Instigator / Pro
4
1309
rating
270
debates
40.74%
won
Topic
#3667

North Korea is the best country on Earth

Status
Finished

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

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

After 1 vote and with 3 points ahead, the winner is...

RationalMadman
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
2
Time for argument
One week
Max argument characters
30,000
Voting period
One month
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
7
1709
rating
565
debates
68.23%
won
Description

In this debate I will argue that Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea, widely known as North Korea, is the best country on Earth.

Some might think that this is a difficult position to defend. To me, it will be easy. Even if I dont win the debate, I will still consider that I am right and that I should have won.

As for the definitions, to each their own. I am not going to define what other people should consider as the best.

Since I have the disadvantage of not having the last word, I will take as my right to also debate in the comment section if I see that it is necessary.

-->
@RationalMadman
@Best.Korea
@Shila

**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Shila // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 7 points to Pro
>Reason for Decision:
Communism is a better ideology than capitalism but it has been poorly implemented. Considering the state of global affairs and human greed that capitalism feeds. Socialism is the better choice.
>Reason for Mod Action:
Awarding arguments requires that the voter assess points made in the debate, not select a side that they see as agreeing with their perspective. The voter does not justify any of their other point allocations.
**************************************************

-->
@RationalMadman
@Best.Korea
@Public-Choice

**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Public-Choice // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 1 to pro, 4 to con
>Reason for Decision: See Comments Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:

Essentially, a misunderstanding of the voting rules here. Every category except arguments should be awarded only for extreme cases. Further, the argument point fell short of giving any specifics lines of reasoning to do a weighed analysis (this really isn't a big deal, but it is something to work on in future votes; or even revoting on this one).

In essence, this vote was just too vague... This can be avoided in future by just commenting on the core contention (and the main counterpoint or the lack thereof), listing a single source you found important (if voting sources), saying what conduct violation distracted you (if voting conduct)... You need not write a thesis, but some minimal level of detail is required to verify knowledge of what you're grading.

To cast a sufficient vote, for each category awarded, a voter must explicitly perform the following tasks:
(1) Provide specific references to each side’s utilization within the said category.
(2) Weigh the impacts against each other, including if any precluded others.
(3) Explain the decision within the greater context of the debate.
https://info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy#casting-votes
**************************************************

Public-Choice
Added: 4 days ago
Reason:
Arguments: CON
PRO did not cite any sources for, like, 2/3 of his argument. Meaning the burden of proof is on PRO for many of his claims. CON also showed how, even if North Korea provides these things for free, they are significantly worse than in other countries, making it worse to live in North Korea.
PRO then responded with claims that Nirth Korea is not anything CON said, which would have been a very convincing argument if he cited any sources proving it, thus his arguments bear the burden of proof.

Sources: TIE
Neither side really gave good sources here for much of the debate. NPR, Wikipedia, and Encyclopedia Britannica are all secondary sources and, from what I could tell, mostly quoted outsiders
PRO, even though he cited video evidence, it was video evidence that is subject to Cherry Picking and also much of it was propaganda from North Korean government outlets. Though this does not make the sources wrong. The problem is the sources did not provide comprehensive data.

Spelling and Grammar: CON
PRO had good grammar, but CON had more fluid English.

Conduct: PRO
PRO was more polite.

-->
@Best.Korea

"I cant spend time educating you. You dont even know the basics of proof and you refuse to learn."

I literally gave you the definitions of both words and showed you why you were wrong. I guess you agree you can't debunk my truthful statements.

-->
@Public-Choice

I cant spend time educating you. You dont even know the basics of proof and you refuse to learn.

Proof: the cogency of evidence that compels acceptance by the mind of a truth or a fact [1]

My sources were proof. They were sources that gave reference to primary sources and therefore satisfied the burden of proof.

Your videos, which are not comprehensive nor even really prove half of what you are saying, are cherry picked data. And cherry picking does not "prove" all that much.

Evidence: something that furnishes proof : TESTIMONY [2]

My sources contain "something that furnishes proof" therefore they count as evidence.

You also gotta stop engaging in special pleading. Your sources are not comprehensive data. They also are not asked to PROVE why they believe North Korea is the best country or why they are fully satisfied. Whereas the defectors were questioned and their statements were scrutinized and they were asked to supply actual reasons for their beliefs. This is what is called "burden of proof" and it is required for any assertion made, or else there is no reason to believe the assertion.

Also, it is worth noting that disagreeing with the "supreme leader" results in spending years in a hard labor camp, or being tortured, or even killed. [3] So there is significant pressure to lie, unlike with the defectors. Which, btw, you have not provided any proof they are paid. That assertion is therefore dismissed without evidence, like so many of your other statements lol.

SOURCES:
[1] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/proof
[2] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/evidence
[3] https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/G21/001/59/PDF/G2100159.pdf?OpenElement

-->
@Public-Choice

1) 1) and 2): Your sites offered no proof. My sites, used in debates, offer actual videos.

2) Do you know what proof is? Apparently, you dont. Posting random sites that repeat your claim is not proof. Thats circular reasoning.

3) Site that makes claims without offering proof is not a credible site.

4) "So you would rather trust the North Korean government over actual eyewitnesses?" You mean paid eyewitnesses? Also, I offered evidence in the debate. North Koreans saying their country is the best and that they are fully satisfied.

5) "So, you basically have willfully refused to talk about the evidence...", "you likely can't disagree with the evidence"
You offered no evidence. Try again.

6) "The website you listed doesn't cite where its data came from," "so it fails the burden of proof"
Google the definition of proof. It will help you in life.

-->
@Best.Korea

1. Genetic fallacy. Just because it is a U.S. source, that doesn't mean it is wrong.

2. Ad hominem. Just because it is a random site, that doesn't mean it lacks credibility. Btw, it isn't a "random website." It is a premier organization that publishes human trafficking statistics. In other words, it republishes source material for public consumption.

3. So you would rather trust the North Korean government over actual eyewitnesses? If that isn't an appeal to authority I don't know what possibly could be.

So, you basically have willfully refused to talk about the evidence, which means you likely can't disagree with the evidence, and you likely know, therefore, that North Korea is a leading country complicit in sex trafficking.

Oh, and one more thing. The website you listed doesn't cite where its data came from, meaning it fails the burden of proof standard required for evidence. So you basically cited a website that doesn't prove anything.

Its not related to the debate. It was a response to comments.

-->
@Best.Korea

You do realise this has no weight on the actual debate right?

https://www.worlddata.info/asia/north-korea/populationgrowth.php

https://www.worlddata.info/asia/south-korea/populationgrowth.php

"From 1960 to 2021 the population of South Korea increased from 25.01 m to 51.74 m people. This is a growth by 106.9 percent in 61 years. The highest increase in South Korea was recorded in 1961 with 3.01%"

"From 1960 to 2021 the population of North Korea increased from 11.42 m to 25.89 m people. This is a growth by 126.6 percent in 61 years. The highest increase in North Korea was recorded in 1969 with 2.94%. The smallest increase in 2021 with 0.42%."

-->
@Public-Choice

So your first source is US site.
Your second source is some random site with no credibility.
Your third source are defectors stories.

Your first source offers no proof. No video, no clear pictures, nothing.
Your second source has no proof either.

So the only thing left is defectors stories.
Are stories proof? Those defectors get paid by South Korea. If I got paid to tell bad things about my country, I would do it.

So the only "proof" you have are stories?

What proof do I have? I posted bunch of links in the debate itself.

You are probably an american, so statistics are your mortal enemy.

For example, North Korean population grew by faster percentage than South Korean population.
This would be impossible if there were actually millions dying from starvation.

From these statistics, one could conclude that South Korea is the one experiencing famine.

-->
@Best.Korea

You're right. I didn't cite a source. I didn't know I had to when I asked a question. But just because you asked:

North Korea sex trafficking:
https://www.state.gov/reports/2021-trafficking-in-persons-report/north-korea/
https://humantraffickingsearch.org/resource/statistics-on-human-trafficking-in-north-korea/

Here's actual victims saying they were sex trafficked by North Korea:
https://www.freedomunited.org/news/north-korean-defectors-escape-sex-trafficking/

I am pretty certain North Korea is not the "best" for them.

Also, on starvation, here are North Korean defectors speaking on how everyone was starving daily for years due to a government-caused famine:
https://bookriot.com/escaping-starvation-a-reading-list-of-north-korean-defectors/

Ok. Your turn now. Where are your sources?

Lmao...

There is this thing called proof. Look it up.

"Do you also honestly believe the North Korean government doesn't engage in sex trafficking?"
I see. That is a very good argument. Whats the source? Twitter?

Do you actually believe people in North Korea haven't heard of a VPN? Do you also honestly believe the North Korean government doesn't engage in sex trafficking?

Just to clarify, there is no starvation in North Korea. Thats american lie which they spinned around since 1990.

-->
@Public-Choice

There is no child porn in North Korea. Is that why you hate it? Because they can achieve what no one else can?

-->
@Public-Choice

I dont know what are you talking about. No side used starvation as the definition of best. If they did, I would counter it easily.

"As for the definitions, to each their own."

Well, I mean, by that logic then mass starvation and malnourishment and a stagnant economy could definitely be considered "the best."

I know one thing. North Korea is certainly the best if you are Kim Jong Un. But not if you are the vast majority of his subjects.

-->
@Benjamin

Big military sounds like a waste when comparing it to just one other country. While North Korea has a bigger military than that of USA, it doesnt have bigger military than that of NATO alliance combined with South Korea. NATO alliance has over 3 million troops. South Korea has 6.7 million troops. In total, thats 10 million troops. North Korea has 7.7 million troops. So in case of war, NATO plus South Korea would have slight advantage in numbers.

While nuclear weapons would wipe out most of USA, South Korea, and NATOs military capabilities, there is a chance that their troops cross North Koreans territory.

Remember that North Korea also has 2 sides of its country open to the sea. This makes it possible to almost surround North Korea and invade its territory.

In this scenario, North Korea would be forced to either use nuclear weapons on its own territory, or use military troops to respond.

Military troops are a better option, because saving nuclear weapons to be used on USA, NATO and South Korea sounds better.

Military in North Korea is not an ordinary military. Their military helps citizens during floods, helps repair the damage, relocates resources, guard borders so that no surprise attack happens...

Having less military would greatly reduce North Koreas chances of fighting on its own territory.

As you said, North Korea is a nuclear power with first-strike capabilities against its neighbours. They don't need any more leverage, the large military is a big waste.

-->
@Best.Korea

I believe you are taking your points WAY to far. The point you should be trying to make is that North Korea is the better country when compared to capitalism's version of a poor, isolated authoritarian country. Yes, socialist programs have helped North Koreans live better lives than if they were left on their own like under capitalism; and it's impressive that the country stayed stable and growing for this long in such a harsh situation. However, the system is still extremely flawed in it's own ways. Imprisonment of dissenters, torture and excessive military spending -- these are inexcusable violations of human rights that need to stop. A state should never have to oppress its own citizens, especially if it tries to claim to be the best in the world.

-->
@Novice_II

And what should I use instead? American propaganda? No thanks.

This video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I3HsZABvP2Y) is basic propoganda, I don't know how anyone would unironically use this in a debate to make an assertion...

Yes, you have the right to do so if you want.

-->
@Best.Korea

If you debate in the comments section, I will also. You forgot that clause.