immigrants that come into the U.S. come mostly from stable nations.

According to the 2009 report by the US Immigration Support; there are approximately 11 million to 12 million illegal immigrants in the U.S. 7 million come from Mexico; 3 million come from Columbia, Guatemala, Cuba, Venezuela, Honduras, El Salvador, Peru, Belize, Brazil, Jamaica, Costa Rica, Argentina, Chile; and one million come from Laos, China, South Korea, and Japan.

Illegal immigrants harm the U.S. in many ways. In a study done in 1996 of the costs of illegal immigration by Rice Univ. economist, Dr. Donald Huddle, illegal immigrants were displacing roughly 730,000 American workers every year, at a cost of about $4.3 billion a year. The annual net cost of illegal immigrants (after subtracting their tax payments) to the American taxpayer is likely to be more than $45 billion.

Point 3: stable nations have batter education and test scores then failed nations

According to the U.S. Department of Education 2009, report on T.I.M.S.S. 12th graders in 21 countries took standardized test scores in the areas of math and science. The total averages of these tests were a score of 500. The U.S. however, ranked 19 with an average score of 461 in the area of math, and in the area of science the U.S. ranked 16 out of 21 with an average score of 480. The countries of Sweden, Germany, France, and Russia, are just a few of the countries that have better scores than the U.S.

This is a threat to the U.S. because:

a)A component that defined a failed nation was deterioration of public services, and the school system is a public service. Therefore, if other countries have better education then the U.S. would not that mean that the U.S. public services are deteriorating. And,

b)With stable nations advancing in education and the U.S. not, stable nations will soon be in reality the smarter countries. Yes, there are some advantages to other counties having better education; these are the world becoming healthier through medical advantages, the world getting more technology. However, the threats from stable nations advancing are much greater. A major threat from stable nations having better education is; the fact that the knowledge and skills of workers available in the labor supply is a key factor in determining both business and economic growth. Economies with a significant supply of skilled labor, brought on through school education as well as training, are often able to capitalize on this through the development of more value-added industries, such as high-tech manufacturing.

Point 4: Not every failed nation is a threat.

Some failed nations like Uzbekistan, Eritrea, Zimbabwe, Srilanka and many more do not pose any threat to the U.S. Only the failed nations of North Korea, Iraq, Sudan, Iran, and Afghanistan pose little threat to the U.S. Unlike the stable nations of Russia, Cuba, Mexico, China, France, Columbia, Japan, and the UK, among many others who pose a much greater threat than the failed nations previously mentioned. When put in perspective a failed nation declares war on the united states, like that of Zimbabwe, which are a considerably lesser threat then China even removing its financial support from the U.S.

Conclusion

In conclusion, what we can take from this is that Stable nations are more of a threat to the U.S.; because of the amount of nuclear weapons they have and the amount of damage done by just one nuclear weapon; the amount of illegal immigrants currently in the U.S. from stable nations and the cost of illegal immigrants to the U.S.'s taxpayers dollars; the threat of stable nations having better education then the U.S.; and that most failed nation's are not a threat. I strongly urge you to vote in negation, because stable nations clearly pose a much bigger threat than failed nations.
Reas0n

Pro

First of all you say that a failed nation has:

mounting demographic pressure, massive movements of immigrants and internally displaced people, legacy of vengeance, chronic and sustained human flight, uneven development along group lines, sharp and/or severe economic decline, criminalization of the state, progressive deterioration of public services, widespread violation of human rights, security apparatus as state within state, rise of factionalized elites, and multiple interventions of other states or external actors.

Well all countries have this. The US would be a failed nation. China would be a failed nation. And its only getting worse.
There is no stable nation... there never was and there never will. Capitalism Socialism Communism = monetary system
You cant have a free society under the monetary system. So whats the biggest threat to the US federal government?
There own people. The state is our enemy they take away our freedoms. They force us to pay taxes. They imprison us if we break there laws. They destroy families/communities. They keep hierarchal institutions alive. They force us to spend most of our lives working for there corporations.
I don't know why people still vote. Every politician will tell you "reform change". Every advertisement will tell you that you need there product. Every Religion will say that there right. Every citizen will tell you how great there country is.

http://en.wikisource.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 1
Hastings_S.E

Con

first of all my opponent failed to include all parts of my definition of a failed nation

my definition is:
a country that has COMBINED HIGH RATES of the following: mounting demographic pressure, massive movements of immigrants and internally displaced people, legacy of vengeance, chronic and sustained human flight, uneven development along group lines, sharp and/or severe economic decline, criminalization of the state, progressive deterioration of public services, widespread violation of human rights, security apparatus as state within state, rise of factionalized elites, and multiple interventions of other states or external actors.
according to the BBC, 2009 report on U.S. foreign policy

second, if we don't pay taxes, if we are not held accountable to the laws, then the U.S. as a nation cant survive. also the government cant take away many freedoms unless we break the laws as stated in the U.S. Constitution. and the U.S. government dose not force its people to work, that is THE PEOPLES choice on weather to work or not.

finally, my opponent failed to provide any definitions or points of their own so then its obvious that they agree with me.
Reas0n

Pro

1. Everything you just said describes america

a country that has COMBINED HIGH RATES of the following: mounting demographic pressure, massive movements of immigrants and internally displaced people, legacy of vengeance, chronic and sustained human flight, uneven development along group lines, sharp and/or severe economic decline, criminalization of the state, progressive deterioration of public services, widespread violation of human rights, security apparatus as state within state, rise of factionalized elites, and multiple interventions of other states or external actors.

America is a failed nation it is a disaster. A disaster for the planet and for the people on it.

1.if we are not held accountable to the laws, then the U.S. as a nation cant survive

I dont want the US to survive. It has no legitimacy and I don't want to pay taxes.

2. also the government cant take away many freedoms unless we break the laws as stated in the U.S. Constitution

The U.S. Constitution was signed by slave owners not defenders of liberty. The US government has broken there constitution. An example of that would be the Iraq war or the Federal Income tax.

3.and the U.S. government dose not force its people to work, that is THE PEOPLES choice on weather to work or not

The state brings up a mindset from an early age through the culture/society. You are taught the morals of this society.
We actually accept people working 10 hours a day. We accept the wars and the exploitation of the environment. Real relations between people are being destroyed through technology. We make stereotypes against every group of people. Were told to get a job and fall into these illusions. There was a time where people were free from these institutions and didnt rely on them to survive. In order to survive in this society you have to destroy the love out of life to survive. Nobody wants to work for these institutions but because we accept the norms we wander endlessly for satisfaction in this cold broken world.
The point that I'm trying to make is that to survive you have to work you have to exploit you have keep this system alive for your own survival. If all your food comes from the store your gonna defend the corporations which keep that system running. America is a impoverished country spiritually.

To conclude
There are no individual nations there is only one system. The collapse of America would be a step closer to freedom.
All nations are failed because they are all the same.

http://www.greenanarchy.org...
Debate Round No. 2
Hastings_S.E

Con

Hastings_S.E forfeited this round.
Reas0n

Pro

Reas0n forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
Hastings_S.E

Con

Hastings_S.E forfeited this round.
Reas0n

Pro

Reas0n forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
Hastings_S.E

Con

Hastings_S.E forfeited this round.
Reas0n

Pro

Reas0n forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Ore_Ele 6 years ago
Ore_Ele
the problem with the initial definition is the word "high." what is "high"? What is considered high to you may not be high to me or someone else. So when someone says "high" internal discourse, poverty, internal displacement, emigration, and what not. The USA could very well fall in that category, simply because we see "high" as very different.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Hastings_S.E 6 years ago
Hastings_S.E
Hastings_S.EReas0nTied
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