The Instigator
jake51
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
lannan13
Pro (for)
Winning
1 Points

Resolved: The United States is justified in intervening in the internal political processes of other

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
lannan13
Started: 2/21/2013 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 6,840 times Debate No: 30496
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (1)

 

jake51

Con

Resolved: The United States is justified in intervening in the internal political processes of other countries to attempt to stop human rights abuses.
Value: Justice
Criterion: The Just War Theory. Just war theory is probably the most influential perspective on the ethics of war and peace. The Just War Theory is used in the UN and Geneva conventions. But more specifically the United States fufills the just war theory. The Just War Theory is a theory in which in order to go to be justified in war all criteria"s of the Just War theory must be met. Or else the United States will not be justified in going to war. The Just War theory is the only way to achieve the value of justice and furthermore be justified in war. Using the just war theory there are three many contentions in which we see that the united states cannot fufill the criterion of the just war theory proving that we would not be justified in going to war.
C1: The Jus ad bellum of the just war theory. This is justice before the war as started. If this criterion is not met the US is not justified and Aquinas says that state has committed a war crime if the criteria are not met. 1. A Just cause. We know that the just cause is obviously the human rights abuse. However there is more that needs to be met. 2. Right intention. A state must intend to fight the war only for the sake of its just cause. Having the right reason for launching a war is not enough. We have seen the US have ulterior motives with Iraq Ambassador James F. Jeffrey said that a main reason for invading iraq was for oil resources. Also our Ambassador of Afganistan James B. Cunningham said that a main reason for going in to Afgan was that American geologists discovered that there were a trillion dollars worth of metal in Afghanistan. This mineral deposit is perhaps the largest in the world, containing valuable metals like gold and silver, along with rare metals such as platinum and rhodium. Therefore the are ulterior motives for going to war other than stopping human rights abuse. 3. Proper authority and public declaration. A state may go to war only if the decision has been made by the appropriate states around the world. We already know that the UN Resolution stated that No State has the right to intervene, directly or indirectly, for any reason whatever, in the internal or external affairs of any State. The us must have respect for the international social contract in which the us in not justified in a unilateral decision. Making the us unjustified but also losing legitimacy. 4. Probability of Success. A state may not resort to war if it can foresee that doing so will have no measurable impact on the situation. We"ve been in Iraq and Afghanistan for 10 years now. And we are still human rights abuses have not stopped! Therefore we know there is not a great chance of success. Also we make things worse. Nils Gleditsch, a Research professor at the International Peace Research Institute said intervention rarely works and countries never rehabilitate and change there ways it also results in a very weak relationship between the two countries this study was done through out 1931-2010. 5. Proportionality. Can we honestly say that America has been proportionate with Iraq and Afganistan. We are not being proportionate because we"ve been invaded these two countries for 10 years.
C2: Jus in bello which is justice during the war. Again the US must fulfill all the criteria in order to be justified. 1. Discrimination and Non-Combatant Immunity. Soldiers are only entitled to use their weapons to target those who are abusing human rights. Unless the Aff can guarantee that no civilians will be killed. And that the only targets will be the people abusing human rights. America is not justified in going to war. 2. Proportionality. Soldiers may only use force proportional to the end they seek. We have seen this power abused in Afganistan and Iraq where once human rights were obtained we still occupied these countries. 3. Benevolent quarantine for prisoners of war. If enemy soldiers surrender and become captives, they cease being lethal threats to basic rights. They are no longer"engaged in harm." Thus it is wrong to target them with death, starvation, rape, torture, medical experimentation, and so on. However we have seen that America has abused human rights of these prisoners of war in Guantanmo bay and Abu Grahib. The red cross reported that there are ongoing torture, sexual degradtion, forced drugging, extreme torture, sleep deprivation, religious persecution, and medical experimentation. Thus we see that the just war theory criteria is not met making the us not justified in going to war. So we must negate the resolution.
lannan13

Pro

Sorry I can't go all out here, but I'm away from a computer and school is snowed out and that is where my case is. Go ahead and give con point for conduct. (con don't post untill tomorrow). However I'll still give con something to work with. My value is Freedom and my criterion is Nirvana. Rest of case will come on Monday.
Debate Round No. 1
jake51

Con

jake51 forfeited this round.
lannan13

Pro

“We will be as a city upon a hill. The eyes of all people are upon us, so that if we deal falsely with our God in this work we have undertaken and so cause Him to withdraw His present help from us, we shall be made a story and a byword throughout the world.” Because I agree with the position stated by Ronald Ragen, I uphold the resolution that Resolved: The United States is justified in intervening in the internal political processes of other countries to attempt to stop human rights abuses. I am the affirmative.
Attempt- is to make an effort at or to try according to dictionary.com.

“The affirmative team will advocate the value of freedom, as define by dictionary.com exemption from external control, interference, regulation, etc. http://dictionary.reference.com...“In order to support the value of freedom, the affirmative would like to offer the criterion Nirvana as defined as a place or state characterized by freedom from or oblivion to pain, worry, and the external world. http://dictionary.reference.com...

  1. Arguments that force will only make things worse ignore the result of WW2.

Dr John Janzekovic 04 (Politics and International Relations/Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences/University of the Sunshine Coast), “Forcible Humanitarian Intervention: practical Objections to the Ethical Principles and Applications, Refereed paper presented to the Australasian Political Studies Association Conference University of Adelaide 29 September – 1 October 2004 )

To dismiss the use of force on the basis that it can only make things worse for oppressed peoples means that allied entry into World War II to stop the spread of fascism in Germany, Italy and elsewhere should not have occurred. Allied entry into WW II was not primarily for humanitarian reasons, but this does not mean that humanitarian issues did not exist. Very few people seriously argue that Nazi attempts to exterminate the Jews should not have been stopped. Stopping Nazis exterminating Jews could not have occurred without force (Kagan 1995, 336). There are four key players in humanitarian affairs. These are; the onlookers, potential or active interventionists, those being abused, and those doing the abusing. Humanitarian attention must be focused on the oppressed because they are doing most of the dying and the suffering. Currently, the onlookers, and occasionally the interventionists have the loudest voices regarding what they think about the humanitarian value of the use of force.The interventionists have the added difficulty of trying to stay alive themselves. This means World War 2 serves as one gigantic empirical example of the potential of humanitarian intervention to work to save lives meaning humanitarian intervention can be successful and so intervening can be morally justified.

Humanitarian intervention in combination with other efforts has been proven it can be successful.

Michael C Williams 94 (Professor in the Graduate School of Public and International Affairs at the University of Ottawa), “Humanitarian Intervention and the Use of Force,” The Center for Applied Policy Research, www.cap.lmu.de/transatlantic/download/williams.doc, written in 1994, AL)

Humanitarian intervention alone, however, does not and cannot eliminate the root causes of the problems it addresses. In spite of its increasing "sophistication", if I may use this term , it remains a curative measure, unless it is part of a more comprehensive approach which includes, in particular, a political dimension. Operation Provide Comfort, in northern Iraq, gave rise to the illusion that the New World Order would include a New Humanitarian Order. We know, of course, how history challenged the overall concept of New World Order. Somalia, in particular, represented the failure of its humanitarian ambitions. Former Yugoslavia and the Great Lakes region of Central Africa defined the contours of this "humanitarian crisis" in the following years. In both, the combination of humanitarian intervention and political abstention was conspicuous. Proximity to the West, however, prompted the major powers, and the US in particular, to finally overcome this gap in the former Yugoslavia. Dayton, despite all its shortcomings, remains a very important model of comprehensive response to a crisis which is "humanitarian" in its effects, but not in its causes.


Refugees are being turned away from borders and denied help from humanitarian

agencies.

Michael C Williams 94 (Professor in the Graduate School of Public and International Affairs at the University of Ottawa), “Humanitarian Intervention and the Use of Force,” The Center for Applied Policy Research, www.cap.lmu.de/transatlantic/download/williams.doc, written in 1994, AL)

The number of people in need of rescue, however, has not diminished. In fact it has grown. One should be deeply concerned about the diminishing observance of humanitarian principles by governments in many parts of the world. Many of the poorest countries, particularly in Africa, have long traditions of hospitality toward refugees. But even in some of these, the past two years have seen refugees forcibly turned away from the borders of states where they sought asylum, or forced to return home to unsafe conditions. We have seen humanitarian agencies denied access to people in great need, governments unwilling to separate fighters from refugees, and wanton disregard for the civilian character of refugee camps.

Debate Round No. 2
jake51

Con

FIRST I WILL ADDRESS THE FACT THAT NONE OF MY ARGUMENTS HAVE BEEN ATTACKED BY MY OPPONET AND THERFORE ALL MY ARGUMENTS STAND AND FLOW THROUGH TO THE NEXT ROUND.
Now onto the VALUE AND CRITERION DEBATE. My opponets value is freedom and his criterion is nirvana. He defined nirvana has place or state characterized by freedom from or oblivion to pain, worry, and the external world. This is whole argument is a utopian idea. And perfect world idea in which we know that there is no such thing as a perfect world. However he said that it mean't freedom from the external world??? Which means it is better upheld on the negative side because to be completly free from the external world one cannot intervene in another state! So we can see his criteria is not being up held because people could be free from the external worlds if we intervene. Thus according to his criterion we must negate the resolution. And with the drop of his criterion all his arguments fall aswell however I will address those points as well.

1:Arguments that force will only make things worse ignore the result of WW2. Lets get in to depth on this point... "World War 2 serves as one gigantic empirical example of the potential of humanitarian intervention to work to save lives meaning humanitarian intervention can be successful and so intervening can be morally justified." He said that it is justified in intervening. However what says whether it is or isnt justified. The only person in this debate that as presented a criteria for justifications is me. So we must look to my criteria of the JUST WAR THEORY, in which we find the us in not justified for these reasons 2. Right intention. A state must intend to fight the war only for the sake of its just cause. Having the right reason for launching a war is not enough. We have seen the US have ulterior motives with Iraq Ambassador James F. Jeffrey said that a main reason for invading iraq was for oil resources. Also our Ambassador of Afganistan James B. Cunningham said that a main reason for going in to Afgan was that American geologists discovered that there were a trillion dollars worth of metal in Afghanistan. This mineral deposit is perhaps the largest in the world, containing valuable metals like gold and silver, along with rare metals such as platinum and rhodium. Therefore the are ulterior motives for going to war other than stopping human rights abuse. 3. Proper authority and public declaration. A state may go to war only if the decision has been made by the appropriate states around the world. We already know that the UN Resolution stated that No State has the right to intervene, directly or indirectly, for any reason whatever, in the internal or external affairs of any State. The us must have respect for the international social contract in which the us in not justified in a unilateral decision. Making the us unjustified but also losing legitimacy. 4. Probability of Success. A state may not resort to war if it can foresee that doing so will have no measurable impact on the situation. We"ve been in Iraq and Afghanistan for 10 years now. And we are still human rights abuses have not stopped! Therefore we know there is not a great chance of success. Also we make things worse. Nils Gleditsch, a Research professor at the International Peace Research Institute said intervention rarely works and countries never rehabilitate and change there ways it also results in a very weak relationship between the two countries this study was done through out 1931-2010. 5. Proportionality. Can we honestly say that America has been proportionate with Iraq and Afganistan. We are not being proportionate because we"ve been invaded these two countries for 10 years.
C2: Jus in bello which is justice during the war. Again the US must fulfill all the criteria in order to be justified. 1. Discrimination and Non-Combatant Immunity. Soldiers are only entitled to use their weapons to target those who are abusing human rights. Unless the Aff can guarantee that no civilians will be killed. And that the only targets will be the people abusing human rights. America is not justified in going to war. 2. Proportionality. Soldiers may only use force proportional to the end they seek. We have seen this power abused in Afganistan and Iraq where once human rights were obtained we still occupied these countries. 3. Benevolent quarantine for prisoners of war. If enemy soldiers surrender and become captives, they cease being lethal threats to basic rights. They are no longer"engaged in harm." Thus it is wrong to target them with death, starvation, rape, torture, medical experimentation, and so on. However we have seen that America has abused human rights of these prisoners of war in Guantanmo bay and Abu Grahib. The red cross reported that there are ongoing torture, sexual degradtion, forced drugging, extreme torture, sleep deprivation, religious persecution, and medical experimentation. Thus we see that the just war theory criteria is not met making the us not justified in going to war. So we must negate the resolution. We see that lives will not be saved and we are not successfull with evidence such as IRAQ AND AFGANISTAN FOR THE LAST 10 YEARS!
lannan13

Pro

On to the value debate.
First off my opponent believes that Freedom applies to the external world, but however they way I have it being used is that it is the indiviual's Freedom from corruption and human rights abuses and this leads to Nirvana. Being free from the evils of the world and having heavenly peace. We can see that Freedom from human rights abuses is more important than Justice, and when we really look at things Con's value supports the Pro, because we are supporting going in and intervening in other nations to prevent human rights abuses and we can see that we are doing the people of said nation Justice by interveening. So with that Pro should win by winning the Value debate since this is the esential part of LD debate.

1. My opponet states that it doesn't state that we were justified in interveening in WW2, but come on people lets use common sense we needed to interveen in order to stop the genocide.
2. My opponent has thrown out a counter example here, but since we invaded we have established a political system and the nation no longer has Sheria Law in that nation and they are not mass murdering Christians in their nation.
3. Already refuted.
4-5. probability, this isn't what this debate is about this debate is about weather or not we are justified not weather or not we are sucessful. So you can throw out this point.

C2
My opponent goes and is talking about our discriminiation against non-combatants, but yet again this is about weather or not we were justified not weather someone got killed. You want the truth there has been no war where someone hasn't been killed. That's just facts.

So as you see here I win the value debate so therefore Pro should win this debate since the value portion of LD is the most important.
Vote Pro.
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by SkepticsAskHere 1 year ago
SkepticsAskHere
Con should have won. Sucks that no one was able to vote in time
Posted by lannan13 1 year ago
lannan13
dude's the debate is over stop debatin'
Posted by jake51 1 year ago
jake51
This debate is won by the Con because he upheld his criterion unlike the Pro he also linked his whole case to the V/C unlike the Pro....the pro was like a policy case or public forum case just random facts...we must negate the res. because Con destroyed his V/C... also HUGE POINTS WERE LEFT UNATTACKED>>>FOR EXAMPLE>>> .2 Right intention. 3. Proper authority and public declaration. A state may go to war only if the decision has been made by the appropriate states around the world. 5. Proportionality. Benevolent quarantine for prisoners of war. If enemy soldiers surrender and become captives, they cease being lethal threats to basic rights. They are no longer"engaged in harm." Thus it is wrong to target them with death, starvation, rape, torture, medical experimentation, and so on. However we have seen that America has abused human rights of these prisoners of war in Guantanmo bay and Abu Grahib. The red cross reported that there are ongoing torture, sexual degradtion, forced drugging, extreme torture, sleep deprivation, religious persecution, and medical experimentation.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by TUF 1 year ago
TUF
jake51lannan13Tied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeit!
Research this debate: Pakistan,Syria,Barack Obama