The Instigator
CJBPrewrather
Pro (for)
The Contender
Inconvenient_Truth
Con (against)

Canadian non interventionism.

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  
Debate Round Forfeited
CJBPrewrather has forfeited round #4.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
00days00hours00minutes00seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/15/2018 Category: Politics
Updated: 6 months ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 177 times Debate No: 106733
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)

 

CJBPrewrather

Pro

I have noticed that Canada is almost never attacked or at war at the same time. I think we should stop policing the world and inviting terrorists to attack us. The nation most at war will be atytacked the most, it's called blowback. Ask Ron Paul what he thinks.
Inconvenient_Truth

Con

Hi CJB, thanks for hosting this debate. I accept and look forward to reading your arguments next round.
Debate Round No. 1
CJBPrewrather

Pro

So let's talk reasons. I have noticed that compared to us, Canada rarely has terrorist attacks and they also rarely go to war. I believe that we should try that, and see if it works. Besides, how can one be prolife and support illegal wars, and the torture that goes with them?
Inconvenient_Truth

Con

First, let's define interventionism:

"The policy or doctrine of intervening, especially government interference in the affairs of another state or in domestic economic affairs." (1)

I understand PRO's premise to be: "The U.S should engage in non-interventionism like Canada". PRO, please correct that if it is incorrect.

The premise cannot possibly be considered truth on the basis that Canada is not a country that engages in non-interventionism. As a country, Canada actually very much engages in the affairs of other states, especially regarding foreign wars. In fact, in comparing lists of wars involving both Canada and the U.S, you'd see that they have very similar resumes, so-to-say. (2) (3) Canada joined the U.S, as well as many other nations, in the following 21st century wars: War against ISIS, Libyan Civil War, and the War in Afghanistan. If we are talking about farther back in history, Canada joined the U.S in the following wars: Bosnian War, Persian Gulf War, Korean War, WWII, the Russian Civil War, and WWI to say only a few.

Involvement in all of these wars proves that Canada is like the U.S in that they involve themselves in the affairs of other states from time to time.

I look forward to rebutting PRO's Round 2 arguments in Round 3.

Thanks!

(1) http://www.dictionary.com...
(2) https://en.wikipedia.org...
(3) https://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 2
CJBPrewrather

Pro

Give this method a try for two terms, and if it does not work, we can go back to your way.
Inconvenient_Truth

Con

CJB, I did not understand your comment from Round 3. Please explain in the comments section.

Since PRO has not provided a rebuttal. I will extend my Round 2 arguments, that we cannot mirror Canadian non-interventionism because Canada is not a country with a non-interventionist foreign policy.

My rebuttal of PRO's round 1 argument:

A) PRO has failed to provide proof that non-interventionism would lead to fewer terrorist attacks.
B) PRO has failed to provide proof that it is possible to be a non-intervention country in modern times (current global politics)
C) PRO's reference to Ron Paul, without proof, amounts to argumentum ad verecundiam.
Debate Round No. 3
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
No comments have been posted on this debate.
This debate has 0 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.