Exhibition SF: Salviswin vs. Lee

Discussion in 'Cigar Lounge Debator's League' started by FromTheSouth, May 16, 2010.

  1. FromTheSouth

    FromTheSouth You don't want it with me.

    Mar 18, 2008
    Likes Received:
    Lee has already advanced to the finals by way of a Game meltdown. Salv wanted to play this week. Lee is under no obligation to participate, but if we would like to stay sharp for the finals, he is welcome to.

    Lee will affirm.

    Resolved: International consensus outweighs national sovereignty when dealing with rogue regimes.
  2. SalvIsWin

    SalvIsWin Scientific Skeptic

    Mar 31, 2010
    Likes Received:
    While international consensus is an important factor in determining the best course of action when dealing with rogue regimes, it does not automatically outweigh one nation's authority to approach a situation in a way it sees fit. There is of course international law, which is another matter entirely. An example of this would be the Geneva Conventions, which is now a part of international humanitarian law. A nation who has signed and ratified these conventions are bound to act accordingly in the same way an individual is when signing a contract.

    The situation therefore develops in to whether or not a nation is compelled to act in a specific fashion according to international law, or whether the international consensus on a matter is contrary to the position taken by a sovereign nation. There is no mention of conflict between international law or treaties, so the question being posed must be the latter: whether the opinion of many outweigh the opinion of few.

    There are many examples one could give of the majority being incorrect. Galileo Galilei had a heliocentric view, in which the Sun was at the centre of the universe and the Earth revolved around it. At the time, the majority opinion was geocentric, or that the Earth was the centre of the universe and all other planets revolved around it. Clearly Galileo was correct, but through his lifetime he was persecuted and almost subjected to the Roman Inquisition. There are other examples such as this, but there are not necessary to make, logically speaking there should be no reason for the majority to take precedent over to minority in all situations.

    That being said, it is of course wise to heed the advice and counsel from the majority when determining your own stance. In this specific example of the majority being an international consensus, and the minority being a sovereign nation, clearly said nation should be aware of the possible consequences and byproducts that their minority action could cause. However unless a nation is specifically bound by signed and ratified law, or compelled to adhere because of a treaty, the majority should not indubitably outweigh the minority.

    May 25th Edit: As it has become clear that Lee is not going to be replying (time restraints, lack of motivation, who knows), I feel the need to defend my short opening argument. As I understood, the entire point of this league was to have a debate, back and forth responses and retorts. Thus I created my reply above as a starting point in which to build off of, I wasn't going to go through every possible counter-point and refute that, that is for my opponent to do, I wasn't going to provide others with ammunition. Just wanted to make this clear, as by itself, my original post isn't convincing in any way.

Share This Page

monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"