Week 1 - Kill Joy vs. Stinger

[FromTheSouth]

This thread will be judged by Tastycles

The thread will be open until Sunday at 6 PM CST.

Kill Joy will affirm the topic that:

Resolved: International obligations, on balance, are morally superior to national obligations.

 

[ABMorales787]

Before anything, I have to apologize for taking so long. I apologize to FTS, Stinger and Tastycles. Anyway...


International obligations, on balance, are morally superior to national obligations. If you were to make the question simpler its asking who you're more loyal to. Your country, or the whole planet. In an age in which globalization is an objective, it is a better service to assist on a worldwide scale. TO stop this from being a word fort, what I'm saying that there are more people in the world than in your country. The US army services out of the US. Its in Iraq trying to prevent terrorism. When the Earthquake in Haiti took place everyone from different countries pitched in. Even countries with economic troubles like the U.S. Why? Well because in a time of globalization you have think of others, not just yourself. If you look at countries who are focus on national affairs before international ones, you'll find Mexico, Cuba and Iraq. Mexico and Cuba's population sneak into the U.S. seeking a better living so it just can't be good in there. Mexico is continuously ravaged by gang wars and nobody does anything about it. And of course Iraq,who bombarded us not too long ago and are still very hostile. In a "what if" scenario if we'd let them go on, what if they'd attacked another country? The number of casualties if another 9-11-esque incident took place. We had the power to stop, so we did. An international incident over our national affair.

 

[Dr. Stinger A. Zoidberg]

Don't worry about it Killjoy.

To an American citizen, their country means everything to them. They are willing to back it during tough times, and enjoy it during good times. However, when the country does go through a problem, people expect the US to be there for them.

Current Recession: The US is currently millions of dollars in debt. We are in a war we should already have been out of, plus we are assisting those who were involved in the Haiti earthquake. You would think the US would just say, "You know, we'll help you, but do to our economy failing, we wont help you as much as we normally would." We currently are spending millions of dollars on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan each year, just so we can help protect them. The US went in the Iraq and Afghanistan to get revenge for 9-11, and now, 9 years later, we have killed most of the masterminds behind it, Saddam Hussein, Kalid Sheikh Mohammed, Ramzi Binalshibh, Abu Turab al- Urdini, and Mohammed Atef. Supposedly, Osama is dead. Now, many Americans feel that our job in Iraq is done, we got our revenge, let's get out. However, former President Bush decided to stay in Iraq and Afghanistan to protect them from Al-Queda. Thus, making us spend more money each year. While Obama is currently trying to get them out by next summer, the damage is already done and irreversable. Millions of dollars have been thrown away already.

Killjoy, you bring up the point of Mexicans and Cubans sneaking into America. The thing is, they don't sneak into America because they want a better living, it's because of the fact that they are likely to die if they stay. Mexico currently is doing their best to try and stop all of the drug cartels, and they are doing an alright job. These people sneak into America because they want freedom. To be fair, it's still like a dictatorship in Cuba, So, why wouldnt they want to leave?

However, I do believe in tighter border patrol. I would not want an Illigal Immigrant living in my neighborhood. I would expect my country to get them out.

Getting back on topic, Let's say just for debate purposes, We both lived in Italy. Now, let's say one day we wake up, turn on the news, and see that our country is under attack. We find out that there is millions of dollars in damages, many injured and killed. Now, let's say we find the cause of all this to be the leaders of Germany. Would you want Italy to immediately declare war on Italy, and start fighting the next day, knowing that their country is still in shambles? I don't think so. You would want them to wait for a little while, help us get back on our feet first. Help heal the injured, bury the dead, and start to rebuild the country. THEN they should go to war. Do you know why? Because a country's obligations to it's citizens are far more important at that point than international obligations, in this case, the war.

Another example, Let's say it is September 12th 2001, just one day after the 9-11 attacks, and we find out that Japan was just hit by a major Tsunami, half of the country is underwater, they need help and they need it badly. Would you want us to go out and help Japan, when some of the busiest places in our nation, New York City, and Washington DC, just underwent a major attack, and now need the US more than ever? I don't think so. Japan, in this case, could relay on hundreds of other countries to help them. We don't need to get involved, we should first help our country. Again, Our country's obligations as a whole, are more important that international obligations.

I would post more, however, I need to go out to dinner. I await your response Killjoy.

 

[ABMorales787]

To an American citizen, their country means everything to them. They are willing to back it during tough times, and enjoy it during good times. However, when the country does go through a problem, people expect the US to be there for them.

Current Recession: The US is currently millions of dollars in debt. We are in a war we should already have been out of, plus we are assisting those who were involved in the Haiti earthquake. You would think the US would just say, "You know, we'll help you, but do to our economy failing, we wont help you as much as we normally would." We currently are spending millions of dollars on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan each year, just so we can help protect them. The US went in the Iraq and Afghanistan to get revenge for 9-11, and now, 9 years later, we have killed most of the masterminds behind it, Saddam Hussein, Kalid Sheikh Mohammed, Ramzi Binalshibh, Abu Turab al- Urdini, and Mohammed Atef. Supposedly, Osama is dead. Now, many Americans feel that our job in Iraq is done, we got our revenge, let's get out. However, former President Bush decided to stay in Iraq and Afghanistan to protect them from Al-Queda. Thus, making us spend more money each year. While Obama is currently trying to get them out by next summer, the damage is already done and irreversable. Millions of dollars have been thrown away already.

It seems to be more of a mistake on the part of George Bush. Calling off the army from Iraq was the best thing to do but to get back on topic, the fact is that because they went to another country it was made an international affair. Yes, the U.S. is in debt but its not the only country that is out to help. It is seen as a leader because it leads by example. The people of the U.S. always goes out of their way to help others when needed. It's not just the u.S. You can also see from other countries such as Canada and the U.K. They are always on communication.

Killjoy, you bring up the point of Mexicans and Cubans sneaking into America. The thing is, they don't sneak into America because they want a better living, it's because of the fact that they are likely to die if they stay.

Not to nitpick or anything but thats pretty much the same thing.

Getting back on topic, Let's say just for debate purposes, We both lived in Italy. Now, let's say one day we wake up, turn on the news, and see that our country is under attack. We find out that there is millions of dollars in damages, many injured and killed. Now, let's say we find the cause of all this to be the leaders of Germany. Would you want Italy to immediately declare war on Italy, and start fighting the next day, knowing that their country is still in shambles? I don't think so. You would want them to wait for a little while, help us get back on our feet first. Help heal the injured, bury the dead, and start to rebuild the country. THEN they should go to war. Do you know why? Because a country's obligations to it's citizens are far more important at that point than international obligations, in this case, the war.

I wouldn't declare war, however I would do anything I could to protect the people who are still alive. If setting up a perimeter at the Germany-Italy border is necessary to protect so be it. If we are forced to jump border because the Germans activities are too unstable then so be it. If the Germans are about to jump to Portugal as well, "hold it, you did it to us, we would let you do it to others". When somebody attacks you have to defend. As much as you can.

Another example, Let's say it is September 12th 2001, just one day after the 9-11 attacks, and we find out that Japan was just hit by a major Tsunami, half of the country is underwater, they need help and they need it badly. Would you want us to go out and help Japan, when some of the busiest places in our nation, New York City, and Washington DC, just underwent a major attack, and now need the US more than ever? I don't think so. Japan, in this case, could relay on hundreds of other countries to help them. We don't need to get involved, we should first help our country. Again, Our country's obligations as a whole, are more important that international obligations.

The U.S. isn't the only country out there. Should they ask for help the U.S. can give a bit of support and contact other countries via the United Nations. In a time of globalization an international unity can be a lot more powerful and helpful than a national one.

 

[Dr. Stinger A. Zoidberg]

It seems to be more of a mistake on the part of George Bush.Calling off the army from Iraq was the best thing to do but to get back on topic, the fact is that because they went to another country it was made an international affair.

-While that may be true, It was an international affair inside of a national obligation. At first, Bush went into Iraq so the US could get revenge for September 11th, not to protect them. As the years went on, it got out of control, now we're stuck protecting them. However, at first, It was a national obligation to be there. The American people wanted to be in there, so Congress and Bush (for once) listened to us and went in.

Yes, the U.S. is in debt but its not the only country that is out to help. It is seen as a leader because it leads by example.

-Yes, the world recognizes us as leaders, but when the US is in need as well, it is an obligation that we try to fix our problem more than what ever is going on in the world. A national obligation.

The people of the U.S. always goes out of their way to help others when needed. It's not just the u.S. You can also see from other countries such as Canada and the U.K. They are always on communication.

-True, we sent what? 100 million+ dollars to Haiti? I know Haiti was hit with a major earthquake and that they need help, however, That money could have been used by the American people to stimulate their local economy and small businesses to slowly yet surely help our economy. Im not saying helping Haiti was the wrong thing to do, Im just saying maybe we didnt need to send as much money as we did.

Not to nitpick or anything but thats pretty much the same thing.

-Yep, However, it is a national obligation to get them out. They're illegal immigrants. Illegal Aliens have no place in America.

I wouldn't declare war, however I would do anything I could to protect the people who are still alive. If setting up a perimeter at the Germany-Italy border is necessary to protect so be it. If we are forced to jump border because the Germans activities are too unstable then so be it. If the Germans are about to jump to Portugal as well, "hold it, you did it to us, we would let you do it to others". When somebody attacks you have to defend. As much as you can.

-OK, That's your opinion, however what you are saying here would be an example of a national obligation.

The U.S. isn't the only country out there. Should they ask for help the U.S. can give a bit of support and contact other countries via the United Nations. In a time of globalization an international unity can be a lot more powerful and helpful than a national one.

-Once the UN has other nations help out, it is no longer a national or an international obligation. Therefore, this statement is null and void.

 

[Tastycles]

Hide Your Pimps! KillJoy's Here!

Persuasiveness: I think you did well to keep your arguments clear throughout, but you had a tendancy to argue ad hitlerum a little bit. Sure, they look after number one in Iraq and Mexico, but they do it in hugely successful countries like China and Switzerland too. Later on you established an idea of international unity though, and you cited the examples of both war and compassion to get your point across. 9 out of 15

Punctuality: You made two posts, but your first was a day late, so I'm giving you 7 out of 10

Grammar, spelling, punctuation: I think you should have broken the first post into paragraphs, and there was the odd missing apostrophe at times 8 out of 10

On-topic-ness: Largely kept on topic, though you seemed to blame Iraq for 9/11 which is just blatantly wrong, and you used it to support your argument. 8 out of 10

Quality of responses: You did quite well here. You answered most of his questions, but I feel you could have done more to poke holes in his argument 3 out of 5

Total score is 35 out of 50

Stinger

Persuasiveness: Your posts were both very persuasive. You argued by hypothetical example and by pointing out wrong things that have been done in actuality. Stylistically, it seemed very calculated, but I don't feel it engaged the reader as much as it should have. 12 out of 15

Punctuality: You made two posts, both on time 10 out of 10

Grammar, spelling, punctuation: It started to get sloppy throughout the argument. You capitalised things that didn't need it and the overall structure weakened throughout the debate. You also wrote Italy when you meant Germany on one occaision, unless you meant Italy would declare war on Italy. 7 out of 10

On-topic-ness: You vered into arguments about your position on illegal immigration twice and on neither occaision did it serve to better your argument. 6 out of 10

Quality of responses: Good. You pointed out the errors in the argument of your opponent, and showed that they were actually arguments in your own favour. I felt you could have done a bit more to argue why giving money to Haiti etc. was bad. Yes, the money could have gone to Americans, but why is it bad that it didn't, from a moral point of view.3 out of 5

Total score is 38 out of 50

Result

Two good debates that were evenly matched throughout, and it is a real shame that it is punctuality that ultimately decided this one. Both did well, though I feel at times the argument veered into Iraq territory a bit too much. Still, I enjoyed reading what you both had to offer.

Stinger wins by 38 points to 35