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

RFD: UN Peacekeeping (FT v. Thett3)

YYW
Posts: 36,426
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2015 4:30:15 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Debate: http://www.debate.org...

I. The Resolution

"United Nations peacekeepers should have the power to engage in offensive operations."

Burdens are equal, anyone who says otherwise is wrong. If this confuses you, see generally my voting guide, linked on my profile.

II. Rounds

Openings: PRO: Peacekeepers must be peacemakers. PRO describes how UN peacekeepers without affirmative authority to "make" peace are meaningless, ineffective, and impotent. Physical force is therefore necessary to remediate this problem. Rwanda and Romeo Dallaire (as a digression, I would encourage all of you to read up on this guy.. what he did in Rwanda, and what he waned to do, is really a tragic thing to contend with) is an example of what happens when peacekeepers are not peace makers.

CON misunderstands, kind of, what the debate is about by misstating his burden. The resolution plainly says that "peacekeepers should have the power to engage in offensive operations." So, it's not necessarily about whether to keep offensive and peacekeepers and offensive operations separate. Rather, it's about empowering UN peacekeepers to do something that they do not currently have the authority to do to be consistent with international law. CON similarly, for reasons which I'm not sure he does, tries to argue that there is no "correct" definition of what the word peacekeeping is. (While this may only count against him to the extent that thett3 calls him out on it... This is false. The fact is that FT just didn't do specific enough research into what parameters define the scope of peacekeeper's authority. I would encourage him to engage in deeper research in the future. CON also misapplies and generally misunderstands the meaning of certain language in certain documents.) None of this of course matters, though, because the sole issue in this debate, as the resolution plainly states, is whether the UN's peacekeepers should have the power to engage in offensive operations. These circuitous digressions, as a reader, not only irritate me (because they are irrelevant), but they undermine CON's argument, because if (to entertain CON's false claim) I can't even know what a peacekeeper is (or if we are similarly can't discuss the meaning of other concepts in the resolution) then what ***functionally*** CON is doing is kritiking the resolution. This is not only counterproductive to the objective of advancing his burden of persuasion, it is irritating to read.

More closely to the point, though not quite there, CON thereafter attempts to address the disadvantages of an offensive peacekeeping force. (Again, his understanding of "mixing" offensive and peacekeeping forces is semantically untenable, but this does not affect the debate's outcome unless thett3 calls him on it.) CON's four woes are these: (1) giving peacekeepers the power to use offensive force means fewer offensive enforcement operations, based on assumption of his (rather shallow) understanding of how states function in a general sense; (2) peacekeepers receive special protections under international law, which would make them combatants thereby exposing them to greater risk of being attacked; (3) blurring the line between peacekeepers and combatants may undermine impartiality; (4) increased power means increased responsibility. The second and third points are the closest thing to a coherent argument that FT has made thus far. FT's fourth point had any substantive impact. As a judge I am left wondering: "why do I care?" (No impact, no points in the way of advancing your BOP.)

The overarching problem with FT's argument here, is this sentence: "The failure to enforce international law has nothing to do with failing to give the peacekeepers authority to use offensive force." This is a direct concession, insofar as the sole issue in this debate is about whether United Nation's peacekeepers should have the power to engage in offensive operations. The reason this sentences is an explicit concession is because it directly advances PRO's BOP, by citing the problem with the status quo of nonenforcement (read: offensive) limitations, and implying that enforcement (read: offensive operations) would solve the problem. At this point, the debate is over whether PRO continues or not.

Afterward:

PRO acknowledges that FT doesn't dispute the necessity of force, and he picked up very clearly on PRO's concession. "all it takes to support a Pro ballot is the acknowledgement that we should keep the right to initiate force in our toolbox." But, PRO goes the additional step of discussing generally (a) why coalitions fail, and (b) why the "disadvantages" identified by CON fall in comparison. The minutiae of that argument, however, does not particularly matter at this point because, as PRO correctly indicates, "None of his arguments negate the resolution in all circumstances."

CON tries to reconstruct thereafter and suggests that PRO missed "key nuance." This is incorrect. Thett correctly understood the burden: whether UN peacekeepers should have the power to engage in offensive operations. The debate literally *is* that simple, because that's the resolution, and CON must (to win) keep his arguments within that scope, which he has thus far had considerable difficulty doing. CON is caught up in trivialities that don't matter, and most of his rebuttals and reconstructives, in fact, supported PRO's argument. This was generally consistent throughout the course of the remainder of the debate.

III. Conclusion

Thett3 wins because (1) he successfully demonstrated why UN peacekeepers should have the power to engage in offensive operations: to prevent atrocity, (2) CON argued points materially averse to his position, thereby advancing PRO's BOP, in several instances, and (3) CON at all relevant times failed to advance his own BOP relative to PRO. When measuring preventing atrocity against two nebulous harms, clearly PRO wins.

Suggestions:

Keep your eye on ball when debating. Don't argue stuff that doesn't help you.
Tsar of DDO
thett3
Posts: 14,382
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2015 8:00:43 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Thank you for voting YYW :)
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
YYW
Posts: 36,426
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2015 10:14:26 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/25/2015 8:00:43 PM, thett3 wrote:
Thank you for voting YYW :)

Sure thing. I can give more extensive feedback if anyone is interested, but this debate was incredibly clear to judge... uncommonly clear.
Tsar of DDO
FourTrouble
Posts: 12,777
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2015 10:24:10 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
YYW, your understanding of the resolution, UN peacekeeping, and the arguments is objectively wrong. This debate isn't as "clear" as you think. And for the record, you've very obviously missing the forest for the trees here. Focusing on a single sentence, out-of-context, to somehow extrapolate bullsh!t concessions is terribly judging, and completely misses the point of this debate and topic.
FourTrouble
Posts: 12,777
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2015 10:29:49 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
And somehow, you also ignored the main point I argued, which is that self-defense is sufficient to prevent atrocities. Thett practically concedes that point, leaving no benefits to his plan, only risks.
YYW
Posts: 36,426
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2015 10:32:14 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/25/2015 10:24:10 PM, FourTrouble wrote:
YYW, your understanding of the resolution, UN peacekeeping, and the arguments is objectively wrong. This debate isn't as "clear" as you think. And for the record, you've very obviously missing the forest for the trees here. Focusing on a single sentence, out-of-context, to somehow extrapolate bullsh!t concessions is terribly judging, and completely misses the point of this debate and topic.

I have two degrees in political science and a concentration in international relations. It is not I who is mistaken, FT.
Tsar of DDO
FourTrouble
Posts: 12,777
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2015 10:32:49 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/25/2015 10:32:14 PM, YYW wrote:
At 11/25/2015 10:24:10 PM, FourTrouble wrote:
YYW, your understanding of the resolution, UN peacekeeping, and the arguments is objectively wrong. This debate isn't as "clear" as you think. And for the record, you've very obviously missing the forest for the trees here. Focusing on a single sentence, out-of-context, to somehow extrapolate bullsh!t concessions is terribly judging, and completely misses the point of this debate and topic.

I have two degrees in political science and a concentration in international relations. It is not I who is mistaken, FT.

No, you are mistaken. And just because you have "degrees" doesn't mean you're right about this.
YYW
Posts: 36,426
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2015 10:33:09 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
But of course, I know that you have a difficult time accepting losses. You unequivocally lost, and in time you will come to understand why.
Tsar of DDO
YYW
Posts: 36,426
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2015 10:33:40 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/25/2015 10:32:49 PM, FourTrouble wrote:
At 11/25/2015 10:32:14 PM, YYW wrote:
At 11/25/2015 10:24:10 PM, FourTrouble wrote:
YYW, your understanding of the resolution, UN peacekeeping, and the arguments is objectively wrong. This debate isn't as "clear" as you think. And for the record, you've very obviously missing the forest for the trees here. Focusing on a single sentence, out-of-context, to somehow extrapolate bullsh!t concessions is terribly judging, and completely misses the point of this debate and topic.

I have two degrees in political science and a concentration in international relations. It is not I who is mistaken, FT.

No, you are mistaken. And just because you have "degrees" doesn't mean you're right about this.

When other judges give you the loss, and they will, we'll see.
Tsar of DDO
YYW
Posts: 36,426
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2015 10:40:17 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
However, if debaters would like to PM me their concerns, or discuss them publicly here, I'm perfectly fine with that.
Tsar of DDO