Military force is justified to protect economic dependencies.

Comrade Frenchy...fancy seeing you here. Well, good luck to you as well, though I doubt you'll need it, and may the more superior debater win! I shall begin with clarifications, moving, from there, to my constructive and rebuttal simultaneously. I. Clarifications 1. The resolution has now been more specified, and is from now on:"Military force is justified to protect locations of economic investment that countries cannot survive without."--cody30228 on an AIM conversation-- 2. Definitions (merriam-webster.com) Military: 1.Etymology, Latin meaning soldier, 2.of or relating to soldiers, arms, or war, 3.armed forces Force: 1.violence, compulsion, or constraint exerted upon or against a person or thing Is: 1.the present, 3rd singular of "be" Justify: to show a sufficient lawful reason for an act done Protect: to cover or shield from exposure, injury, damage, or destruction Locations: 1.positions or sites occupied or available for occupancy or marked by some distinguishing feature Economic: 1.of, relating to, or based on the production, distribution, and consumption of goods and services Investment: 1.the expenditure of money for income or profit Country: 1.a political state or nation or its territory Survive: 1.Etymology, Latin meaning to live, 2.to remain alive or in existence Violence: 1.the unjust exertion of action so as to injure, damage, and/or kill Be: 1.used as the auxiliary of the present participle in progressive tenses expressing continuous action Exist: 1. to have life or the functions of vitality Nation: (not capitalized) 1.a territorial division containing a body of people of one or more nationalities and usually characterized by relatively large size and independent status Nationalities: 1.an ethnic group constituting one element of a larger unit 3. Observations [[Observation 1]] The verb "is" limits the ground for both sides equally. Because, "is" refers to the present, empirical evidence of societies that do not continually exist in the present-moment is rendered obsolete…and don't you even dare bring up the argument "time doesn't exist". 4. Arguments [[Contention 1]] While my opponent directly states that a nation requires economy to survive, he completely ignores the fact that, according to his logic in class and the resolution, "economic" is only a single word of the phrase. Because he only refers to part of the phrase and not the entire phrase, and because the part of the phrase does not have the same meaning as the entire phrase, his entire 1st argument should be considered irrelevant unless he further clarifies. Instead, we must look at the complete phrase of "locations of economic investment" in which "economic investment" describes the type of location, and "economic" describes the type of "investment". According to Merriam-Webster's definitions, the entire resolution refers to the idea that a nation is justified in its use of military violence in order to protect areas having the potential to benefit, and are necessary to the existence of, the nation's economy through investments made by the nation into "said area". This means that in order for the nation to survive, it must have the ability to spend money on other nations in order to obtain a better economy or sustain the present one, which is completely untrue. One major, current example of a nation that does not rely on investment upon other nations is that of the Earth as a whole. As "the Earth as a whole and the humans that exist upon it" clearly fit the definition of a nation, and as we humans have still yet to come into contact with any other living forms besides those on Earth, I believe it is safe to say that both the Earth does subsist and the Earth does not need to invest in other nations, still unknown to man, in order to subsist. [[Contention 2]] [SPA] "…the government's only obligation is to protect its people." I believe you very conveniently forgot to add ‘at the continuously increasing cost of the people's rights'. [SPB] Either way, justification is still not present. Is it possible that a lower economy is better for a country? After all, money is often seen as the cause of greed, and with less money, countries would learn to better budget what they do have. In addition, if there's less money, wouldn't that mean limited to non-existent funds for any offensive powers as well? Well isn't that funny? The last I checked, your profile states you are against any form social aid! Just for some specific examples, you are clearly against: national health care, social security, welfare, and any social programs in general!!! You hypocrite!!! This calls for a discourse! My opponent should not be allowed to win this debate or else he will only be encouraged to continue to influence others with hypocritical ways! .....and, Cody, don't you even dare to falsely change your political views just so you can negate this argument! [SPC] What would you say to a theory argument created by Thomas Paine in his book Common Sense that society would be better off without a form of government? "Issues Position Medicaid & MedicarePaying into social programs like Medicaid and Medicare should be mandatory. Against National Health CareThe government should provide a national health care system. Against School VouchersFamilies should receive a voucher if they want to send their child to a private school instead of a public school. Against Social ProgramsThe government should create and provide social programs. Against Social SecurityPaying into a social program like social security should be mandatory. Against WelfareThe government should provide welfare to the poor. Against" ---direct copy and pastes from the profile of cody30228 on 2/1/2008---