Darth Vitiosus (PRO)I as Pro will be arguing that "we should strike before North Korea does." The burden of proof is shared because the resolution suggests a conflict is inevitable. I will explain this more later.
First, who is this "we" in the resolution? I will go under the assumption that it relates to the enemies of North Korea. The enemies of North Korea are South Korea, Japan, and the United States[1]. I will refer to this group as the Allies throughout this debate. The debate also references the term "strike." I assume this refers to force.
The Allies should not randomly strike North Korea whenever they wish. The Allies should only consider striking at North Korea when North Korea has made it clear they are intending to attack. The debate resolution infers this when it says "we should strike before North Korea does." This resolution is inherently suggesting that North Korea is planning to attack when it says "before North Korea does." Therefore, the conflict between North Korea and the Allies is oncoming and inevitable in this debate.The Allies should strike first instead of allowing the North Koreans to attack first.
The following reasons are why the Allies should strike first:
1. Prevent Deaths Among the Allies
If North Korea strikes first. People will die inevitably, it is just a question of where. I would speculate people in Japan and South Korea could be in danger if North Korea was allowed to strike first.
2. Limit the Conflict
Sun Tzu said "Attack him where he is unprepared, appear where you
are not expected[2]."
It would be best for the Allies to attack the North Koreans when they are mobilizing their troops for the assault. The Allies can attack first and utilize strategic strikes which will paralyze the North Korean military making the conflict short rather than a protracted war. Strategic strikes can be used by the Allies in a similar fashion as the first and second American-Iraq wars[3].
[2]http://classics.mit.edu/Tzu/artwar.html
[3]http://www.npr.org/2011/02/24/133991181/twenty-years-later-first-iraq-war-still-resonates
3. Potential Weapons of Mass Destruction usage
The North Korean nuclear threat is one of the biggest reasons for the Allies to strike first[4]. The Allies would just need to use tactical strike on bases where nuclear weapon are likely be. If the North Koreans are allowed to strike first, every neighboring Allied country is in danger which includes South Korea and Japan.
[4]http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-pacific-11813699
[5]https://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/North_Korea_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction.html
4. Prevent Chinese Entry into such a war
The Chinese are the one of North Korea's most loyal allies and its' biggest trading partner[6]. If the Allies(South Korea, Japan, USA) struck first, China is less likely to interfere in order to prevent a clash with the United States. But if North Korea struck South Korea first, China is more likely to interfere because they would assume the United States wouldn't try interfere that much due to the lack of an intervention. China would feel more emboldened due to the lack of an American intervention[7]. This would bear bad news for South Korea and Japan.
[6]http://www.cfr.org/china/china-north-korea-relationship/p11097
[7]http://www.heritage.org/research/commentary/2014/7/asias-big-fear-is-america-emboldening-china-and-north-korea
5.Overthrow the Shackles of Tyranny
Kim Jong-Un is a ruthless dictator[8]. Kim Jong-Un had a military officer shot by the firing squad for merely changing the words of the socialist anthem. If Kim Jong-Un shot his own military officer for merely changing the words of a song, who knows how ruthless he will be in a war with the Allies. The removal of the North Korean Kim dynasty will benefit the entirety
[8]http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2816118/Kim-song-gun-Jong-military-official-shot-firing-squad-changed-words-socialist-anthem-performed-karaoke.html
The following reasons are why the Allies should strike first:
1. Prevent Deaths Among the Allies
If North Korea strikes first. People will die inevitably, it is just a question of where. I would speculate people in Japan and South Korea could be in danger if North Korea was allowed to strike first.
2. Limit the Conflict
Sun Tzu said "Attack him where he is unprepared, appear where you
are not expected[2]."
It would be best for the Allies to attack the North Koreans when they are mobilizing their troops for the assault. The Allies can attack first and utilize strategic strikes which will paralyze the North Korean military making the conflict short rather than a protracted war. Strategic strikes can be used by the Allies in a similar fashion as the first and second American-Iraq wars[3].
[2]http://classics.mit.edu/Tzu/artwar.html
[3]http://www.npr.org/2011/02/24/133991181/twenty-years-later-first-iraq-war-still-resonates
3. Potential Weapons of Mass Destruction usage
The North Korean nuclear threat is one of the biggest reasons for the Allies to strike first[4]. The Allies would just need to use tactical strike on bases where nuclear weapon are likely be. If the North Koreans are allowed to strike first, every neighboring Allied country is in danger which includes South Korea and Japan.
[4]http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-pacific-11813699
[5]https://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/North_Korea_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction.html
4. Prevent Chinese Entry into such a war
The Chinese are the one of North Korea's most loyal allies and its' biggest trading partner[6]. If the Allies(South Korea, Japan, USA) struck first, China is less likely to interfere in order to prevent a clash with the United States. But if North Korea struck South Korea first, China is more likely to interfere because they would assume the United States wouldn't try interfere that much due to the lack of an intervention. China would feel more emboldened due to the lack of an American intervention[7]. This would bear bad news for South Korea and Japan.
[6]http://www.cfr.org/china/china-north-korea-relationship/p11097
[7]http://www.heritage.org/research/commentary/2014/7/asias-big-fear-is-america-emboldening-china-and-north-korea
5.Overthrow the Shackles of Tyranny
Kim Jong-Un is a ruthless dictator[8]. Kim Jong-Un had a military officer shot by the firing squad for merely changing the words of the socialist anthem. If Kim Jong-Un shot his own military officer for merely changing the words of a song, who knows how ruthless he will be in a war with the Allies. The removal of the North Korean Kim dynasty will benefit the entirety
[8]http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2816118/Kim-song-gun-Jong-military-official-shot-firing-squad-changed-words-socialist-anthem-performed-karaoke.html
Return To Top | Posted:
2014-11-01 02:24:23
| Speak Round
Blackflag (CON)1. BOP + "Fateful Attack" Misinterpretation
I would like to establish, the BOP is not mutual in this debate. The resolution is, "That we should strike before North Korea does". The government has the full burden of proving we should strike North Korea, not the opposition. In no way is the BOP in this debate shared, and there is not a single normative resolution where the government and the opposition share a BOP.
I was quite distressed with the governments assertion that a "conflict is inevitable". I see how they founded this conclusion, but resolutions can never make an argument, and resolutions can't have implications. Therefore, considering there is no rule, it is one hundred percent the responsibility of the government to prove North Korea will strike at all. To imply things from a statement, without providing proof said statement is true, defeats the purpose of debate.
In the future, if the government wants to run a debate where something is guaranteed, they needs to prove it, or add it to the debate procedure (rules). I've discussed this in a forum, and with two other users over chat log, and both seemed to be agreeing with me. Not that a conflict isn't inevitable. Just that it hasn't been proven.
While I can't share the chat logs, here's the forum where the issue was touched up on.
2. Why North Korea Isn't a Threat
- The allies the government mentioned, spend much more on defense spending than North Korea. Japan and the United States alone account for over 40% of the global military expenditure. That's is about 545 billion USD.
- North Korea's military expenditure is only 8 billion dollars.
- North Korea doesn't have friends or trade partners. Operating costs of the current military constantly dip the country below extreme poverty levels. North Korea could last in a conflict about 1-2 weeks before running the treasury dry. Sustained conflict with limited resources and room for adaptability is a sure sign North Korea wouldn't stand a chance in a conflict
- North Korea is a mostly rural country. With lots of flat land around the main urban landmarks. The US military could effectively land a expeditionary squad of tanks, planes, and ships, and take out most military installations without ever putting a large military presence on the ground. '
Why North Korea Wont Declare War
North Korea has no plausible way of winning the war, and if they did win the war, there is no positive outcome besides pride that could supplement their winnings, and some say pride is a fools demise. North Korea, wont enter a war they can't win. That's a law in sociology, and it is a solid reason why the governments case doesn't stand. North Korea, is little more than a child who isn't being invited to play with the big kids, so it throws a fit and occasionally launches missiles into the Gulf of Korea fully knowing their "threat" is going to fall on deaf ears.
The simple fact of the matter, is that North Korea is a fragile country even without war. It has executed dozens of officials in the past decade for dissidence, further evidence that the country is being strung together by a waning military and economy. War makes no logical sense whatsoever. If North Korea declared war, it is more likely the invasion of god knows wherever will fall apart from the inside
Why China Wont Enter The War (The One That Will Never Happen)
China has less to gain from fighting than they do from staying peaceful and trading with the allies. The US, South Korea, and Japan are China's largest trading partners. They provide hundreds of billions in cash flow to the country. Just as there is no logical reason for North Korea to declare war, there is no logical reason for China either. The same facts with North Korea still apply. The "Allies" spend nearly 35% more of the global military expenditure than China. The US alone pays 350 billion over China's 90.
War isn't logical, and it never has been. Granted, a lot of people do stupid things, but a lot of people wouldn't be this stupid. I would argue that attacking North Korea is more of a provocation of war, then North Korea attacking the allies. It is their area of influence after all.
Offensive vs Defensive War
If the allies declare war, it can be assumed it would be an invasion of North Korea. If North Korea declares war, it can be heavily assumed that North Korea is invading another country. Throughout history, defensive operations have always been more successful than offensive operations...
In defensive wars, the enemy attacks, the allies defend. That means fortifications, established presence, and much less surprises. In almost every book of military maxims, including Sun Tzu,whom the government referenced, and Napoleon, generals should always wait for the enemy to come to them. Take Waterloo for example. There were elements that told the Duke of Wellington to attack, including the Prussians. Instead he waited for Napoleon to attack him on his turf, a fortified town on top of a huge hill. This type of battle has been replicated 1000's of times.
Gamble for the best or prepare for the worst. The Allies have more to gain by fortifying their own countries and making sure an invasion would fail the moment it started. Given North Korea's already weak military, it isn't unreasonable to assume the DPRK wouldn't make it a half mile over the DMZ before being pushed back. Why launch a risky invasion, where the DPRK can set up all sorts of traps and schemes on their turf?
North Koreans Should Free North Koreans
The government takes a very idealistic approach, claiming it is in the allies moral fiber to overthrow the shackles of tyranny that have oppressed North Koreans. That's not reality. In reality, the disillusioned North Koreans love their despot, worship the military and are content with their lives. If North Koreans weren't somewhat satisfied with their standard of living, they would of freed themselves already.
I'm not blind to the human rights violations in North Korea, but I don't think war is the answer. Sending the truth to the oppressed is the answer, not war.
When the majority of people recognize what's happening to their brothers, history will work itself as it always has. If the majority of people remain ignorant and blind to oppression, I would have to say they must not want change.
North Korea, while certainly not most people's cup of team, isn't any worst than we are. They're just different. If the allies can compromise by opening up trade, then I'm sure North Korea would be more than willing to ease up on the human rights violations. In fact, I guarantee it.
Return To Top | Posted:
2014-11-01 23:16:51
| Speak RoundPlutarch: Would North Korea win an offensive war? Would China win an offensive war? Plutarch: Would China be provoked into declaring war more by "usPlutarch: ... declaring war on North Korea?Darth Vitiosus: 1A. North Korea would lose an offensive war if they waged the war by it themselves without China as an allyDarth Vitiosus: 1B. I don't know who would win between the Allies and the North Korea and China. It would be a gruesome conventional war to say the least if it happened.Darth Vitiosus: 2. China would not be provoked into war if the Allies acted first because it would be a unified coalition. Versus if North Korea just decided to attackDarth Vitiosus: Q1. How do you know North Koreans love Kim Jong-Un?Darth Vitiosus: Q2. Is China not aggressive?Darth Vitiosus: Q3. What does the word, "before," mean?Plutarch: A1) There is a state mandated cult of personality. People are required to pray to kim in every building, and have a picture of the family in every house. They live their whole lives worshiping kim jung un. If I were to be born and have lived in Saudi Arabia, I would be Islam because that's the entire culture upon birth. The entire culture of North Korea is Kim Jung Un.Plutarch: A1) There are also several links I can share (http://www.asianews.it/index.php?art=2585&l=en) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IrCQh1usdzE) Plutarch: A2) I would consider China not aggressive, because although they have lots of disputes and land claims, they have a limited millitary history. Plutarch: A3) during the period of time precedingPlutarch: Why would China gain by declaring warPlutarch: *?Return To Top | Speak Round
Darth Vitiosus (PRO)"The government has the full burden of proving we should strike North Korea, not the opposition.....To imply things from a statement, without providing proof said statement is true, defeats the purpose of debate......Not that a conflict isn't inevitable. Just that it hasn't been proven."
"That we should strike before North Korea does."
We strike first > Await North Korea to strike.
As well as my opponent has shown that he has no ethics and has gone so far as to cheat and just admitted it for us all to read. Then this also should be noted for further disputes with my opponent's claims. If he had admitted he was cheating about his argument about the resolution, why should we believe that he didn't have someone tell him what to write in his arguments? My opponent has shown himself to be unethical and a unashamed cheater by doing this and we should keep this in mind for future reference in this debate.
"North Korea isn't a threat.....North Korea doesn't have friends or trade partners."
My opponent has claimed North Korea isn't a threat. Yet he did not provide a single valid counter-fact to what I said. I showed how North Korea had already functional nuclear weapons capabilities. These nuclear weapon capabilities threaten South Korea and Japan as I have already previously shown. I previously showed that China was a North Korean trading partner. I can show that North Korea has multiple trading partners like China, Zimbabwe, Venezuela, and even Iran[1]. My opponent simply doesn't know what he is talking about when he falsely claims that "North Korea doesn't have friends or trade partners."
[1]http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/MID-01-211113.html
"North Korea won't declare war"
This is nothing short of conjecture on the part of my opponent. The facts are that North Korea has threatened to attack its' enemies multiple times. The most infamous example in recent history was the threat to blow up the White House in Washington D.C. On top of that, what prevents North Korea from acting on these threats? Absolutely nothing.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qd1qR66gcLQ
"China won't enter war....War isn't logical, and it never has been. Granted, a lot of people do stupid things, but a lot of people wouldn't be this stupid."
Who is my opponent to tell us what is "logical" or "stupid" as he puts it? On what authority does he have to definitely tell us this? I would say he has no authority nor evidence to back up these claims.
"The government takes a very idealistic approach, claiming it is in the allies moral fiber to overthrow the shackles of tyranny that have oppressed North Koreans. That's not reality. In reality, the disillusioned North Koreans love their despot, worship the military and are content with their lives."
This is nothing but a reckless incantation on the part of my opponent. He actually believes North Koreans love their despot. My opponent doesn't realize that North Korea is a totalitarian communist country it seems. The people who disagree with Kim Jong-Un don't get a platform in North Korea. The people who are pro-Kim will be on the news and be appointed to positions of power. Do pepople who disagree with Kim Jong-Un in North Korea get on the North Korean news or appointed to positions of power? Most likely not. They probably are shot instead. I showed in the first round how one man merely singing the socialist anthem was shot to death, just imagine if someone publicly stated they disliked Kim Jong-Un. Fearing someone and loving someone is not the same. To dissent against Kim Jong-Un may mean death, so people who disagree sit idly by and await for the day to come when the Kim dynasty falls in North Korea.
Return To Top | Posted:
2014-11-03 22:32:15
| Speak RoundBlackflag (CON)Character Assassination
The government is utterly rude and unspirited. The government didn't contest any of the assertions the opposition has made, instead resorting to attacks on our credibility, character, and knowledge. This behavior is vile, and I'm astounded that such immature attacks occurred on a serious debate. It is luminous indeed, that the government has no interest in an actual debate. This debate will not become a circus and spitting war. I demand the government cease their rude behavior and focus solely on the arguments asserted. Insulting is not a rebuttal.
I can't fathom how we cheated. Unless asking for information on a scenario from third party sources constitutes cheating. A debate can only be "cheated" on by plagiarization. Asking for help on defeating a semantic interpretation of a particular resolution is not cheating.
Dropped Arguments
- Defensive war is superior to an "Offensive War"
- China has less net gain from fighting than they do from maintaining peace
- An attack will likely never occur (the government is avoiding refutation based on semantics)
- The actual reasoning on why China wont attack (none of the points were actually refuted)
The government has absolutely missed the point I made. Resolutions are not facts, and they don't prove anything, besides being a placeholder topic for two sides to debate. Everything said in a debate is open to be contested, because that's how debates work. Unless the government illustrates in the rules that an attack is destined to happen, they must prove it themselves. This is the essence of debating.
The government has no case outside of semantics. I will restate the words of one of the sites prominent users. "Resolutions do not prove facts".
The argument that the resolution confirms an attack will happen is going off the basis that a "Resolution is proving a fact". Unless the resolution can see into the future, the government must drop the semantics, and refute my 5 bullet points on why North Korea wont attack, then there is no reason to garner credibility to the governments proposal.
North Koreans Should Free North Koreans
I agree with the government, that North Koreans aren't given a platform to speak. What the government has failed to realize, is that 1000's of "states" have done exactly what North Korea is doing to its citizens. None of these "states" still exist today. Public order is a boiling pot. Attacking civilians is the best platform for revolution there is. The larger the scale of oppression on North Koreans, the bigger and more effective the blow will be, when it finally comes.
North Koreans have endured living with less liberty than nearly any state in existence. Which signified one of two things. North Koreans are content with their lives, or North Koreans haven't been oppressed enough to launch a violent platform of change. Fear is the best advocate of "Authoritarianism", which only signifies that the level of fear in North Korean's has still outweighed that of their need for liberty.
Change hasn't happened because North Koreans haven't willed it to happen. I would also like to share this video above, as evidence of the oppositional case.
There isn't much more to refute. I've stated my piece, and none of it has been refuted. I don't consider insults a form of refutation, so I'm affirming all of our dropped points from last round, and hope the government will decide to fight fair now.
Return To Top | Posted:
2014-11-04 04:51:40
| Speak RoundDarth Vitiosus: Q1. Do you concede that North Korea has trade partners and allies?Darth Vitiosus: Q2. Do you concede that North Korea has nuclear capability?Darth Vitiosus: Q3. Do you concede that all North Koreans don't like Kim Jong -Un?Return To Top | Speak Round
Darth Vitiosus (PRO)"The government is utterly rude and unspirited. The government didn't contest any of the assertions the opposition has made, instead resorting to attacks on our credibility, character, and knowledge. This behavior is vile, and I'm astounded that such immature attacksoccurred on a serious debate. It is luminous indeed, that the government has nointerest in an actual debate. This debate will not become a circus and spitting war. I demand the government cease their rude behavior and focus solely on the arguments asserted. Insulting is not a rebuttal."
Notice, how my opponent wasn't able to deny he was cheating. This was just merely gross grandstanding which is comical at best. He knows for a fact he was cheating so he must attempt to deflect the issue by claiming it is rude behavior. The fact still remains my opponent cheated and the evidence is clear. People don't like being called out for being cheaters and he has been called out on it.
"I can't fathom how we cheated. Unless asking for information on a scenario from third party sources constitutes cheating. A debate can only be "cheated" on by plagiarization. Asking for help on defeating asemantic interpretation of a particular resolution is not cheating."
Indeed it was cheating and that is why two users came to explain and attempt to backtrack in the comments section of this debate. My opponent was attempting figure out how to present arguments in a debate that was already taking place. For example:
nzlockie:"I don't read it that way, it seems to argue that pre-emptive strike would be justified, not that a pre-emptive strike is needed now. In the realms of military conflict, the general consensus seems to be that the instigator is usually in the wrong. This resolution seems to challenge that general rule when it comes to the US VS N Korea."
This is clearly advice on an ongoing debate. This is cheating and asking for advice, not a query. As John Adams said "Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." The fact is my opponent cheated and he showed us the link for us all to read. I have taken a screenshot just in case my opponent tries to rush to beg admin to have it deleted.
"Defensive war is superior to an "Offensive War(1)"
China has less net gain from fighting than they do from maintaining peace(2)
An attack will likely never occur (the government is avoiding refutation based on semantics)(3)
The actual reasoning on why China wont attack (none of the points were actually refuted)(4)"
(1). I already refuted this point before my opponent had even posted this argument. I stated in Round 1 that a limited conflict is preferred because it is better to attack an unprepared enemy. Instead my opponent wants the Allies to wait for a fully prepared enemy to fight. How much sense does this make? My opponent is claiming it would be better if the Allies waited for a prepared enemy than an unprepared enemy. This is just outright dangerous. To strike an unprepared enemy is far more preferable to striking a prepared enemy.
(2)(4) My opponent presented no evidence to show that China would not go to war. He has yet to prove this. He has just kept reiterating that China would not go to war without any proof China wouldn't. My opponent just claims it would be less of a "net gain." But did my opponent not state that "War isn't logical, and it never has been"? This is a contradiction. If "war isn't logical" as my opponent has claimed, it does not matter if China would have less of a net gain. China would go to war according to my opponent's original reasoning. Is war "logical" or "illogical" and who determines what is "logical" and "illogical?"
(3)It doesn't matter if a strike is likely. The debate resolution is about whether the Allies should strike before North Koreans do. This is a wasted point that is irrelevant to the debate resolution.
""Resolutions do not prove facts"
My opponent has continued with his empty grandstanding it seems. A paragraph littered with conjecture again. Notice my opponent did not once address the debate resolution in this paragraph because he knows he is wrong and now he is attempting mislead with more empty words. The resolution still indicates a conflict is inevitable and that point stands as is. My opponent is simply attempting to throw litter around to distract. Don't be confused by it readers of this debate. The debate resolution remains the same regardless if my opponent's attempt at a poor rant and ramble.
"North Koreans are content with their lives, or North Koreans haven't been oppressed enough to launch a violent platform of change."
How does my opponent know not assume but know that North Koreans are content? He just claims they are content because they won't overthrow the government. Violence suggests anger and has nothing to do with discontentment. Anger and contentment are not synonymous.
"None of these "states" still exist today."
Did my opponent not list North Korea as one of these states?
"There isn't much more to refute. I've stated my piece, and none of it has been refuted. I don't consider insults a form of refutation, so I'm affirming all of our dropped points from last round, and hope the government will decide to fight fair now."
The misinformation continues unashamedly as if we don't know what is going on here. My opponent is misleading because he has ignored the points that have been refuted this is a fact.
POINTS THAT HAVE BEEN REFUTED:
"Defensive war is superior to an "Offensive War"
"North Korea isn't a threat"
"North Korea doesn't have friends or trade partners."
"North Korea won't declare war"
"That's not reality. In reality, the disillusioned North Koreans love their despot, worship the military and are content with their lives."
Notice how mysteriously my opponent has not addressed these points and he has silently dropped them after they were refuted thoroughly. He has assumed we didn't notice but we did.
Return To Top | Posted:
2014-11-05 23:05:36
| Speak RoundBlackflag (CON)
Reaffirming Major Arguments- Defensive War Superior to Offensive War
- North Korea Isn't Likely to Declare War
- North Koreans Should Free North Koreans
- Why China isn't Likely to Declare War
CheatingThis argument wont be continued, because it has nothing to do with the debate resolution. I researched into the issue, and am confident that what was done didn't constitute cheating. The judges are free to accept their own interpretation of how asking for help should be handled during ongoing debates, but as the administrator of Edeb8 said, this is a place for learning and improving, and no one will ever be in trouble for asking for help.
If the government thinks it is cheating to ask for help on ongoing debates, it should be expected that he backs it up. My own view on the comment section, is that NZlockie and Admin didn't want to vote because they helped with our arguments, not because we cheated.
I fear that round 3 has turned into less about the debate, and more about attacking the other sides character.
Defensive War is Superior to a Offensive WarThe opposition did refute some of my points, granted. Most were ignored. I will reaffirm these points...
- North Korea invading Allies vs Allies invading North Korea
- Benefits of Fortification
North Korea invading Allies vs Allies invading North KoreaThis point didn't really garner the refutation it deserved. Basically to summarize the argument, there are two types of fronts. Offensive fronts, and defensive fronts. Both vary depending on the opposing force in question. A defensive operation, according to Napoleon and the government's own quoted Sun Tzu, is superior to an offensive operation. The idea that Sun Tzu tried to convey, was that fighting an enemy on ones own turf, was superior to fighting on the enemies turf. This can be contributed to the scale of offensive operations, mobilization of armed forces. and another variable that will be argued in the next section.
Benefits of Fortification When attacking an enemy on their turf, they are attributed to "benefit of fortification". Simpy put, they choose the battle field, they choose their defenses, and they choose how a war is going down. Offensives can be undertaken to diminish the benefit of foritification, but in almost every scenario in millitary history, nations have lost less from fighting defensively than offensively.
Take Afghanistan for example. Would more NATO soldiers of died if the Taliban attacked them, as opposed to us attacking the Taliban.
North Korea has limited resources, and the GDP to sustain a war for 2-3 weeks. Mobilization and the cost of running an offensive operation will deplete their resources extremely fast. If anything, we should wait for North Korea to attack.
North Korea has limited resources, and the GDP to sustain a war for 2-3 weeks. Mobilization and the cost of running an offensive operation will deplete their resources extremely fast. If anything, we should wait for North Korea to attack.
North Korea isn't Likely to Declare WarI've talked about this point in detail. These are the several points that have been subject to the weakest rebuttal.
- North Korea stands to gain more from staying peaceful than not fighting
- North Korea has never declared war in 62 years, despite hundreds of threats
- North Korea doesn't have the resources to win a war
North Korea Stands to Gain More from Staying PeacefulThis argument relates to the two sections that will come after it. North Korea has a booming economy, right after years of famine and overspending on the millitary. The economy is finally recovering from recession, with the CIA World Factbook and Econ Factbook attributing a massive 8.5% growth rate in the poverty ridden country. North Korea is just getting back on its feet after decades of tough times. They have even agreed to several diplomatic summits with South Korea for the first time in decades. North Korea had never been willing to go to the negotiating table with South Korea, and now for the first time, they're opening talks that started in late 2013.
This is a sign of progress. Decade after decade, North Korea's leaders grow less concerned with the idea of marching through South Korea. As I'll show later, this is mostly due by the realization of how unrealistic that dream is. Now is not the time to offset progress, especially since North Korea is at least making a start to establish good relations.
North Korea hasn't Declared War in 62 Years No one is arguing that a war might never happen. The idea that the opposition is trying to convey, is that the time to start thinking about an attack is extremely premature. The fact that North Korea and the Allies haven't been in war since the 1950's, is a sure sign that they aren't willing to fight. Not Kim Jung Sung, Kim Jung-Il, or Kim Jung Un. Two exiled members of the Kim dynasty, Kim Jong-Chul and Kim Jong Nam were even advocates for reform. The only thing that stopped Kim Jong Nam from opening relations with the United States, like he later said he would, was that he was caught in a scandal in Tokyo's Disney World.
The atmosphere is changing. The government has given several examples of people being executed for speaking out. This is a good thing. It means that change is starting to develop among some of the population. Even if it hasn't reached its climax.
The atmosphere is changing. The government has given several examples of people being executed for speaking out. This is a good thing. It means that change is starting to develop among some of the population. Even if it hasn't reached its climax.
North Korea Doesn't Have The Resources to Win a WarNorth Korea simply doesn't have the capabilities to declare war, as affirmed many times. North Korea only spends about a 1% of the Ally budget, they have the resources for a 2 week war, which it has already been conceded they'll lose. The only case the government has to support North Korea winning a war, is if China joins, which we know they wont. Even the government said that a war would be extremely close in cross examination.
China Wont Enter War I've made these points already, and do to little character space, I wont be able to create a section for each one. I'll be sure to spend time restating these points in the leader reply round.
- China has less than a fourth of the ally military budget
- China's Millitary Size barely matches that of the combined allied forces
- China's 3 largest trade partners are the countries the government named allies (and Europe, who are also more likely to support the allies)
The government claims that China is a loyal ally to North Korea. The government also claimed that China is aggressive and self intrested.
We should weigh whether they China's self interests are met by supporting their ally out of pure principal. China isn't the first to back out from tis friends. China even refused to sign a defense agreement with North Korea.
North Koreans Should Free North KoreansNo one ever said that some North Koreans don't want freedom. There just isn't enough to actually make that happen. Which means two things.
1. North Koreans are content with their lives enough not to actually revolt
2. North Koreans are happy and actually like their lives
The government keeps claiming that the majority of North Koreans hate the Kim dynasty. There is no data for that, whereas I provided two links showing contrary. North Koreans are born to love the Kim dynasty. Taught to love the Kim dynasty. All they know is the Kim dynasty. There's no question that the majority, however disillusioned, love the Kim dynasty.
Sorry for breaking out of the Cross Examination. I checked four times to see if their was questions, and just called it a night.
Return To Top | Posted:
2014-11-06 13:07:34
| Speak RoundPlutarch: 1) Yes, but fewPlutarch: 2) 10 nukes. Capabillity No, since all four launches have failed. Plutarch: 3) No, I would concede some don't, not all. A minority at that.Plutarch: Do you concede that North Korea having 10 nukes is a reason not to go launch a premature strike?Darth Vitiosus: Q1. No.Darth Vitiosus: #1. What is the cost of one nuclear strike?Darth Vitiosus: #2. Is Kim Jong-Un trustworthy?Plutarch: #1 . Probably several thousand dollars in fuelPlutarch: #2. These isn't enough information to say either way.Plutarch: Do you concede that North Korea wants to control South Korea?Return To Top | Speak Round
Blackflag (CON)Sorry about those ugly looking flags last round. The audience needs to ask several questions when judging this debate.
- Did the government prove a war will happen?
- If a war will happen, should it be offensive or defensive?
- Is it our responsibility to declare war?
- Are there alternatives to war?
Additionally, the government seems to be gearing up for a nuclear argument. This is the leader reply round, and new arguments really shouldn't be made here. It is for summarizing. Summarizing is the only thing I plan to do this round.
Did the government prove a war will happen?
We must be honest here. The government did little to actually further the idea that a war will happen, besides making semantical arguments that it is a proven fact according to the resolution. The government most definitely did not prove a war will happen, and numerous pieces of evidence rejecting the idea had been presented and inevitably dropped. The government selectively refuted arguments that benefited their case, and pretended like the points made in opposition to the idea that North Korea would declare war were non existent.
If a war will happen, should it be offensive or defensive?
Throughout two rounds, the opposition provided abundant evidence that the Allies have more to gain by fighting defensively, waiting to be attacked, rather than the governments proposal that we fight offensively, and attack first. The arguments about fighting defensively, were derived from the governments own sources, including the reference to Sun Tzu. Who also said that to win a war without fighting is the number one maxim of war. Further discrediting the governments contentions in favor of an offensive war. It has been one hundred percent proven that the Allies have more to gain by fighting defensively.
Is it our responsibility to declare war?
In round one and two, we pushed hard to prove that it isn't the responsibility of the allies to free North Koreans, but North Koreans themselves. The government struck hard on the argument that North Koreans aren't given a platform to free themselves, but throughout the debate, we have proven this false. We have proven that discontent does exist, even at the governments own omission. The government implied that all North Koreans don't like Kim Jung Un. This fallacy directly supported the argument that discontent isn't high enough for North Koreans to bring change, solidifying the opposition case.
Are there alternatives to war?
We have shown that North Korea has recently been taking more steps to conform and establish relations with the allies. Even striking communism from the constitution. This is significant, as it proves that there are viable alternatives to war, therefore supporting the opposition case that we should not strike North Korea without first pursing said alternatives. While the opposition did grant the government that a war may happen, however unlikely, it was proven that said war would be premature. Therefore the people have no reason to accept the resolution that the Allies should strike North Korea.
Note: There's a 4000 character limit this round, but a bug set the maximum at 8000. I ask the government to respect it like my side did.
Return To Top | Posted:
2014-11-08 12:28:25
| Speak RoundDarth Vitiosus (PRO)Remember I as Pro have been arguing in the affirmative. The audience needs simply to revisit the points throughout this debate to notice some vital points:
#1 Con has not refuted any of points
I challenge readers to go back and look at the points I offered in Round 1. Con did not address a single one of them. Con wasn't even bothered to refute nor address any of them. Did he not say I had the burden of proof? The burden of proof has been reached and affirmed decisively with no contention. People should go back to read all four rounds of this debate to see the proof for themselves.
#2 Con claimed he didn't have burden of proof
In Round 2, Con claimed I had the burden of proof. But did he not put forward a number of claims? My opponent put forward several claims(which were unsupported) in this debate. This further solidifies the fact that the burden of proof was shared as I stated emphatically earlier in this debate. If my opponent did not have the burden of proof like he claimed he wouldn't have been demanding that I refute his claims. As Con he did not have to claim anything if he did not have the burden of proof as he claimed. Instead he only needed to refute what I said. Did he do that? Absolutely not. I refuted multiple claims he offered and my points remained steadfastly affirmed without contention.
#3 Con did not present one iota of evidence
None , I repeat none of my opponent's arguments were grounded in facts. Instead he offed us round after round conjecture, conjecture, and even more conjecture. My opponent failed to offer any factual evidence. I offered solid evidence backed up by valid sources in the first round. None of which my opponent contended. Let us not forget, my opponent made the bogus claim that North Korea had no allies or trading partners and I refuted that thoroughly in Round 2 without a peep from my opponent.
#4 Con cheated
This has been explained in the earlier rounds.
#5 All of my points stand as is:
1.Prevent Deaths Among the Allies
2.Limit the Conflict
3.Potential Weapons of Mass Destruction usage
4.Prevent Chinese Entry into such a war
5.Overthrow the Shackles of Tyranny
If you have came to the conclusion that I met the Burden of Proof for this debate, vote in the affirmative, Vote Pro.
Return To Top | Posted:
2014-11-09 12:02:31
| Speak Round
Judge: admin
Posted
(And BTW, my comment in the form was the ONLY comment I've made on this debate. Csareo knows better than anyone my opinion on sharing strategy or advice during an ongoing debate. )Posted 2014-11-03 06:45:17
When I commented, I don't think the debate had started. I'm genuinely sorry if my comments somehow influenced the course of this debate in an untoward way, I will happily abstain from voting. Posted 2014-11-03 06:40:19
I have said nothing specifically about this debate. I never talk about debates in progress. In a chat con begged me to say something specific about this resolution, but I refused. I will probably abstain from voting anyway, but as a matter of principle I never advise people on what to do in an ongoing debate, and want that to be clear for the record.Posted 2014-11-02 20:29:59
I would ask Nzlockie and Admin not to vote on this debate since they have been advising my opponent on what to do in the forums section.Posted 2014-11-02 16:39:28
Epic resolution. Wasn't even aware this topic existed. Posted 2014-10-31 10:27:09