The Instigator
papayarocx5
Pro (for)
Losing
2 Points
The Contender
Ducanmichael
Con (against)
Winning
3 Points

America needs to stop spending money by sending troops into other countries.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 1 vote the winner is...
Ducanmichael
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/1/2014 Category: Economics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,561 times Debate No: 43236
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (0)
Votes (1)

 

papayarocx5

Pro

America is constantly sending troops into countries all over the world. The majority of our troops end up in some third world country to "protect and defend," when really they are just spending time away from home for nothing. Because of the large amounts of troops leaving, the spendings have also gone up.

I someone disagrees with me, then lets get this debate going!
Ducanmichael

Con

Yes, even though sending our troop away is using quite an amount of taxes, but we can't stop sending troops to other countries. Why? Simple, we sending troops away not only to fight terrorism, which already help some Middle East countries( in example, Irasel, Afghanistan, etc.) we also sending troop to our allies countries to help and create a better relationship between the US and the rest of the world. Our troops are not only protect security for our friendly nations, they also are the "bridge" for our countries economics around the world. Suddenly stop sending our troops to other countries will destroy our Politic and economic international relationship. Also, with our reputation right now as the "big boss" of the world, if we stop helping smaller countries that is in need, then it will drag our reputation down and with the current economic rates( decreases, national debt increase) we shouldn't destroy the reputation that our fathers have already created, that is why I say yes, we should continue spending money on oversea troops.
Debate Round No. 1
papayarocx5

Pro

I see that our troops are doing some good, but most countries absolutely hate the U.S. We see it as helping, but other countries see it as invasion, and do not like or appreciate it. I am not guessing. I have been out of the country many times, and every time I go somewhere else, if anyone even suspects that I am American, the treatment I am given is horrible, and I am required to explain that I am not all American but that I am also Russian. This is not some information that I received off of the Internet. This is a real life scenario, and it is not one that should be look over and then forgotten.

I will agree that certain countries do need help, but in my opinion if they do not ask us for help, then we need to keep to ourselves. This is not like at school where a person sees someone else fall in the hall, and goes to help them pick up their books. That unasked for help is ok. The so called "help" that we are providing is not ok. It is a reason to go to another country and do absolutely nothing, then come back here, and claim that we are the greatest, and that we are protecting the world.
Ducanmichael

Con

I agree that sometime, America does has her bad reputation around the world, but we can't stop sending our troops just because of a group of people 's opinion. If reveal your true nationality would endanger your life, then you absolutely has the right to lie about it, but that is just an extreme group you met. Before saying any further, I believe that even the US can't send their army to a country without the government permission first. It goes both way, first the President need to ask the Congress to declare war or sending troops to any country in a long term situation. If the Congress agree( which mean the representatives and senates that we vote for have say yes, so technically most of Americans agree to send our troops away. After that, we must ask the other country's ambassador, if they have one in the US, or send a representative( not a congressman, more like a person whom represent the US internationally, like United State Ambassador to the United Nation to ask the other country government can we send our troop or not. Now if we already ask the government of the other country and they accepted, then that mean the majority of their people accepted too. In fact, if you go to defense.gov and search for US Marine in Japan, they will tell you about how the Us military aid Japan back to their feet after the earthquake. You see after the incident, even the Japan government is "injure". Without the help of the us military, Japan could collapse entirely. Base on defense.gov, the us navy bring in 2millions gallon of fresh water, 189 tons of food and 100 tons of relief supplies. And all of these goods are voluntary come from the US military budget it own, not from the UN, not from the Red Cross. With these actions, we can all see that the US just try her best to help other countries in need, and without a small force on their land. We can't aid them in time. All of these years, the US sacrifice some of it's budget so that other countries may live. If we compare all of this helping action from the US to a threatening action from an extremes group of people that you meet , I think that helping Japan sound more reasonable to care about more than an opinion of that group. And that is why I don't think we should stop sending troops to other allied nations.
Debate Round No. 2
papayarocx5

Pro

Yes, I see my opponents point, but Often times America deliberately creates false reasons to go into other countries, and "save them." In reality they do everything to "save others," or to "Stop war," but if the other countries don't want our help then they don't want it, so let them live without it. It's like if My sister wants help with her homework, I will not force her to get help. If she needs it she will ask someone.
Ducanmichael

Con

Ducanmichael forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
papayarocx5

Pro

As my opponent has forfeited the past round I am not able to post anything for this final rounds.
Ducanmichael

Con

I am sorry for forfeiting the 3rd round of this debate. Because of my tight schedule, I didn't have time to post my argument, but that is no excuse. And because my opponent did not give much thoughts in this round argument because of my forfeit , I will only wrap up my past ideas and won't put any new points into the debate. In conclusion, there are lots reason why we(the US) should continuing sending troops to our Allies nations. But most of them are benefiting for the US relationship with others nations. If we stop sending troops right now, we will obviously have problems with the rest of the world( or at least to our Allies nations whom are currently supported by our troops overseas ). Over the years, our troops around the world did liberated lots of countries (ie. South Korea, Afghanistan, Israel) . With this "domino effect", one day, every countries could be free like the US. Then why shouldn't we let the world be free by continuing sending troops to other countries. My last but not least important points, is that when the US sending troops to a country, allied or not, permanent or not, the US need to signs a legal document with the other nation including agreements from both sides' governments called Status of Force Agreement. In this document, it will included terms that the other nation wants the US troops to uphold during their deployment in the foreign nation(ie. if a US soldier ever did a crime in the foreign country out of the US military facility area, he/she will be judge by that foreign nation's law, not the US). And the Agreement of course has prove that both countries have agree to let US troops station in the other nation's land, and the US of course did not invade the country illegally without the acceptance from the other nation's government. In the end, the act of sending US troops around the world not only help the US, but also help other countries. It is an act of kindness, and obviously not the US forcing nor making false reason just to station their troops into other nation's land. In fact, in the past history, the US never invade or station troops into a country without an Agreement first (you name it, I'll prove it!). And that is why I sincerely think the US should continuing sending troops around the world to help other nations in need.
Debate Round No. 4
No comments have been posted on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by whiteflame 3 years ago
whiteflame
papayarocx5DucanmichaelTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:23 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct goes to Pro because of the forfeit, as does grammar because Con's posts were often difficult to read. However, arguments go to Con. Pro spends the entire debate speaking in generalities, talking about people not liking us in other nations without exploring what that means, never discusses the costs of troop movements (except to briefly mention that costs exist), why we should care about troops spending time away from home, possible death tolls, etc. It's just a blanket annoyance, not a solid case. Meanwhile, I get a much more solid idea of the harms incurred by removal of troops and what it means to foreign relations, as well as to combat operations. I don't fully agree with Con's analysis, but it is easily the best in the debate.