The Instigator
Serpa
Pro (for)
Winning
21 Points
The Contender
zakkuchan
Con (against)
Losing
12 Points

the dalai lama should be allowed to be in tibet

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
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: 3/28/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,243 times Debate No: 3416
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (5)
Votes (9)

 

Serpa

Pro

be it resolved that the dalai lama should be let into tibet because first of all he is ment to be there and he is never going to do any harm to anyone. he's budhist! the whole point of budhism is to respect other people and their belifes! i doubt that anything he does will hurt the stupid chienese government. duh.
zakkuchan

Con

Ok, this should be fun. I'm going to start by going over what my opponent said, piece by piece.

"[F]irst of all he is ment to be there." This is a completely baseless claim. There is not a single person in the world who is "meant" to be anywhere at any given point in time. Unless my opponent can prove a higher power exists, and wants the dalai lama to be in Tibet, this point falls - and even if she somehow proved that much, we'd have to debate whether that constituted being "meant" to be in Tibet.

"[H]e is never going to do any harm to anyone." Physically? Sure, I can concede that that's probably true. But what about the other ways to do harm? His very existence within the borders of China (i.e. within Tibet) would undermine the Chinese government's control over Tibet, thus directly harming the Chinese government.

"[H]e's budhist! the whole point of budhism is to respect other people and their belifes!" He clearly does not respect the Chinese belief that Tibet rightly belongs to China.

"[I] doubt that anything he does will hurt the stupid chienese government." See above. He most likely wouldn't put an army together and march on Chinese forces, but he'd be doing harm to China's sovereignty over the land just by being there.

People in the west really need to stop whining about Tibet. The fact of the matter is, other than a relatively short period of time before the People's Republic of China re-took Tibet, Tibet was a part of China for hundreds of years. Somehow, the concept of freeing Tibet from a government that has centuries of rule over the land to back up its claim to legitimate ownership has become the cool thing to believe in in the west. What we need to realize is that China's claim to Tibet is just as valid as our claim to any of the land in North or South America. Unless we all want to pack up and sail back to Europe, it's hypocritical to ask the Chinese to leave Tibet.

Sympathy for the dalai lama in the Tibet situation is just another permutation of this same delusion.
Debate Round No. 1
Serpa

Pro

Ok, I give you the fact that China may have control over Tibet, but i doubt that the Dalai Lama will "undermine the government" this is just stupid. I am buddhist myself, so i know that the Dalai Lama will do anything that the Chienese Government will not like except not be under their control. Also, my oponent said "There is not a single person in the world who is "meant" to be anywhere at any given point in time." Well, what about government? Does any government (namily the Chienese one) have the right to control anyone or any religon? NO. You said it yourself, Zakkuchan, unless someone can prove their is a higher power who wants something, there is no reason the Chienese should be in Tibet. What religon are you? i dont really care, so dont tell me. But what if your government said "your pope, rabbi, whatever, is not allowed in your country. whould you like it? whould you take offence? YES YOU WOULD!!!!!!! I can tell you that. Unless your, like, some unemotional person who has no life worth living, that is. And Zakkuchan also said that we should stop making such a big deal about it. well, the Dalai Lama has been around for 1391! ( I DONT CARE IF YOU BELIVE IN REINCARNATION!!!!!) budhism has been around since 5th century BCE. Thats a long time. It deserves respect just like any other religon, and Stephen Harper knows that. He is Canada's prime minister, if you dont know. I dont know why you suport China. Their just being unfair.
zakkuchan

Con

"Ok, I give you the fact that China may have control over Tibet, but i doubt that the Dalai Lama will "undermine the government" this is just stupid. I am buddhist myself, so i know that the Dalai Lama will do anything that the Chienese Government will not like except not be under their control."

The dalai lama wouldn't have to take an active role in subversion in order to undermine the Chinese government, if he were in Tibet. As you concede yourself, the dalai lama would refuse to be under Chinese government rule. This in and of itself is subversion, and harmful to the Chinese government. Furthermore, having a figurehead opposed to Chinese rule already fuels anti-government sentiments within Tibet; I imagine this fact would be further exacerbated if he himself were in Tibet, and thus actively involved in the community. Again, he wouldn't have to actively promote violence or resistance to Chinese rule; all he would have to do is be there, and exhibit for all to see an example of a person resisting government control; and that alone would breed dissent, and harm the Chinese government. Thus, your claim that it wouldn't harm anyone is clearly false.

"Also, my oponent said "There is not a single person in the world who is "meant" to be anywhere at any given point in time." Well, what about government? Does any government (namily the Chienese one) have the right to control anyone or any religon? NO. You said it yourself, Zakkuchan, unless someone can prove their is a higher power who wants something, there is no reason the Chienese should be in Tibet."

Of course, a government is never "meant" to be anywhere; a government is a social construct, nonexistent in the state of nature, so it doesn't really ever have a destiny, in the traditional sense of the word. I never said the Chinese government was meant to be in Tibet; all I said is that it has a legitimate claim to the land, based upon centuries of rule, just as the United States and Canada have legitimate claims to their land based upon centuries of rule.

"What religon are you? i dont really care, so dont tell me. But what if your government said "your pope, rabbi, whatever, is not allowed in your country. whould you like it? whould you take offence? YES YOU WOULD!!!!!!! I can tell you that. Unless your, like, some unemotional person who has no life worth living, that is."

First, my religion really has nothing to do with this topic. Second, the reason the dalai lama isn't allowed within Chinese borders is because he wouldn't submit to the Chinese government's rule. A nation, by definition, has control over all the lands and people within its borders, to the extent that that nation sees fit, and the world sees fit to accept. China is an internationally recognized nation with an internationally recognized government, and internationally recognized rule over Tibet. The government has every reason to keep out anyone who refuses to live under that internationally recognized state of affairs.

"And Zakkuchan also said that we should stop making such a big deal about it. well, the Dalai Lama has been around for 1391! ( I DONT CARE IF YOU BELIVE IN REINCARNATION!!!!!) budhism has been around since 5th century BCE. Thats a long time. It deserves respect just like any other religon, and Stephen Harper knows that. He is Canada's prime minister, if you dont know. I dont know why you suport China. Their just being unfair."

Of course the religion deserves respect. But that really has nothing to do with the topic at hand; what we're talking about is whether a person has the right to be in a nation, while refusing to submit to the rule of its government, without that government being able to throw them out. Social contract philosophers like Locke and Rousseau – whose theories lie at the base of the modern concept of nations – said that to be part of a nation, you had to submit to its government. I am not supporting all the things China has ever done. I'm not supporting communism, or the high level of control they have over their people. All I am supporting is their right as a nation, by the very definition of that concept, to rule over everything and everyone within their borders. And I am supporting the legitimacy of their claim to the lands of Tibet, based upon centuries of rule. If your prime minister has so much sympathy for Tibet, the logical conclusion of that line of thinking is that all of his citizens ought to be sent back to Europe.
Debate Round No. 2
Serpa

Pro

ok, there is no point in arguing aganst you because you obviously are to stupid to understand my aguments and its hard to argue agaist someone who does not speak english so every one or anyone who is following this debate know this: i am not giving up, but i dont see the point of arguing aganst someone who cant understand my arguments and i hope that you see that he kinda avoded the thigs he knew i was right on. also i dont have time to type anything else because i am going to a hotel for spring break!!!!!!! yea!
zakkuchan

Con

I understand my opponent's arguments perfectly well, and I refuted them all along with providing my own arguments against the resolution. I also think it's rather clear that I speak English fluently. I didn't avoid anything my opponent said. By not responding at all to what I had to say in the second round, my opponent HAS given up. Everything I said in the last round has gone completely untouched, and her first and second round arguments were rather weak compared to mine as well. With all this in mind, I urge you to vote CON.
Debate Round No. 3
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by Sonatina 8 years ago
Sonatina
How is this debate even close?
Serpa, you clearly repeated the same arguments throughout the debate, all of which zakkuchan refuted. Also, your only recognizable refutation for his arguments was "THAT'S STUPID, DUH" (not in quite so many words). And it's just plain ironic that you claimed he couldn't speak English, and then made innumerable spelling mistakes, barely used punctuation other than "!!!!!", and didn't capitalize a single word.
Honestly, I don't understand how some of these people are voting for you.
And just because freedom of speech allows you to say something doesn't mean it's true.
Posted by JamesIsrael 9 years ago
JamesIsrael
And Serpa: that's right, do some cultural learning and history before you come back and debate, or else your arguments just sound like plain hogwash. I was actually quite disappointed by your knowledge of the issue, as I've seen much better arguments from other people supporting your view.

Yes, the position Dalai Lama have been in existence since the 14th century. However, do remember that since the 16th century, every candidate of the Dalai Lama has been officially approved by the China's central government in Beijing. Well-documented archives from those time periods have shown active Chinese government jurisdiction in the appointment of Dalai Lama. Numerous Dalai Lamas have also paid tributary visits to Beijing, in order to gain the approval of China's Qing Emperors. After the fall of the Qing in 1911, the Nationalist Government of the Republic of China also sent special envoys and troops into Tibet to take over the Qing in overseeing the daily political affairs of the region. In 1939, the Nationalist Government of the Republic of China sent an envoy of troops and government bureaucrats to supervise and give approval to the appointment of the current Dalai Lama the 14th (who was only 5 at the time). All of the above historic events were recorded in detailed documents and treaties signed between the local governments of Tibet and the Central Government in Beijing. In fact, Dalai Lama himself even went to Beijing in 1953 to personally meet Mao. After the meeting, he was elected vice-president of China's first National People's Congress, the highest political position any Tibetan had ever held. After the meeting in Beijing, Dalai Lama and local Tibetan officials took 3 months to tour the major Chinese cities, including Shanghai, Beijing, Chengdu, Xi'An, Chongqing, Guangzhou, etc. He was also impressed by the speed of industrialization and modern development in these areas, and agreed to implement these economic reforms with the help of the central gov't in Tibet.
Posted by JamesIsrael 9 years ago
JamesIsrael
I totally place my full support on zakkuchan. His arguments are logical and well informed on both sides of the issue. Great job!
Posted by Serpa 9 years ago
Serpa
i would like to say that you are all stupid and i can say that because FREEDOM OF SPEECH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! you all are stupid
Posted by Paradigm_Lost 9 years ago
Paradigm_Lost
Serpa, clearly you don't know much about the Dalai Lama, seeing how you make asinine comments, like, "he is never going to do any harm to anyone. he's budhist!"

Here, please educate yourself.
9 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Vote Placed by brokenboy 6 years ago
brokenboy
SerpazakkuchanTied
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 tmhustler 7 years ago
tmhustler
SerpazakkuchanTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Vote Placed by tarsjake 9 years ago
tarsjake
SerpazakkuchanTied
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:30 
Vote Placed by JamesIsrael 9 years ago
JamesIsrael
SerpazakkuchanTied
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 
Vote Placed by theaceb 9 years ago
theaceb
SerpazakkuchanTied
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 
Vote Placed by zander 9 years ago
zander
SerpazakkuchanTied
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:30 
Vote Placed by Kreuzian 9 years ago
Kreuzian
SerpazakkuchanTied
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 
Vote Placed by smiletrishalovesyou 9 years ago
smiletrishalovesyou
SerpazakkuchanTied
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:30 
Vote Placed by zakkuchan 9 years ago
zakkuchan
SerpazakkuchanTied
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