The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
7 Points

Resolved: The United States should send military into N. Korea.

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/7/2018 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 633 times Debate No: 107662
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (9)
Votes (1)




We should invade North Korea for a multitude of reasons. The reasons range from moral, political and existential.

1. Morality-There is a multitude of human right violations in North Korea that need to be ended. These include censorship, lack of right to a jury, lack of freedom of speech, etc. These will not be ended on there own without outside forces.

2. Political-North Korea is the most fascist of all countries in the world and that needs to be stopped for the sake of democracy. This also applies to their communist economy but to a lesser extent.

3. Existential-North Korea is trying to accomplish nuclear proliferation. If they achieve this goal, then the first nuclear attack since WWII will happen. Kim Jong Un is insane and will attack the United States, Japan or even South Korea. This will lead to a nuclear attack against North Korea by who they attack or an ally. The nuke would spill over the edges into China and lead to a nuclear war that would lead to the extinction of humanity.


I want to thank you for this debate topic.

You have three reason why we should attack North Korea. I will refute your arguments and present evidence on why attacking the North would be a very bad idea.

First you talk about Morality. Such as "human right violations in North Korea" and "lack of freedom of speech". So you think we should attack because of this. If we go with this logic then we should attack Russia, China and Iran. Because they all have the same thing no freedom of speech and violate humans right issues. So my question to you is this. Should we attack Russia, China and Iran too?

Second thing you mention is Political reasons. You said this "fascist of all countries" first of all can you actually prove this? Secondly this isn't a good reason on attacking North korea. And i will tell you why later in my arguments.

Now for your third reason Existential.
You mention this "North Korea is trying develop nuclear weapons and would use one in a attack since WWII". So, do you have prove on North Korea using one? Russia, China, india, Pakistan, Israel, France, UK, all have these weapons. And have any of them used these weapons? The answer is No. North Korea would not use these weapons first. Why wouldn't they you ask? We'll because North Korea afraid of the US. And they know any such attack on the US or the US allies like South Korea or Japan they would get totally Annihilated. And Kim Jong Un want to keep power, not lose his power.

Now i will give you reason why attacking the North would be a very bad idea.

My first reason is this:

China will back North korea, if the US strike first. (China said this) "state-owned newspaper warned Friday it would intervene if Washington strikes first" (1.)"

"The Sino-North Korean Mutual Aid and Cooperation Friendship Treaty is a treaty signed on July 11, 1961 between North Korea and the People's Republic of China." (2.)
this is a treaty with the North Korea and China. Do you know why it's important? It because China would protect them if there were attack first. China help them in the first Korean war. While the US helped the south. So history has a lot of importance here, we need to understand it, so in the future, we don't do the same mistakes. The Chinese government has issued hundreds of warning to the US, not to attack the North. Why would they be so concern, if they weren't going to do anything? By the way US and China relationship isn't going all that well either, same with Russia. Both of Russia and China are now closer than ever before. So it not crazy to think Russia would get involved here too. Here another question for you are you seriously going to Risk a global war by attacking North Korea?

Now my second reason:

Are you sure you want to risk millions and millions of life's with a war with North Korea? Like i said the North is building their missiles for defenses purposes. They will not attack 1st. They are more afraid of us and war. So no point on attacking. Plus another factor is if the US strike first. South korea would be very upset at the US. Why because hundreds of thousands will die in matter of a few days if not millions. So again not a good idea on attacking....

You have show no good reason to go to war. You not thinking of what could happen. You just want to push a button without knowing what is the consequences.... This what i called bad judgement....
Debate Round No. 1


I believe North Korea is more of a risk alive than if it was handled. I will start with my arguments in the same order and then proceed to your two.

1.Morality-You never said the human rights shouldn't be stopped, you just claimed it happens other places. That's like saying "Officer, yes, I'm stealing this money, but it happens in other places with different circumstances. Don't arrest me because you can't stop it all." Russia, China, and Iran have made leaps and bounds in the right direction but North Korea isn't giving any leeway. Also, North Korea is smaller and a good place to start.

2.Political-You said that it wasn't a good reason but you never proved why. If you were saying that your two points outway, that's one thing, but I never saw something saying that fascism isn't a reason to fight.
This link is my evidence that they are a fascist dictatorship.

3.Existential-If we're to go off of what North Korea has said, then we have to assume he wants to turn South Korea into a "sea of fire." The other countries that have them, have them as deterrence and prove it by not saying we're gonna nuke other countries or we're not gonna turn another nation into a "sea of fire."

This article shows that even though China won't help against North Korea, they won't get into a full-fledged war. It wouldn't be worth the lives as you said.
China won"t go to war " threats are a diplomatic bargaining tool.

Kelly 13 (Michael Kelly, Professor of Law and Associate Dean for International Programs @ Creighton School of Law, "Why China Doesn't Really Want the Senkaku Islands", JURIST - Forum, December 7, 2013,
Whatever the origins of the revived Senkaku claim forty-three years ago, Mr. Xi knows he can get much more fossil fuel to feed his carbon-thirsty economy from the South China Sea deposits than he could from the comparatively meager East China Sea. His strategy is to create the biggest fuss possible with brinksmanship tactics over the Senkaku Islands in order to bring a frayed and twitchy Japan to the bargaining table, with the US nervously in the background pushing hard for peace. And then, he will pitch his grand bargain. In exchange for relinquishing China's claim to the Senkakus, Mr. Xi would want Japan to support China's claim to the South China Sea. Politically, the Japanese government comes home with a huge victory that costs it virtually nothing. But of course, what Japan gives China in this grand bargain is far more valuable to China than a handful of rocks near Okinawa. With Japan backing its claim in the South China Sea and the US backing off, China will be in a position to deal bilaterally with the claims of the smaller states. Unable to withstand the political, economic and military might of their vastly larger neighbor, the claims of Vietnam, Malaysia, and the Philippines will eventually collapse through bribery, bullying and benevolence alternately applied. Long the object of Euro-Japanese grand bargains that carved up its territory and subjugated its people, China now seeks a grand bargain of its own. Mr. Xi understands that his country has the leverage to pull one off, and he is gambling that this feint to the Senkakus will get him the support from the other Great Powers to do it.

This piece of evidence also shows that China uses threats to get what it wants but won't actually follow through with them.

5.Lives-As Patrick Henry said, "Give me liberty or give me death!" I feel that since I proved China's threats are just diplomatic tools and not actual problems, the death count would be significantly lower because it would be the US versus North Korea. The lives that are lost are valuable of course, but I would say that we can say their sacrifice is worth the human right issues.

For the sake of human rights and North Korea's threats, I urge an affirmative ballot.


Thanks you for replying back.
I will discuss, why attacking North Korea is again a very back idea.

1. Your arguments with Morality.
Yes i claimed it happen in other places. Such as Russia , China and Iran. But you failed on making a strong case going to war with North Korea because of Morality. I will tell you why, because we the US can't police every country in the world. If the US try to force North Korea to change with force. Other country will push back against the US. Other country will not change just because the US think they are wrong. And you saying we should start with North Korea because they are small is not a good justification on going to war. Neither going to war because they have a bad leader. It will be a push back against he US if they use force.

For your second reason Political. You want prove. Okay, it would hurt our relationship with south korea and other world leaders. Why would it hurt. Because no one want war. Every other countries warning not to go to war. "Moon's chief task as South Korean president is to make sure "there is never again a war on the Korean Peninsula,". (3.) "Moon also said he want Peace". Just because North korea has a fascist dictatorship, doesn't mean war is justified. "North Koreans don't want war - to them, nuclear arms are simply a bargaining chip". (4.)
So you want a war that no on wants. You want to go ahead and attack without probable cause. And your so called evidence, doesn't show why we should attack the North. Another example is how US policy failed again. Like trying to taken out Bashar al-Assad from Syria. Syria is still very bad off. So trying to knock out Kim Jon Un Would be very hard. It won't be easy to remove him from power. Something you didn't even mention.

The third reason you put is Existential. Again showing no proof why attacking the North would be justified. Just because North Korea make threats doesn't mean they will act on them. North Korea know they can't attack first, they know they would lose. So no point on attack the north. By the way the US are making threats as well, so the North is just trying to defend their own country. Another thing to keep in mind both the US and the Soviet made threat against each other. And yet both countries found a way to coexist with each other. The same logic should apply with North Korea.

The 4th point you made just not really true. Why Because of that treaty i mention in the first round. China would help the North if they were attack first. Another reason why China would help in a conflict with the North is this. China doesn't want the US influences over there. They don't want the US over there period.
China is challenging the US over dominance of power, over trade, territorial areas, military, and economy. China see a threat and that's the US. The US and china about to go head to head in a trade war, then the South China Sea is also a very touching topic that both disagree on. So there are reasons why China would help out in a war if the US strike first. Another part to this equation is Russia. "As U.S. and China find common ground on North Korea, is Russia the wild card?". (5.)

The Michael Kelly part is actually outdated. It was back in 2013, and doesn't have any relevancy in this debate. It doesn't show why we should attack north korea nor why we should. It doesn't show China would back down if there see there national interest is at stake. Which the North Korea issues would be a national security issue for China. By the way China and Japan still don't see the same interest over these islands. Either way your so called evidence isn't relevant on this topic.

You said the "death count would be significantly lower because it would be the US versus North Korea" that prove to me you have no idea how many people would die.
"If North Korea launched a nuclear attack, the death toll would be costly: perhaps as bad as 2.1 million deaths in Tokyo and Seoul alone". (6.)
"Even the US Congress' own research arm has estimated that a military conflict on the Korean Peninsula is likely to kill 300,000 people just in the first few days". (7.)
"Pentagon scenario of a new Korean war estimates 20,000 deaths daily in South Korea, retired US general says". (8.)
So, looking at these figures it doesn't look good. You want to risk millions of lives just because you are afraid of North Korea nuclear weapons. Like i mention earlier Russia and China both have more powerful weapons and testing them. They are a greater threat to the United State.
"Top US general: China will be 'greatest threat' to US by 2025". (9.)
Russia has the satan 2 and now kanyon.
And China also upgrading their nuclear weapons. "China's Newly Tested Ballistic Missile Armed With a Hypersonic Glide Vehicle" (11.) So you want to attack them too? Because they are in fact a greater risk than North Korea.

Look attacking North Korea would have grave consequences. Lost of life would be very high, we will be risking our good relationship with south kore to very untrustworthy, to hating on us. We will also be risking wars with China and Russia. Because they would not trust us even more. Everything you mention would be a terrible idea on going to war with North Korea. There is no justification on risking millions of lives, when in fact we know North Korea would not make the first move...
Debate Round No. 2


I'm enjoying this round and I hope for it to be good until the end.

1.Morality-Your argument is that since we can't solve all of it, we shouldn't solve any of it. That's a terrible argument. Your saying other, countries would push back against the US but in the end, they wouldn't. North Korea is a country that no one likes and is causing global issues. You also said we can't police the world but, we've been doing that forever. That's what WWI, WWII, Vietnam, and Korea all were.

2.Political-Even if a lot of countries don't want the means, the ends still justify it. Fascism must be stopped. It is inherently evil. It failed because we gave insurgents government control. We could give control of the North Korea to South Korea and not only would that make them happy with us again, but it would make sure it won't backfire.

3.Existential-The proof is North Korea's threats. North Korea threatens to nuke Japan, South Korea, and the United States constantly. I don't know what to say besides we can't buy your argument that they want peace. We either believe everything they say or nothing. Either way, I believe this argument is a wash. If you agree, say it's a wash in the next speech and we will both drop it. If you don't then say you want to continue it.

4.China-Let's truly look at the China argument. Why would China try to bail out a super hazardous, small and effectively bad country? Just because China hates the idea of a democratic country on its border doesn't mean it would go to war for North Korea. It uses its threats as a bargaining chip and nothing more.

5.Lives-Even if the death count would be high, it would be worth it for the sake of human rights. I would rather die in a fair would than live in an unjust one.

For the sake of human rights and the logical conclusion that no one would try to bail out the hazardous and inherently evil North Korea, I urge an aff vote.


Thank you for your reply. I'm also enjoying this battle.

Now i will discuss why your reasoning is flawed in attacking North Korea. I will go with the number theme like were been doing.

1.Morality- You say " countries wouldn't push back" if the US attacks North Korea. I will ask you where is your proof? Both Russia, China and even South Korea them self-say there shouldn't be any war at any time. And both China and Russia are preparing themselves if war does break out. I will give out more proof later on this. You said no one like North Korea. Doesn't mean China nor Russia won't defend the North. You are right the US was able to police the world for the last 70 years since WWII. But things have changed now, and there are other superpowers in play now aka China, and other military powers like Russia who is challenging the US policy every inch they can get now. National Security "Strategy document said Russia and China were trying to "challenge American power, influence and interests" and "erode American security and prosperity". " (12.) So the US doesn't have the means to police everything anymore.

2. Political. you say this "-Even if a lot of countries don't want the means, the ends still justify i".. How does the end Justify it?
you also say this "We could give control of the North Korea to South Korea and not only would that make them happy with us again, but it would make sure it won't backfire". What does this even means? You mean we invaded the North and then return the North to the South? Really can you hear your self? China and Russia would never let that happen. You will be begging for a world war. Again This will backfires if the US attack the North. I will give you more reasons why China and Russia will help the North very soon.

3. Existential_ Again you just saying North Korea is making threats are not justification for a war. It has to be actions on the North part to cause a war. "China has also supported Assad and, while it has not deployed troops to the war-torn nation, it has blocked Western motions to unseat the Syrian leader, invested in reconstruction efforts and pursued greater military ties with Russia in general". (13.) The reason why I bring up the Syria President Bashar al-Assad because he is arguably the worst leader that Kim Jong-Un. Bashar al-Assad Actually gas his own citizens and has a civil war that been going on for 7 years. And guess who back him Russia with military aid and China with funds and to blocked any attempt of the US to stop this war. The same thing will happen in North Korea but with a far greater price. And instead of Russia backing North Korea military, it will be China and Russia backing the North with equipment, supplies and money. You don't think both Russia and China will not get involved is being pretty naive.

4. China. You say China won't go to war. Just because of a democratic country on its border. That is a wrong statement because they did just that in the first Korea war, and stop the US and the South from gaining full control over there. They already say they would defend them again if another war pops off. but only if the US started it. China is a rising power and they won't allow the Korean to have a fully democratic country on its border. You said China is just making threats as a
"bargaining chip and nothing more". How can you prove this? What happens if you and the US are wrong on this? I can tell you if you and the US are wrong then a world war would happen. So, Are you really going to risk a world war over this? How can you be 100% sure China will just sit back and not help? Again you nor the US can't be 100% sure. So why risk so many lives? When the North is just trying to protect them self, just like the US with their nukes, just like all the other with nuclear-armed country they have it for defensive purposes only." PLA is also a warning to Washington and Seoul not to provoke Pyongyang any further," Li Jie, a military expert based in Beijing, told the Post, using the abbreviation for the Chinese People's Liberation Army". "In addition to flexing its military muscle against the US, China has been increasingly assertive in the South China Sea". (14.)
Again this doesn't sound like China would just sit around and let North Korea get hammer by the US.

5. You said " it would be worth it for the sake of human rights. I would rather die in a fair would than live in an unjust one". You might want to die for that. But you are being misled into thinking North Korea would attack first or because they violating Humans right. News flash China, part of the Middle East, Africa, and parts South American has the same problem with human rights violations. But you just singling North Korea when in fact there are other worst countries that doing the same or worst. I would love for you to tell South Korea, Japan, or our military personnel that is station there that they would die and the US don't care as long as they get rid of North Korea. When in fact North Korea hasn't even attacked any other countries. They just making threats just like the US are making threats to them and they are testing ICBM's like Russia and China. You still ignore the fact that China and Russia are actually the bigger threats to US National Security and our policy around the world. You much rather have War, without giving peace a chance that sound reasonable to you? I think most of the world would want to give peace a chance instead of just going to war, without any real justification. You want to go to war because of humans rights then we should go to war with the other half of the world in your logic. This is crazy talk. you much rather kill off hundreds of millions just for misconceptions and for a human right issue. The 60's 70's and 80's was the worst period of humans rights then right now. And you want to just rush into a war that has the potential to kill off millions that don't sound reasonable at all.
Debate Round No. 3


1. Morality-I didn't have any evidence except the thing that says China wouldn't risk war with the United States and the other argument that states China uses war threats as a tool rather than an actual threat. It also doesn't make logical sense. Even if Russia and China challenge US policies in every political step possible, it doesn't mean that they would go to war over a very tense little piece of land. Russia has no reason at all and China just doesn't want democratic nations on its border, but as I've proven with evidence and logic, China uses threats as a tool and would never actually go to war for North Korea.

2. Political-Giving North Korean to South Korea was just an example. There is plenty of possibilities on how to change it from a fascist state to a democratic one. Hell, we could give it to China. These are examples and not definite plans to be noted.

3.Existential-You admit that Russia and China would back North Korea "with equipment, supplies, and money." Not troops or soldiers or anything of that nature, but merely physical objects. This completely negates your "global war" argument leaving it invalid at this point. Even if it would be a hard fight, there would be no global by not only my words, but your own as well.

4. China-My previous evidence proved that they use threats as a bargaining chip. Also, you admitted they would only help through material objects and not actually troops. Also, your only proof that North Korea is gonna use the nukes defensively is their own quotes, but if we listen to North Korean quotes as evidence, then we have to believe their threats. You've failed to mention this argument when I made it in round two and three. I think you conveniently ignore it is because I'm correct on the point and you don't want to admit that we have to acknowledge that North Korea's threats are a true problem worth taking care of.

5. Human Rights-Even if the human rights are equal or worse in other countries, that's not the question here. The question is if we should go to war with North Korea. I might truly support going to war with half the world but that isn't relevant to this debate and needs to stop being brought up. There are human rights issues that are happening in North Korea and you want to ignore it just because it happens in other places. That's like saying "Let's ignore murder because it happens in more than one place." The argument is more than irrelevant because it's wrong. You admitted that there would be no global war so we don't need to worry about that hurting Americans.

Status quo solves and relations are resilient " empirics prove
Zhen 16 " (Liu Zhen, reporter for the South China Morning Post, 3/16/16, "China"s relations with US "moving forward", says premier, amid strains over territorial claims in South China Sea," South China Morning Post,, Accessed 7/8/16, HWilson)
China"s relationship with the United States will only improve, whoever wins the US presidential election, as the two nations common interests expand, China"s Premier Li Keqiang said on Wednesday. Li said that as China had become the US"s top trading partner, with two-way trade reaching US$560 billion, differences between two countries have been outweighed. "I believe that in the end no matter who gets into the White House the underlying trend for US-China ties will not change." Li told a press conference at the end of the National People"s Congress in Beijing. His comments came as relations between the two countries have been strained over US naval patrols near Chinese controlled islands in disputed areas of the South China Sea. The US says the missions are to exercise freedom of navigation in international waters. Li said that as co-operation between China and the United States grows the number of differences may naturally rise, but the percentage of problems in their overall relationship will fall. He said there were over 100 mechanisms for dialogue to manage any differences between the two sides. "As long as the two sides act in good faith and properly manage their differences, I believe our common interests will further expand," he said. Li discussed the negotiations for an investment treaty between the two countries, promising to gradually give US investors wider access to China"s markets. He said Chinese investors should also enjoy similar openings in the US. The China-US relationship had gone through many ups and downs since diplomatic ties were established , he said. "It has always been moving forward, which I believe is the underlying trend," he added.

This evidence proves there will be no war with China because our common interests outweigh the differences.
No motive or capability
Betts 13 (Richard is the Arnold A. Saltzman Professor of War and Peace Studies @ Columbia. "The Lost Logic of Deterrence," Foreign Affairs, March/April, Vol. 92, Issue 2, Online, CMR)
These continuities with the Cold War would make sense only between intense adversaries. Washington and Moscow remain in an adversarial relationship, but not an intense one. If the Cold War is really over, and the West really won, then continuing implicit deterrence does less to protect against a negligible threat from Russia than to feed suspicions that aggravate political friction. In contrast to during the Cold War, it is now hard to make the case that Russia is more a threat to NATO than the reverse. First, the East-West balance of military capabilities, which at the height of the Cold War was favorable to the Warsaw Pact or at best even, has not only shifted to NATO's advantage; it has become utterly lopsided. Russia is now a lonely fraction of what the old Warsaw Pact was. It not only lost its old eastern European allies; those allies are now arrayed on the other side, as members of NATO. By every significant measure of power -- military spending, men under arms, population, economic strength, control of territory -- NATO enjoys massive advantages over Russia. The only capability that keeps Russia militarily potent is its nuclear arsenal. There is no plausible way, however, that Moscow's nuclear weapons could be used for aggression, except as a backstop for a conventional offensive -- for which NATO's capabilities are now far greater." Russia's intentions constitute no more of a threat than its capabilities. Although Moscow's ruling elites push distasteful policies, there is no plausible way they could think a military attack on the West would serve their interests. During the twentieth century, there were intense territorial conflicts between the two sides and a titanic struggle between them over whose ideology would dominate the world. Vladimir Putin's Russia is authoritarian, but unlike the Soviet Union, it is not the vanguard of a globe-spanning revolutionary ideal.

This piece of evidence proves there will be no Russia war.

There is too much to lose from a war and in no scenario will a war between superpowers pan out.


Russia part.

Okay first of all i never said Russia would put troops in North Korea. They would however help fund North Korea. Like Equipment, funds and other supplies like food and water. The other part you were trying to claim actually have no part in this debate. Russia and Nato is a whole other discussion. This is a debate which contends should the US get in a war with North Korea.

Either though i never mention Russia putting troops on the ground. You still can't rule against it, why because you don't actually know. No one saw Russia putting ground troops in Syria's, or Ukraine. So you said it has no interest on defending North Korea. But it does have a interest. Those interest is trade, and having less Democratic nations around them. Plus all you have to do is look though history. Countries who support another or provide supplies, sooner or later get involve military. I will give you one example, the United States were supporting and giving supplies to Europe for years before they actually put troops they to fight.

1. Morality- You mention you don't have any other evidence expect China only using war threat as a tool and have no means to actually get involved. Again this isn't a 100% or even a 90% sure. You will be risking a bigger war. You also say "it doesn't make logical sense" for russia nor china to get involve. It also not logical sense to have a war with North Korea. Which could cost hundreds of thousands to millions of lives. That not logical at all. And for what some human right issues, and threats. The last time i check war supposed to happen when another country invaded another. And North Korea have not done that. Another thing you say, threats made by China is a bargaining chip. That the same with North Korea threats then. Because North Korea have no intend on doing any action by these threats.

2. Political- You said "Giving North Korean to South Korea was just an example." A bad example then. Another bad example you mention is giving the wasteful land to china. It will become wasteful after the war with the US. And China don't want to deal with the humanitarian crisis never mind what they have to do during the war. So again China want to see peace and the status quo, not war. "Kim Jong Un invites South Korean President Moon to Pyongyang". (15.)
In your argument you never mention any kind of peace deal or giving peace a chance. You just want to go in a war and kill hundreds of thousands to millions. For what? You not even attempting to give peace a chance. The world would agree on giving peace a chance. In your logic we should had gone in a war with Soviet Union back then right? Without even trying to Co-exist with each other. One way to piss off the world leaders is rushing toward a war without justification and with out giving peace a real chance.

3. Existential- You didn't read what i actually mean then. The example i put with Syria. This will be the case with North Korea. In Syria, Russia put troops in there and force the US to back down on doing anything against Syria President Bashar al-Assad because. While China also help out Syria on the out side. Like giving humanitarian aid and supplies. What will happen in North Korea will be similar. But China would be the ones putting troops on the ground and Russia helping out in other area's. So with the US forcing there way in a war with the North it will still be risking a war between the other two. If the US try to force Kim out of power without real justification, you will get a push from china and russia. This will be far more serious and far more dangerous than syria would have ever become. Because a lot more people will die, more places would get destroy, in a late faster time. Again you are willing to put Japan, South Korea, even parts of the US like Hawaii and California in jeopardy in a war. That doesn't spell out logic doest it?

4. China. You trying to say China threats are for bargaining chips only. Where the same thing with North Korea. They making threats without actually going though with it. So your war with North Korea is unjust.
"If we listen to North Korean quotes as evidence, then we have to believe their threats". If you going to believe North Korea threats then why you wont believe China threats as well? I already told you North Korea only making them to back the US off. They have no real intend on using them expect if they were attack first. I already told you why China would help out the North. If you we use your logic and go to war with North Korea. You will be risking something even bigger. You not correct on attacking the North without probable cause. You not giving peace a chance at all. And it seem everyone else what that. So again why risk millions of life, if all they want is peace? You ignoring the fact that millions could die and this is just for you? Killing off millions is the right thing to do by your logic. No peace, no coexisting, no compromising, just war...

5. Is just irrelevant arguments by you. Why Because i never admitted they would not be a global war. I did say you would be risking one if you attack North Korea without giving peace a chance. The human rights issues that are happening in North Korea is not just for war. Risking millions of lives and even more lives being destroys for human rights is not a cause for war. What happening in Syria is far worst then what is happening in north korea. And yet the syria leader is back by russia and china. Kim Jong um would get the same kind of support if the US use force.

"Trump administration goes after China over intellectual property, advanced technology" (16.) Will likely trigger an investigation into China"s alleged theft of U.S. intellectual property, a measure that could eventually result in a wide range of penalties as the administration seeks a new way to deal with what it calls Chinese violations of the rules of international trade. The theft of intellectual property by foreign countries costs our nation millions of jobs and billions and billions of dollars each and every year, Once the US find evidence of alleged theft of U.S. intellectual property, Trump then will slap tariff on Chinese goods. China will then also slap tariff on the US goods. Yet that coercion might unleash a trade war between the two biggest economies they would effect everything from soy-beans to smartphones. China is the US largest partner with $510.6 billions in the two way trade from last year. According to the office of trade representative. This will for sure have negatives affect on relations.
"Beijing intends to turn these artificial outposts into military footholds that will provide it with power projection capability right across the South China Sea. Each island has hangers for 24 fighter jets, as well as bombers and surveillance aircraft. Each island has bombers and surveillance aircraft. Anti-aircraft and antimissile systems can be seen on one of the artificial islands. In a crisis, these facilities would significantly complicate US war plans and access to the South China Sea at acceptable levels of cost and risk. There"s also a more important day-to-day implication: these new military outposts allow China to dramatically extend its strategic reach from its southern shores down to Indonesian waters, creating a new strategic status quo and a Chinese sphere of influence. Beijing, in other words, is seeking to become the dominant military power in this part of the world with a capacity to prevent, deny or veto other countries from accessing these waters."(17.) world/asia/south-china-sea-controversy-heats-up-as-manmade-islands-are-almost-complete/news-stor4aa8664ef1f147d704b8f1e78e62516
China is already trying to challenge the US in the pacific. "Top US general: China will be 'greatest threat' to US by 2025". (18.)

A theory is a major war happens every 70 to 80 years. Base on this, we are right about there. According to Graham Tillett Allison, is an American political scientist and professor at the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard, we are entering Thucydides trap. China is challenging the US over dominance power, over trade, territorial areas, military, and economy. So there is reason why China will help out the North. And there are risk involve of miscalculations which we have with North Korea.

"There is too much to lose from a war and in no scenario will a war between superpowers pan out". You are right they is too much to lose. So why risk the war with North Korea? When things could get out of control. Things got out of control in the first Korea war. And things will again but this war will be much worst. So why risk it? Why not try for peace instead?
Debate Round No. 4


(I would ask to not have any new evidence in the final speech.)

1.Russia-I proved there would be no Russia war because we have common interests and Russia wants to improve American relations with president Trump. I find it unfair to the aff to say "I never said Russia would put troops in North Korea but it's possible." Not making a definite stance on the argument makes it unfair to me because I can attack but then you'd drop it but if I don't say anything you'd call me out on it.

2.Morality-Human rights issues are one of the most terrible things in the world, and for you to just say "some human right issues," like it means nothing. It's sad that we talk about unfairness and basic rights violations that our founding father's fought for is just treated like a second-hand issue. Now you keep saying that I haven't proven that we won't go to war with China but not only did I show that they use threats as tools, but we and China have so many adjoining goals that we won't go to war. Also if North Korea won't do these threats, then they won't use it for defense because we can't just believe

3.Political-You've actually dropped the core point of the political argument. I was saying was we should end fascism. Also, I proved that we would not fight China.

4.Existential-I've proven there will be no China war but, North Korea has threatened to nuke other countries. If you get to believe there claims at defense only, then we have to believe their claims of nuking other countries.

5.China-Proved there would be no war. Since we have competing evidence, we just have to hope that the judge listens to the logic found only on my side.

Your side of the debate is the weakest I have ever seen. The reason I say this is because you only have one argument, China. On human rights you say, it doesn't matter because war, which is wrong and immoral. If someone had a scrap of humanity, they would not just ignore human rights because of a disproven war. Politics, you say fascism can exist because there could be a war. The existentialism you say it doesn't exist because North Korea says so. North Korea says it will nuke other nations. You just like to ignore that fact.

Don't buy the negs China war. There is evidence on both sides, so we have to go by logic. China would never risk itself for North Korea.

For the sake of human rights, ending fascism, stopping North Korea's nuclear threats vote aff.


The Russia part again...

1. First of all you still haven't proven Russia would put troops on the grounds in North Korea. And we don't have common interests over there in North Korea. You for sure didn't mention those interest in your arguments. You can't prove with a hundred percent certainty that Russia won't help out the North. Russia will not be on our side in any conflict over there.

2. Morality-- You know what is worst than your Human rights issue? War. You still haven't justified the war with North Korea. You still ignoring the fact that millions could lose their lives in a conflict. Another few millions will be with out there homes, another few millions will lose some part of there body parts during a war. And this is far worst than your human right issue you trying to justify. You think China have a common interest with the US over the North Korea issue. But we don't. US want war, and China want peace over there. You not understanding the threat issues. You wont take China threats on stepping in to help out the north seriously. But yet you take north korea threats seriously. That doesn't make sense to me. Both countries are making threats for bargaining chips. You can't take one over the other more serious. This lead to miscalculations. North korea building these weapons for deterrence not for invading others country. North Korea been making threats for over 25 years. Same with the US. It like the cold war, both the United States and the Soviet made threats over each other and yet nothing happen. And we co-existed with each other. The same should be with North Korea. Again you argument state on war only. And no mention of peace. Why you so war hunger? War is far worst then what you trying to protect... Instead of having peace you will be making your human right issus much worst with you war proposal.

3. I didn't drop the main issue. You did by not compromising. You just want war, without giving peace a chance. Don't you think if the North and the South got together and sign a peace treaty? This would be a good thing. Instead of rushing toward a war no one wants. Without giving peace a chance. Kim invited moon to his country. And yet you want to ignore this. And just want war, which would kill so much more lives, then the human right issue. Even if china don't get involve here, there are still millions of lives at risk. And again you still haven't proven China wouldn't get involved. China wouldn't sit by and let the US take over this land, you dreaming if you actually think this. This second korea war will be so much worst than the first one. But yet you still want to get in there and fight a unnecessary war. North korea haven't invaded anyone, but you think kim is the most evil person in this world. I already mention the Syria President is being a worst leader than Kim. And yet you say nothing.

4. Existential-"If you get to believe there claims at defense only, then we have to believe their claims of nuking other countries" Again where is your proof on this? Because north korea only say they would nuke if they were attack first. So you not painting the whole picture here. Again you haven't proven china will not help out the North. I would love to see proof on your reason on this. But you don't have any proof. China already said if the North were attack first by the US they would give a helping hand to the North and i already show proof on this matter. Where is your proof. Just hoping and dreaming on your side of your argument. Again your side of the argument is war only. Not a mention of peace, or anything else. Ignoring the fact that any conflict between the US and North Korea would be catastrophic. And i already proven this. But i will give you another source that this will be a bad war. "NATO's chief is warning that war on the Korean Peninsula would be catastrophic". (19.)

5. China- Again showing no proof on why there wouldn't help out the North. I already show more than one piece of evidence on my side of this issue. You can't be hundred percent certain on China sitting over their border and watch this war.

We'll i think i proven this war with North Korea will be catastrophic. Putting millions of lives is far worst than what Kim Jung un is doing. The war casualties, out weight his human rights abuse. I also proven the Syria President is far worst than Kim Jung Un. You also repeated ignore peace. Never putting this process in your head. Never wanting to give peace a real chance. When in fact this what people really want on all sides. War on any front will be terrible. Plus war would be very unpopular in this region. "North Korea says it will nuke other nations". For defensively use only. That's a fact on what they actually said. You just like to ignore that fact. Also ignoring any kind of peace. You want millions to die. That not what i called being responsible. Plus making your whole argument worthless on the human right issue. Wanting millions to die and millions more misplace.

You should Vote CON. If you want No War, want peace, then vote CON....
Debate Round No. 5
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by Nd2400 3 years ago
Personally i don't think attacking the north should be even considered. Attacking them would be a very bad move all around.

Thanks. Maybe we could debate on another topic sometime into the future...
Posted by hwp460 3 years ago
I am undecided on attacking North Korea but I enjoyed the debate. Good Luck in voting!
Posted by Nd2400 3 years ago
Sorry for the last comment. I was falling asleep when i wrote that. Anyways you are still wrong on going to war on north korea. You never even mentioned that peace could be or should be a options. This is just mind blowing.

Anyways thanks for the debate.
Posted by Nd2400 3 years ago
Well i wanted to talk you for finishing this debate. Yiu wont hear mine until tomorrow night or the next. And by the wrong you are wrong on attacking the north. Again no mentioned of the millions of lives you be risking in s war....
Posted by Kiliaren 3 years ago
The United States is guilty of all the allegations you've leveled against North Korea. Although an argument can be made to differentiate the degree to which individuals are impacted by human rights abuses, it's prudent to remember that, although democracy and civil right protection is weaker in the US than many other 'western' nations, and stating that North Korea deserves military intervention on those grounds invites the argument as to whether other nations should intervene in the US. Moreover, the nature of military interventions tends to induce civil rights abuses, as recent American history would show.
Posted by Nd2400 3 years ago
Okay i accepted. You will hear my argument later on tonight to tomorrow...
Posted by Nd2400 3 years ago
We'll this topic does get my blood flowing so i will most likely accept. Just idk about right now....
Posted by hwp460 3 years ago
I don't see why I should hope you don't take it. If I lose it was educational and if I win it's empowering. Debating is a win-win situation.
Posted by Nd2400 3 years ago
You better hope i decide not to accept this challenge... I will give it like two Hours before i make my Decisions.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by sadolite 3 years ago
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 
Reasons for voting decision: This is a yes or no debate so I vote No. All points to con.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.