Instigator / Pro
7
1627
rating
37
debates
66.22%
won
Topic
#2544

American Military and Paramilitary Support in the Secret War in Laos was Justified

Status
Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
3
0
Better sources
2
0
Better legibility
1
1
Better conduct
1
1

After 1 vote and with 5 points ahead, the winner is...

Sum1hugme
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
4
Time for argument
One week
Max argument characters
12,000
Voting period
Two weeks
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
2
1417
rating
158
debates
32.59%
won
Description

BOP is shared.

- Pro - American Military and Paramilitary Support in the Secret War in Laos was Justified
- Con - American Military and Paramilitary Support in the Secret War in Laos was not Justified

- Definitions for the context of this debate :

- American - Relating to or characteristic of the United States or its inhabitants [1].
- Military - Relating to or characteristic of soldiers or armed forces [2].
- Paramilitary - (of an unofficial force) organized similarly to a military force [3].
-Support - Give assistance to, especially financially; enable to function or act [4].
-Secret War - America's covert involvement in military actions within the borders of diplomatically neutral Laos during the Laotian civil war. Also the less covert, CIA involvement in Paramilitary organizations fighting against the North Vietnamese Army during the same period of time.
-Laos - The Country of Laos [5]
-Justified - Having, done for, or marked by a good or legitimate reason [6].

-These terms are not to be redefined during this debate.

--------------------

-I'm hoping for an interesting debate.

[1] https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/american
[2] https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/military
[3] https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/paramilitary
[4] https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/support
[5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laos
[6] https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/justified

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

Arguments:

I will break the contentions into 4 major parts:

-The Geneva Convention
-Forced Labour
-War Interest
-Net Harm/Benefit Analysis

Mind you, most of this breaks down after R2, but regardless, they are the major contentions used to prove the justification of the war.

Geneva Convention - Pro's initial claim was actually turned against them, Con providing a citing of a Geneva FAQ that dismantles Pros notions. Pro even faultily rebuts this, not at all hitting the main point, but Con drops the point. I'm giving this contention a tie, Con made a good point, but dropped it and didn't answer Pro's simple rebuttal.

Forced Labor - Pro makes a compelling case, both in their first contention and their rebuttal, while Con simple argues that nations closer solving the problem will save money, Pro demonstrates why this wouldn't work, citing a source that precisely defeat's Cons arguments. Con also drops this point. I'm giving this contention to pro.

War Interest/Net Harm-Benefit Analysis - These two are kind of muddled after the second round, so I'll break it into R1-2 and R3-4

-R1-2: Pro essentially establishes the war provide support to the Vietnam War, and collected valuable intelligence. Con points out that a majority of the lives taken by the war were civilian and Pro responds that it was necessary so the American soldiers could survive (the bombing) Con shows a response by showing how they did actually lose the war, though this is not topical and does not fit within the resolution, or, at least fit the resolution. Due to Con's earlier arguments, I still mark this a tie.

-R3-4: While Pro does little at first to rebuke this aside from pointing out the obvious non-topical argument, Con does put a little work in. They bring up a point that they could have evacuated citizens, though Pro actually provides a source saying they did. Now, personally, 98% of 50,000 is way more than 160 saved citizens, but Con drops the point in favor of addressing a single point that does not ultimately save their response. This contention to Pro

Pro: 4 Con: 2

For the reasons above I give the argument to Pro.

Sources: Even in the round in which Seldiora was most active (Round1), they only provide two sources to supplement their arguments, whereas Sum1hugme provided 8. Not to mention that Seldiora only provides one more source, and Pro provides 9 more.

Pro easily get's this point.

BS&G: Both are adequate with regards to this category, this is a tie

Conduct: Both are adequate with regards to this category, this is a tie.

I hand my vote to Pro.