- All Debates
- Popular Debates
- Active Debates
- New Debates
- Open Challenge Debates
- My Challenge Debates
- Accepted Challenges
- Debate Communities
- Argument Waterfall
- New People
- People by Points
Your profile reflects your reputation, it will build itself as you create new debates, write arguments and form new relationships.
First of all, whose development? Because the disappearance of the Maldives and Bangladesh, as well as myriad costal cities such as New York and Boston due to sea level rise and the destruction of crops in Somalia are definitely not positive for the people affected. Second, what if ecotourism is important to the economy, such as in Costa Rica? I feel as if "development" is really a code word for the provincial interests of certain countries over others, who are OK with ignoring the negative externalities of climate change they end up imposing on everybody.
However, it can be achieved through international governance and trade. Most of the wars since the end of the Second World War have been civil rather than international in nature. The international system today incorporates a lot of the tenets of Immanuel Kant's "Perpetual Peace." On the subject of those civil conflicts though, many groups go to war to correct economic inequalities or improve their human security situation, but engaging in war is widely agreed upon to make human security worse. In general, it's pretty counterproductive.
Kenneth Waltz and some other realists argue for a "widespread proliferation" of nuclear arms so that all countries are subject to MAD and are unlikely to go to war. I don't buy that it would really bring a peace because the amount of applied science required to create a single nuke inherently creates an inequality favoring countries that have the resources to build nuclear infrastructure and either train or buy off nuclear engineers. Total MAD would therefore be less likely to hold up.
No, but I think we need to put small cars in perspective. A lot of small cars sold in the U.S. market are re-branded "city cars" sold in the European and Japanese markets. They were never designed for the road-centric American society where large commerical vehicles and SUVs much larger than in those markets dominate highways. I think that they can still be safely operated on highways, but perhaps there need to be some restrictions on where they can be operated or or even move to a less road-dependent economy...just something that alters incentives in favor of small car ownership.
Even if they're allowed to have their own borders, that doesn't necessarily mean that they'll develop a strong economy and institutions. The territories' lack of access to markets and capital is the greatest hindrance to economic growth. I agree with your argument that the viability of a Palestinian state really depends on the degree to which Israel will allow it to have sovereignty--so far they haven't been willing to. Whether they should or not is a normative question that's beyond the scope of the debate topic.
src: CIA World Factbook, West Bank - Economy
Even though you say they should be banned, would a ban truly be effective at reducing the number of smokers vs. moving the problem somewhere else?
Even when cigarettes are highly taxed (NYC, Spain), cartels spring up to provide them in the face of high prices. A significant underground economy would certainly accompany a total prohibition of cigarettes, as shoving legitimate suppliers out of the market would increase alternative suppliers' incentives to capture consumer surplus for cigarettes.
I think that people have the right to have vices, because control over one's body regardless of others' objections is important in a free society. However, it's important to recognize that whilst also recognizing that smoking imposes a social cost--medical expenses and human capital degradation due to cancers, hypertension, and other health problems, the effects of which are not confined to the smoker.
Bearing this in mind though, increasing the price of smoking generally is more effective than a blanket ban. Traditional cigarettes and cigars could also be phased out in favour of e-cigarettes as a harm reduction measure.
Plenty of wars have been "justified" (1812 War, Second World War, American Civil War, First Gulf War, Afghan War). But I doubt that one could say that any war is a "good" war. All war to some degree involves dehumanisation of other peoples, destruction of property, threats to human health and security, human rights abuses etc. etc.; it's rather alarming that Americans take the idea of it so lightly as to be willing to call it "good". Also, it's rare in war that sides can be completely clear-cut into merely "good" vs. "evil".