#1
OK.. before anyone flames me I am going to get it out in the open. Yes I am in LD Debate. This is not because I need help coming up with a case it is just because I would like to see your views and arguments on both sides of the resolution for January as I believe it will help me find a wide range of arguments in which I might come up against and because I am actually interested in your opinions. I would also like you to back up your arguments with some sort of evidence in which you do not have to fully cite if not necessary. Here is the resolution.

Resolved: It is just for the United States to use military force in order to prevent the acquisition of nuclear weapons by foreign countries.
like a chicken on a junebug.- coach teasdale

if you dont want to play basketball go to underwater basket weaving. coach teasdale

I refuse to answer that question on the grounds that I don't know the answer.
-- Douglas Adams
#2
No.
Quote by SomeoneYouKnew
You should be careful what you say. Some asshole will probably sig it.

Quote by Axelfox
Yup, a girl went up to me in my fursuit one time.

Quote by Xiaoxi
I can fap to this. Keep going.
#4
It's not a matter of being just, it's a matter of the US being the only superpower left, having the ability to impose its will on other parts of the world, and being held responsible whenever ANYTHING happens.

Whether its right or wrong, the US is going to do it. You hippies can whine all you want, it's not going to change anything unless you man up and march to DC like they did in the 60's.
Survivor of the St. John's Lockdown
Quote by SG thrasher

The thread-starter is a legend.
Seriously, who thinks "Shit, i'm gonna die, BRB, Ima' tell UG."?

Quote by The_Paranoia

Congratz man, you are a true, American Hero.
Go Schneiderman!

Gun Facts: Educate Yourself
#5
Whoa.

I'm partly tempted to smack you for even asking, and everyone that comes into this thread and acts like a twat, and whomever organized the debate, for the same reason one doesn't set up as a debate "Was Auschwitz moral" or, similar in a lot of ways though the form is quite different, "Should we limit fossil fuels/carbon emissions/greenhouse gases". And partly attempted to just leave the thread now and not get involved.

Short answer: not remotely, at all.

Slightly longer answer: it's complex, but while we can invent hypotheticals, in virtually every reasonably likely situation where it would arise, it's a terrible, not to mention hypocritical, idea.
Quote by Meths
Really, it's quite gutting that we'll all be dead by the time the earth is entirely underwater because I really want to stick your head underwater while standing on Everest and say "if sea levels aren't rising, HOW COME YOU'RE DYING?!"
#6
Quote by Schneiderman
It's not a matter of being just, it's a matter of the US being the only superpower left, having the ability to impose its will on other parts of the world, and being held responsible whenever ANYTHING happens.

Whether its right or wrong, the US is going to do it. You hippies can whine all you want, it's not going to change anything unless you man up and march to DC like they did in the 60's.

Being the only one "left" does not make us "right"
And you guys have some really strange perceptions of the '60s
Quote by SomeoneYouKnew
You should be careful what you say. Some asshole will probably sig it.

Quote by Axelfox
Yup, a girl went up to me in my fursuit one time.

Quote by Xiaoxi
I can fap to this. Keep going.
#7
I didn't say it makes us right, and I didn't say it justifies what we do, I meant that it explains what we do. No matter what we do, someone is going to think it is right and someone is going to think it is wrong. Failing to please everyone, we will do what seems best for our political interests.

That's where angry hippy zombies from the 60's come in and march to DC.

Seriously, this is how the US government works. If there are not angry mobs of millions of people in DC, things are going well. That is how the US government judges success.
Survivor of the St. John's Lockdown
Quote by SG thrasher

The thread-starter is a legend.
Seriously, who thinks "Shit, i'm gonna die, BRB, Ima' tell UG."?

Quote by The_Paranoia

Congratz man, you are a true, American Hero.
Go Schneiderman!

Gun Facts: Educate Yourself
#8
Psh. LD'ers.
If you could blow up the world with a flick of a switch,
Would you do it?

If you could make everybody poor just so you could be rich,
Would you do it?

With all your power,
What would you do?
#9
Quote by jammoe
Whoa.

I'm partly tempted to smack you for even asking, and everyone that comes into this thread and acts like a twat, and whomever organized the debate, for the same reason one doesn't set up as a debate "Was Auschwitz moral" or, similar in a lot of ways though the form is quite different, "Should we limit fossil fuels/carbon emissions/greenhouse gases". And partly attempted to just leave the thread now and not get involved.

Short answer: not remotely, at all.

Slightly longer answer: it's complex, but while we can invent hypotheticals, in virtually every reasonably likely situation where it would arise, it's a terrible, not to mention hypocritical, idea.


If you want to get mad at me...don't because I did not come up with it. The National Forensic League or whatever association that comes up with these things did. Actually, i think it is good question because it is a big argument presently in our society and can be easily argued both ways. The question is more like "was the A-Bomb on Hiroshima moral?"
like a chicken on a junebug.- coach teasdale

if you dont want to play basketball go to underwater basket weaving. coach teasdale

I refuse to answer that question on the grounds that I don't know the answer.
-- Douglas Adams
#10
Quote by youngandplayin
If you want to get mad at me, don't ... Actually, i think it is good question because it is a big argument presently in our society and can be easily argued both ways.
If you think it's a good idea then you're a dumbass, and a grossly immoral person, or at minimum very very ignorant (which in our part of the world is common and likely). I mean, it's "sort of" a question, but basically it isn't, and those suggesting it are generally suggesting horrible, horrible ideas.

Quote by youngandplayin
The question is more like "was the A-Bomb on Hiroshima moral?"
And again, "sort of" a question, but not really. Japan was basically ready to surrender. Further, aside from all that bunk about "but it saved lives blah blah ground invasion blah blah bucktooth!"... convention is to disregard the fact that the use of nuclear weapons, or force generally, has effects much much bigger than the "instantaneous body count", the headline the next day, etc. This is one of the biggest errors, seriously, on a moral level, on an intellectual, on an I-want-human-civilization-to-survive (well, maybe I do) level, within the sort of, conventional Western discourse (and truth told, I'd presume, elsewhere).
Quote by Meths
Really, it's quite gutting that we'll all be dead by the time the earth is entirely underwater because I really want to stick your head underwater while standing on Everest and say "if sea levels aren't rising, HOW COME YOU'RE DYING?!"
#11
Quote by jammoe
If you think it's a good idea then you're a dumbass,....


And again, "sort of" a question, but not really. Japan was basically ready to surrender. Further, aside from all that bunk about "but it saved lives blah blah ground invasion blah blah bucktooth!"... convention is to disregard the fact that the use of nuclear weapons, or force generally, has effects much much bigger than the "instantaneous body count", the headline the next day, etc. This is one of the biggest errors, seriously, on a moral level, on an intellectual, on an I-want-human-civilization-to-survive (well, maybe I do) level, within the sort of, conventional Western discourse (and truth told, I'd presume, elsewhere).



I never said whether I think it is good or not... so im not the dumbass. "people hear what they want to hear"... that goes for everyone including me. That is why this is on here.. to expand people's horizons with different views. You are opposed to this because you do not want to hear the opposite of what you believe.
like a chicken on a junebug.- coach teasdale

if you dont want to play basketball go to underwater basket weaving. coach teasdale

I refuse to answer that question on the grounds that I don't know the answer.
-- Douglas Adams
#12
Quote by youngandplayin
I never said whether I think it is good or not... so im not the dumbass. "people hear what they want to hear"... that goes for everyone including me. That is why this is on here.. to expand people's horizons with different views. You are opposed to this because you do not want to hear the opposite of what you believe.
I do not want to hear the opposite of what I believe not because of "rah rah rah I want to live on a cloud", it's because I just feel bad when someone says "I think foreigners should die so we can be slightly wealthier". If that has to be explained, if that has to be justified, then I give up.

On an intellectual level I think debate is critical and beautiful and so forth - and in some areas there's work to be done, there are things to be figured out, and on a baser level free expression and intellectual activity and debate has to be constantly and vigorously maintained and defended. But on the other hand "Should we rape and butcher toddlers" is not a debate, I guess on sort of an "emotional" level if you want to call it that, and it's none of this "I don't want to have my ideas challenged" nonsense, and that should be apparent. Further, for similar reasons "Should we bomb Iran" is not a debate - and let's be sincere, that's what we're talking about, because another thing people don't do is consider what we're actually talking about, they consider pleasing fantasies about our benevolence and strange hypotheticals and so forth, this is another critical flaw of Western convention. If I might elaborate, I think even if we take the literal meaning of the resolution proposed, it's still not true - but the fact that Iran does not have a nuclear weapons program is important, and the contradiction you see here, the leap of logic, is not mine but that of this flaw in discourse.
Quote by Meths
Really, it's quite gutting that we'll all be dead by the time the earth is entirely underwater because I really want to stick your head underwater while standing on Everest and say "if sea levels aren't rising, HOW COME YOU'RE DYING?!"
#13
i enjoyed your last post very much. Honestly, I do not believe that we should use military force. mainly for two main reasons 1) we have them, if we tell others they can't we are hypocritical...which we are in many ways......2) the NIE just stated that Bush's pressure on Iran has been working. This is not said of bush much. Why change if it is working especially when it is peaceful right now.

I do honestly think that it is a good question though. That is one point in which I disagree with you.

Here would be one of my main points for why we should be able to: America is based on democracy which supports the idea that we shall do whatever is best for the common good. If we are to pursue true democracy we have to due this on every level. And if Americans believe that it is for the common good then it shall be pursued.

Now my main argument against this is that America provides equality of opportunity and if we want to pursue this we must also do it on every level as it is in the common good.
like a chicken on a junebug.- coach teasdale

if you dont want to play basketball go to underwater basket weaving. coach teasdale

I refuse to answer that question on the grounds that I don't know the answer.
-- Douglas Adams