The Instigator
Yvette
Pro (for)
Winning
25 Points
The Contender
PARADIGM_L0ST
Con (against)
Losing
24 Points

America is now, and has historically been, imperialist.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+5
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 12 votes the winner is...
Yvette
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/6/2010 Category: Politics
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 14,013 times Debate No: 12707
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (22)
Votes (12)

 

Yvette

Pro

RESOLUTION
America is now, and has historically been, imperialist.

RULES
Acceptance of rules/definitions and any relevant clarifications will be offered in Round 1. Arguments will continue from there. Excessive use of semantics is forfeiture, I'll let the readers decide what is excessive.

CLARIFICATIONS
http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Imperialism is "the policy, practice, or advocacy of extending the power and dominion of a nation especially by direct territorial acquisitions or by gaining indirect control over the political or economic life of other areas; broadly : the extension or imposition of power, authority, or influence"

America refers to the United States of America from the beginnings of the American Revolution to the present day. It refers to the nation as a whole, including culture, government, and/or people. By historically I mean how the U.S. has been during this time.

I look forward to the debate.
PARADIGM_L0ST

Con

I would like to take this time to thank my opponent for beginning this debate. I hope that all the readers will enjoy it, regardless of their conclusions.

=== CHALLENGING THE RESOLUTION===

My opponents resolution, along with her clarification, is simple. Perhaps it is oversimplified, however, in the sense that what constitutes "imperialism" is subjective in the same way as it is with "terrorism." The adage, "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" comes to mind.

For instance, "the extension or imposition of power, authority, or influence" could be ascribed to virtually every nation on earth in some capacity. That there are diplomats for countries is precisely for the explicit purpose of influencing another nation towards their own self-interests. This, of course, is in stark contrast with the Mongols, the Romans, the Ottomans, Nazi-Germany, who murder, rape, and pillage on a quest for world domination and control. The United States could not in any sense be grouped together with these imperialistic empires.

In light of this, we are most assuredly going to need to narrow our terms and I request that PRO provides unambiguous evidence of the supposed imperialist tendencies she feels America ascribes to.

I will offer my verdict on America and it's foreign national policy as well, so that PRO and the reader understands my own suppositions.

I believe that America has adopted a foreign national policy stance that can be summarized as "interventionist." I believe that America does attempt to coerce other nations in some regards, and that in many instances it could reasonably be construed as detrimental. PRO and I would likely agree on those points.

Be that as it may, "Imperialist" is far too strong a word to attach to America, either in the past or now. In fact, it could more aptly summarized that the United States has a strong tradition anti-imperialism.

=== HISTORICAL ARGUMENT ===

America's very foundation is premised upon breaking the yoke of the British, imperialist Empire. In two separate wars, America fought for its right to secede from an oppressive monarchy and for its rights to independence.

A further illustration of American disgust with imperialism can also be clearly seen when America came to the Philippines aid against Spain, an imperialist nation. Likewise in WWI and WWII, America did everything in its power to stay uninvolved in the affairs of Europe up until it was thrust in to war against, what any sensible person would regard as a true imperialist dictatorship, Nazi-Germany.

Nazi-German tactics are hallmark characteristics of imperialism. I challenge my opponent to offer up any such evidence that could even remotely be likened to America when juxtaposed by Nazi-Germany, the Mongols, the Roman Empire, etc. No such corollary exists in actuality.

=== CLOSING ===

In closing, I believe PRO's indictment against the United States is a rather dubious, libelous and unfair accusation, and that perhaps she is prone to hyperbole. Exaggerations in the form of slanderous pejoratives is a tool of propaganda. Let history make the case.

"Imperialism has been subject to moral censure by its critics, and thus the term is frequently used in international propaganda as a pejorative for expansionist and aggressive foreign policy." [1]

My contention is that America could be considered interventionist, but not imperialistic.

=== SOURCE ===

1. "Imperialism." International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences, 2nd edition.
Debate Round No. 1
Yvette

Pro

I thank my opponent for taking this debate. However, he has already admitted that, according to the definition of imperialism America is in fact an imperialist nation, he charges that America isn't enough of an imperialist nation to be called imperialist compared to more notorious nations.

His admittance: "I believe that America has adopted a foreign national policy stance that can be summarized as "interventionist." I believe that America does attempt to coerce other nations in some regards, and that in many instances it could reasonably be construed as detrimental." All of this makes America fit the definition of imperialist. Interventionism, especially, is a government policy of exerting influence over things not under it's direct control.

However, I intend to meet my opponent's challenge and not only point out his inadvertent forfeiture but to actually prove that America is now, and has historically been, imperialist. Read on. My opponent will have to maintain that the U.S. has never expanded its territories, let alone attempted to expand it's influence, to win this debate. Whether any nation can be called imperialist is irrelevant. Any human can be called mortal, this hardly makes the label untrue. Finally, whether any imperialist action is justified is entirely irrelevant. There is no moral judgment inherent in the term.

I'll also note that my opponent failed to follow the rules put forward in Round 1 and resorted to ad-hominem before the debate even began.

RESPONSES
My opponent attempts to show that America is not imperialist by saying that anti-imperialism has always been a strong movement in the U.S. This is true, however, the definition judges by actions, not words and especially not words of half of a nation. Hypocrisy is not unheard of, especially in this nation, and especially when one considers our long history of "freedom" and who has been excluded from it. I will show that the policies and actions of America have been imperialist.

My opponent also claims that American imperialism must be as bad as Nazism to count. This is ridiculous and arbitrary. The French, British, Spanish and even the Netherlands have all been successful imperialists to one degree or another, indisputably. All that is required for America to be imperialist is for it to fit the definition.

INTRODUCTION TO US IMPERIALISM
From it's very beginnings, before the U.S. was even severed from British control, American settlers pushed for direct territorial acquisitions. Once a nation, Americans began a long and slow push for land justified by their "Divine Mandate" not only westward but in the south and north as well. Its first acquisition was in 1783, the last in 1970. [1] In addition, the U.S. has attempted to exert control over other areas of the world politically and militarily.

ORIGINS
In fact, this was a factor in strained British-American and Indian-American relations. Early American settlers were mostly tobacco farmers, requiring more land for more profits, so they pushed into Indian territory, one example being Bacon's Rebellion. [2]

EARLY IMPERIALISM
Once the nation was solidified, the infamous march westward began, as the new nation slowly took Indian territory. Less known is the expansion to the south and north. For example, in the Mexican-American War, the U.S. took almost half of all Mexican territory, creating what is now the American Southwest. [3][4] It also purchased Alaska and continued to expand west, taking land from natives. Later, the American-Spanish War would mark the beginning of overseas expansion.

GLOBAL CONFLICTS
While the U.S. did not initially get involved militarily in WWI, it exerted its influence by supporting those already involved. They also attempted to impose their influence during the Russian Revolution. [5] And early on in WWII, America attempted to influence events by quietly providing support to its allies. The Cold War, of course, marks a major and long-term imperialist war by the U.S., as the entire point of the Cold War was influence and power. The U.S. exerted control via aid (long one of it's favorite tactics) and military support/intervention, as well as through the threat of nuclear war. [6] From there, you have numerous instances of America gaining and exerting political control, including: the Korean War (supporting pro-America allies), the Lebanon Crisis (supporting pro-America forces), and the Vietnam War (supporting pro-American forces). [7]

MODERN IMPERIALISM
Modern U.S. imperialism has continued its tactics of indirect control and small military intervention, either through support or direct conflict. [8][9][13][14] It has quietly supported foreign regimes whose policies are in its favor, and deposed those which are not. [10][11] In addition to these smaller, lesser-known acts of intervention and control, the recent "War on Terrorism" is a blatant and obvious show of interventionism. In addition to the war generally being interventionist, America has attempted to push pro-American Western ideals, forms of government, and even governments itself on affected countries.

Currently, the departments of foreign affairs, including the Secretary of State admits, unknowingly, that it is imperialist. It's self-admitted policy is one of exerting influence for noble goals, and though it's doubtful whether the stated reasons are true, it doesn't matter. [12] The goal of American foreign policy is stated as working on "export controls, including nonproliferation of nuclear technology and nuclear hardware; measures to foster commercial intercourse with foreign nations and to safeguard American business abroad; International commodity agreements; international education; and protection of American citizens abroad and expatriation".

Imperialism is "the policy, practice, or advocacy of extending the power and dominion of a nation especially by direct territorial acquisitions or by gaining indirect control over the political or economic life of other areas; broadly : the extension or imposition of power, authority, or influence".

CONCLUSION
America has long made territory acquisitions. It has long attempted to influence and control other areas more directly. Even today, foreign policy is a major factor in American politics and even a factor in voters' minds. Resolution affirmed: America is and has historically been imperialist.

SOURCES
If the sources do not publish correctly, which occasionally happens, I will post a copy in the Comments section.
1. http://goo.gl...
2. http://goo.gl...
3. http://goo.gl...
4. http://goo.gl...
5. http://goo.gl...
6. http://goo.gl...
7. http://goo.gl...
8. http://goo.gl...
9. http://goo.gl...
10.http://goo.gl...
11. http://goo.gl...
12. http://goo.gl...
13. http://goo.gl...
14. http://goo.gl...
PARADIGM_L0ST

Con

=== CLARIFICATIONS ===

My opponent alleges that I have admitted that the US is an imperialist nation, which of course a distortion of the facts, as I went out of my way to clarify my meanings. She also alleges that "my opponent failed to follow the rules put forward in Round 1 and resorted to ad-hominem before the debate even began."

p1. I assume this is in reference to an supposed overuse of semantics, however, my opponent herself stated that Round 1 was designed specifically for establishing rules and clarifications. This, I suspect, was a way to stack all the chips in her favor, and when anyone offers their own thesis or sought to clarify, it's immediately shot down as "semantics." I will allow the jury to make their own decision.

p2. My opponent alleges that I resorted to ad hominem but completely neglects to substantiate said ad hominem. Since I consistently argued the position, not the person, I trust the reader will clearly see no such behavior on my part.

=== RESPONDING TO THE RESPONSES ===

My opponent begins by admitting that anti-imperialism has always been a strong movement in the U.S., but then shifts the goal posts. As I stated in Round 1, imperialism is subjective. The fact that per the definition she provided, every country in all periods of time fits nicely within that category, cannot be overlooked for the same reason that one could erroneously draw false parallels. Because it so over-generalized, it is therefore incumbent upon both she and I to come up with a workable definition that doesn't constitute "semantics."

=== HISTORICAL CONTEXT ===

PRO brings up several instances of what she considers imperialistic but neglects the point that warfare is not synonymous with imperialism, lest one nation need to always acquiesce to the other in total pacifism to be classified as a non-imperialist nation.

My opponent even sources a list of legal purchases between the United States and other nations, where they were compensated for the land. By her loose definition, any private entity seeking to own any land at all is thereby imperialist.

The Louisiana Purchase [1], the Gadsden Purchase [2], the Alaska Purchase [3], Puerto Rico and Guam purchase, etc are all instances where compensation was given to the former owners. This is in direct contrast with the "spoils of war" which were notoriously characterized by the Mongolian invasions of Eurasian countries, the Grecian empire, the Roman empire, the Nazi-German empire, the Yuan empire, the British empire, the Ming empire, the Ottoman empire, the Macedonian empire, etc, etc, which took land that knowingly was not theirs through force and violence [4].

America does not even register, except in terms of generating more revenue than any other empire in human history.

=== MODERN IMPERIALISM CHARGE ===

PRO claims that intervention is tantamount to imperialism. Curiously, though, all the instances where the United States intervened for the purpose of rendering aid was off the list.

FACT: The two largest contributors of aid in the human history are:

1. Private donations given by the citizens of the United States.
2. The United States government. [5] [6]

Resoundingly, unflinchingly, and unanimously the United States, both government and citizen, are the most generous in human history.

What this is evidence of, like I clearly distinguished in Round 1, is instances of American interventionist policies, not imperialism. Given the amount of wars and conflicts in American history, no land was ever stolen, no country ever lost their heritage, no country was displaced, America never acquired the land and called it "America," etc.

1. Haitian Rebellion (2004)
2. Liberian Civil War (2003)
3. Iraq War (2003)
4. Afghanistan War (2001)
5. Kosovo Conflict (1999)
6. Bosnian War (1992)
7. Somalian Conflict (1992)
8. Gulf War (1990)
9. Operation Just Cause (1989)
10. Operation Urgent Fury (1983)
11. Vietnam War (1964)
12. Korean War (1950)
[7]

So on and so forth. The heart of America, since its inception, was to escape from imperialistic dictatorships and to be the bastion of hope for those seeking to escape hegemony.

I look forward to this third and final debate.

=== SOURCES ===

1. http://en.wikipedia.org...
2. http://en.wikipedia.org...
3. http://en.wikipedia.org...
4. http://en.wikipedia.org...
5. http://www.usatoday.com...
6. http://www.associatedcontent.com...
7. http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 2
Yvette

Pro

I thank my opponent for the debate. Let me finish my posts by first clarifying a few things, and then pointing out how Pro's arguments are irrelevant.

CLARIFICATIONS
The rule broken I mentioned was actually that arguments were to wait until Round 2, however this is hardly worth breaking a sweat over. The ad hominem consists of the first paragraph of closing. Finally, my opponent denies that he ever admitted America is imperialist. Let us revisit the definitions.

Imperialism: "the policy, practice, or advocacy of extending the power and dominion of a nation especially by direct territorial acquisitions or by gaining indirect control over the political or economic life of other areas; broadly : the extension or imposition of power, authority, or influence"

Con (/// for emphasis): "I believe that ///America has adopted a foreign national policy stance that can be summarized as "interventionist."/// I believe that ///America does attempt to coerce other nations/// in some regards, and that in many instances it could reasonably be construed as detrimental."

Interventionism: "///a policy of non-defensive (proactive) activity undertaken by a nation-state///, or other geo-political jurisdiction of a lesser or greater nature, ///to manipulate an economy or society///" (via Wikipedia)

If America is interventionist, as Pro says it is, it is by its very definition also imperialist. To take action to manipulate another society is the same as indirectly or directly controlling another area's politics and economy.

PRO'S COUNTER-ARGUMENTS
...are irrelevant. Let me list them, and why they are useless:

1. ‘If the (dictionary) definition of imperialism is upheld, nearly every nation is imperialist.' Yes, and? As I said, every human is mortal, but that hardly makes "mortal" a meaningless word that cannot be applied to humans. The debate is not whether America is more or less imperialistic, only whether it is at all.

2. ‘Purchased territory should not count'. I see no reason why direct territory acquisitions are only those which have been gotten through military might or trickery. No distinction is made, nor is any distinction correct to make. Pro contrasts this to military acquisitions, pretending that America has never done such.

3. ‘Warfare is not imperialism'. Warfare alone is a direct way of extending or exerting power, even when it is justified or in defense. When done by a nation to those outside of it it is indeed imperialistic. Pro of course ignores my pointing out the reasons for the warfare in many of these cases: territory and/or control.

4. ‘Americans are generous'. And? Besides, in many cases, government aid (as opposed to civilian aid) is a method of control. Consider a situation in which your ally and your enemy are fighting. Getting directly involved is a bad idea, but sending in aid to certain groups and areas can be a method of control. This is the tactic the American government uses, as I sourced.

5. " Given the amount of wars and conflicts in American history, no land was ever stolen, no country ever lost their heritage, no country was displaced, America never acquired the land and called it "America," etc." This statement not only blatantly ignores several of my examples (westward expansion, land taken from Mexico, land taken during the Spanish-American War, etc) but the examples of wars Pro gives in which America has not taken land misses the point. In many of these (Korean War, Iraq War, Vietnam War, etc) the entire point of the military conflict was to exert control. That the sort of control was supporting pro-America forces instead of directly taking over a country changes nothing.

And, while not part of my opponent's real argument, I take issue with this false statement: "The heart of America, since its inception, was to escape from imperialistic dictatorships and to be the bastion of hope for those seeking to escape hegemony."

There were two main groups that settled America and later became it. One group was the Puritans, seeking the freedom to perform their religion after they had tried to take others' religious freedom away. The other was tobacco farmers and other poor from England in search of land. My opponent has provided no evidence for this statement, indeed it is in direct contradiction to my evidence and at best would be hypocrisy. America's policy has been and continues to be imperialist.

Resolution affirmed: I have provided much evidence that America is imperialist, my opponent has admitted it is interventionist (and by definition imperialist), and has provided no evidence or reasoning to the contrary.
PARADIGM_L0ST

Con

I'd like to, again, thank PRO for the opportunity to debate this topic, and hope the readers enjoy it as much as I have.

=== CLARIFICATIONS ===

PRO's entire argument hinges upon something that she alleges is grounds for forfeiture throughout the last two rounds. Her whole argument has relied on the extreme broadness of what she has defined as imperialism. I have stated that the definition provided could be applied to every nation in human history, which makes questioning America's imperialism or non-imperialism a moot point because it is a tautology [1]. It is now documented on two separate occasions that I challenged the legitimacy of the quote she used because it was so broad that any nation could be swept under that category. PRO refused the request. Since PRO insisted that Round 1 was for the purposes clarification, she ends up violating her own premise.

Secondly, PRO asserts that I inadvertently admit that America is imperialist by conceding the point that America is interventionist. Apparently intervening is synonymous with imperialism in PRO's mind, which, again, highlights how her argument has relied on a tautology and semantics. Let us compare and contrast.

Interventionism: "the policy or doctrine of intervening, esp. government interference in the affairs of another state or in domestic economic affairs." [2]

Imperialism: "the policy of so uniting the separate parts of an empire with separate governments as to secure for certain purposes a single state." [3]

As we can read, not only are the two not synonyms, but this definition of imperialism is not a quality that has ever been enforced by the Untied States. The characteristics described is one of the Roman Empire or Alexander the Great's conquests. Expanding it's territories and establishing provinces under the control of Greece or Rome is the illustration offered, not merely an "attempt to influence," as all nations attempt to influence another. That's how diplomacy works.

=== CON's COUNTER-ARGUMENTS ===

1. Again, PRO hides behind a vague definition. This is what I meant in Round 1 about stacking the deck. She asks for Round 1 to be for establishing rules and seeking clarifications, but when that very thing is done, she ignores it and gives a tautological response.

2. PRO asserts that "Purchased territory should not count" which is more of PRO attempting to narrow the debate like a funnel in her favor. PRO claims no distinction is made between purchasing land versus a massacre and the taking of land. This, of course, is an absurdity because then anyone who buys land has, by her extremely loose definition, shown imperialistic tendencies. In essence, she doesn't offer qualifiers.

3. PRO is right to say that warfare and imperialism go hand-in-hand, but as I pointed out, warfare is not synonymous with imperialism. In fact, I provided a laundry list of wars fought by the United States where no land was ever taken, no culture ever lost their cultural identity, no culture now calls itself "the United States." The Vietnamese are still Vietnamese, Germans still German, Japanese still Japanese, Afghans are still Afghans, and Iraqi's are still Iraqi's. That PRO ignores every instance of supposed American occupation that could not, whatsoever, be categorized as imperialism via the acquisition of stolen land, makes the case for me.

4. PRO postulates that American generosity is something to scoff at, as if Genghis Kkan, a true imperialist, would have ever behaved in such a manner. This argument just illustrates PRO's tendency to manipulate the debate so that all points align with her broad, over-generalized thesis. She managed to make for America a case of damned-if-I-do, damned-if-I-don't. If America dominates by force, it's imperialism. If they help other people, it's imperialism. If America is indifferent, it's imperialism, so that no matter what America does in actuality, they will be in the wrong. It's more a case of a self-fulfilling prophecy offered by my detractor than it is an actuality.

5. PRO alleges that I ignored examples of hers. To the contrary, I am correcting her inaccuracies. For example, she alleges that land was "taken" from Mexico, yet the Gadsden Purchase and the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo make it clear that this land was not "taken," but purchased, making PRO grossly inaccurate. These kind of misrepresentations and distortions of truth are precisely why misinformed people believe the declarations espoused by the likes of people who self-describe themselves as anti-imperialist.

She also states that "the entire point of the military conflict was to exert control," as if a war is about anything else. Of course it's about exerting control, it's war! This is precisely what I mean. PRO hides behind a wall of a vague or over-generalized semantics. If we were to go by her definitions of imperialism, we would learn that a. getting any land makes you an imperialist b. if wars are fought for control, you're an imperialist. Of course, it is silly because owning a home would make you an imperialist, and the soldiers and sailors attempting to repel the Japanese invasion would also be considered imperialist. The premise doesn't follow.

PRO states, "And, while not part of my opponent's real argument, I take issue with this false statement: "The heart of America, since its inception, was to escape from imperialistic dictatorships and to be the bastion of hope for those seeking to escape hegemony." She goes on to say that I provide no evidence that colonials left England to flee tyranny. She's right, I didn't provide any evidence of that because, quite simply, it's a well-known, well-documented, self evident fact. I assumed that history speaks for itself, where America fought for its independence from an imperialist monarchy.

=== CLOSING ===

The modern anti-imperialism movement is often nothing more than thinly disguised anti-Americanism that has been too commonly evoked. It has become a fashionable past-time to criticize those on the top of the food chain, without ever giving thought to the specifics. It is often typified by examples of strident hyperbole and a distortion of history to make it's case.

It is rather amusing though that if the whole world has viewed America's policies as imperialist, that virtually every nation on earth uses the US Constitution as their template. It's ironic that the most oppressive nations, and dare I say "imperialist," on the planet are at odds with the United States. One would think that if America were every bit the bogeyman that PRO insinuates, it wouldn't have a friend in the world. And yet, America continues to be one of the most influential nation, even in spite of its faults.

Pro's resolutions have been debunked and the slight-of-hand has been exposed and laid bare. For this reason you must vote CON!

=== SOURCES ===

1. http://dictionary.reference.com...
2. http://dictionary.reference.com...
3. http://dictionary.reference.com...
4. http://en.wikipedia.org...
5. http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 3
22 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by justindmack 2 years ago
justindmack
This argument is pretty old... But when I read it I knew I had to write this comment. Yvette, why did you even create this debate!!! Is America imperialist? According to your definition, YEA, DUH. Every powerful nation in history has "exerted it's influence" on other countries, its part of the reason that they are powerful. You need to revise your question for this debate to have any worth. What con argued very well is that the US is not imperialistic to the degree of European nations during the Age of Imperialism, and that when it does perform imperialistic actions, they are very benign (aid). Anyway, pretty much what I'm saying is don't rig your debates to make them unwinnable for your opponent. I would mark you off on conduct if the voting was still open.
Posted by RoyLatham 6 years ago
RoyLatham
Yvette, So you are arguing that the US is trying to control Iraq? That's nonsense. The goal is to make them a stable democratic country. on the grounds that such countries do not harbor terrorists. Making a region more friendly does not equate to attempting to control it. The US took control of Germany and Japan in WWII. By your argument, that is proof of imperialist, but it was not. The goal was to restore democracy and leave. That was done.

If all countries are imperialist, then the word has no practical meaning. Sending aid to Haiti is as much evidence of imperialism (we wanted to be friendly, we wanted to control their lives so they don't die, etc.) as is Saddam invading Kuwait. That is not how the word "imperialist" is used. It's a pure semantic argument, and not a good one.
Posted by Yvette 6 years ago
Yvette
Northern, would you kindly keep your bias out of this?
Posted by NorthernShooter 6 years ago
NorthernShooter
Oh, The U.S is currently taking over may countries, oh i forgot...were not !
Posted by Prox 6 years ago
Prox
I find myself agreeing with the PRO atm. A very good job, considering that I am American myself.
Posted by Prox 6 years ago
Prox
Very nice arguments.
Posted by Volkov 6 years ago
Volkov
RFD

B&A: Pro
Conduct: Tied
S&G: Tied
Argument: Pro; not much to say. I felt Pro carried a better argument backed up by historical evidence
Sources: Tied
Posted by Yvette 6 years ago
Yvette
Roy--
Imperialism refers to the practice, not the success. While America would very much like to get out of its current military efforts, have you paid attention to the reasons we haven't left? We'd lose control. From the beginning efforts have been made to make the region more Western/America-friendly.

I suppose if I made a debate title "my opponent is mortal" and offered the definition of "mortal" you'd call it a semantic trap. That most nations are imperialist makes America not imperialist how?
Posted by RoyLatham 6 years ago
RoyLatham
The resolution includes the assertion that America "is now" an imperialist nation. So to prove the resolution, Pro must show other nations over which the United States is currently controlling and wishes to remain in control. Clearly the US would like to get out of Iraq and Afghanistan ASAP. That contradicts the claim that imperialism is a policy. Note that "control" is not merely "influence." It is operating a nation as if it were a colony.

The opening round was an attempt by Pro to set a semantic trap by which virtually every country in the world qualified as "imperialist." Nah.
Posted by Yvette 6 years ago
Yvette
Oh hell, I didn't even realize how crazy that statement was.
12 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by jat93 6 years ago
jat93
YvettePARADIGM_L0STTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by Atheism 6 years ago
Atheism
YvettePARADIGM_L0STTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Vote Placed by Awed 6 years ago
Awed
YvettePARADIGM_L0STTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Vote Placed by NorthernShooter 6 years ago
NorthernShooter
YvettePARADIGM_L0STTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by annhasle 6 years ago
annhasle
YvettePARADIGM_L0STTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by Volkov 6 years ago
Volkov
YvettePARADIGM_L0STTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by Yvette 6 years ago
Yvette
YvettePARADIGM_L0STTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 6 years ago
RoyLatham
YvettePARADIGM_L0STTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Vote Placed by Grape 6 years ago
Grape
YvettePARADIGM_L0STTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Vote Placed by PARADIGM_L0ST 6 years ago
PARADIGM_L0ST
YvettePARADIGM_L0STTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03