Week 3 Lee vs. Killjoy

[FromTheSouth]

Same judge, same timeframe, Lee will affirm.

Resolved: Security concerns ought to outweigh environmental concerns within the international community over the next 100 years.

 

[Lee]

Erm not same time frame, I'm in london til wednesday

 

[ABMorales787]

Well Lee told me to go ahead of him. I won't affirm the topic.

Security concerns ought to outweigh environmental concerns within the international community over the next 100 years.

No. Not every country is in "neat and clean" condition. Then again not every country is a "safe to play" place. In some countries you have the environmental problems outweighing the crime and vice versa. An example would be my home country. Puerto Rico. We used to have problems with the environment because we were overloaded with garbage. We had nowhere to put it. That problem has been resolved. BUT! Our public security has hit rock bottom. Bad. You can't go a day without at least hearing about 5 different fatal cases. Murder, accident, etc. What does that tell you? We focused on one problem and that gave the other one chance to get worse. Imagine this on a world-wide scale. You can argue that our government isn't exactly "top class" but if the idea is to focus on reconstructing the environment on a world-wide scale, there's just no way to avoid a "clash of the minds". Laws can be used to aid with such a problem. Perhaps implementing a "must recycle" law to help with garbage disposal and continuing the focus on eco-friendly vehicles. The environment is an important case, but our safety as human beings is just as important. People can't help the environment if they aren't there.

I'll offer more on the subject once Lee affirms.

 

[Lee]

Security concerns ought to outweigh environmental concerns within the international community over the next 100 years.

If you can imagine this question asked one hundred years ago, what would the answer be? It would seem a very appropriate thing to think hmm how could the international community come together. Why should we bother about environmental concerns? Can you imagine a world where security concerns are priority that would be brilliant! It would stop two world wars and some shit ey?

Lets compare to today, which has the priority, well that would be the security concerns of the international community outweigh the environmental concerns. History lesson for you: In 1945 the UN was formed essentially it was made to “Bring the end of war and have an international dialogue” the main forus of this was NOT a world government nor was it to have environmental converns. Since then it has exapanded quite a bit and since then has also include many members with now practically all countries in the world apart of the UN.

Spoiler

It is now today that we can get the ball rolling in the international community with all countries apart of this organisation. Steps have been made by the UNFCCC ever year to work on the evironmental concerns within the international community, and that my friends is a great idea. However if you keep tabs of this thing there's always some countries that say “Hang on if Leeland with the biggest army in the world doesn't say it will do environmental concerns then why the fudge should the United Tasty Emirates?!” That makes sense, simply because the international community has the main concern as the security.

Go ask 20 people which they would rather happen....Global warming or they get nuked, I know which one they would say. From an individual view point, security concerns outweigh the environmental, same for domestic, same for international. Why else are there so many alliances in the world? On top of the UN, there's the EU, NATO, USAN among others. Simply put this is very important and rightly so.

Back to what I was saying about the environmental concerns, if you look at it the way I have said nothing will get done. However if you have your main concern on security and everyone works together, you can essentially eradicate war, maybe a worldwide peace keeping corps who knows the ins and outs, but it sure as hell is possible...we've come leaps and bounds in the past 100 years in this area so why shouldn't this happen over the next 100 years?

 

[ABMorales787]

Civil war is inevitable. There will always be a bid for power by somebody. On an international scale, there's an even greater chance of it happening. Not to mention that not every area of this "union"will have the same problem. Think of it as a fast food restaurant if you will. One area has spilled soda on the floor while the other one has two boys making trouble. Which do you take care of? Both. Why? Because of the need to satisfy and maintain order.

If you can imagine this question asked one hundred years ago, what would the answer be? It would seem a very appropriate thing to think hmm how could the international community come together. Why should we bother about environmental concerns? Can you imagine a world where security concerns are priority that would be brilliant! It would stop two world wars and some shit ey?

This is true. However back then we lacked the technology and knowledge to know about things like Global Warming, Acid Rain, The Greenhouse Effect or that we were causing animals to become extinct. If we did know this stuff back then it would've been easy to prevent the World Wars and we'd be able to see some Dodo's in the zoo. But we don't. We had a chance to slow down the Global Warming process back in the 80's. But what happened? "It would take centuries for this to happen". Not the case now is it? On top of that we have to worry about "the war on terror", the economy and the rise on criminality.

Go ask 20 people which they would rather happen....Global warming or they get nuked, I know which one they would say. From an individual view point, security concerns outweigh the environmental, same for domestic, same for international. Why else are there so many alliances in the world? On top of the UN, there's the EU, NATO, USAN among others. Simply put this is very important and rightly so.

I'd rather get nuked. Its faster. But getting back to serious, both can be prevented. So why should we focus on preventing just one? Scientists don't fight wars, do they? Soldiers don't do math, do they? Everyone has their role. Sticking to them keeps everything in balance. You provide safety and I provide eco-friendly stuff. If we put our heads together and work together developing strategy and playing our part, there is really no reason to focus more on the environment than on security. Or the other way around.

 

[Tastycles]

Lee

Persuasiveness: More use of conversational language and putting the reader in the position. You used hard facts and also emotive language to get your point across. I'd have liked a bit more fear mongering to be honest. It works for David Cameron, should work for you too. 10 out of 15

Punctuality: You only made one post, and it was late because you were too busy meeting the Big Show. 5 out of 10

Grammar, spelling, punctuation: Good work, though obviously the conversational style isn't perfect grammatically speaking. 9 out of 10

On-topic-ness: Kept on topic throughout, good work. 10 out of 10

Quality of responses: None made. 0 out of 5

Total score is 34 out of 50


Riaku

Persuasiveness: Good work. You put forward the dangers of not doing what you say, and gave examples as well as arguing a fairly fundamental flaw in your opponent's argument. It was going so well until you made your final point that there's no need to focus on one more than the other. That killed your flow, and it almost cost you the match. 8 out of 15

Punctuality: You made two posts, and I know you were to go second, but your first post was later than it should have been. 7 out of 10

Grammar, spelling, punctuation: The first post needed to be split, everything else was fine. 8 out of 10

On-topic-ness: Kept focussed throughout. For the record, the dodo died out a lot longer than 100 years ago. 1600s, I think. 10 out of 10

Quality of responses: Good in the first instance, but then you let yourself down with the second. It was suicidal to say that it didn't matter either way and to admit the opponent had a point. 3 out of 5

Total score is 36 out of 50

Result

Few glaring errors from KillJoy, but a much improved performance. Lee, I let you down by being hospitable in the real world, and not responding directly is what cost you.

Killjoy wins by 36 points to 34