Instigator / Pro
4
1309
rating
272
debates
40.63%
won
Topic
#5221
North Korea or DPRK 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
0
Better legibility
1
1
Better conduct
1
1
After 1 vote and with 1 point ahead, the winner is...
Benjamin
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Rated
- Number of rounds
- 3
- Time for argument
- One week
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- Two weeks
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
- Minimal rating
- None
Contender / Con
5
1774
rating
95
debates
77.37%
won
Description
No information
Round 1
Pro
#1
Thank you for accepting the debate! Have fun!
-Topic:
--"North Korea or DPRK is the best country on Earth".
-Best country on Earth is a country:
--1. In which people agree with each other the most
--2. Which is most focused on own survival
--3. Where people support government in greater percentage than people of any other country support theirs.
-Since North Korea is 1, 2 and 3, North Korea is the best country on Earth.
-1. Best country is the one in which people agree with each other the most.
-When people agree with each other, it makes their lives better and happier.
--They have a sense of unity, which makes them feel like they belong together.
-In North Korea:
--Over 95% of people are in agreement.
---"The founding and ruling Workers' Party of Korea dominates the Front and holds 87.5% of the seats, with 7.4% for the Korean Social Democratic Party, 3.2% for the Chondoist Chongu Party, and 1.9% for independent deputies.[5]"
----These are not independent parties, but are part of Worker's party alliance.
-----"The Democratic Front for the Reunification of Korea, also known as the Democratic Front for the Reunification of the Fatherland (DFRF) or the Fatherland Front, is a North Korean popular front formed on 22 July 1946 and led by the Workers' Party of Korea (WPK).[2]"
---"According to official reports, turnout is near 100%, and approval of the ruling party's candidates is unanimous."
----Unanimous means that there is little to no disagreement about who should rule and how they should rule.
--There is no conflicting media news which would cause masses to have conflicting views
-My opponent must defend that its better if people agree with each other less.
-My opponent might bring up defectors, but per year, only 60 to 70 people defect from North Korea.
--Its insignificant amount of population, less than 0.0003%. Much more people leave USA or South Korea.
--North Korea has one of the lowest percentage of population leaving the country, of all countries in the world.
-Lack of agreement leads to conflict, fights and puts country at constant risk of civil war.
-2. Best country is the one which is most focused on its own survival.
-Country focused on its own survival would by logic have greatest chances of survival, and therefore, be best country to live in, as it is best to live in a country that has highest chance to survive.
-My opponent must defend position that country shouldnt be most focused on its own survival.
-North Korea is focused on its own survival, as its main policy which governs the country is self-defense, self-reliance and self-determination.
--These policies ensure survival of the country, as self-defense is by logic of simple deduction a policy where one's own survival is a priority.
--North Korea has largest military in the world, standing at over 7 million soldiers.
--North Korea also has high birth rates, nuclear weapons which serve as prevention of war, and ICBMs which place any country in danger if it decides to attack North Korea.
--Self-determination by logic means that country is not commanded by another country, therefore cannot be sacrificed by another country in war or dragged into war by another country.
---North Korea has a monarchy system where survival of the Kim family and its power depends on survival of the country, which ensures that Kim will never sacrifice his own country, as in his country he has power.
----This translates to the fact that anyone who is in power in North Korea has the greatest interest for North Korea to survive, as he has all power and therefore, has more to lose.
-----Same is not true for democratic countries, where presidents lose power after few years irrelevant of if they worked for survival of a country or not.
------My opponent must defend position that presidents who have less to lose if they sometimes harm survival of a country will be equally or more likely to work for its survival as someone who has much more to lose if his country doesnt survive or if its survival is slightly harmed.
-------Obviously false, as the one who has more to lose when his country is even slightly harmed has more incentive to work best for the growth of his country.
--Self-reliance means that country much less depends on other countries.
---North Korea has very little trade with other countries.
---North Korea has a lot of its own independent production, where other countries have much more trade and are dependent on that trade.
----My opponent must defend position that countries with more trade with other countries dont depend more on other countries.
-----One can use simple deduction to conclude that when country has lots of trade, it depends more on trade, as stopping trade would stop import of resources necessary for production, the import which is by logic more suited for production as it is prefered over local resources which might not even be in sufficient amount, and definitely are not better as producers chose imported goods over those.
---North Korea uses very little resources. So with limited amount of resources, North Korea can survive longer than many other countries and still maintain strong defense, making it more self-reliant.
--North Korea does not have military alliances, which means it has no obligation to go to war if war was to break out between East and West.
--It is also not a significant target nor has significant trade, while at the same time it has strong enough nuclear force to make any attacker regret the attack.
--Self-defense policy means that North Korea doesnt attack first.
--North Korea wasnt at war for over 70 years.
--North Korea does not have a significant enemy.
---USA is not interested in further dying to conquer North Korea, and South Korea is not strong enough to make a significant attack.
----"But the United States has no intention of attacking North Korea: It has very little to gain and a lot to lose by engaging in war with North Korea.
----And it has made this attitude abundantly clear for decades by both saying so directly and avoiding (PDF) potentially escalatory reactions to North Korean military attacks and provocations, fearing North Korean escalation."
---No country near North Korea can or is willing to make an attack on it.
--This places North Korea in the best possible survival position in any scenario, where no other country has the same.
-"Last year, the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, which sets the time each year, moved the clock forward to 90 seconds from midnight — AKA doom. That was the closest the clock has ever been set to annihilation, and it will stay there this year."
--As we can see, the position which North Korea holds is that it doesnt need to be part of the large war, it doesnt attack first while being strong enough not to be attacked and basically ensure survival.
-3. Best country is the one where people support government in greater percentage than people of any other country support theirs.
-This creates harmony between people and government.
-My opponent must argue that its better for country to have people being unhappy with their government and opposed to their government.
--My opponent must defend that its better if people dont agree with their government.
--Obviously false, as people in disagreement are more likely to fight each other, making country vunerable to external enemies, since divided groups are easier to fight against than one united group.
--It would allow enemies to create anti-society elements in society, even start civil wars.
-Conclusion
--My opponent must defend a different option.
---Any option not based on survival would by default be negated by my position, since survival is a priority of a country and of humans.
----Humans and countries which survive have options, where those who dont survive, dont have any options either, making their position less desirable, less good.
---These premises ensure best survival of a country:
----1. In which people agree with each other the most
----2. Which is most focused on own survival
----3. Where people support government in greater percentage than people of any other country support theirs.
----North Korea today matches these premises more than any other country today.
--Since I proved that North Korea is essentially the best survivor country, it is by default the best country on Earth.
---My opponent can try to defend that its not best to survive, but that position would be absurd as countries who dont survive arent even countries anymore and therefore, cannot be best countries due to such future by deduction.
----My opponent would have to defend that countries which are likely to be destroyed or conquered are better countries than a country who is most likely to survive.
--Since survival by definition means extending of the life and values of society, lack of survival means life and values of society disappear and are replaced by society which survives.
---So even society with subjectively better values would have its values negated by lack of survival, where society with subjectively worse values would have them extended by its further survival.
--Morality and whats good is almost entirely subjective, but survival is an objective standard and its rules arent subjectively dictated, but survival dictates the existence of all other standards.
---Per conclusion, one is to focus on survival if his values are to survive, and since North Korea is most focused on survival, it follows that North Korean values have greatest survival as additional value to them which others dont have.
----From this, it follows that North Korea from present day to future is the best country on Earth, as present always results in future, and while past is over, the future is going to be experienced and thus present cannot avoid future.
Con
#2
In which people agree with each other the most: Switzerland is a highly diverse country, with four official languages, 26 cantons, and multiple religious groups. Despite this diversity, Switzerland has a strong tradition of direct democracy, consensus-building, and civil society participation. According to the 2020 Democracy Index 1, Switzerland ranks 8th in the world for political culture, which measures the degree of public trust, political engagement, and social cohesion. North Korea, on the other hand, is a one-party dictatorship, where dissent is suppressed, propaganda is pervasive, and human rights are violated. According to the same index, North Korea ranks last in the world for political culture, as well as for overall democracy. Therefore, Switzerland is better than North Korea in terms of having a more agreeable and harmonious society.
Which is most focused on own survival: Switzerland is a prosperous and stable country, with a high standard of living, a strong economy, and a neutral foreign policy. According to the 2020 Human Development Index 2, Switzerland ranks 2nd in the world for human development, which measures the level of health, education, and income. North Korea, on the other hand, is a poor and isolated country, with a chronic food shortage, a weak economy, and a hostile foreign policy. According to the same index, North Korea ranks 174th in the world for human development, and is classified as a low human development country. Therefore, Switzerland is better than North Korea in terms of having a more secure and comfortable life. Switzerland has also managed to remain unharmed through 2 world wars, by focusing on its own interests and survival through neutrality. North Korea may or may not have a gazillion troops and hundreds of nukes, but when ww3 comes they will be one of the first countries to go, maybe they are even going to start it. Switzerland is not part of Nato, its impractical to invade even if you have conquered the rest of Europe, and they are willing to trade with even the Nazis if it means ensuring their own survival.
Where people support government in greater percentage than people of any other country support theirs: Switzerland is a federal republic, where the people elect their representatives and have a direct say in important issues through referendums and initiatives. According to the 2020 World Values Survey 3, 75% of Swiss people trust their national government, and 82% are satisfied with their democracy. North Korea is a totalitarian regime, where the people have no voice or choice in their governance, and are subject to indoctrination and coercion. According to the same survey, there is no data on North Korea’s public opinion, as the country does not allow independent surveys or research. However, based on the reports of defectors and human rights organizations, it is likely that many North Koreans are dissatisfied with their government, and fear its repression. Therefore, Switzerland is better than North Korea in terms of having a more legitimate and accountable government.
In conclusion, based on these metrics, Switzerland is better than North Korea in terms of having a more democratic, safe, prosperous, and peaceful society.
Round 2
Pro
#3
My opponent brought up Switzerland as an example, so let us see what Switzerland has.
He brought up irrelevant arguments, such as civil society participation, which he assumes is a good thing.
Civil society participation is a thing of little importance, but in North Korea, everyone participates in goovernment programs too.
My opponent must defend that people agree with each other more in Switzerland than in North Korea.
An obvious mention of diversity in Switzerland means disagreement, but this data shows more:
"The survey of over 25,000 people also found that public satisfaction with Swiss politicians has fallen slightly compared to February this year.
Satisfaction with the work of parliament dropped two percentage points to 48%, while the figure for the government fell one percentage point to 54%.".
So consensus-building is obviously false assumption about Switzerland.
Direct democracy also doesnt mean agreement.
As we can see, there is a lot of disagreement in Switzerland when it comes to their government.
My opponent takes wrong conclusion from premises.
Democracy index meassures democracy, it does not meassure agreement between people.
Social cohesion does not mean agreement.
Public trust does not mean agreement.
Political engagement does not mean agreement, but means lots of disagreement.
My opponent already conceded that having conflicting media causes masses to have conflicting views, and that democracy means disagreement of the opposing parties.
He also conceded that North Korea has greatest agreement possible, where support for the party is unanimous.
Same cannot be said about Switzerland, where half of population is unhappy with their government.
Even if my opponent were to claim that North Korea punishes dissent, he still wouldnt be able to prove that there are more people in North Korea disagreeing with their government.
Government punishes dissent.
Government has highest approval rate in the world.
Nothing in this means that people oppose more to the government.
My opponent must prove that there are lots of North Koreans who dont approve of their government.
My opponent also must argue that punishing dissent means more people oppose to the government.
Obviously false, as people who support government will support it even if dissent is punished, and those who would slightly be unsupportive would turn supportive, thus increasing agreement.
As for human rights, my opponent must argue that people in North Korea dont agree with the lack of some human rights.
I have already shown statistic which says that they do agree with their government, so they agree with the lack of some human rights.
If my opponent were to argue that human rights are most important to North Korean people, he would be making a claim which not only he cant prove, but a claim which is historically innaccurate.
North Korean people take most value in survival of their country and unity, something which Switzerland doesnt have.
My opponent must argue that human rights are more important than unity and survival, an obvious nonsense, as lack of survival means lack of human rights, and lack of agreement means that less people get what they want.
Lack of unity also makes country vunerable to collapse and vunerable to civil war.
Propaganda in North Korea ensures unity, where political conflicts in Switzerland dont.
My opponent made assumption that a high standard of living and strong economy means survival.
And he assumed that high education level and high income means survival.
And he assumed that neutrality means survival.
And he assumed that because Switzerland managed to avoid WW1 and WW2, it will also avoid a WW3.
Those assumptions are false.
He already conceded that countries like Switzerland depend on trade, therefore depend on other countries.
In case of world war 3, Switzerland would maybe be able to trade for some time, but it would soon be stopped as trade chains would be destroyed, leaving Switzerland's economy in ruins.
Switzerland's economy today depends on trade much more.
Switzerland doesnt even have strong military.
In case of WW3, food chain productions would be broken as farms would be destroyed on a greater scale than ever before in any other war, since nuclear weapons cause 100,000 times greater destruction than bombs used in WW2,
and weak countries like Switzerland would be targets, as even if they arent engaged in war, it would mean they have necessary food which must be taken by other countries to feed military.
And since there would be a food shortage in WW3, as it would be a destruction on greatest scale ever, what follows is that countries would have to fight for what little food is left.
Trade would not be an option.
In case of peace, due to plenty of disagreement in society, Switzerland is more likely to have a civil war.
My opponent claims that Switzerland is "impractical to invade", but thats not true.
Modern militaries can invade almost anything, and the food shortage in Europe would make Switzerland, who has enough food for itself but not for all others, a hot target.
Further, because Switzerland would be trading with allies most likely, either bombing Switzerland either invading it to get food would harm allies significantly.
So anti-allies such as Russia have an incentive.
And with severe food shortages, even allies have the incentive to invade Switzerland to get food.
Even criminal groups, rebels, migrants, gangs fighting for food and resources... all have incentive to invade Switzerland who cant defend itself.
But North Korea is impossible to invade without severe consequences for the invader, and is not a hot target as it has nothing an invader would want.
My opponent mentioned chronic food shortages in North Korea, but this argument works against him.
North Korea already had worse shortages in 1994, when its food production was 4 times less than what it is now.
But North Korea survived without any civil war starting.
This means that North Korean system can survive extreme difficulties without any harm to it.
My opponent made assumption that North Korea would start WW3 or be part in it due to its hostile foreign policy, but this is unproved.
North Korea has hostile foreign policy and is not engaged in a war, and will not be engaged in a war.
Therefore, one can have hostile foreign policy while not being a part of war.
North Korea wasnt part of any war for 75 years, despite hostile foreign policy.
Hostile foreign policy does not mean country will be in war or will be attacked.
It just means country from time to time does missile tests to increase power and deter any invader.
I already stated reasons why North Korea cannot be attacked, which my opponent conceded.
I already stated reasons why North Korea cannot have civil war or any large scale disagreement, to which my opponent conceded.
My opponent thinks that people in Switzerland have a direct say, but the reality is that majority has a direct say, not all people.
My opponent said that 25% of people dont trust their national government in Switzerland, 18% arent satisfied with their democracy, and per data I provided, 46% arent satisfied with their government.
This means a lot of people oppose to government, at least 1,6 million of them if we take best case, and 5 million of them if we take the worst case.
This means a literal army of people who are not satisfied and not in agreement.
This produces a constant possibility of civil war which could trigger or promoted by any opposition, since opposition is legal. Same is not true for North Korea, where there is no opposition.
My opponent claims that North Korea is a totalitarian regime, where the people have no voice or choice in their governance, and are subject to indoctrination and coercion.
Since indoctrination and coercion both mean more agreement, not less, it follows that people in North Korea agree more.
My opponent says that there is no data on North Korea’s public opinion, but I already provided such data in round 1.
The support for the government is unanimous, where Switzerland cannot say even close to same.
My opponent assumes that based on the reports of defectors and human rights organizations, it is likely that many North Koreans are dissatisfied with their government, and fear its repression.
This is not true.
As explained before, only 70 people defect per year, which is less than 0.0003% of the population.
Compare that to 18% to 48% of population in Switzerland opposing their government.
Also, human right organizations dont have access to North Korea, so their data are assumptions which have no support in facts.
Extend my arguments which opponent didnt challenge.
Conclusion
North Korea is much more used to difficulties than Switzerland is,
North Korea already proved that it can survive great difficulties, where Switzerland was never in such great difficulties,
North Korean people are in agreement, where Switzerland has at least 1.6 million people opposed to government and promoting opposition.
Switzerland has opposition in and out of a country, where North Korea has no opposition,
North Korea has no chance of civil war happening, not even during greatest crisis it experienced.
Switzerland has lots of opposition within a country, counting in millions, creating a chance of civil war both in peace time and in war time and when there is a crisis.
North Korea can defend itself against anyone and is not a significant target, where Switzerland cant defend itself and is a significant target.
North Korea has no country near it who can or is willing to attack it.
All countries and gangs near Switzerland have an incentive to attack it and can attack it.
North Korea is not a democracy, so enemies or insufficient leaders cannot gain power in government.
Switzerland is a democracy, therefore suffering from unmotivated and even harmful leadership which places country at risk.
A simple deduction will tell you that North Korea is more likely to survive, and thus, is a better country.
Con
#4
PRO claims that nobody is going to attack North Korea in ww3. Has he ever heard about a country called USA that has thousands of nuclear bombs. Sure, they would prefer peace, but when ww3 comes and nuclear armagedon is a fact regardless, PRO has no evidence to suggest that North Koreas arsenal will be enough to deter a strike. Actually, the US may decide to strike first in order to protects it's allies Japan and South Korea. Switzerland has been surrounded by agressive Nazis for multiple years without being invaded, so its false to say that there is sufficient incentive for Switzerland to be invaded now that it has friendly relations with all its neighbours. PRO has not yet demonstrated the utility in having everyone agree on everything when those ideas are bad and haven't help NK become prosperous.
PRO claims that I have conceeded an array of his arguments and unsupported claims. This is not true. I simply see no utility in responding in full to a gish gallop as the CON side of the debate when the BoP falls upon PRO. He has still not justified why his criteria for measuring the best country are correct and should be accepted by the voters. As CON I don't even have to prove that Switzerland is better that NK, only that PRO's case is too weak. I really don't have to do anything since PRO has not yet provided a valid framework to proclaim NK the best country on earth.
Round 3
Pro
#5
My opponent has dropped most of my arguments, and did outweight them with his counter option.
My opponent claims that I have no evidence to suggest that North Koreas arsenal will be enough to deter a strike.
I have already explained that anyone attacking North Korea would suffer greatly as a result, which is not something any country can afford in WW3.
North Korea has tested dozens of ICBMs, which means they have much more, possibly hundreds.
Let me paint a picture for you.
USA only has enough nuclear bombs for certain targets.
So does Russia.
So does China.
This is because some attacks are intercepted, some destroyed on ground, and focused attack makes it more likely to succeed than wasting ICBMs (which USA only has 450) to hit North Korea when you are not even at war with it.
You claim that USA would attack North Korea if Russia attacked USA, but that is absurd position to hold, as that would put USA in greater danger.
Actually, attacking North Korea would be met with on North Korean attack on not just US allies, but also on USA, placing USA at greater disadvantage than if North Korea didnt join the war.
To make it simple:
USA can:
1. Fight Russia
Or
2. Fight Russia and North Korea
It does not take great thinking to conclude that option 1 is easier to fight and more likely to win.
And it makes no military sense to increase enemy's count by dragging a country into a war against you who otherwise would not even be at war with you and which has basically no interest to fight you.
Also, WW3 would not mean total destruction of the world.
Countries would not be just throwing nukes around randomly, but on their enemies and crucial targets.
And while USA can slightly win against Russia in such a war, expanding war to North Korea would harm both USA and US allies, and greatly diminish US position.
USA has no reason to harm itself, so has no reason to attack North Korea.
And likewise, North Korea has no reason to harm itself by attacking USA.
My opponent dropped that WW3 is nothing like WW2 or WW1.
I already explained the incentive of many groups and countries to invade Switzerland, both for resources, food, to harm allies...
My opponent conceded this and conceded that Switzerland cant defend itself.
My opponent claims that Switzerland is in good relations with its neighbors, but that would easily change.
Two people can hardly be in good relations when they have to fight for food.
Same applies to countries, groups, gangs, migrants...
In fact, WW3 would cause severe poverty and food shortages, causing people to fight for whats left.
North Korea can defend itself against anyone and its food production wouldnt be much harmed as North Korea produces its own food and did not receieve any food aid in the past years.
North Korean food production today is double that of 2010.
So having food and being able to defend it is crucial for survival in WW3 and post WW3.
While Switzerland would have some food even after its trade collapses in WW3, that food would be taken by others very quickly, as Switzerland cannot defend it.
I have also explained that Switzerland has lots of opposition within a country, which is one of the main premises for civil war.
My opponent claims that "everyone agreeing" didnt make North Korea prosperous.
But he already dropped that North Korea survived greatest difficulties thanks to its system of everyone agreeing, where people opposed to each other would fight and cause collapse of a country.
My opponent didnt contest that divided opposed groups are more vunerable to external attack than one big united group, which is a truism that cannot even be challenged.
Further, people can agree on a bad idea, thats true, and thats true for Switzerland.
However, when majority of people in Switzerland agree on a bad idea, there is opposition which has no legal power to negate bad idea, but due to promotion, it can form a rebel group and start fight against government, even cause civil war.
So "people agreeing on bad idea in Switzerland" has a much worse outcome than "people agreeing on bad idea in North Korea".
Further, because Kim family has more to lose if North Korea is harmed, it follows that they are more likely to bring decisions which guarantee survival of a country.
Politicians in Switzerland have term limits, and lose power regardless of if they do their best, or slightly harm a country by bad decisions.
So with less reward, one can conclude that there will be less effort.
Further, Kim family rules for a lifetime, which means a lifetime of experience.
Compared to that, most politicians dont have same experience in running a country.
Further, the goal is not to "become prosperous and then die in civil war", but the goal is to survive.
My opponent didnt challenge that North Korea is able to survive on fewer resources, which is a fact, which by survival of the fittest means: lower requirements for survival mean more chances of survival.
So by that alone, my opponent conceded that in circumstances in which resources are limited, North Korea will survive where Switzerland wont.
My opponent says that he sees no point in responding to my "arguments and unsupported claims", and says that I use gish gallop.
My opponent should be well familiar that if he doesnt respond to my arguments, they are conceded, and in that case, if he doesnt outweigh them, he loses the debate by default.
So even if I use gish gallop, my opponent still must outweigh my arguments.
I can say that all of my opponent's arguments are assumptions without proof, that his sources are assumptions which dont even include current data from North Korea, but I would still have to at least outweigh them if not directly counter.
I have both outweighed his arguments and presented better counter options, presented sources which better describe the situation in Switzerland and North Korea.
However, most of my opponent's claims are unsupported and based on no reason or evidence, so they cannot really be considered as valid.
My claims are a product of simple deduction and facts unchallenged by my opponent.
For example, my link which says that USA itself claims that it doesnt want war with North Korea, and that such war would harm USA.
It went unchallenged.
It is a fact that North Korea proved capable of surviving during most difficult times.
This is a historical fact and not "unsupported claim"
My opponent claims that I didnt provide a valid framework, but I clearly provided the most valid possible framework, which is survival.
My opponent conceded that survival is desirable, and that human rights mean nothing if you dont survive to have them.
My opponent didnt provide any valid counter-framework.
By logic, if certain option has no valid counter-option, it becomes the prefered option.
My opponent could claim that he would rather die or be killed in nuclear war than to live in North Korea, but that would still make North Korea the best country even for him,
as people who live in North Korea have a choice to live or a choice to die by committing suicide.
Less people commit suicide in North Korea than in Japan, which means that North Korea isnt so bad to live in after all.
"In Japan, suicide (自殺, jisatsu) is considered a major social issue.[2][3] In 2017, the country had the seventh highest suicide rate in the OECD, at 14.9 per 100,000 persons,[4] and in 2019 the country had the second highest suicide rate among the G7 developed nations.[5]"
And suicide rate in Switzerland is similar to that of North Korea, so one cannot really assume that Switzerland is much better to live in.
"North Korea suicide rate for 2019 was 9.40, a 1.08% increase from 2018.
North Korea suicide rate for 2018 was 9.30, a 5.1% decline from 2017."
"Switzerland suicide rate for 2019 was 14.50, a 0% increase from 2018.
But people who die in nuclear war dont have same choice as people in North Korea have.
So my opponent's argument could be summed up to:
1. To die
Or
2. To have option to live or die
Since North Korea is 2, my opponent must defend position that its better to die than to have an option to live or die.
One can use simple deduction and conclude that 2 is more desirable, since it gives you more options and also includes option from 1.
So since most people want to live even more than they want human rights, and since human rights cannot even exist if one isnt alive, it follows that survival is most desirable.
Since people in North Korea like their lives enough not to kill themselves, it follows that life in North Korea is prefered to death in a nuclear war or death by gangs in WW3 or death by being killed and eaten in case where Switzerland runs out of food.
Since North Koreans prefer to live and dont want to die, just like great majority of other people in the world, it follows that framework of survival is most desirable by people.
And since North Korea is most likely to survive and not be in neither war nor civil war, it follows that North Korea is the best country on Earth.
It would be absurd to say that you would rather die in civil war or world war 3 than live peacefully in North Korea.
Even with some food shortage, North Korea is still second largest producer of rabbit meat in the world, and produces 180 kilograms of crop(wheat, rice, potato) per person per year.
There is also lots of wild life in North Korea, which enables fishing and hunting.
So its not really a situation of "having nothing to eat", as my opponent would like to paint.
Just not enough food to become overweight and depressed, like Switzerland.
Contrary to popular view, reducing calorie intake makes you happier.
Thank you. It was fun.
Con
#6
Thank you for the debate.
North Korea is is one of the worst countries to live in, it has one of the worst geopolitical positions in the globe, with extremely strong enemies such that they feel the need to hoard nukes just to prevent an invasion -- a safety Switzerland has passively enjoyed for centuries at this point. The fact that NK has to struggle just to survive tells you everything you needs to know. Also, as I said in R1, being a oppressed and indoctrinated by the government so that everyone reports total agreement is not a flex. Switzerland has a strong social cohesion and trust in democracy that we know is actually genuine because all the dissent and disagreements can be expressed freely. Even if it was true that all north koreans agree with each other and support the government it would be impossible to verify that. PRO has also not provided an adequate justification for the criteria he presents for selecting the best country.
PRO fails his BoP and thus has not affirmed the resolution.
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:
While I liked pro's research on his arguments, I feel like con barely won the debate by presenting the fact that societal agreement is forced in North Korea, so it is impossible to ascertain if the societal agreefulness and homogeneity is genuine. Other points seemed to be barely tipping the scale in either direction for me.
I will vote.
Vote bump.
"My opponent has dropped most of my arguments, and did outweight them with his counter option."
I meant to say didnt outweigh lol