Resolve: Failled nations are a greater threat to the united states than stable nations

Thank you and Sorry for the Late Post, Life stuff. I'll add an Observations topic and rename Negations to Contentions. -Observations- Just Noticed Your definition of Threat is wrong, See mine: An act of coercion wherein a negative consequence is proposed to elicit response. All these Countries are not failed states by your definition: Utterly incapable of sustaining itself as a member of the international economy. The countries you listed are from the Fund of Peace - Failed States Index [http://www.fundforpeace.org...]. Which is of countries at [b]*risk*[/b] of become failed states hence their name, Alert states. Notes: "+" Means to get worse; "-" is to get better. 1.Somalia (0) 2. Zimbabwe (+1) 3. Sudan (-1) 4. Chad (0) 5. DRC (+1) 6. Iraq (-1) 7. Afghanistan (0) 8. Central African Republic (+2) 9. Guinea (+2) 10. Pakistan (-1) Your definition was concise, however but a Failed state is simply what the name suggests. It is an intransitive verb and one of the past- *to have failed*. Failed Nations are Nations such as the USSR, Yugoslavia, East Germany and the ever changing Mesoamerican Nations; just to name a few. For this reason Change the Debate from - Resolve: Failed nations are a greater threat to the united states than stable nations (spelling fixed) ---to--- Resolve: Nations at risk of becoming failed nations are a greater threat to the united states than stable nations. -Contentions- (1)To Contention 1 The USSR had the Second Most Dangerous military in the World (Large is the wrong word, the US is relatively small to other Nations). I don't deny what you say but that only applies in the event of a "Full on War" between a state and another State. That is why is it is not "the American-Iraqi war" nor is it the "War with Iraq". It is the War *in* Iraq. Same rules don't apply; apparently the US says it fights for Iraq's people against Al-Qaeda or Afghanistan's people against the Taliban. The US is fighting a hugger's war, people who shoot from Mosque towers or fire artillery from Schools. If this was a state war it would of ended 5 years ago. But it's taking 7 years and about another 5 to end it. Pease don't dismiss a debate with a simplistic answer. (2)To Contention 2 I love this kind of thinking. I'll target this it two ways. Don't label something of being Pseudo logical because you completely understand it. i) Same thing can be said about your Second Contention on your opening post. ii) To prove, or debate, a fact of the Present, you must understand what is fully asking. The Debate is an open question. It tells you argue in comparison of two different views and to prove why one is better, either by proving that yours is superior to your contenders or by proving the Contenders to be inferior. In a debate of the "State of Something*" you must state what the present is in relation to the future. After all a Threat is of the Post Present, it is of the present but a foretell of the future. To debate that subject you *must* debate the future or you will most likely fail. * For example: This House believes that a military is a passive cry for war. The Cry is the accusative to the War the Subjective. It is inevitable not to reference how a war can become immanent, as an elite debater. NOTE: A war of the FUTURE. (1) I like to expand on this: "Contention Like I stated before they were involved in uranium enrichment and plutonium separation" When did Nuclear research become Illegal? Also, Countries Ratify Treaties at their own date, it not universal to the world, Ratified Countries Depicted on [Map: http://en.wikipedia.org...]. You also originally stated that Iran is a Treat to Israel: "If they were to do so, they would try to attack Israel. And in the longer run, it could pose a nuclear threat to the United States." I don't see Israel even trying to sign the Treaty, but Israel is a Stable Nation, A Stable Nation allowed to develop Nuclear weapons not to mention a new range of Recon Satellites. [see Shavit launchers] If anyone is preparing for War, it's Israel. [Citation: http://www.most.gov.il...] -Reinforcement- I'll restate my original Posts (1)True I don't even like how I worded it much either. I mean that Stable Nations can feed arms to Rebel Groups like Iran has done to many Jihadist Groups in Arab League Nations. (2)In the event (the threat), Of a War the US will most likely collapse as Superpower for the reasons stated previously. Since you only claimed the argument of being Pseudo-Logical you may want to argue why it's wrong. (3) New, previously, unstated Point. Argue on the other aspect- Pro is yet to talk why Stable nations are a threat since she failed to restate this on her second post. I have established why unstable states are Dangerous, you may chose to still continue on this, but ultimately the decision is upto you. Pro is obligated to conclude her Argument, Best of luck. ^^