Week 2 - Leafy vs. CP

[FromTheSouth]

CP will be affirming the topic.

This thread is for the debaters only. It ends on Sunday at 6 PM CST.


Resolved: global concerns ought to be valued above conflicting national concerns.

 

[Brilliant Human Being]

Good luck to Leafy, may the best man win.

Introduction​

Resolved: global concerns ought to be valued above conflicting national concerns.

Throughout history, as I'm sure I won't need to tell you, there have been many global concerns: The World Wars, The Cold War and all conflicts under that umberalla, such as the Cuban Missile Crisis, Berlin Blockade, etc. And throughout these conflicts, perhaps in one or more of the countries involved, there have been national concerns in the 'build-up' for want of a better word, to each conflict, such as the race row in America in the 50's and 60's.

Global concerns should be valued over national ones, purely because the various people or groups involved in said national concern can benefit from the global one, like in the following case study. Read on...

Case Study: Women's Suffrage in Britain​

Throughout the 1900's and earlier, women in Britain had campiagned both peacefully and extremely against the prejudice they thought they had suffered in not being given the vote. By 1914, and the outbreak of teh First World War, they had made significant inroads into Parliament, and many were beginning to come on to the idea that women could have a say in the way the country was run. However, when it became clear that war was nearly ineveitable, the notion of women's suffrage was, understandably, cast aside from Parliament's mind, as all attention became focused on the war. This was taken to be a huge setback for the women, as they had long been a thorn in the side of politicians, and many wwere beginning to take notice.

This was the aforementioned national concern. The First World War being, obviously, the global concern in this case.

However, throughout the War, women cast aside their differences, and began to work in munition factories, as farm workers, nurses for wounded soldiers, etc. This showed the government that women were responsible, and could be trusted with responsiblity, and so rewarded those over 30 with the vote at the end of the war in 1918.


So, from that example, you can clearly see a case where a global concern was valued over a national one, yet those responsible for the national concern rallied, and in the end got what they wanted before the global concern happened.

This is why global concerns should be valued over national ones conflicting the interest of those in charge, 9 times out of 10, those ignored because of the global concern, can use the situation to their advantage and get what they want.


I welcome Leafy's argument.

 

[LeafyShuffleboard]

Yes this is Leafy, my account is messed up, good luck to CP

Global concerns should not be valued above conflicting national concerns. A country should be run for it's own personal gain above others. Why should that country devalue itself for the gain of a possible future enemy?

Every country in the world has it's own personal problems. Sure others are larger than others but everyone has their own. Every country should focus on perfecting their own personal problems before looking outward. This is the purpose of a government, to gain wealth and power to their country. When a government puts others needs before their own this creates the image of a weak country. If you based every decision on what is good for the globe, your own is put aside until they build up and eventually crash down on you.

Even if this puts your country in a kind gentle image, inside your own people suffer. If you pump money outside your country this creates inflation again decreasing your countries image.

"Nations have neither friends nor enemies, only interests" This quote explains one of the points, why consider helping a "friend" country, when later they're an enemy

 

[Brilliant Human Being]

Global concerns should not be valued above conflicting national concerns. A country should be run for it's own personal gain above others. Why should that country devalue itself for the gain of a possible future enemy?

What if said country's assets, be they weapons, money, people, whatever, are under threat from a rogue country? Surely then, it is up to that country to protect themselves and/or their allies? To put in perspective, if, tomorrow, North Korea came out and said 'we are going to bomb a European country of our choice' then the UK would almost certainly go out if its way to try and stop the attack happening, even if it means losing some of their assets. Why? Because we rely on trading from European countries. If a country steps in to protect its own partner/trade ally, its not devaluing itself, as you out it, rather, its protecting its best interest so that both countries can continue to prosper.

Every country in the world has it's own personal problems. Sure others are larger than others but everyone has their own. Every country should focus on perfecting their own personal problems before looking outward. This is the purpose of a government, to gain wealth and power to their country. When a government puts others needs before their own this creates the image of a weak country. If you based every decision on what is good for the globe, your own is put aside until they build up and eventually crash down on you.

I have highlighted this particaular point, as I think there are some things wrong with it. While I agree that some of a governments duties are to provide a good standard of living for its people, however to do that it needs to maintain good links with other countries, therefore increasing its allies. See where I'm going with this yet? If, when a country has its allies, one of its allies gets attacked (I've said this above) then it is in said countries best interests to stop any national concerns currently dividing it and do its utmost to help its ally, which would only benefit the country in question.

And when a country puts others needs before their own, it doesn't create an image of a weak country, to suggest so is laughable. It creates the image of a country willing to keep the international peace and willing to improve relations. Furthermore, if you look at the topic, its not saying that 'every decsion made should be based on what is good for the globe' only whether global concerns are important than national concerns.

"Nations have neither friends nor enemies, only interests" This quote explains one of the points, why consider helping a "friend" country, when later they're an enemy

I responded to this earlier.

 

[Leafy]

Throughout history, as I'm sure I won't need to tell you, there have been many global concerns: The World Wars, The Cold War and all conflicts under that umberalla, such as the Cuban Missile Crisis, Berlin Blockade, etc. And throughout these conflicts, perhaps in one or more of the countries involved, there have been national concerns in the 'build-up' for want of a better word, to each conflict, such as the race row in America in the 50's and 60's.

Yes but with each global crisis a country enters they lose precious resources that hinder their own personal problems. Another point is that a country enters a global crisis only when it would benefit themselves or protect them from any future attacks. Thus when entering a global crisis is only necessary is when that concern becomes national.

hroughout the 1900's and earlier, women in Britain had campiagned both peacefully and extremely against the prejudice they thought they had suffered in not being given the vote. By 1914, and the outbreak of teh First World War, they had made significant inroads into Parliament, and many were beginning to come on to the idea that women could have a say in the way the country was run. However, when it became clear that war was nearly ineveitable, the notion of women's suffrage was, understandably, cast aside from Parliament's mind, as all attention became focused on the war. This was taken to be a huge setback for the women, as they had long been a thorn in the side of politicians, and many wwere beginning to take notice.

This was the aforementioned national concern. The First World War being, obviously, the global concern in this case.

However, throughout the War, women cast aside their differences, and began to work in munition factories, as farm workers, nurses for wounded soldiers, etc. This showed the government that women were responsible, and could be trusted with responsiblity, and so rewarded those over 30 with the vote at the end of the war in 1918.

The first world war was a global concern but when it threatened their own personal security it became a national concern. It them became the largest national concern so Great Britain was only putting their national concerns in order of importance. Of course they would put aside woman's rights when their country was at risk.

 

[Brilliant Human Being]

Yes but with each global crisis a country enters they lose precious resources that hinder their own personal problems. Another point is that a country enters a global crisis only when it would benefit themselves or protect them from any future attacks. Thus when entering a global crisis is only necessary is when that concern becomes national.

Ok, before I reply, you don't choose to enter a global crisis as you seem to be implying there. The recession is a global crisis, and how many countries would enter into into a recession willingly?

While I see what you are saying, it is plainly obvious that global concerns are more pressing than national ones isn't it? The part I bolded, you just agreed with me pretty much. You just said that when a global concern becomes national, (which by the very definition of the term 'global' the concern almost definately would) it should be valued more than any national concerns going on at the time.

The first world war was a global concern but when it threatened their own personal security it became a national concern. It them became the largest national concern so Great Britain was only putting their national concerns in order of importance. Of course they would put aside woman's rights when their country was at risk.

Right. Deny to me that the First World War was a global concern. See, you can't. It was a global concern, not a national concern, and something that affects the whole world cannot be categorised just as a national concern. Women's suffrage in Britain, did it affect any other country? No. The First World War, did it affect any other country? Yes. Therefore, that is a global concern, not a national one. Which means you just agrred with me again.

 

[FromTheSouth]

Not one mention of the world court vs. national sovereignty?

Wouldn't we argue that in the cases of the World Wars both national and global concerns were both involved?

Anyway, onto the judging. Leafy makes my argument above, but doesn't expound on it. That being said, CP doesn't allow for any issue to be both and that seems wrong to me. Leafy points out that there are economic, manpower, and credibility losses by entering into global conflicts, and this is why he wins.

Good debate.

Leafy 35
CP 33

 

[gd]

CP wins this one for me, Leafy sorta had the right idea and could've won with a few more points here and there, but I don't think he did enough to convince me, while CP did.

CP 36
Leafy 30

 

[Mr. TM]

Had to give it to the Couch guy, right from the get go he had me convinced, and he led the debate here for me. The leaf guy was pinned down, and I think that if he were to maybe throw out some good facts, he would be able to turn it arounmd, but he never did enough.

Couch 35
Leave 27