EDEB8 - Ultimate Online Debating
About Us   Debate    Judge   Forum
Views:
599

That we should strike before North Korea does

(PRO)
WINNER!
6 points
(CON)
0 points
razham05razham05 (PRO)

In the status quo, we all know and realize that North Korea is threatening the US with the missile, at this point. We all also realize, that striking in this case, means we’re going to revenge North Korea for all they have done to the int'l community, particularly to the United States of America, after the Korean War. Their existence, in this matter, could harm the whole world at the worst case scenario. That is, because their use and ownership of the WMD is not correct under the status quo.


Our stance that we would like to strike first before North Korea does, so that we will help the USA respond to all the nuclear threats going through them by working with the US to solve this problem.


Our mechanisms are:

1.  Allying with the United States of America, seeing that if this option is visible.

2.  We’re going to strike, but first of all, with the economic embargo to them–and if it is not effective at all, we’re going to have a military intervention.


First argument, why it is strategic for most of the rest of the world to strike North Korea?


First layer: Because North Korea was, is, and will do even more missile testing, which will harm the USA to begin w/. We already saw the numerous times Kim Jong Un stated that they have successfully tested several missiles, and even if it is not true (aka Jong Un is bluffing), it will still threaten the USA in security matters because of several reasons:

First reason, As we know, the missile contains one of the WMD, and we think that the presence of the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty (NPT) is not enough–because in the status quo, it is not legally binding, proven by DPRK’s getting out of the treaty and became active in testing, and so on and so forth. We think, that the presence of the WMD is not justified, because the harm they will get is just the world’s destruction in the end of the day. Therefore, it is the utmost correct for the rest of the world to take action on the North Korean issue, as this will harm the world in general. Comparatively, in the other side of the house, letting North Korea strike first (and maybe, once and for all), will mean that North Korea is ready to destroy the world, and we won’t see that happen and even if, the Opp will claim that if we strike first as in aggressively striking, that will increase the possibility of World War III. Indeed, WWIII will happen in both sides of the house, but at least we reduce that risk.

Second reason, Even if DPRK went out from the NPT and doing everything they can to even physically destroy the United States of America, we think that what they are doing recently with the missiles will not only provoke the US to take more action, but the rest of the world too. In fact, there are less UN resolutions that address North Korean matter (but instead, Israel is the one that was put in the spotlight comparing to the North Korean), while we see that condemning is not enough. Therefore, the international law should be more legally binding regarding North Korea–or else, they will do whatever it takes to make matters worse, for example, going for another missile strike.


Second layer: Striking North Korea first will mean the world takes their preemptive measures before everything get destroyed–that is to say, the rest of US allies will have their option to prevent any worst-case scenario to happen. Even if, we could say that economic embargo could be the start of the strike, and even if it is proven ineffective in the end of the day–at least, the world has done something preventive to make sure that the WMD-related trade, or activities, could be reduced, specifically inside DPRK. In fact, when DPRK declared a war to the United States of America due to Trump’s tweet regarding DPRK.


Those are the...


Return To Top | Posted:
2018-01-02 15:14:21
| Speak Round
Cross-Examination
razham05: In this cross-examination, I would like to respond several things.
razham05: First of all, the Opposition side of the house never engage on either scenarios of the benefits and harms if North Korea strikes first, or if we're going to strike first. We already stated that it will be one of the pre-emptive measures to at least make North Korea comply with all these rules (such as but not limited to NPT) before the massive destruction began. That is because fhe WMD has never been justified in any means, with the worst case scenario of our own extinction in the mere future if we continue.
razham05: And even if the Opposition side of the House are trying to say that "if we strike first, the effect will be the same"--well then, we're not going to strike that direct as we've outlined in the mechanism, direct means by military means and objectives and so on and so forth. The Opposition side of the House also never engage to that kind of scenario. Moreover, we're going to talk to you who are the ones that leads to this mechanism, while we already told you the situation in the status quo. That is to say, the Opposition side of the House never engage to the status quo...
razham05: ...and how we should respond that situation. Any POIs?

Return To Top | Speak Round


View As PDF

Enjoyed this debate? Please share it!

You need to be logged in to be able to comment
AnonymousAnonymous
xD sure thing :)
Posted 2018-01-03 10:40:35
adminadmin
Of course once the debate is concluded, those kinds of comments are allowed and in fact encouraged :)
Posted 2018-01-03 03:47:56
adminadmin
@Anonymous try not to provide arguments for either debater while the debate is ongoing in the comments of the debate.
Posted 2018-01-03 03:47:11
AnonymousAnonymous
The one who strike first is the reason for someone to do vengeance. "This strike" could both hit the target and the innocent.
Posted 2018-01-02 09:30:37
The judging period on this debate is over

Previous Judgments

2018-01-15 20:04:54
MharmanJudge: Mharman    TOP JUDGE
Win awarded to: razham05
Reasoning:
Rahzam was the only one to make an argument.

Feedback:
My advice to pro is to do more debates, as his arguments so solid I could not think of any rebuttals to any of his points. My advice to con is to actually argue.
1 user rated this judgement as constructive
0 comments on this judgement
2018-01-20 10:36:12
E271Judge: E271
Win awarded to: razham05
Reasoning:
As CON forfeited every round and created no arguments for his case, his reasoning cannot realistically be considered better than the structured arguments introduced by PRO. In contrast, PRO’s arguments, while somewhat casually constructed are highly relevant and predict very realistic cause and effect relations. Improvements I could see are more logical grammar flow, as it is very difficult to understand what is meant by phrases such as ‘seeing that if this option is viable.’ However, adding a physical way of achieving the goal does add credibility to his reasoning, which is a definite positive. It had the potential to be a good debate, if both sides participated.
1 user rated this judgement as constructive
0 comments on this judgement
2018-01-24 15:24:10
Zafar mahmoodJudge: Zafar mahmood
Win awarded to: razham05
Reasoning:
Well other person didn't respond.
0 comments on this judgement
2018-02-01 13:25:00
lannan13Judge: lannan13    TOP JUDGE
Win awarded to: razham05
Reasoning:
The debate goes to Pro since Con never responded to his arguments.
0 comments on this judgement

Rules of the debate

  • Text debate
  • Individual debate
  • 2 rounds
  • 4000 characters per round
  • No reply speeches
  • Uses cross-examination
  • Permissive Judging Standard (notes)
  • Forfeiting rounds does not mean forfeiting the debate
  • Images allowed
  • HTML formatting allowed
  • Rated debate
  • Time to post: 3 days
  • Time to vote: 1 month
  • Time to prepare: 3 hours
This is a random challenge. See the general rules for random challenges at http://www.edeb8.com/resources/General+rules+for+random+debates+%28version+2%29