The Instigator
run-ons_maker
Pro (for)
Losing
54 Points
The Contender
Danielle
Con (against)
Winning
62 Points

why missile defence system is bad

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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: 4/3/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 3,626 times Debate No: 3498
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (34)
Votes (36)

 

run-ons_maker

Pro

why because every thing will end at war right? for example do you think if you make bomb your enemy will make dynamite then you make C4 so your opponent will make nuclear and you will make hydrogen bomb and it will end at war
Danielle

Con

"National Missile Defense (NMD) as a generic term is a military strategy and associated systems to shield an entire country against incoming Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles (ICBMs). The missiles could be intercepted by other missiles, or possibly by lasers. They could be intercepted near the launch point (boost phase), during flight through space (mid-course phase), or during atmospheric descent (terminal phase)."

[Source: http://en.wikipedia.org...]

Now that I have clarified what "missle defense" refers to, perhaps your perception of it and the ideology behind it and its supporters would be a little different. It is not about the race to build bigger and better bombs, or a competition regarding who has more weapons of mass destruction. Instead DMD refers to a system that would intercept missles that would cause catastrophically damaging effects to this country should an attack ever be launched on us. And given our current reputation in the world today, you never know when another nation might seize the opportunity to attack. Now, whether or not it could actually work is an entirely other issue (though I do believe that anything is possible). But from a personal standpoint, if we could perfect a way to develop such adequate protection in a time where entire countries could be abolished by the mere push of a button, then I'm all for it. If we could spend hundreds of billions of dollars on a pointless war and throw tax money away to fund other frivolous programs, why not be willing to develop a program that ensures our safety and well-being?

While my opponent mistakingly feels that NMD will promote war, I argue that instead it will deter it. It would 1) make our opponents think twice about attacking our nation and 2) Protect us should a threat ever become a reality
Debate Round No. 1
run-ons_maker

Pro

DUH!!!!!! you forgot one thing if you have that missiles you won't afraid of the other bomb and if they make something that you think it's wrong you will taunt them and war will start and it will make global warming too because ICBM has a............ something that it kills you by cancer and the NMD will help it!! but if you don't have those missiles you will be afraid and don't mess with "nuclear owner" country right? then NO WAR!!!!!!!!!

(well that you say i misuderstand about NMD that's right at first any way i still can argue you)
Danielle

Con

"if you have that missiles you won't afraid of the other bomb"

Are you suggesting that the United States would not take the threat of WMDs seriously? As a reminder, the U.S. already does have missles and other WMDs, however, that doesn't mean that we would take other countries having them lightly. For instance, we've already spent about $520 billion dollars and sacrificed thousands of American lives by going to war with Iraq because of the POSSIBILITY that they even had them. Your argument holds no water.

"if they make something that you think it's wrong you will taunt them and war will start and it will make global warming too because ICBM has a............ something that it kills you by cancer and the NMD will help it!"

1. War is not always a bad thing or the wrong decision

2. Prove to me that ICBM causes global warming and cancer

"but if you don't have those missiles you will be afraid and don't mess with "nuclear owner" country right? then NO WAR!"

No, if we didn't have missles and other countries did, we would just build our own or buy them from other nations. Plus, war is a result of many different circumstances, not just bombs and missles.
Debate Round No. 2
run-ons_maker

Pro

err....... the nuclear one i mean the something...reaction that kills people violently many people die because this and think you won't mess with someone who have gun or armor bigger than you right and the NMD is like an armor then when no one mess each other no war!!!
Danielle

Con

... Err, I have absolutely no idea what my opponent was trying to say in his last round. The only thing I have gathered was, "NMD is like an armor then when no one mess each other no war!!!" -- So basically he is saying that NMDs would prevent war? Right. Well, that is exactly the foundation of my entire argument in this debate.

Because I'm confused (so the readers must be too), let me just end this "debate" by reiterating some of my main points:

Implementeing the NMD would save the lives of American citizens who would perish as a result of an incoming missles destruction. The government as an institution accepts responsibility for protecting citizens; proof is the "Safety At Home" platform that many politicians use to win elections. The NMD would also preserve the land that this nation was founded on, and that we have a right to protect. Furthermore, having a NMD can presumably act as a deterrant from war, meaning we'd never even have to put it to use. As my opponent said, NMD is like armor - when no one messes with each other, no war. Now as I've mentioned, given the current situation... the U.S. reputation; our unpopular involvement in at least 2 wars; the growing number of nations with access to WMDs, etc, I'd say that there is potential for an iminent threat and we should protect ourselves as efficiently and adequately as possible.
Debate Round No. 3
34 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Derek.Gunn 9 years ago
Derek.Gunn
If the UN is corrupt, then we should do something to sort it out.
So far it's the most sensible alternative to war we have for sorting out international disputes.

What sort of corruption have you heard of?
What is your source?
Posted by sadolite 9 years ago
sadolite
But America is screwing the world up and someone has to keep the rest of the world from being taken over by evil dictators and tyrants and you and NZ are obviously the people to take care of these problems. Are you and NZ to chicken to take on this responsibility. The world has the U.N. but it is utterly corrupt and useless as an arbitrator or enforcer of treaties. I think you and NZ should shoulder the responsibility and make all the decisions about the world. Your intellect is so far superior to everyone else's
Posted by Derek.Gunn 9 years ago
Derek.Gunn
It's not our job to solve all the world's problems.
Some things are best dealt with by the individuals affected.

No country is or should be in charge of the world.

Feel free to criticise NZ.
It's not a perfect place either.

Cheers
Posted by sadolite 9 years ago
sadolite
Derek this little debate has become pointless. You are right. Screw the rest of the people living in tyranny, it's their problem. I have my freedom and all I am going to do is focus on my own selfish wants and petty little needs. I don't care about your country I don't care about the starving people in Africa, I don't care about all of the people in the middle east that are being slaughtered by terrorists. Screw the rest of the world. I leave NZ in charge now, thank god you have all the answers now. Now I can sit back and criticize you and your country for all the problems in the world. Make sure you contact the President of the U.S. and the President of the U.N. and let them know you and your country would like to solve all the worlds problems from now on at your expense. I'm done
Posted by Derek.Gunn 9 years ago
Derek.Gunn
So you believe that the war was worth the lives of 50,000 American soldiers?

Just as bad; 50,000 Laotians were killed.
Worse yet; 700,000 Cambodians were killed.
Worse yet; 2,000,000 Vietnamese were killed. These last three are just the civilian figures.

America lost the war. Vietnam became communist anyway.
It's called "The American War" over there.

In 1986 their government implemented free-market reforms.
Private ownership of farms and companies, deregulation and foreign investment are encouraged.
It is now one of the fastest growing economies in the world.
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org...

So, two questions for you to answer:
1) Do you still believe the war was worth it?
2) What source tells you half of their people still live in tyranny?
Posted by sadolite 9 years ago
sadolite
The Vietnam war was about freeing people from tyranny and oppression but unfortunately people like you didn't think it was worth fighting for so half the population in that region of the world still live in tyranny to this day.
Posted by Derek.Gunn 9 years ago
Derek.Gunn
No, an argument is more than an opinion.
It uses logic and agreed "facts" to come to some form of conclusion.

Your argument is in history books eh? Well so is mine.
So, whose right? Somethings missing isn't it?

I accept that there will always be people who wish to take freedom from others.
I completely agree that failing to plan to defend one's country is irresponsible.

Kuwait was busy stealing Iraqi oil under their border and thought that because Saddam was buddy-buddy with Rumsfeld that they could get away with it.

When NZ was attacked, we hunted down their people and took them to court.
We've never had trouble with them since ;-)
I do not ignore history, but you do. Tell me what Vietnam was all about...
Was it a good idea?
Posted by sadolite 9 years ago
sadolite
Those are your opinions and my opinions are my opinions. Last I checked you don't hold any public office that gives you access to classified information about intelligence that has been gathered by various countries to make your opinions fact. I can support my claims using history. My argument is in history books. There will always be people in this world who want to take your freedom and my freedom and oppress you into submission and it will go on until the end of time for as long as man exists. A failure to plan and defend against such attacks is irresponsible in my opinion based on all written history having to do with war and countries invading countries. Kuwait failed to take Saddam Hussein seriously look what happened to them. You ignore history. What did NZ do when it was attacked? If NZ did nothing then history will prove me right.
Posted by Derek.Gunn 9 years ago
Derek.Gunn
Take a look over our comments.
I understand your claims. I gave you arguments as to why each and every one just isn't true. What did I ignore?

You did not have an answer to a single one of them now did you?
You say you base your thoughts on national defence for this country on history.
Yes? What examples?
Yes the US was attacked by various Muslims in 2001. Well NZ was attacked by French agents in 1986. What is your argument?

You think history will prove me wrong? Why? Again you present no argument.

My opinions may appear politically correct, but test me, see if I haven't thought about every damn thing I claim. If I can support my claims with argument and you can't, I'm not politically correct - I'm more like plain correct.

You've lost 80% of your debates.
Now, why would that be?

There are six question here. Have a go at answering them.
Posted by sadolite 9 years ago
sadolite
And the feeling is mutual Derek. I base my thoughts on national defence for this country on history. I feel you base yours on what ever politically correct public opinion of the day may be. Your country wasn't attacked 5 years ago, mine was. And by making the statement that I have learned nothing can also apply to you depending on which side of the argument you are on. You ignore everything I say that is counter to your argument. And Taterize has C02 of the brain. I debated him in a comment section on global warming and ripped him to shreds with his own evidence. All he does is repeat the same thing over and over again no matter how much evidence there is to prove him wrong. History will prove you wrong also in my opinion. But of course your opinion about national defence is absolute fact in your mind.
36 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by greatstuff479 7 years ago
greatstuff479
run-ons_makerDanielleTied
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:07 
Vote Placed by dgray 8 years ago
dgray
run-ons_makerDanielleTied
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:07 
Vote Placed by theBwerd 8 years ago
theBwerd
run-ons_makerDanielleTied
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 Jamic 8 years ago
Jamic
run-ons_makerDanielleTied
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 DorothyDorothy 8 years ago
DorothyDorothy
run-ons_makerDanielleTied
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 HungryAssassin 8 years ago
HungryAssassin
run-ons_makerDanielleTied
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 GleefulJoker 8 years ago
GleefulJoker
run-ons_makerDanielleTied
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 Fantasticlover 8 years ago
Fantasticlover
run-ons_makerDanielleTied
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 JeffGordon 8 years ago
JeffGordon
run-ons_makerDanielleTied
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 HoldenMcGroin 8 years ago
HoldenMcGroin
run-ons_makerDanielleTied
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