North Korean Leader Kim Jong Un should be referred to as "Fat Boy Kim" on all official US Documents.

ROADMAP: Defend, Attack, Voting Issues To rebuild my case: My opponent attacks my first contention by saying "The United States is not in a state of war against North Korea. However, they make incendiary remarks against the United States every year." Thus, he concedes that there isn't a war. He doesn't refute my points on how it will greatly increase tension and lead to a war (and war is bad), so my first contention stands. My opponent attacks my second contention by saying "It's diplomacy. It's not petty at all. Besides, people would think it was funny." He states that it is diplomacy, however, diplomacy is defined as "the conduct by government officials of negotiations and other relations between nations." (Dictionary.com). This point can be turned in my favor as for diplomacy, one must be courteous and mature. In addition, he says that it would be funny to address Kim Jong-Un in such a name. However, 1. this is a new argument in a rebuttal and should be ignored and 2. who cares what is funny. That doesn't justify an action. I bet some Nazis were laughing during the Holocaust, does that justify it? Of course not. Therefore, my second contention stands. To my third contention, my opponent says "By the standards of no country is somebody as heavy as Kim Jong Un not overweight (not even in the United States)." However there is no source or logical reasoning given on the standards of people deeming one "overweight" or "fat". He simply says it could be commonly agreed. But popularity doesn't justify an action. For example, no one likes taxes, but does that mean that they aren't just. No! So this point falls and my third contention stands. To my fourth contention, my opponent attacks it by saying ""Isn't the greatest ruler" is a bit of an understatement. Daily he oppresses the people of North Korea for his own benefit. They have nothing, while he's wealthier than 100 average Americans combined." However, this doesn't disprove my argument (the disrespect of the action of the resolution). He simply says it can be justified by what he has done. However, it may enrage him and cause more oppression. Remember: we aren't debating Kim Jong-Uns ruling ethics - just whether his name shall be called "Fat Boy Kim" on US documents. Therefore, this contention stands. On to my opponents case: My opponent defends his first contention by saying "Freedom of Speech is not designed to protect popular speech, but unpopular speech. Besides, Kim Jong Un called Obama a monkey. That's just racist." However, the resolution said on US documents. That isn't freedom of speech, simply labeling. You can still freely call Kim Jong-Un "Fat Boy Kim" so this argument isn't logical. We can also disregard the Obama example as: 1. There is no source and 2. It is compltely irrelevant. My opponent defends his second contention by saying "Tough Love (we hate the dude but still). He'd be inspired to change just to have his annoying nickname. That would actually result in his life being prolonged. He benefits." The point on "Tough love" doesn't matter because that is my opponent's opinion. He mentions how Kim Jong-Un will be inspired to change, yet, we don't have the obligation to promote his health. And if we want him to benefit, this contradicts my opponents argument as it is a part of war. So either way, this contention falls. My opponents defends his third contention by saying "It's unlikely that a war will result just by calling him "Fat Boy Kim". In fact, by showing him we're not afraid of him, he might be less likely to go to war. Who knows?" However, it would do the opposite and provoke war. In addition, he doesn't respond to the cross application of my first contention to it (disrespect). So this contention falls. My opponents fourth contention is defended by saying "Okay, it works like this: the Pentagon authorizes sending a commando unit inside North Korea to assassinate Kim Jong Un. But once they get inside, how will they know which Kim Jong Un to kill? North Korea is a very secretive country, so it'd probably be harder than you think to ID him." However, he still doesn't warrant that there is other Kim Jong-Uns. Especially in a strict country like N. Korea, he wouldn't allow for people to share his name. Even then, he doesn't respond to my attacks on how there are more detailed ways to ID one, so this contention falls. And to my opponents last point: "The North Korean people, upon seeing that their seemingly infallible leader has been insulted like this and he is powerless to exact his revenge without sparking the Second Korean War, may begin to question their leader, which might spark a chain of events leading to the deliverance of North Korea from the tyranny of the dictatorial Kim Dynasty." However: 1. Nobody would see it a. The name is on US documents b. N. Korea is a deeply censored society 2. My opponent doesn't show how this leads to a war and removal of oppression 3. There is no impact on the removal of the Kim Dynasty and it is complety non-resolutional Voting Issues: I urge you to vote for the CON for the following reasons: 1. I have more well-defended ground remaining. My opponent misses many components to my arguments as seen in the rebuttals. 2. My opponent has no ground remaining . I thoroughly attack his arguments and cross apply my arguments. 3. I best fulfill the burden of the resolution. I show why the US shouldn't refer to Kim Jong Un as "Fat Boy Kim" on DOCUMENTS. My opponent misinterprets it as having the name seen everywhere as some type of propoganda. 4. I have better discourse. I neatly organize my arguments in an articulate manner with a roadmap I follow. Also, I provide better punctuation, spelling, and grammar. In addition, I was more courteous. I never offended my opponent. While my opponent offends my roadmap (ROADMAP: I'm not on the road) and my case (Cracking my opponents case) and other examples seen throughout the debate. 5. My opponent provides no voting issues. So you should default to mine and side CON All-in-all, this was an interesting debate over a fun, an controversial, topic. I enjoyed debating my opponent and hope you guys enjoy reading this debate. Thank you, have a nice day/afternoon/night and I urge you to side CON.