The Instigator
Tylo
Con (against)
Winning
4 Points
The Contender
Raymond_Reddington
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points

American Isolation

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 4 votes the winner is...
Tylo
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/16/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 998 times Debate No: 56698
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (0)
Votes (4)

 

Tylo

Con

My argument is that America should choose not to intervene in global politics and that by doing so hurts itself. This is my first debate so if I am doing something wrong please tell me.

Point 1 Different Cultures
It is merely impossible for the average American politician to put themselves in the shoes of a Iraqi or Iranian. They have beliefs and desires that we cannot understand because we grew up in a Western Civilization. Forcing democracy and our culture onto people we share nothing in common with hardly ever works and in alot of cases ends in disaster. If you want a good example, there is a book called Massacre at El Mozote that chronicles Americas role in the El Salvador (wikipedia page for those who do not know what I'm talking about is http://en.wikipedia.org...). A modern day example would be Libya (http://www.theblaze.com...), where America supported rebels that turned up being just as violent and unreasonable as the dictator Gaddafi.

Point 2 Economics
The fact of the matter is that now and days, multi-national corporations hold huge amounts of weight when it comes to the politics of America. "To big to fail" is a term constantly tossed around by politicians while they have no allegiances to the American people. This means that American industries are moving overseas because companies want the cheaper labor and these politicians are not stopping them. The American people do not trust banks, as shown by a recent Gallup poll (http://www.gallup.com...) and the government is ignoring the wishes of the people by continuing to pander to them.

Point 3 Military Spending
My family has a ton of history in the military, my dad and granddad were in the Air Force and my uncle was in the Marines, and let me start this argument by saying I am all for veterans rights because they are the reason we in America live very comfortable lives. However, the military needs to be shrunk and we should stop being the worlds police force. 20% of our budget goes to defense while veterans get 7%, education gets 2% and science gets 2% as well ( http://www.washingtonpost.com...).

I'll end my opening with the wise words of president Eisenhower and pay careful attention to 4:50:
https://www.youtube.com...
Raymond_Reddington

Pro

Since I am Pro in this debate I am arguing in favor of American Isolation and my opponent is against it. My opponent has argued for my side instead though so this debate is basically over already. I will obviously use his arguments to aid my position. The different cultures argument, economic aspect, and military spending all support my position.

I will add that isolationism was the intent of American foreign policy at the founding of our nation. George Washington said "The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible. So far as we have already formed engagements, let them be fulfilled with perfect good faith. Here let us stop. Europe has a set of primary interests which to us have none; or a very remote relation. Hence she must be engaged in frequent controversies, the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns. Hence, therefore, it must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves by artificial ties in the ordinary vicissitudes of her politics, or the ordinary combinations and collisions of her friendships or enmities."
(http://www.pbs.org...)

It seems that both sides are in agreement and Pro isolationism.
Debate Round No. 1
Tylo

Con

"My argument is that America should choose not to intervene in global politics and that by doing so hurts itself."

That was my argument, you can't just agree with me because it is not even a debate then. While American Isolation is the title, it is not a opinion and I was pretty clear with my first statement what I believed in and my stance on the topic.
Raymond_Reddington

Pro

The resolution of this debate is "American Isolation". When you choose Pro or Con that is the side you take in relation to the resolution. For example: If I am Pro in a gun control debate, I am arguing in favor of gun control. If you were con, then you would be arguing against gun control. I understand this is your first debate so for a greater understanding of the rules I recommend you read these to introduction to DDO links: (http://www.debate.org...) (http://www.debate.org...) Both contain a lot of helpful information.

As for your argument, I can agree with you because it supports my position in this debate. I understand it makes this less of a debate, but I welcome you to present your counterarguments against American Isolationism. Make sure to address all the points you made in round 1 though.
Debate Round No. 2
Tylo

Con

"a discussion, as of a public question in an assembly, involving opposing viewpoints" (http://dictionary.reference.com...)

You read my argument and choose to debate it. I understand that the title is American Isolationism, but that is not an opinion, it is the topic. I clearly stated in my opening what I was arguing for, you read it, you chose to debate me, and therefore you must oppose my viewpoint or else you have ruined what could have been a very interesting debate topic in my opinion.
Raymond_Reddington

Pro

I completely agree with your definition of debate. It is you who is refusing to argue the side you chose in the debate setup. The chosen topic is also the resolution. Your Pro/Con position in relation to the resolution is what dictates what side you should be arguing to according to the rules. You cannot ignore the Pro/Con setup since it is such an integral part of Debate.org. It is completely up to you whether you argue for or against your own position, but it would be wisest to argue for your position. Your position contradicts the setup and rules of Debate.org and is untenable.
Debate Round No. 3
Tylo

Con

So if I create a new debate, change myself to pro, will you be willing to debate me?
Raymond_Reddington

Pro

I accepted this debate because I believe American Isolationism is the wisest option. I'm all for playing devil's advocate but I see being Con in this argument as an untenable position. I encourage you to propose this debate again though with yourself as Pro.
Debate Round No. 4
Tylo

Con

Have a good day
Raymond_Reddington

Pro

You as well. I wish you many exciting debates on this website. I apologize for the mixup on this one.
Debate Round No. 5
No comments have been posted on this debate.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by doomswatter 2 years ago
doomswatter
TyloRaymond_ReddingtonTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: The debate title is not necessarily the resolution. It can also be a topic, as stated in one of Raymond's sources. That's why it's important to read the opening for resolution clarification. This one could have been sniped only if Tylo had not clearly stated, "My argument is..." in R1.
Vote Placed by Ajab 2 years ago
Ajab
TyloRaymond_ReddingtonTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: It happens it would have been better if Raymond would have informed him.
Vote Placed by Themba 2 years ago
Themba
TyloRaymond_ReddingtonTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: Con's resolution as well as Con's premises are clear, The only thing that was unclear was that Tylo chose to be on Con's side. Pro decided to seize the advantage by noob sniping the Pro/Con point without contesting Con's arguments. This is a misconduct, just like when someone takes a troll debate seriously or vice versa. There is no easy win when the Instigator made conditions and premises that were very clear. Even if it was to be a conduct deduction from Con because Con did not specify Pro/Con position properly, Con said that he was new and he needed help if he did something wrong. Both debaters have an equal amount of responsibility, Con made premises that were clear but he made a mistake about his Pro/Con position(For being new) whereas Pro DID NOT make any premises and decided to snipe Con's mistake. Pro did not fulfill his end of the bargain, Conduct goes to Con.
Vote Placed by ChosenWolff 2 years ago
ChosenWolff
TyloRaymond_ReddingtonTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: I hate to do this, but Con should not of accepted just to tell Tylo his PRO/CON thingy was wrong. The premise is clear to everyone in the audience. Con's points were more or less dropped, but I'll be gracious given that Pro thought he could noob snipe a resolution. I will only vote on conduct.