Total Posts:10|Showing Posts:1-10
Jump to topic:

Lannan13's RFDs for July

lannan13
Posts: 23,111
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/26/2016 7:32:51 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
Debate: Unique Topics Tournament: The U.S. should implement a policy of containment with regards to China
Link: http://www.debate.org...

Economics

For this debate I shall be voting by going over each contention that is brought up and I shall start with Con's and then move on to Pro's.

Con begins by arguing that we should focus on attempting to reach a mutual beneficial agreement in trade and shows the Australian PM's stance on the issue by arguing that we need to view China in a positive manner, not a negative one. Con then goes on to show the importance of the US-Sino trade relationships as well as Asian-American. The issue then becomes that it is not simply Chinese, but all of Asia, which, as Con stated, included Japan and other areas necessarially outside the resolution. Con does reign it in by stating the Chinese Navy can rival that of the US in the region which would make trade with these other areas difficult. This might be a bit problematic in regards to the resolution or how it could possibly even play into Pro's hands here. He moves on to show that these trade relations are key due to the amount the two sides do and how it dwarfs each side. Pro counters by stating that the mutal trade argument is untopical, but the terms defined seem to fit this since it would be 'the prevention of a government from gaining too much power' which can be an argument that is justified ran by Con, so that argument really doesn't have much to it. Pro then attacks Con's Rice source calling it an appeal to authority, but doesn't actually attack the point that she raised. He moves on to speak on how China is rising to become an Asian Heg. In order to counter this, Pro argues, the US must engage in bilateral trade with nation's targeted with Chinese aggression. He talks about how we can't damage trade relations India. Con traped Pro in a Catch-22 were Pro support of the trade argeements and deals are expansionists, so Con wins this argument by this and nearly this alone. Con then moves to talk on how Chinese influence can be determined through the market place.

I give this argument to Con.

Diplomacy/Military

Con begins going into depth on how the US excursions of containment have failed by giving the Cold War as an example. He then goes on to state how much more of a better situation it would be if China was an ally where China has benefited from Western investing and they have helped in diplomatic negotiations like the Iranian deal and helping with North Korea. Pro claims that Con downplays the Chinese issue and shows how China will do what they can to expand and has moved into international waters even that of US allies and how the US should contain them by having the navy patrol these waters. He then shows how China is moving into South America which posses a risk for US interests. He then finishes his argument off by stating that the containment of Communism isn't the same as the containment of the Chinese. Con disproves Pro's argument on containment showing that the US patrolling international waters and Obama stated there is no containment policy in effect. He shows that the South American influence isn't containment either. Officially making Pro's rebuttal minute.

This argument goes to Con.

Pro's arguments were eventually divided into 5 parts so I shall attempted to go over these parts.

Sophistry

Con begins by countering Con in that China must be contained, but the Chinese have already grown to a rate that is impossible to actually contain. He brings up the 5:2 trade relation ratio on US relation on Chinese goods. If the US were to intervene it would hurt trade. Pro had stated that there were 2 ways the US could go in Asia. This choice is bunk since tChina has already been a heg in Asia for some time, Con argues. Pro had brought up the Asian bank, but Con argues that the Americans asked their allies to stay out of it. This harms both parties involved. The nations involved stated that the bank would have launched anyways even as SK and Japan refused to get involved themselves. Pro begins by stating that Con didn't fulfill his BOP in his argumentation why we shouldn't. Pro states that the bank was that the Allies didn't want Chinese influence over their affairs. He continues with the argument that the US needs to engage in trade with nations under Chinese threat. Even though Pro has good arguments. He fails to go and refute Sino-US trade reliance and fails to actually address how the US and allies were harmed by being left out by the financial institute.

This argument goes to Con.

Free Trade

Con goes in and argues that the US already has strong trade relations with India and a shift from China to more trade with India would just see a rearrangement of Chinese investment and hence there really wouldn't be much of a difference due to the free flow of capital. In order for the US to do this they would also need better relations with the middle east which it doesn't have as it is unstable. Pro simply brushes this off by saying that they have done good coexisting with the US economically, but due to their foreign policy, that's where the US needs to enact their containment policy. Pro then states that India is becoming unhappy with China and the US should capitalize on this by getting into India. Though Con highlights that this is practically the status quo, despite China leads this factor. If there isn't an issue in a field then why disrupt the field to begin with? Con's argument seems to solve this argument, especially when you factor in the flow of capital and his other free market arguments.

This argument goes to Con.

Bilateral Trade

Here Con weighs trade with China and Japan. He shows that we import over $160 billion from Japan which outweighs damage that China could do. Pro's claim that China can't dictate Trade in Asia is crazy as they always have since they are the Heg in the region. Pro responds by establishing a link to another contention where he argued that it threatens US interest in other areas, but doesn't quite say why or show how it would do anything about Chinese Heg in Asia.

This argument also goes to Con.

Co-existence and Spying

Con shows how though the idea may be admirable, it is impossible to contain the trio of China, Russia, and North Korea all at once in Asia, so ties with China are key. He then moves on to state how the financial ties are more beneficial and effective than military intervention. Con concedes to the Chinese spying on other companies as well as property theft. Con goes on to say they are now realizing this is important to growth. Con states that spying has nothing to do with containment and shouldn't be considered. Pro never actually stated anything about military involvement and it's against his framework. He connects the spying due to the theft will allow the Chinese to flood the market with cheap terrible technology destroying economies around the world. This is important as it goes against Con's intellectual property argument as well as his own financial arguments he brings up.

This argument goes to Pro.

With everything considered, I have to award the debate to Con. It was a great debate and I enjoyed the read.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-Lannan13'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

If the sky's the limit then why do we have footprints on the Moon? I'm shooting my aspirations for the stars.

"If you are going through hell, keep going." "Sir Winston Churchill

"No one can make you feel inferior without your consent." "Eleanor Roosevelt

Topics I want to debate. (http://tinyurl.com...)
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~
lannan13
Posts: 23,111
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/26/2016 10:30:26 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
Debate: The United States Should Arm the Kurds
Link: http://www.debate.org...

For this debate I shall be going round by round.

Round 2

Pro begins by listing the causalities that have occurred due to the ISIS terror reignin the Middle East. He talks about how 1 million young children have been displaced or are suffereing, going without the basics due to ISIS. He brings up the Kurds and how they are the only solution the West has to effectively defeat ISIS. He brings up the issue with the Kurds in how even though they have been heavily effective in fighting ISIS, are severely under armed and under funded. He shows how many of the fighters are part time as they can't afford it. Hayd continues and shows how the US can save money by showing how it cost $40 billion to fight ISIS but it is only $500 million to arm the Kurds. He continues by showing that the Kurds will "Likely" have their own state as a result. Con begins with his rebuttals. He argues that the US is arming Syrian rebels, including the Kurds, in an attempt to beat ISIS as well as Asaad in the region, all of this to counter Russian influence in the region. Con brings up the issue of a divided Kurds by showing their interests are divided between defeating ISIS or Asaad first. There isn't a central area to fund causing confusion and difficulty in this plan. He then moves into how backing the Kurds are harmful. He uses the example of the PKK and how they are recognized as a terror organization and backing would jeopardize relations with Turkey, who is a key US ally in the region and a Kurdish state would intersect several nations leading to terror and conflict post-Syrian civil war. Con offers an alternative CP where he argues to halt all funding of Syrian rebels. This, he argues, would allow the loyalists to win the civil war, and then coalition forces could defeat ISIS, where Asaad would then after step down. Which was the underlying goal of many of the rebels in the first place.

Round 3

Pro acknowledges the issue of the decentralized Kurdistan. Pro states that the US should support the Ministry of Peshmerga Affairs which would allow then to form a non-political army. This would allow them to dissolve other groups and the US would be able to channel this one and could get rid of the other extremists and would be able to control budgets and salaries. Pro states that arming the PKK wouldn't be a priority as they only have 5,000 soldiers while the group the US would be arming is 190,000 which shows there a different priority. Thus not arming the PKK. Pro states the CP is untopical and ignores it. Con counters by stating that this has been attempted before and the unification by the Iraqis have been met with military resistance. He argues that this would eventually cause another Civil War and would destabilize the Middle East in the future. He states that the MoPA doesn't have control of these other groups so it would be impossible to dissolve them. Con also points out that Pro's source mentions that the 190,000 Kurdish forces are not unified. This means that funding this group would mean funding extremists that may not share US interests. Con extends his CP across the board and shows that the funding and hopes of unification has failed before and have made issues worse in Syria and help led to the rise and continual existence of ISIS.

Round 4

Pro claims that the unification of MoPA wasn't mentioned in the source, hence making it invalid. Pro attacks Con's unification source saying that it doesn't mention Syria once and doesn't back his claim what-so-ever. He also claims that Con doesn't back arguments on how the groups don't wish to unify. Pro then attacks Con's next claim on how his sources doesn't state that Syrian army would defeat the insurgents. Con brings up his source and quotes it where it talks about prior unification of MoPA and how it failed, disproving Pro's argument against the source. Con continues to disprove Con's antisource arguments by providing more and in other cases just pointing out where in his source they stated otherwise. Con shows that Syria is 36th in the world in terms of strongest military while ISIS is nearly 1/3 of that. Showing that Syria is already armed and capable of fighting ISIS.

Conclusion

It was a very close and amazing debate, but I have to give this debate to Con. The main thing that had pushed this was in the 4th round, instead of refuting Con's points, Pro simply went after his sources. Some of Con's sources were correct which translates to a simple drop of the arguments. Other cases had shown that MoPA wasn't ready for unification which was a huge crux of Pro's argument as it shows they cannot due such and this would only result in more chaos which should be avoided. It shows that many of these groups will just go on to commit crimes, harming everyone involved. Many of the arguments were dropped due to R4, so I have no choice but to give the debate to Con.

Good job on both sides.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-Lannan13'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

If the sky's the limit then why do we have footprints on the Moon? I'm shooting my aspirations for the stars.

"If you are going through hell, keep going." "Sir Winston Churchill

"No one can make you feel inferior without your consent." "Eleanor Roosevelt

Topics I want to debate. (http://tinyurl.com...)
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~
Amedexyius
Posts: 26
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/26/2016 10:41:50 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/26/2016 10:30:26 PM, lannan13 wrote:
Debate: The United States Should Arm the Kurds
Link: http://www.debate.org...

For this debate I shall be going round by round.

Round 2

Pro begins by listing the causalities that have occurred due to the ISIS terror reignin the Middle East. He talks about how 1 million young children have been displaced or are suffereing, going without the basics due to ISIS. He brings up the Kurds and how they are the only solution the West has to effectively defeat ISIS. He brings up the issue with the Kurds in how even though they have been heavily effective in fighting ISIS, are severely under armed and under funded. He shows how many of the fighters are part time as they can't afford it. Hayd continues and shows how the US can save money by showing how it cost $40 billion to fight ISIS but it is only $500 million to arm the Kurds. He continues by showing that the Kurds will "Likely" have their own state as a result. Con begins with his rebuttals. He argues that the US is arming Syrian rebels, including the Kurds, in an attempt to beat ISIS as well as Asaad in the region, all of this to counter Russian influence in the region. Con brings up the issue of a divided Kurds by showing their interests are divided between defeating ISIS or Asaad first. There isn't a central area to fund causing confusion and difficulty in this plan. He then moves into how backing the Kurds are harmful. He uses the example of the PKK and how they are recognized as a terror organization and backing would jeopardize relations with Turkey, who is a key US ally in the region and a Kurdish state would intersect several nations leading to terror and conflict post-Syrian civil war. Con offers an alternative CP where he argues to halt all funding of Syrian rebels. This, he argues, would allow the loyalists to win the civil war, and then coalition forces could defeat ISIS, where Asaad would then after step down. Which was the underlying goal of many of the rebels in the first place.

Round 3

Pro acknowledges the issue of the decentralized Kurdistan. Pro states that the US should support the Ministry of Peshmerga Affairs which would allow then to form a non-political army. This would allow them to dissolve other groups and the US would be able to channel this one and could get rid of the other extremists and would be able to control budgets and salaries. Pro states that arming the PKK wouldn't be a priority as they only have 5,000 soldiers while the group the US would be arming is 190,000 which shows there a different priority. Thus not arming the PKK. Pro states the CP is untopical and ignores it. Con counters by stating that this has been attempted before and the unification by the Iraqis have been met with military resistance. He argues that this would eventually cause another Civil War and would destabilize the Middle East in the future. He states that the MoPA doesn't have control of these other groups so it would be impossible to dissolve them. Con also points out that Pro's source mentions that the 190,000 Kurdish forces are not unified. This means that funding this group would mean funding extremists that may not share US interests. Con extends his CP across the board and shows that the funding and hopes of unification has failed before and have made issues worse in Syria and help led to the rise and continual existence of ISIS.

Round 4

Pro claims that the unification of MoPA wasn't mentioned in the source, hence making it invalid. Pro attacks Con's unification source saying that it doesn't mention Syria once and doesn't back his claim what-so-ever. He also claims that Con doesn't back arguments on how the groups don't wish to unify. Pro then attacks Con's next claim on how his sources doesn't state that Syrian army would defeat the insurgents. Con brings up his source and quotes it where it talks about prior unification of MoPA and how it failed, disproving Pro's argument against the source. Con continues to disprove Con's antisource arguments by providing more and in other cases just pointing out where in his source they stated otherwise. Con shows that Syria is 36th in the world in terms of strongest military while ISIS is nearly 1/3 of that. Showing that Syria is already armed and capable of fighting ISIS.

Conclusion

It was a very close and amazing debate, but I have to give this debate to Con. The main thing that had pushed this was in the 4th round, instead of refuting Con's points, Pro simply went after his sources. Some of Con's sources were correct which translates to a simple drop of the arguments. Other cases had shown that MoPA wasn't ready for unification which was a huge crux of Pro's argument as it shows they cannot due such and this would only result in more chaos which should be avoided. It shows that many of these groups will just go on to commit crimes, harming everyone involved. Many of the arguments were dropped due to R4, so I have no choice but to give the debate to Con.

Good job on both sides.

Really great RFD, it's great to know which parts of the debate proved stronger than others and helps me and my next debating strategies.
Amedexyius

Member of the Voter's Union
lannan13
Posts: 23,111
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2016 4:56:58 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
Debate: The USFG should repeal anti-discrimination laws in the private sector.
Link: http://www.debate.org...

For this vote I shall be going Round by Round.

Round 2

Pro begins by stating that it is impossible to know if someone was discriminated unless someone knew they have been discriminated against. He then moves on to saying that they wouldn't deny someone service as it would make them lose profit. He then moves on to say that if someone wants to discriminate then they should, though this comes in conflict with the first two contentions that Pro has brought up. Con brings up how everyone should be able to enter the market for the escentials. He then acknowledges certain legal discrimination giving Hooters as an example. He states that repealing ADL would lead to Civil Rights set-back. Con brings up how minorities were discriminated against and denied Physological needs like housing and how many were denied job oppertunites and these things still exist today. Con brings up how from 2012-2013 there were over 100,000 discrimination suits brought up and how they are still needed. Otherwise it will perpetuate poverty which not only harms people but the businesses as well. On the argument of religious discrimination, he argues that God doesn't approve of this type of discrimination. This brings a whole new meaning to 'What would Jesus do?'

Round 3

Pro responds to Con's case saying that it won't/doesn't happen today. He then goes on to attack BLM calling them terrorists as well as attacking modern feminists. He continues his attack against feminists with his rebuttal to the 100k lawsuits by saying only 15% of them were won. He also calls homosexuality a mental illness. Pro had dropped the religious argument. Con turns around and uses practically everything Pro just said as prejudice, the one thing that Pro said really didn't exist in today's world. Con explains that the reason the numbers are so low is that these companies settle it out of court in order to save face. This doesn't really negate the numbers that were brought up by Con in R2.

Round 4

He brings up the Dallas shooting to show discrimination against whites, but if that's the case, then this also counts as discrimination and Pro negates his own argument here. Pro continues on in saying that homosexuality is a mental illness. He claims that discrimination is really really rare. He then claims that nearly .00002% have been discriminated in this time period. Though that's only accounting for those that are reported which can actually be highlighted in Pro's own R2 opening arguments that he himself made. Con brings up instances where both the LBGT community and blacks have been discriminated against in modern day. Con moves on to say that the number of discrimination is high and even if Pro's argument is taken as fact it doesn't mean that it should be repealed and gives Japan as an example. Con refutes Pro miniscule number of discrimination that doesn't account for class-action lawsuits.

Round 5

Pro states that ADL is not necessary since very few instances occur and few are settled and states that businesses harm themselves by doing so. Con brings up how they are needed since it has been years since it ADL was established and repealing would lead to a dsytopia. He uses examples of black and LBGT discrimination, which Pro hasn't refuted. He continues with showing how minorities have settled 15% of discrimination cases and won. Showing it still exists.

Conclusion

I have to give this debate to Con. The reason being is that several of the arguments brought up have either been won by Con or dropped by Pro. Some of Pro's own arguments contradict each other like how he argues some businesses have to discriminate and how it is rare. If it is rare then why do they have to discriminate. He has dropped the arguments showing the black and LBGT discrimination cases. The numbers surrounding the 100,000 court cases seems to be one of the most debated points in the debate. This argument goes to Con as even though the number of success is low, it still shows there still is discrimination out there even if it is unsuccessful in court and it doesn't account for out of court settlements and class-action lawsuits. There was another point in the debate where Pro even argued for discrimination against the majority ethnic groups which is still an argument that there is discrimination and it exists. Con even used Pro's own arguments to show that prejudice still exists especially with BLM, feminists, blacks, and homosexuals.

For that, I award this debate to Con.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-Lannan13'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

If the sky's the limit then why do we have footprints on the Moon? I'm shooting my aspirations for the stars.

"If you are going through hell, keep going." "Sir Winston Churchill

"No one can make you feel inferior without your consent." "Eleanor Roosevelt

Topics I want to debate. (http://tinyurl.com...)
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~
Bob13
Posts: 715
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2016 5:49:09 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/27/2016 4:56:58 PM, lannan13 wrote:
Debate: The USFG should repeal anti-discrimination laws in the private sector.
Link: http://www.debate.org...

For this vote I shall be going Round by Round.

Round 2

Pro begins by stating that it is impossible to know if someone was discriminated unless someone knew they have been discriminated against. He then moves on to saying that they wouldn't deny someone service as it would make them lose profit. He then moves on to say that if someone wants to discriminate then they should, though this comes in conflict with the first two contentions that Pro has brought up. Con brings up how everyone should be able to enter the market for the escentials. He then acknowledges certain legal discrimination giving Hooters as an example. He states that repealing ADL would lead to Civil Rights set-back. Con brings up how minorities were discriminated against and denied Physological needs like housing and how many were denied job oppertunites and these things still exist today. Con brings up how from 2012-2013 there were over 100,000 discrimination suits brought up and how they are still needed. Otherwise it will perpetuate poverty which not only harms people but the businesses as well. On the argument of religious discrimination, he argues that God doesn't approve of this type of discrimination. This brings a whole new meaning to 'What would Jesus do?'

Round 3

Pro responds to Con's case saying that it won't/doesn't happen today. He then goes on to attack BLM calling them terrorists as well as attacking modern feminists. He continues his attack against feminists with his rebuttal to the 100k lawsuits by saying only 15% of them were won. He also calls homosexuality a mental illness. Pro had dropped the religious argument. Con turns around and uses practically everything Pro just said as prejudice, the one thing that Pro said really didn't exist in today's world. Con explains that the reason the numbers are so low is that these companies settle it out of court in order to save face. This doesn't really negate the numbers that were brought up by Con in R2.

Round 4

He brings up the Dallas shooting to show discrimination against whites, but if that's the case, then this also counts as discrimination and Pro negates his own argument here. Pro continues on in saying that homosexuality is a mental illness. He claims that discrimination is really really rare. He then claims that nearly .00002% have been discriminated in this time period. Though that's only accounting for those that are reported which can actually be highlighted in Pro's own R2 opening arguments that he himself made. Con brings up instances where both the LBGT community and blacks have been discriminated against in modern day. Con moves on to say that the number of discrimination is high and even if Pro's argument is taken as fact it doesn't mean that it should be repealed and gives Japan as an example. Con refutes Pro miniscule number of discrimination that doesn't account for class-action lawsuits.

Round 5

Pro states that ADL is not necessary since very few instances occur and few are settled and states that businesses harm themselves by doing so. Con brings up how they are needed since it has been years since it ADL was established and repealing would lead to a dsytopia. He uses examples of black and LBGT discrimination, which Pro hasn't refuted. He continues with showing how minorities have settled 15% of discrimination cases and won. Showing it still exists.

Conclusion

I have to give this debate to Con. The reason being is that several of the arguments brought up have either been won by Con or dropped by Pro. Some of Pro's own arguments contradict each other like how he argues some businesses have to discriminate and how it is rare. If it is rare then why do they have to discriminate. He has dropped the arguments showing the black and LBGT discrimination cases. The numbers surrounding the 100,000 court cases seems to be one of the most debated points in the debate. This argument goes to Con as even though the number of success is low, it still shows there still is discrimination out there even if it is unsuccessful in court and it doesn't account for out of court settlements and class-action lawsuits. There was another point in the debate where Pro even argued for discrimination against the majority ethnic groups which is still an argument that there is discrimination and it exists. Con even used Pro's own arguments to show that prejudice still exists especially with BLM, feminists, blacks, and homosexuals.

For that, I award this debate to Con.

Please refrain from making biased or false statements in your RFDs, and consider resubmitting your vote.
I don't have a signature. :-)
lannan13
Posts: 23,111
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2016 5:51:06 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/27/2016 5:49:09 PM, Bob13 wrote:

Please refrain from making biased or false statements in your RFDs, and consider resubmitting your vote.

These were both true and legitament arguments and stances that both of you brought up in the debate. There really isn't bias when the debate was there and the outcome was obvious. If you have an issue with it then feel free to PM me about it.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-Lannan13'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

If the sky's the limit then why do we have footprints on the Moon? I'm shooting my aspirations for the stars.

"If you are going through hell, keep going." "Sir Winston Churchill

"No one can make you feel inferior without your consent." "Eleanor Roosevelt

Topics I want to debate. (http://tinyurl.com...)
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~
lannan13
Posts: 23,111
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2016 6:53:27 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
Debate: The Use of Atomic Bombs on Japan were justified.
Link: http://www.debate.org...

For this vote I shall be going round by round. The two sides of the debate had opposing positions in terms of Pro and Con.

Round 2

Con begins by showing that the Japanese didn't want to come to white peace. Even after the second atomic bomb, Japan's military staged a coup in order to overthrow the government to continue the war. The opposition to the bombing of Japan was Operation Downfall which the US would see over 1.2 million causalties. He showed that the Japanese planned Operation Cherry Blossom where they would send plagued rats into civilian populations and showed that this was looking to attack SD, California that year one month after the atom bombs. Pro argues that Japan would have surrendered anyways as a commission showed they would have surrendered in November of that year. The Japanese winning mindset was due to their sworn duty to not speak of defeat, so the Japanese thought they were winning the war. Even IKE thought it was unnecessary. Japan was running out of funds and food making prolonged fighting impossible. Pro argues that a warning shot would have made things better as it would've been a show of force. He offers two other options of bombing Japan into submission and shows the Russian invasion of Manchuria crushed Japan and a continual assault of Japan would have led to an Allied victory.

Round 3

Con counters by stating that the Japanese would have continued to fight as even post-Hiroshima, this occurred. Con argues that if the war would have continued to be prolonged then the Japanese would suffer more and more from resources to causalities in the war. Con brings up the Japanese unpredictable nature where they still attacked the US knowing there was retaliation coming and they would kill themselves in a loss. He continues using the unusual tactics of Japan to state how it would lead to a climbing death toll of the Japanese. Pro counters that Japan was already prepared to surrender and in the process of doing so. He then backs this by showing how Emperor Hirohito urged to accept the peace terms of Potsdam. He counters the Japanese unusual tactics by showing how many of these Japan used and most were unsuccessful. Pro extends across his alternatives which were dropped by Con.

Round 4

This last round Con finally responds to Pro's alternatives. The first one he claims that the Russian involvement would result in more causalties then both atom bombs combined. Con states that if the Japanese wouldn't surrender after the first atom bomb then how much bombing would it have taken if the bombs weren't dropped is the question he purposes, then uses a SK example. He quotes a passage showing that the council wouldn't have accepted peace unless Emperor Hirohito did something and urged the council to act. He then goes on to list 6 war crimes the Japanese were considering of using to fight the Allies with. Con finishes with clarifies, in his opinion, that the debate wasn't focused around whether or not the Japanese would surrender, but they wouldn't accept peace without drastic measures, hence the atom bomb. Con drops the demonstrate power of the bomb argument. Pro extends across the argument on the USSR forcing surrender by showing, once more, the fact that the Japanese were already in peace talks with the Russians. Pro brings up how Con never addressed the fact the Japanese were likely to surrender that November/December even without the Bomb. He extended across the Russian involvement forcing the Japanese surrender. Pro states they were already talking surrender, but opposed Unconditional surrender. They never held a vote, but listened to the Emperor. He states that Japan did commit these crimes, but their ability to gather the resources to do this was unlikely and they probably wouldn't have succeeded.

Conclusion

This was a close debate and a fun read as well. Pro wins the argument in regards to Demonstrating the power of the bomb due to the droppage from Con. I also have to give the Russian example to Pro as well since Con had dropped the Russian-Japanese white peace talks. This also gives Pro the Conventional bombing argument. I have to give a slight edge to Con on the retaliation argument since, even though the Japanese wouldn't have been able to hit US homeland, they would still be able to due damage to US forces invasion as well as US causalties during Operation Downfall. In regards to Operation Downfall, I have to give this to Pro since he argued they were going to surrender in November/December of that year, which really wasn't contested outside of Con arguing this wasn't needed for the debate as what was needed was the show of force. This leads to the redirect of the Russian interference leading to Pro winning this argument.

I award Pro the arguments points in this debate.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-Lannan13'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

If the sky's the limit then why do we have footprints on the Moon? I'm shooting my aspirations for the stars.

"If you are going through hell, keep going." "Sir Winston Churchill

"No one can make you feel inferior without your consent." "Eleanor Roosevelt

Topics I want to debate. (http://tinyurl.com...)
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~
Bennett91
Posts: 4,237
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2016 1:12:58 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/27/2016 4:56:58 PM, lannan13 wrote:

Round 3

Pro responds to Con's case saying that it won't/doesn't happen today. He then goes on to attack BLM calling them terrorists as well as attacking modern feminists. He continues his attack against feminists with his rebuttal to the 100k lawsuits by saying only 15% of them were won. He also calls homosexuality a mental illness. Pro had dropped the religious argument. Con turns around and uses practically everything Pro just said as prejudice, the one thing that Pro said really didn't exist in today's world. Con explains that the reason the numbers are so low is that these companies settle it out of court in order to save face. This doesn't really negate the numbers that were brought up by Con in R2.

Thanks for the vote! the Stuff about the discrimination cases was 15% that actually go to trial are won by the person claiming discrimination - these are usually class action lawsuits PLUS an unknown amount of out of court settlements (which are done because the company knows it's guilty).
lannan13
Posts: 23,111
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2016 1:30:26 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/28/2016 1:12:58 AM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 7/27/2016 4:56:58 PM, lannan13 wrote:

Round 3

Pro responds to Con's case saying that it won't/doesn't happen today. He then goes on to attack BLM calling them terrorists as well as attacking modern feminists. He continues his attack against feminists with his rebuttal to the 100k lawsuits by saying only 15% of them were won. He also calls homosexuality a mental illness. Pro had dropped the religious argument. Con turns around and uses practically everything Pro just said as prejudice, the one thing that Pro said really didn't exist in today's world. Con explains that the reason the numbers are so low is that these companies settle it out of court in order to save face. This doesn't really negate the numbers that were brought up by Con in R2.

Thanks for the vote! the Stuff about the discrimination cases was 15% that actually go to trial are won by the person claiming discrimination - these are usually class action lawsuits PLUS an unknown amount of out of court settlements (which are done because the company knows it's guilty).

Ah, my mistake.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-Lannan13'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

If the sky's the limit then why do we have footprints on the Moon? I'm shooting my aspirations for the stars.

"If you are going through hell, keep going." "Sir Winston Churchill

"No one can make you feel inferior without your consent." "Eleanor Roosevelt

Topics I want to debate. (http://tinyurl.com...)
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~