The Instigator
davidhancock
Pro (for)
Losing
4 Points
The Contender
joshuaXlawyer
Con (against)
Winning
11 Points

should japan be allowed to rearm with nuclear arms

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 4 votes the winner is...
joshuaXlawyer
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/12/2011 Category: Politics
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,074 times Debate No: 14755
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (8)
Votes (4)

 

davidhancock

Pro

1 japan should rearm better stratgic alliance in asia us doesnt spread its self so thin
2 japan can deter north korea and china from nuclear esclation
3 us can focus on more vital areas in world politics
4 japan is at the least risk to strike against us
im kinda new good luck to me lol
joshuaXlawyer

Con

By giving Nuclear weapons to Japan would be for one going against multiply treaties and political crap that it would be very difficult to do so.
Even then would it be wise to give nukes to a country with leaders that possibly have a grudge from WWII remember these people were known for suicide bombers self sacrafice i don't think they would think twice to launch one off if possible out of revenge. Since we nuked them twice, remember japans not allies by choice we forced them to be.
Debate Round No. 1
davidhancock

Pro

ok so 1. by my opponets logic we should have been nuked by brittan cause we beat them but we have an alliance with them now huh thats odd aint it
2: we have rebuilt japans economie to a better than pre-WWII level
3: there is only 1 treaty against japan rearm and thats by us so you can drop the treaty arguement
4: my opponet dropped the arguements about china and north korea also he dropped my world politics arguement
5:i will now ! all of my arguements and since I believe i have profecently answered all arguements this should be allowed
A: The US being spread so thin gets attacked because of weak apperance causes nuke genocide and WWIII with worse causlities
B: japan not able to deter an US spread leads to ! above
C: US can better solve for war if japan rearms solves nuke war even if japan gets trigger happy we can step them off the ledge using soft power
D: japan being a prime choice for troop withdrawl because of the reasons above japan remains loyal to the US better enforcing my good reasons for troop withdrawl

(wow this is fun)
joshuaXlawyer

Con

"ok so 1. by my opponets logic we should have been nuked by brittan cause we beat them but we have an alliance with them now huh thats odd aint it.."
Ok for one i hate people who try to be smart secondly we are not talking about British we are talking about Japan,
seeing how i have said they have used suicide bombers and so on he ignored why because you can clearly see with past events they are the type of people to not care about rationality but honor we had to use 2 nukes on them just to make them surrender. I assure you death by the blast,heat, or radiation is not very pleasnt , im sure we kill lots of innocent people as well as japanese soldiers the wars between british and america was not that bad considering back then wars usually didn't have civilian casualties as much as a nuke has done to japan. Your comparison sucks.
I dont know did we nuke the british twice.

3: there is only 1 treaty against japan rearm and thats by us so you can drop the treaty arguement.

also this would go against more than just that treaty but the idea Obama is trying to create but reducing nuclear arms not adding them, and congress would argue this bill to over turn that treaty for awhile you twit which was the political up roar you would case by such a suggestion.

4: my opponet dropped the arguements about china and north korea also he dropped my world politics arguement
O i have to say it now...... Objection!! look here in your words:
1 japan should rearm better stratgic alliance in asia us doesnt spread its self so thin
2 japan can deter north korea and china from nuclear esclation
3 us can focus on more vital areas in world politics
4 japan is at the least risk to strike against us
Now i clearly attack the point your entire case stood on which was number 4.
Without number 4 your number 3 2 and 1 would fall because if they were not the least risk then we couldn't do number 3 nor number 2.
Your whole case was a 4 story building and i just attacked your support beams at the bottom!

Anyway now from your numbers to your letters i will also add its bad to add more info into a rebuttle..
Wow after looking at your new arguments you added i must say they still cannot stand if you can't prove number 4.
A: The US being spread so thin gets attacked because of weak apperance causes nuke genocide and WWIII with worse causlities.
That a really big "assumption" yes exactly assumption you assume that this will happen but you have to look at this we have all these allies :
- Australia
- Egypt
- Israel
- South Korea
- Jordan
- New Zealand (despite being suspended from the ANZUS alliance)
- Argentina
- Bahrain
- Philippines
- Thailand
- Kuwait
- Morocco
- Pakistan

yeah we are all by our selfs only japan can save use now...

B: How do you know them possessing nukes will deter North Korea any way? you can't seeing how we have nukes to and apperently your saying our nukes arn't detering them what differnece would japan make.

C: Again you assume Japan having nukes will solve the problem yet our nukes in the U.S are not detering them yeah very big hole there.

D: Objection! false i have proven how.. One on how giving them military strength my lead to them attacking us out of past transgressions such AS NUKES.
Debate Round No. 2
davidhancock

Pro

1: my opponet makes style and personal attacks in the rebuttle he just gave he only proves that the US is not fit to control baese if we act the way he did
2: he took my first arguement in the secound rebuttal wrong what i was saying is that military action doesnt make a country crazy
3 he didnt answer the economy arguement made in rebuttal 2 which says that japan will hold the alliance because of what we have don for them
4 he also dropped my solvency for japan secnairo so even if they get out of hand we will politicaly handle them no risk of war on his only ! well he did but he made an arguement that made no sense C: Again you assume Japan having nukes will solve the problem yet our nukes in the U.S are not detering them yeah very big hole there. if he spent more time answering this he might have won who is "them"

5 the question was not weither this could be done rather should it happen my opponet is trying to take this debate to different context by his treaty if he wants to debate if i could happen he can meet me after class
6 arguement 1 can and should be disregaurded
7 another miss understanding; he thinks what im saying US will be attacked without japans help let me clairfy this to him- the US will be spread to thin enemys take advantage of this attact US US and allies retaliate causing WWIII im not saying allies wont help but turn his allies arguement they will be fuel to a wwIII fire
8 B; if a gun is pointed in your face and your told not to do something you wont do it therefore deterence just with a nuke
9 vote pro; even if you give him crazy japan secenario we solve with c in the secound part because the pro holds alot more ! and they are more probable then japan going crazy after years of peace WWII ended 65 years ago most people to hold a grudge are dead or to old to serve
joshuaXlawyer

Con

Dude this is sloppy make your stuff more spaced out and copy and paste the points your attacking because this is a confusing mess to read I gave you a pointer lol.

Anyway Your case:::

1: my opponent makes style and personal attacks in the rebuttal he just gave he only proves that the US is not fit to control baese if we act the way he did.

For one what's Baese? and personal attacks? yeah you started the personal attacks first with the comments like:
1. by my opponents logic we should have been nuked by Brittan cause we beat them but we have an alliance with them now( huh that's odd aint it) This comment at the end was not needed and was insulting because you were acting like I was an idiot now if this last part wasn't here id have no problem and would not have made personal attacks.
Also this has no bearing on the debate.

2: he took my first argument in the second rebuttal wrong what I was saying is that military action doesn't make a country crazy

I don't remember saying they were crazy what I was saying is that giving a nuclear weapon to a country that has been controlled and attack by the U.S is not a very safe idea. Seeing how we killed thousands of innocent people as well as soldiers with the atomic bomb while they only attacked a military target in pearl harbor. I can see a country holding a grudge that long. Americans still hold a grudge on Nazi's and the holocaust, even today if we find a former Nazi in America we send them to prison or give them the death penalty and that my friend was 65 years ago. Nazi soldiers were not exactly bad people they just followed orders liking it or not they had no choice. Either way I'm just saying you underestimate societies holding grudges.

3. he didn't answer the economy argument made in rebuttal 2 which says that Japan will hold the alliance because of what we have don for them.
Objection! I don't see a need to because you have no sources to back you up .

4. he also dropped my solvency for Japan secnairo so even if they get out of hand we will politically handle them no risk of war on his only ! well he did but he made an argument that made no sense C: Again you assume Japan having nukes will solve the problem yet our nukes in the U.S are not deterring them yeah very big hole there. if he spent more time answering this he might have won who is "them"

Do us a favor don't act dumb it very obvious that I was referring to the countries this topic is about namely North Korea and China If the U.S's nukes don't scare them why would Japans?

5 the question was not weither this could be done rather should it happen my opponet is trying to take this debate to different context by his treaty if he wants to debate if i could happen he can meet me after class

What are you talking about, im arguing it should not be done and can't and class? what i don't understand?

6 arguement 1 can and should be disregaurded

Good it should.

8 B; if a gun is pointed in your face and your told not to do something you wont do it therefore deterence just with a nuke.

Yes but you don't think China and North Korea don't have nukes too? Because we know North Korea does now your example only works if the other doesn't have a nuke but they both will have nukes.
Example: one guy with a gun and another with a gun all i see is a shoot out waiting to happen.

9 vote pro; even if you give him crazy japan secenario we solve with c in the secound part because the pro holds alot more ! and they are more probable then japan going crazy after years of peace WWII ended 65 years ago most people to hold a grudge are dead or to old to serve

Ok the word crazy never was used in my arguments if i was japanese i would be insulted by your comments not mine because your trying to make me look like a racist and i find that insulting.
All im saying is if the possiblity exists then we should not give them a WMD, Also this would go against our efforts as the U.S to reduce Nuclear weapons. This is one thing that is certain making more nukes is not helping us reduce them.
Also i Said The U.S's nukes are not deterring "them" which is North Korea and China which my opponents reason for giving them nukes. why would giving nukes to Japan change that? Simple put it won't theres no reason to its a waste of time resources and money.
Debate Round No. 3
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by dan1966 3 years ago
dan1966
Given the situation with Japan's birth rates; by 2030 the country will be incapable of supporting a robust defense force because at that point the manpower will start to decrease.

Nuclear arms will logically become a choice if Japan is to have some balance against growing Chinese avarice and the threat of an unstable North Korea.

I also can't see how the United States could continue to maintain bases and ships there with a faltering economy, abysmal leadership and its own armed forces now suffering problems in retention and recruitment. Eventually we have to entertain the prospect of leaving Japan and re-basing in Guam or Pearl Harbor...yes, we've been here before.
Posted by davidhancock 6 years ago
davidhancock
thanks innomen i needed feed back wow looks like im going to lose ah well
Posted by CAPLlock 6 years ago
CAPLlock
Japan can't go to war.
Posted by innomen 6 years ago
innomen
Spelling and grammar go to con for numerous errors, although both side had some, there were clearly more on the side of pro, not to mention a sloppy format. Pro's argument was weak, and there are some inherently good reasons for Japan being more independent militarily. The overall argument was weakened by the approach of format, where your strongest points seem to have lost value.
Posted by davidhancock 6 years ago
davidhancock
this is my first finished round i need rdfs
Posted by joshuaXlawyer 6 years ago
joshuaXlawyer
im bored so im going to argue this which i have no interest in
Posted by davidhancock 6 years ago
davidhancock
whats up somebodys on my side
Posted by jrmurillo09 6 years ago
jrmurillo09
I agree, so good luck
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Cliff.Stamp 6 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
davidhancockjoshuaXlawyerTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:31 
Vote Placed by innomen 6 years ago
innomen
davidhancockjoshuaXlawyerTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Vote Placed by Cobo 6 years ago
Cobo
davidhancockjoshuaXlawyerTied
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:13 
Reasons for voting decision: Con kill in the last round. but was slightly abusive
Vote Placed by SuperRobotWars 6 years ago
SuperRobotWars
davidhancockjoshuaXlawyerTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: No one used sources and con had the most convincing arguments.