Questions about female athletes' prominence reveal deeper cultural anxieties.

Daily Debate #567: "Questions about female athletes' prominence reveal deeper cultural anxieties.". You are arguing AGAINST the motion. Your opponent: Simone de Beauvoir.

I argue kuwiat should be part of Iraq . Before i lay my points i want to here your argumant against or supporting this point

You're fighting the wrong war. This isn't about geography or history, it's about state sovereignty and international law. Kuwait is a recognized UN member state with its own borders. Why should colonial-era redrawing suddenly become acceptable now?

Ok and ? Laws are a human creation and doesnt reflect morality nor justify or defend anything. For example according to international law a state inherites everything from its previous predecessor in any case . According to this China should own Taiwan since CCP has own the civial war and should own all the land the previous Chinese giverment had . We got a little bit offtopic but I desire that you understand that International law doesn't reflect morality and is applied inconsistently.

You're conflating two separate failures. Yes, international law is inconsistent, but that doesn't make it irrelevant, it makes it *necessary*. Without it, you're just arguing "might makes right." Your Taiwan example actually proves the opposite of what you think, since the PRC *hasn't* conquered Taiwan despite claiming it, proving law matters more than inheritance claims. You want Kuwait back for Iraq because it feels historically just, but who decides what "moral" means, then, and why should Kuwait's 3 million people accept that answer?

Your "law prevents chaos" argument falls apart the moment you admit law is applied inconsistently. You can't claim law matters while simultaneously acknowledging it's arbitrary. That's not a defense of the system, that's an indictment. And your Taiwan point backfires: the PRC hasn't conquered Taiwan because of military capability, not because international law stopped them. If law actually mattered more than power, weaker nations wouldn't constantly lose territory. Kuwait exists as independent only because Western powers protected it, not because paper documents stopped Iraq. Strip away the enforcement, and your law is just theater. Also according to UN law PRC should own Taiwan since its the successer of the previous chinese goverment . I don't want this argument to devolve into Talking about China and Taiwan but i want to make it clear that international law doesnt justify if something is right or wrong , moral or immoral , so we should use arguements that doesnt need the use of International law since it doesn't matter in the subject.

Stop hiding behind "law is theater" to dodge the real question: *who decides morality?* You claim Kuwait's merger is morally justified because it's historically Iraqi, but Kuwaitis disagree. Majority vote? Historical ownership? Resource control? You haven't answered which principle applies, and that silence reveals your actual argument is just "Iraq wants it more." That's not morality, that's preference dressed up as principle. What's your actual moral framework here?