After the economic crisis is resolved, parts of the third world should be recolonized

It's so that when I do want to debate it, I have a ready opponent. I don't see why that concept is too hard to grasp

thett3, I did read the first post. It doesn't make sense that you say you don't plan on debating this anytime soon and yet it is for anyone who wants to debate this with you.

Samman, you misunderstand. That was implemented to keep someone from running an argument like "the US wont be powerful enough to do that anymore". There's no reason why someone couldn't run that they could be in even worse poverty under colonialism.

Invalid, evidently you didn't read the opening round. This is to generate interest, so that when I DO want to debate this I have a ready opponent.

Cannot accept challenge due to criteria? seriously?

Since everyone ignored me:

"

This is horribly phrased! "My opponent must accept that some time in the future when the economic crisis is resolved, the balance of power in the world is the same, and the third world remains just as impoverished as it does today". Really? So if we colonize third world countries, they WON'T be impoverished? They'd probably end up even worse off! The negative position is non-mutually-exclusive to the affirmative... I'd take this debate and advocate something more along the lines of a global reeducation and mass communist revolution. But you're forcing con to take a contradictory position... yea, please change the wording.

"

This debate doesn't make sense. You want your opponent to argue for poverty? Why not argue that they will not be in poverty because in order to solve the economic crisis you must solve the third world's problem of poverty as well?

@Death

What interesting views you have... lol.

@YYW, nahh they killed people all in the name of "God and King". I swear this is stupid. You speak of making the world a better place but all that would occur is Rich Fat people get Richer and Fatter while the namely poor Third World gets blown to hell. And the Soldiers who are "defending" freedom are just a bunch of Modern day crusaders who say there doing the world a favor when they are really just raping and pillaging. :/

@Brian

"It is probably a good idea, but, unfortunately, Britain no longer has the military power necessary to re-colonise countries like India and the USA."

Indeed it is unfortunate. The world was a better place when the sun never set on the british empire.

There is no hypocrisy. The spreading of what one believes is "right and wrong" (both ethically and factually) is the goal. When a different ideology comes along, the two are in clash and conflict. Calling it hypocrisy is like saying Soccer teams are hypocrites because they are all trying to score goals while not allowing their opponents to score.