The Instigator
notpolicydebategod
Pro (for)
Losing
3 Points
The Contender
draxxt
Con (against)
Winning
32 Points

America needs to stop intervening with other nations.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/19/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 3,100 times Debate No: 3698
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (10)
Votes (9)

 

notpolicydebategod

Pro

The Libertarian Party believes that the military should pull out of other nations with our militaries eventually if not immediately unless it is absolutely necessary.

- We have troops in Germany, Japan, Belize and Haiti and none of them are doing much of anything but at the same time we have less than enough troops to go into Afghanistan. If we werent promoting democracy in Haiti or bombing Kosovo to end genocide, we would have a significant amount of troops.

- We spend a tremendous amount of money on our troops when they are overseas. And this is military funding. So we have less airforce jets than we should and cant deploy ppl quickly enough for the purpose of overstretching our military.

- Screwing other nations makes other nations hate us. If we werent helping Israel and Palestine, then Al Qaida would hate us less. Other nations would like us more if we let them run their nation, while we ran ours.

- Weve seen what Iraq has done. Pull our troops out of places that we dont need to be. Give the governmentment more money and help other countrie to like us more.
draxxt

Con

Thank you, to my opponent, for his invitation to this debate. I am looking forward to debating and, though I hardly see where it could be present in this, no personal bias, please.

My opponent claims many of America's problems would be solved if only we were to stop "Intervening with other nations." In fact, he even tells us that we NEED to stop intervening. This is a moot statement.

First, I must define two terms in order to allow the judges and my opponent know what is being debated:

(As always, I'll be using the merriam-Webster dicitonary)

Intervening: " to come in or between by way of hindrance or modification "

Need as: "necessary duty : obligation"

Obviously, we see that it is obligatory, as my opponent states, to stop interfering with foreign affairs.

"We have troops in Germany, Japan, Belize and Haiti and none of them are doing much of anything but at the same time we have less than enough troops to go into Afghanistan. If we weren(')t promoting democracy in Haiti or bombing Kosovo to end genocide, we would have a significant amount of troops."

Excuse me but... Do you hear yourself? We are "end(ing) genocide." Isn't any cause that furthers the human race a righteous and obligatory act by the party that has the ability to do such? Also, my opponent claims that if we were to pull out of SOME countries, we would have the option and the prerequisite to engage OTHER countries. The resolution you are debating is, "America needs to stop intervening with other nations." not, "America needs to stop intervening with other countries unless they are a threat."

The resolution clearly states that we must prevent any foreign activity, seeing as we have had no issues with Afghanistan since 9/11/2001. And even then, it wasn't the Afghan leaders who our dispute was with, it was with Osama bin Laden, Al Qaeda, and the Taliban.

"We spend a tremendous amount of money on our troops when they are overseas. And this is military funding. So we have less airforce jets than we should and cant deploy (people) quickly enough for the purpose of overstretching our military."

These soldiers are risking their lives to ensure that the world's ONLY superpower remains as such. It is not only contrary to our MORAL obligations as U.S. citizens but also contrary to our purpose in the military: *

"Screwing other nations makes other nations hate us. If we werent helping Israel and Palestine, then Al Qa(e)da would hate us less. Other nations would like us more if we let them run their nation, while we ran ours."

This isn't an issue of Al Qaeda liking us. Al Qaeda is a a group of extremists whose soul purpose is to destroy all those who demoralize their faith. We did not start Afghanistan's problems, in fact, we aided them during the Cold War.
"1979 The Soviet Union invades Afghanistan, beginning a decade-long war that ends with their withdrawal in 1988." -http://www.infoplease.com...

The withdrawl was due to our contribution in arms and defensive forces.
(Also refer to the movie, "Charlie Wilson's War")
Al Qaeda is a seperate militia all their own.

"We(')ve seen what Iraq has done. Pull our troops out of places that we dont need to be. Give the (government) more money and help other countrie(s) to like us more."

What about our efforts in World War 2. If it weren't for our actions and compilation with Russia, Hitler might very well be the World's dictator and either Germany or Austria would be the only superpower. Debate.org would not exist unless the only debate is "Hitler is right" in which, all those who vote or protect Con would be shot. This is one scenario.

Also, what about our current actions in Africa? Would you say that it is MORE of a neccessity to aid starving children, those in need of help, and those affected by Darfur?

Now that I have refuted my opponent's case, I shall bring up two contentions of my own.

1)* We protect those who either cannot protect themselves alone or who desperately need it.

A) We provide for Africa alone, more than any other country.

B) The past contributions America has made have been beneficial to the country and, in fact, led to a higher approval rating amongst other countries.

2) If we stop intervening, the possible and most likely outcome would leave some parts of the world in shambles.

The Middle East alone would fall even quicker than it has already. We took the neccessary precaution by taking Saddam Hussein out of Iraq and now we need to support them as they rebuild and recollect their ways of life.

For the reasons presented to you, I urge you to vote CON.
Thank you,
-EG
Debate Round No. 1
notpolicydebategod

Pro

I'm going to clear this up: I'm saying that America would be better off if they stopped occupying other nations without their permission and for extensive amoun of time. I apologize if that is an any way unclear.

Perhaps the term "need" was exaggerative.

- "We are "end(ing) genocide."
+ We are not ending genocide. We are bombing Kosovo for the purpose of ending genocide and killing more people than are being saved. It is a ridiculously inefficient effort that is poorly thought out.

- Isn't any cause that furthers the human race a righteous and obligatory act by the party that has the ability to do such?
+ Our occupations are constantly ineffective. The Kosovo intervention is monsterously ineffective. We are promoting democracy in Haiti. And renovating schools in Morocco. It is not our duty or our right to decide Haiti's form of government. And it is not our troop's duty or training t renovate schools. That is abusive. It is hardly our right to intervene in other nation's policies, especially when our great nation is in shambles and our military is significantly overstretched.

- "The US has a moral obligation to intervene."
+ Our nation's intervention is almost always ineffective, tremendously costly, and kills many people. How is it our moral obligation to help renovate schools in Morocco? It is nice but hardly an occupation. And their school system is poor anyway. We have schools in America that require renovation. These schools were built in the 1800s. My school itself was made in 1914. Why are we interfering with Haiti's government when it is not hurting people? We are spending tons of money and they still dont hav a democracy after 14 years.

- This isn't an issue of Al Qaeda liking us. [Al Qaida is irrelevant to the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict] Al Qaeda is a a group of extremists whose soul purpose is to destroy all those who demoralize their faith.
+ Al Qaida does not have a sole goal. One of its goals and its main goal even is to set up a global Islamic calaphite but this is an impossible goal if America keeps helping Israel and Palestine and encourage a Jewish state. If we encourage the Jewish state of Israel, then Al Qaida cant have them to be Islamic now can they? This is a voiced concern of Al Qaida. Please research your facts before you state them.

- World War 2 was a successful intervention.
+ Yes. This was a successful intervention and I've always supported it. But the occupation we have now of Germany is ridiculous. To say that no intervention is ever necessary is naieve but constant occupations are ridiculous. Our intervening in World War 2 helped us by heling our allies and who our world colleagues were. It was not intervening another nation. It was helping us. And who knows? Maybe those Nazis would have come for America next. It was a strategic war to help ourselves. Not a mindless intervention with other nations.

- Darfur.
+ Darfur has oil and to help them would be helping ourselves. Hardly a mindless intervention.
AND we can help Darfur without engaging in Darfur. We need to help the United Nations take action instead of taking action ourselves with our troops and resources. The Darfur crisis is monstrous and is certainly as genocide and we need to help stop it. But it is helping ourselves with oil, public diplomacy with surrrounding nations. But we cant use our troops and resources to fight someone elses problems.

1)* We protect those who either cannot protect themselves alone or who desperately need it.
- No. We dont. Look at Iraq, Vietnam, Belize, Syria, Kosovo, Haiti, Morocco. And we dont even try to step in Darfur or Rwanda. We dont help those in need. We hurt those in need of help. We've destroyed Iraq. Killed dozens of thousands in Iraq. And Iraq simply is not better off or more peaceful with us. Vietnam killed millions of Vietnamese and Americans. And look where they are now. Belize is still in shambles. Syria and Kosovo are still constantly fighting. Haiti cant be called a democracy. Morocco still has pooreducation. And the list goes on. We have troops in 144 countries around the world. Think of the cost in lives and money.

A) We provide for Africa alone, more than any other country.
- American assistance is always ineffective. Africa is still raging with disease. The money we send is put through corrupted African dictators and stolen. And the culture barrier makes intervention impossible. One time Americans went to show Africans how to use condoms and they used a stick to demonstrate. Weeks later they came back to find a condom over a stick in the middle of the village and the AIDS rate rose significantly. We are hurting them.

B) The past contributions America has made have been beneficial to the country and, in fact, led to a higher approval rating amongst other countries.
+ One example?

2) If we stop intervening, the possible and most likely outcome would leave some parts of the world in shambles.
+ Like Iraq, Syria, Kosovo, most of Africa and Vietnam are in now? The nations we go to are still in shambles after intervention.

- The Middle East alone would fall even quicker than it has already. We took the neccessary precaution by taking Saddam Hussein out of Iraq and now we need to support them as they rebuild and recollect their ways of life.
+ Sadaam Hussein had nothing to do with America or Al Qaida as we know now. Iraq was a rich nation with very strict laws though. When America makes dumb policy decisions nobody lynches our president. That is barbaric and an archaic concept. We went and destroyed Iraq and are now trying to build it back up. America has no business in Iraq. In the beginning, Bush said the meaning of the war was to find WMDs, promote democracy, and stop terrorism. We learned there were no weapons of mass destruction or terrorism. And their government is very ineffective and we cant help them be effective. The Iraq War was potentially the worst foreign policy decision if not policy decision, period, in American history. Intervening in other nations cost us significant amounts of money when we have a trillion dollar debt and a bad economy. It is ineffective. And it hurts our foreign relationships.

...Look...All of Europe hates America for its foreign policy. Our foreign relationships are in shambles mostly because of our intervention in Iraq.
... We have troops in 144 nations around the world. Think of the cost.
... Most of our interventions are for little things like renovating schools in Morocco. Think of the fuel cost, salary, food, shelter, equipment, tools and still actually renovating the school.
... Think of all the dead Americans who died for somebody else's country.
... It is simply unconstitutional and un-American.
"We, the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution FOR THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,"

I hope you vote pro. Considering that I have answered each of his arguments with a smart and logical answer. And I have presented points of my own that he cant account for.

Thank you for reading this debate.
draxxt

Con

I will grant that I am not as inept at debating foreign policies as my opponent is. That being said, the question still remains: Does America NEED to stop intervening with other countries?

My answer: No.

It is not detrimental as a whole against America's existance to stop intervening with foreign countries.

We have been in Iraq for a large sum of time (about as long as Vietnam, I believe) and it hasn't depleted us economically. Our debt was rather large before the war and could not be helped as I assume my opponent is debating that we need to stop intervening unless it benefits us. We, essentially, NEED China's resources and exports to function.

This site will give proper illustrations as to how much China contributes to our country.

http://www.imf.org...

We don't NEED to stop intervening. We will function without it. Even if we become a third world country, we will still be a country. A need is used as a means of maintaining existance. Third world countries exist, we exist, America exists and therefore, we do not NEED to stop intervening. It is not threatening to the existance of our country and I would like my opponent to prove otherwise. If not, vote Con.

Thank you,
-EG
Debate Round No. 2
notpolicydebategod

Pro

It is not detrimental as a whole against America's existance to stop intervening with foreign countries.
+ Wow. Did you just say basically that if America is not wholly destroyed, we should do anything? Interventions are constantly ineffective and costly.

We have been in Iraq for a large sum of time (about as long as Vietnam, I believe) and it hasn't depleted us economically.
+ Its costed trillions of dollars, other nations (especially the ones with oil) hate us, its costed us four thousand lives. Thts substantial.

Our debt was rather large before the war and could not be helped as I assume my opponent is debating that we need to stop intervening unless it benefits us. We, essentially, NEED China's resources and exports to function.
+ We owe $200 billion of war debt.
http://www.atimes.com...

This site will give proper illustrations as to how much China contributes to our country.
+ China is completely irrelevant. Its a shame that were so dependent on them but thats a different debate.

We don't NEED to stop intervening. We will function without it. Even if we become a third world country, we will still be a country.
+ You just said that it is fine if we become a third world counrty!

A need is used as a means of maintaining existance. Third world countries exist, we exist, America exists and therefore, we do not NEED to stop intervening. It is not threatening to the existance of our country and I would like my opponent to prove otherwise.
+ I told you what I meant. "Need" was too strict a term and I loosened it in round 2. Why are you hanging on to it?

...Look...My opponent seems to have given up on this debate. I've said that if we stopped intervening in other nations when it had no beneft to us, we would benefit. We help out in Morocco with school renovations. This costs us a lot of money, overstretches our military so we cant act on real threats, and it is useless. We should stop these interventions. My opponent claims that "even if we are a third world country, we are still a country." Well, I'd like to live to a higher standard than that. He says "America was not completely destroyed." Lets try to do the best we can instead of better than the very worse. Vote PRO if you want our nation to have more money, more troops and to live to a greater living standard.

Thank you.
Please vote PRO.
draxxt

Con

My opponent's entire resolution rests on the hopes that I will accept his new resolution (Which he has not produced) that should read, "America should stop intervening with foreign countries."

I'm sorry but you cannot deny the fact that this resolution is as it always was. If you would like to challenge me to a debate with the proposed resolution, I would gladly accept.

Since I never accepted my opponent's unpropitious resolution, and he continued to debate with it, you must vote CON.
Debate Round No. 3
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by thereal_yeti 4 years ago
thereal_yeti
"We don't NEED to stop intervening. We will function without it. Even if we become a third world country, we will still be a country. A need is used as a means of maintaining existance"

GAWD i hate when people start the semantics game..
Posted by Ethatican 5 years ago
Ethatican
I will grant that I am not as inept at debating foreign policies as my opponent is."
draxxt' this was a little out of context and rude--there's a fine line between debating skill and rudeness. Even though i might've just crossed it, i think everyone's debates would be improved if we refrained from insulting each other.
Posted by Geekis_Khan 6 years ago
Geekis_Khan
It's fine to define if something needs clarity, but you can tell that you're doing it just to narrow the debate for your side.
Posted by draxxt 6 years ago
draxxt
I'll stop debating semantically. I can tell it's rather annoying and a cheap way to win.
Posted by Kleptin 6 years ago
Kleptin
This is the third debate I have seen so far where Con has clung unnecessarily to an argument based on semantics when he clearly had a good shot at flexing his muscles and debating seriously.

Con started off very strong in his response to the opening post, and Pro's points overall seemed weaker in comparison to Con's responses.

I am voting Con on this one because he objectively won this debate. According to the definition, America does not NEED to stop intervening with other nations. However, I do so reluctantly because it ruined an otherwise healthy debate that could have been saved for someone else.

::looks at the near empty challenge list::
Posted by Geekis_Khan 6 years ago
Geekis_Khan
But, I still gave it to CON. However, you could've done a better job debating this.
Posted by Geekis_Khan 6 years ago
Geekis_Khan
I actually gave this one to you Eli. I didn't buy a lot of the PRO's arguments.

However, here's some observations:

"The resolution clearly states that we must prevent any foreign activity, seeing as we have had no issues with Afghanistan since 9/11/2001. And even then, it wasn't the Afghan leaders who our dispute was with, it was with Osama bin Laden, Al Qaeda, and the Taliban."

The Taliban were the leaders of Afghanistan.

Also, you pointed out a contradiction in Round One:

"lso, my opponent claims that if we were to pull out of SOME countries, we would have the option and the prerequisite to engage OTHER countries. The resolution you are debating is, "America needs to stop intervening with other nations." not, "America needs to stop intervening with other countries unless they are a threat.""

You should have exploited that. You could have won the debate a lot earlier had you done that.

Also, this is for both of you guys: I'm pretty sure we're not bombing Kosovo anymore.
Posted by lumpyballsIV 6 years ago
lumpyballsIV
Do you realize how many people hate america because of all this intervention? I have a friend in the middle east and they just despise us because we are every where and we have to police the world. Id think the country that is having the problem should deal with it for once and not make america butt in. What bad stuff is going on in Germany, that they would need american soldiers? Look at Canada they dont do anything and it isnt a terrorist target. They have also managed to stay out of more wars than we have too.
Posted by draxxt 6 years ago
draxxt
Oh, I was under the impression that we only "Officially" started in 2002 but we had been disputing and sending troops since the nineties. Sorry if that's wrong.
Posted by ChevySdyme99 6 years ago
ChevySdyme99
The Iraq war has not been as long as the Vietnam war. Vietnam started around 1965 and official withdrawal was 1973 or 74. Iraq invasion started i believe in 2002...I am for you on this one Draxxt just thought I give you some vague info.
9 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Vote Placed by draxxt 5 years ago
draxxt
notpolicydebategoddraxxtTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Ethatican 5 years ago
Ethatican
notpolicydebategoddraxxtTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by jordyz 6 years ago
jordyz
notpolicydebategoddraxxtTied
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:03 
Vote Placed by brian_eggleston 6 years ago
brian_eggleston
notpolicydebategoddraxxtTied
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:03 
Vote Placed by MDHarris08 6 years ago
MDHarris08
notpolicydebategoddraxxtTied
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:03 
Vote Placed by Kleptin 6 years ago
Kleptin
notpolicydebategoddraxxtTied
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:03 
Vote Placed by ChevySdyme99 6 years ago
ChevySdyme99
notpolicydebategoddraxxtTied
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:03 
Vote Placed by WeaponE 6 years ago
WeaponE
notpolicydebategoddraxxtTied
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 straymonolith 6 years ago
straymonolith
notpolicydebategoddraxxtTied
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:03