The Instigator
flamebreath
Con (against)
Losing
4 Points
The Contender
RougeFox
Pro (for)
Winning
24 Points

should the United States Stanction against irans uranium expenditure

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  
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: 12/21/2010 Category: Politics
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,350 times Debate No: 14106
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (7)
Votes (4)

 

flamebreath

Con

SANCTION --"a Democrat usually gets the union's endorsement"
AGAINST-- In a direction or course opposite to
URANINIUM-- a heavy toxic silvery-white radioactive metallic element
IRAN-- a theocratic Islamic republic in the Middle East in western Asia
(wordnet.world)

CONTENTION ONE: the united states must priorirtize its conflict whitin different smaller sectors and a limited range
SUB POINT A: the United States must prioritize

As many conflicts comes with different range and has different outcomes, it is clear however; that the United States government must prioritize in an effort to promote stability within its nation. The United Sates government cannot afford to add more conflicts to its list simply for the reason that it will create instability within the nation.

http://www.rieas.gr...

"Stability in a country can be the result of internal or external causes which are all sociologically rooted. Whether we classify stability as political, social, or economic it undeniably contributes to a country's uninterrupted function, otherwise the country's uneven operation could lead to either political troubles, collapse of the government, or in multi-national societies it can even proceed to the country's demise."

SUB POINT B: Financial disadvantages

Financial problems occurs when a country takes on many problems thus colabsing due to economic infrastruture. the United States is currently under an economic infrastructure and should stabilize it before taking on any other problem. we have to look into the United States involvement with iran will enhance our economic infrastructure thus lowering stability within our economic structure.

http://webserver1.pugetsound.edu...

Since the exchange rate is the one price that affects all of the prices in a country (to foreign buyers) it is very important that the FX rate be stable in the short run and be able to adjust smoothly to changing economic and political conditions.

Changing interest rates and economic policy will be a second independent factor influencing the exchange rate between A and B. If, for example, B's central bank raises interests rates in the short run (perhaps be reduce its inflation rate), this causes investment funds to flow into B, appreciating its currency. Thus the long term depreciation of B's currencies is interrupted by a short term appreciation.

I AWAIT MY OPPONENTS POINT OF VIEW
RougeFox

Pro

===Definitions===

Sanction- A punitive mechanism used to encourage a country to adopt or revise its policies. Trade sanctions might include increases in tariffs. (afsc.org)

I agree with the other definitions. I think we all know what the words mean anyway.

===Burden of Proof===

Because sanctions against Iran are already occurring, my opponent assumes the burden of proof because he is arguing against the status quo. He is also the instigator.

===Roadmap===

I will begin with some constructive arguments and then move on to my opponent's case

===My Case===
Contention 1: Sanctions give the United States leverage when negotiating with Iran
Peter Crail[1], a research analyst at the Washington-based Arms Control Association, regarding the effectiveness of sanctions on Iran says "Their purpose is not just to punish Iran, but to influence the regime to change its behavior." I look to this quote to show how sanctions provide leverage in diplomacy. Sanctions provide leverage in two ways.
First, the threat of sanctions or further sanctions provides leverage because it is in the best interests of a country to avoid sanctions. Thus, they may back down when threatened with sanctions because of the damaging effect on the economy.
Second, after sanctions are imposed, leverage is created. The United States will be able to directly influence the Iranian economy. Iran's economy is in poor shape and, according to Andrew Parasiliti (http://www.iiss.org... ) the International Institute for Strategic Studies; sanctions play a factor in their economic struggles. Because the United States has the ability to lift these sanctions, the United States can directly influence the Iranian economy, thus, the United States gains power and leverage
Dr. Matthew Levitt writes[1], "Iran has reacted to sanctions with bellicose statements and attempts at ‘facts on the ground,' but the evidence is that sanctions are working." These sanctions have been effective in damaging the economy of Iran. Again, this gives the United States control over Iran's economy and well being, increasing leverage.
The impact of the sanctions is the United States gains diplomatic leverage with Iran. This impact is extremely important because the relations with Iran are testy and the United States needs every advantage in negotiation.

===My Opponent's Case===
My opponent's sole contention is that United States must prioritize. He has not shown how Iran's nuclear program is not a priority. Thus, I do not think that we can look to this contention. However, I will address his subpoints.

A.)The United States must prioritize. This is a very vague statement all governments must prioritize. However, I look to my opponent's statement "The United States government cannot afford to add conflicts to its list…" He then says that it will create instability. However, he must link this directly to sanctions with Iran, which he has not done. Also, he is implying that there is no conflict with Iran. There are already sanctions in place (http://en.wikipedia.org... ), so sanctions would not be taking on a new conflict, the conflict already exists. Thus, this subpoint falls

B.)Financial Disadvantages. Again, he says that sanctioning will create new problems. However, as I showed previously, sanctions are not a new problem. When we look to his statement, "Financial problems occurs when a country takes on many problems thus colabsing due to economic infrastruture.", it is apparent there are two problems with it. First, he must show that the United States has taken on too many problems. Second, he must show that further sanctions will cause the United States economic infrastructure to collapse.

[1] Levitt, Matthew, and Peter Crail. "Can Sanctions Be Effective in Halting Iran's Nuclear Program?" Council on Foriegn Relations, 19 Oct. 2006. Web. 22 Dec. 2010.

Thus, I urge an affirmative vote.
Debate Round No. 1
flamebreath

Con

I thank my opponent.

===My Opponents===
> My opponent gives on contention in which he stated "Sanctions give the United States leverage when negotiating with Iran" however; this is a rather vague statement as he does not effectively explained what he meant by this. Further more, we must see that the use of one contention does not fully explain my opponents thoughts concerning this topic.
>>My opponent provided us with only one source that gives little to no information on this topic
>>> My opponent did not have good organization skills and in an effort to increase the size of his speech, countered my points in ROUND ONE instead of giving his full speech. this shows that he has absolutely no clue on the topic and should not have agreed to debate.

OVERALL: My opponent gave vague description of the topic and little to no comprehension towards the topic at hand
THANK YOU
RougeFox

Pro

I thank my opponent for a quick response; however, I do not appreciate the ad hominem remarks, such as the remarks about my organization or refutation in Round 1.

===Extend my arguments as my opponent did not refute them.===

===Extend my refutations as my opponent did not refute them.===

===Burden of Proof===
My opponent did not challenge the fact he assumes the burden of proof. Thus, he assumes the burden of proof, which has not been met

===I will now respond to everything that my opponent stated.===

>He says that my contention is a vague statement. I will attempt to explain it in more detail.
1.) The United States imposes sanction against
2.) Iran feels negative effects of sanction, namely, their economy is harmed
3.) The United States has the power to lift sanction if they please. Thus, it is in Iran's best interests to cooperate diplomatically, because the United States has the power to improve Iran's economy
4.) Because sanctions are damaging to the economy of Iran, the mere threat of a sanction also gives the United States power.
- I referred to this power as "diplomatic leverage". Hopefully this clarifies my position.

He also says that one contention cannot fully explain my thoughts about the issue. Yet, he also only provided one contention so I do not think this is relevant.

>>He claims that I have only provided one source. However, I have provided four
1.) asfsc.org - definition of sanction
2.) Levitt, Matthew, and Peter Crail. "Can Sanctions Be Effective in Halting Iran's Nuclear Program?" Council on Foriegn Relations, 19 Oct. 2006. Web. 22 Dec. 2010. - Matthew Levitt and Peter Crail's information
3.) http://www.iiss.org... - Andrew Parasiliti's writing
4.) http://en.wikipedia.org... - general information about sanctions against Iran.

Normally, I would not bring up sources in a round. However, since my opponent has attacked my sources I would like to mention that neither of his sources mention sanctioning specifically, thus, they are not warranted to the resolution.

>>> He claims that I attempted to increase the size of my speech by refuting his points in round one. However, he did not specify that round 1 was only constructive. In Lincoln Douglas debate, the second debater speaking is expected to provide constructive arguments and refutation in his/her second round. If my opponent only wanted constructive arguments in round 1 he should have specified this.

He also makes the ad hominem attack regarding my organization. There is no one way to correctly organize a speech. Also, even if I had poor organization, why does this mean that I have no clue on the topic? Ad hominem attacks should not be looked to in any case.

===Summary of Debate===

My opponent assumes the burden of proof

My opponent has relied on ad hominem attacks and has not refuted any points in my contention. Thus, it still stands.

My opponent did not respond to my refutations. Thus, his points do not stand.

My opponents points have no warrants to the resolution. In his entire contention he does not mention sanctioning. His case is essentially
Contention- Government must prioritize (no warrant)
A) Government must prioritize (again, no warrant)
B) New Conflicts - BAD (again no warrant)
My opponent's case deals entirely with prioritizing conflicts and not starting new ones. In order for his case to stand he must prove that Iran's nuclear program is not a priority (because he assumes the burden of proof) and that Iran's nuclear program is a new problem (which, clearly, it is not. Sanctions have been going on since the 1970's). Because my opponent has not linked his arguments to the topic none of them can be looked to

Thus, you must vote affirmative. Thank you.
Debate Round No. 2
flamebreath

Con

My opponent's case
I would like to tackle the fact that I was not supposed to further my argument in the last round but to counter and ask questions on some of the vague topics you left out.
I do thank you for further explaining your contention however; I would like to tackle the fact that within my one contention, I provided two sub points to fully explain my contention.
I provided very relevant source in both of my Sub points that does not explain the meaning of sanction but does tackle the effects of sanction in both direct and indirect ways.
This is not a Lincoln Douglas debate and I would like to remind my opponent that he accepted my debate and therefore should abide by my rules.
My Case

Contention Two: The sanction of troops in Iran could cause a decrease the employment rate thereby decreasing the standard way of living within the citizens of the united states.
Sub point One: decrease employment>>> with the amount of money spent to increase the military power within the United States, we find that many of our citizens are loosing there jobs. like I mentioned earlier in my first speech, the United states must prioritize in an effort to decrease our economic infrastructure thereby increasing the united state economic stability within and outside the nation. If the United states spent more money on the military, we find that the same situation that happened during Ancient Rome will happen to us. we have to see that the united states simply cannot afford to spend more money on other things that does not help the employment rate.
Sub point Two: decreased standard way of living>>> like I mentioned earlier in my first sub point, the decreased economic stability within the United states, we find that our citizens will often change the way they live in an effort to get use to the situation.

IN CONCLUTION>>> the united states cannot afford to sanction troops in Iran for the reasons of 1) Priority and 2) society
RougeFox

Pro

===Extend my Arguments===
===Extend my Refutation===
===Burden of Proof===
My opponent assumes the burden of proof. He has not fulfilled this because he has not refuted my contention.
===Clarification of Rules===
My opponent asks me to abide by his rules as he is the instigator. I would be happy to oblige, except for the fact that no rules were stated. I cannot abide to unwritten rules and do not have to. I took the safer route of refutation in round one so that I wouldn't drop his argument.
===Refutation of his 2nd Contention===
Sanctions are a piece of legislation called resolutions (you can look to the Wikipedia page I provided earlier for this). Resolutions do not involve money or troops. Thus, this point does not stand. I will still address his subpoints
1.) The military does not need to be used in sanctions. Also, if we had more troops, wouldn't that put people to work. So, this point does not stand. But, if it does, then turn it against con because it would increase employment.
2.) He has not proved that sanctioning Iran is a new problem. Thus, his economic stability point does not stand.

===Summary of Debate===
-My opponent assumes the burden of proof, which remains unfulfilled.
-A brief summary of refutation on my opponent's case
C 1)-He says the U.S. must prioritize. However, he has not proved that sanctions against Iran is not a priority
-He says the U.S. cannot take on new problems. He has not proven sanctioning Iran is a new problem
-Both of the above points must stand for his contention to stand. Neither do. Thus, this cannot be looked to
C 2)-He says sanctioning would require troops. It would not, sanctions are resolutions in legislation.
-Even if troops were required, turn this against con. More employment, helping the economy
-My opponent provides no warrants. His contentions, especially the first, are not linked to resolution
-My opponent did not refute my case. Thus, it still stands
=Weighing of Impacts=
-Because my opponent has no impacts because his points do not stand, contradiction has no impacts
+My impact was clearly established and not challenged. It was increased diplomatic leverage with Iran. This outweighs the con's impacts

===Sample Ballot===
Conduct - Pro - My opponent used ad hominem attacks in the second round.
Spelling/Grammar- Pro - My opponent has many spelling and capitalization errors. He even made a spelling error in the title
Convincing Arguments- Pro - My point was not refuted. Both of his were
Reliable Sources- Pro - Neither of his sources mentioned sanctions at all. Mine were linked directly to sanctions.
Normally, I do not want to ask for your vote on every issue. However, with this debate, it happens that I win all of the voting issues.

Thank you and happy holidays.
Debate Round No. 3
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by RoyLatham 6 years ago
RoyLatham
Con had the burden of proof and never made a case. Saying "because of priorities" does not make a case; he would have to go on to show that resources devoted to sanctions would be better spent on something else. Con alludes to financial instability, but doesn't quantify the problems involved to attempt to prove what would be better.

"Stanction" >> "sanctions"
"irans" >> Iran's
and numerous others. There is no excuse for errors that simply running the spell checker would detect.

Claiming " ... little to no comprehension towards the topic at hand" is a personal attack (actually not an ad hom), a conduct violation. It's OK to claim the argument is disorganized, because that is against the argument, but not to attack the opponent. Pro was in fact well organized.

Con needed references, but didn't provide them.

Easy win for Pro.
Posted by gavin.ogden 6 years ago
gavin.ogden
Con never assumed, nor did he meet his burden of proof. The U.S. already has sanctions in place, which pro pointed out, but was never contested. Because con had no leg to stand on, he made personal attacks/ad hom remarks against pro, therefore the conduct vote swings to pro. Spelling/grammar goes to pro for obvious reasons, and pro also used more reliable sources, although none were really required to negate con's straw man.
Posted by flamebreath 6 years ago
flamebreath
Amazing, I learned a lot in this debate. Thanks for the debate and giving me the opportunity to instigate this debate.
Posted by flamebreath 6 years ago
flamebreath
i am so sorry i meant sanction.
Posted by RoyLatham 6 years ago
RoyLatham
I cannot figure out what the resolution is or what side Con is on. Totally incomprehensible.
Posted by gavin.ogden 6 years ago
gavin.ogden
Stanction? Not looking good for the spelling and grammar vote.
LOL!!!
Posted by m93samman 6 years ago
m93samman
stanction.. lol
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by I-am-a-panda 6 years ago
I-am-a-panda
flamebreathRougeFoxTied
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 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 TUF 6 years ago
TUF
flamebreathRougeFoxTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:43 
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 6 years ago
RoyLatham
flamebreathRougeFoxTied
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 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 gavin.ogden 6 years ago
gavin.ogden
flamebreathRougeFoxTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07