The Instigator
kobi
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
jchung1029
Pro (for)
Winning
1 Points

should a seating government argue on what the opponent says he will do?

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 1 vote the winner is...
jchung1029
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/4/2012 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 690 times Debate No: 27808
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (1)

 

kobi

Con

seating government must have to defend what they have done, and also what they can do but not argue on what the opponent says he will do.
jchung1029

Pro

I accept the debate and take the con side of the argument!

A government, regardless of orientation (standing or sitting), must do what is proper to ensure the quality of life of its citizens. This is the sole purpose of a government without any exclusion.

That said, a government must respond to even the slightest threat in order to prevent the harm of its citizens. For example, of Al Qaeda's numerous proposed threats against the United States, many of these threats have been realized and attempted. Thankfully, because of the United States' proactive posture against threats, none of these attacks have been fully performed, reducing death and saving lives.

For an example of this proactive behavior, refer to this story about a Chicago car-bomb plot untangled when FBI officials intercepted terrorist plans and threats.
http://online.wsj.com...

Good luck and have fun!
Debate Round No. 1
kobi

Con

kobi forfeited this round.
jchung1029

Pro

Because my opponent hasn't made any claims for his side or against mine, it must be assumed that the argument is mine. I extend all of my claims in the previous round.
Debate Round No. 2
kobi

Con

kobi forfeited this round.
jchung1029

Pro

Vote Con!
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Ore_Ele 4 years ago
Ore_Ele
Could you explain in more detail? Are you suggesting that the seating politician should not argue against what is opponent says that he would do?
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by wrichcirw 4 years ago
wrichcirw
kobijchung1029Tied
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:01 
Reasons for voting decision: forfeit