The Instigator
Master_Debater
Con (against)
Losing
7 Points
The Contender
rougeagent21
Pro (for)
Winning
18 Points

Governments must consider the moral implications of their actions when formulating foreign policy

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
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: 4/13/2010 Category: Politics
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,591 times Debate No: 11727
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (6)
Votes (5)

 

Master_Debater

Con

First of all, I'd like to thank whoever it is that accepts this debate for their time and energy; I'm sure it'll be an interesting debate.

I Negate.

I contend that the greatest obligation of any government is to protect the national interest.
Governments are made for the sole purpose of providing protection and economic stability for their citizens. If they ignore this basic obligation than it ceases to be a just government. That concept is best described as the protection of national interest. Felix Oppenheim writes "Given that the national interest is the only standard practically available to statesmen, acting accordingly is to be characterized as rational. The concept of national interest refers to welfare goals of national governments on the international level, such as the preservation of political independence and territorial integrity. The formula of the national interest has become practically synonymous with the formula of national security. Foreign policies in defense of the national interest are to be distinguished from foreign policies aimed at promoting particular interests, or at the spread of some ideology, or at territorial expansion.

I have three arguments as to why protecting the national interest is incompatible with Morality.

A. Governments must make their decisions while impervious to the moral and ethical consequences of their actions, or else their decisions could have catastrophic national security impacts on their country. Oppenheim explains. "Moral advice not to submit to the necessities of survival would be advice to commit national suicide. The state has no right to let its moral disapprobation get in the way of successful political action, itself inspired by the principle of national survival. Being guided by general moral principles in this area easily leads to policies that are irrational from the point of view of the national interest. Acting "morally" at the international level may increase international tension and lead to over-commitment, endangering national security." For example, in Iraq, Saddam Hussein was a murderer and genocidal maniac. So under false pretenses we invaded his country, expecting to be treated as liberators. Instead, we became embroiled in a deadly quagmire that gave Al Qaeda a resurgence and posed a genuine threat to our national security. Our morals have until recently kept us from understanding that the Taliban is not the same thing of Al Qaeda, but rather locals who are extremist but not dangerous to us if we separate them from the true maniacs. But the idea of dealing with any part of the Taliban kept us from utilizing this information.
B. Attempting to apply morals to the foreign policy of a nation would require a military and diplomatic strength the likes of which this world has never seen. There are atrocities being committed everywhere all the time. Morality would ask that we invade North Korea, where their leaders are literally starving them to death. To invade Sudan and the Darfur, where mass genocide is being committed by these people's own government. To be punishing Saudi Arabia and all other Middle Eastern countries that force women to where Burkahs. The number of countries that are committing some kind of Human Rights violation is gigantic, and begins with ourselves, and with the torture of terrorists. I again quote Oppenheim. "It is pointless to urge governments on moral grounds to disregard the national interest for the sake of other goals. Some would say that "Looked at from the moral point of view, it cannot be right for one nation to allow the people of another nation to become the . . . victims of its own government." But the moral point of view simply does not apply to such an ineligible goal. Complying with this kind of injunction might involve a nation in confrontations all over the world. No country, no matter how powerful, can afford to take on the role of global policeman. When [the goals of preventing human rights violations and protecting the national interest conflict], efforts at protecting human rights abroad would be, not morally right, but politically impossible, however much we may deplore that the United States cannot aim at securing human rights in North Korea or Darfur."

C. Finally, following a moral code implies that there is a universal morality that we all must follow, which is blatantly false. As I pointed out in my second argument, the moral codes of Saudi Arabia are vastly different than those of my native United States. if we are to survive in a nuclear world, we need to get past these differences in our moral code, or at the very least do not attempt to impose your own upon another. Speaking for myself personally, if anyone attempted to impose sh'ria law on the United States, I'd do everything in my power to stop them. And even this argument assumes we could find a universal morality within a nation! The United States is split into a two party system precisely because that is not the case. My moral code is vastly different than that of an evangelical, and we both consider ourselves to be morally superior. So in this argument I have proved you cannot have a universal Morality at a global level or even at a national level, but when you really think about it, there are rarely universal moral rules that guide even an individual. For Example, I believe killing is wrong, but if I was faced with the age old dilemma of killing one man to save many, I'd kill him. My point being, many of us have exceptions to even our most basic moral principles. How could we expect nations, which represent millions, or in some case billions, of individuals who can't even make up their own minds on moral truths, to somehow reflect a moral code representative of their people?

So in closing, Government's greatest obligation is to the protection of its citizens, and everything else must be secondary to that. I have proved why morality and the national interest are entirely incompatible, and how impractical it is to even consider the possibility of a universal moral code.

I look forward to a response, and have no doubt that this will lead to a fascinating exchange.

Brian Bruzzo.
rougeagent21

Pro

Greetings, all. I thank my opponent for this interesting topic, and hope to have a lot of fun with it. Before I begin, I would like to clarify a few things about the debate.

First of all, we have not yet defined what government we are talking about. Are we referring to the US's government? Germany's government? Cuba's government? My opponent does refer to a "just government" in his arguments, and argues that we must uphold the national interest in order to be a just government. Therefore, until further notice, I will argue that a just government is one that upholds the national interest AND considers morality. (As opposed to simply upholding the national interest via my opponent's arguments)

My opponent argues that protecting the national interest is incompatible with morality. This is false. I will show you during my attacks on his case.

===============
CON's "A." Contention
===============

My opponent makes the fallacious argument that morality and national security are mutually exclusive events. It is completely plausible to protect one's self while remaining morally correct. Consider the US's missile defense system. We have warned all other countries that they must be cleared to travel into our airspace, or else we will shoot them down. Are we protecting national security? Certainly. Are we being morally correct? Yes. We are holding our ground while refraining from engaging in morally incorrect activities. This is completely justified.

My opponent would also do well to realize that the United States' invasion of Iraq was not the event that has spawned major attacks on the US. We did not invade Iraq until two years after the attacks on September 11, 2001.

==============
Con's "B." Contention
==============

It seems that my opponent is quite fond of his friend Oppenheim. However, both of them fall on false pretenses. They both assume that considering morality excludes the national interest. I am not arguing that the US should drop all of its national security goals in the goal of reaching morality, I am arguing that the US can protect its national security WHILE considering morality in its foreign policy. For example, economic sanctions have caused the deaths of millions around the globe. In Iraq, hundreds of thousands of children deaths have occurred as a result of recent foreign policy actions. I argue that more targeted sanctions should be used, upholding the national interest AND considering morality.

The last time I checked, the US is considered the world's policeman ever since Theodore Roosevelt and the progressives. We have only been attacked on our soil one major time since, and have been quite effective at implementing peace elsewhere. Oppenheim's statement is false.

===============
CON's "C." Contention
===============

My opponent's opening premise to this argument is false. While I believe that there is a universal code of morality, I will not even need to use it in this debate. This is due to the fact that government is morality, according to its nation. The US government decides morality for the US, and the Cuban government decides what morality is for Cubans. What is a government but an agent of its societal members? Government implements laws and policies, and thus defines morality. Since the government represents the people, it acts as morality for the people. Therefore, morality is in the national interest because morality IS the national interest, the interest of society's members. The US is not going to stand by as, say, a Triad gang commits heinous crimes on US soil, because the US decides what is moral on US soil. Likewise, the US will try to assist those countries oppressed by Communism under the Truman Doctrine because the US has deemed Communism immoral. With that in mind, morality is in the national interest. The affirmative rests.
Debate Round No. 1
Master_Debater

Con

I'll do away with the opening statement, except to say that my opponent made a vital concession in admitting that we we ought look to preserving the national interest. This narrows my burden for the round to simply proving that such a pursuit is incompatible with looking to morality. If I meet this burden, I win the round.

A. My opponent's arguments do not accurately respond to the point I was making; for example, the policy we have regarding our airspace may be the "moral" solution, but that morality is purely by accident; it also happens to be the most cold heartedly rational course of action as well. A government that did not consider morality would arrive at the same policy as one that did in this situation, and thus is non-unique.
His second point attacks a particular example and thus you cannot view this as a referendum on the argument itself. Nonetheless, I'll refute it.

I was not trying to infer that the war in Iraq caused 9/11; I would have to have been in a coma for the last decade to get my time line that mixed up! However, I do believe that the war in Iraq was instigated primarily on moral grounds, and that this war proved an effective tool for Al Qaeda in regards to enlistment and the benevolence of the population at large. It has taken us eight years, and we are still not back to where we were militarily against Al Qaeda and the Taliban before our invasion. Thus, these moral acts had major national security ramifications.

B. My opponents primary refutation against my second point is to point to the moral problems created by the policies I refer to. I believe that the United States Government has an obligation to its citizens and its citizens only; if broader sanctions will be more effective in preserving the national interest, than we ought use them. I concede that in the event that two different actions produce the same effect on our national interest, then in the absence of another measurement, we can look to the one that is more moral. In the cases mentioned by my opponent, the United States clearly believes that the best way to uphold the national interest is to use broader sanctions. Thus, they have the right to use them. Also, I find it interesting that my opponent chose to point out the humanitarian crisis created by the war in Iraq (which he conceded through silence was caused by a feeling of moral duty); I had not really considered the possibility that trying to be moral could lead to moral problems, but I suppose he's right!

My opponent makes one other argument here that I find interesting. He states that we are the "world's policeman." This is exactly the kind of thinking that I am attempting to dispel with my arguments. He doesn't really back up this idea that we should be the world's policemen, so I will have to infer his reasoning. The most common reason I have heard can best be summed up by the famous quote from the Marvel Comic Strips: "with great power comes great responsibility." People say that as the world's hegemon, it is our duty to protect freedom and democracy everywhere. This claim is patently false. Perhaps the original statement is true, but I'd say the government's greatest power is that which is invested in it by the people who elected them; they have an obligation, a contractual obligation at the very least, to uphold the best interests of these people before all others. We received a reputation for standing up for the little guy and protecting democracy because of the Truman doctrine, and that policy ended up getting us embroiled in the Vietnam war as well as the Korean war, and we still have troops patrolling the Korean Border to this day. Why should it be our job to clean up other people's messes? We succeeded in establishing a democracy, and it's not our fault that others haven't. The only reason the United States should interfere militarily in the world is to protect the national interest, for example: stopping nuclear proliferation, or stopping Al Qaeda.

C. This is a very interesting argument, and when I first read it I thought I'd been beaten. However upon re-reading it I found a few flaws in my opponents thinking that take this argument apart.
Firstly, It does not actually address the argument I was making in contention C. My entire argument is that there cannot be a universal morality, and while he apparently disagrees, it is entirely necessary for him to address that point in order to win the debate. While that argument might eliminate my points about individual morality, it certainly does not address my argument that different nations have different moral codes; if anything it supercharges it. While this does not decrease the validity of the argument, it means that Contention C is not responded to, and, as the debate adage goes, "silence is concession," which therefore means that Contention C becomes clear way to vote con in the round.
But now I will respond to my opponent's argument substantively. Essentially, as I understand it, he states that the government is elected to represent their people's collective morality. This is quite frankly not accurate. To use the United States as a particularly mild example, there are deep-seated and powerful divisions on ethics that will most likely never be decided, and that cut the country more or less in half. This means that in 2004, While our president may have represented me officially, he was not in any way representative of my moral views. And in fact, the kind of thinking my opponent is advising has lead to many moral catastrophes; South Africa's free, democratic elections brought in an era of Apartheid whose repercussion are being felt to this day. In our home country, these moral divisions lead to the university riots during the Vietnam war that killed so many of this country's most promising. Pretty much any civil war in the history of the planet is proof that a government does not reflect all of its constituents' moral codes. These are not problems I can claim to solve through my plan of preserving the national interest (or at least not entirely). But they do speak to the fact that morality is most definitely not universal and thus it is entirely impossible that a government can accurately reflect the differing views of its constituents.

Secondly, the reason that "The US is not going to stand by as ..… a Triad gang commits heinous crimes on US soil" is hardly even a moral question. This Triad gang would be harming American citizens, destroying American property. It would clearly be in the national interest to keep such a thing from happening.
Funnily enough, I already talked about the Truman doctrine and explained why it was invalid. Secondly, the idea that we were fighting communism because it was immoral is preposterous. The United states has shown a remarkable ability to ignore moral repugnance. Indeed, we were close allies with the Soviets while they were helping us to destroy the Nazi Army. The reason we fought their influence was because their policies of subversion clearly intended to entangle the entire world, including the United States, in communist dictatorships, satellites orbiting Mother Russia. Combine that with the fact that they had nukes, and morality never entered the question. Do I even need to mention why falling to Communism would be against the national interest?

So to conclude, my contentions A and C are so mishandled as to allow me to characterize them as conceded points. I have conclusively proved that considering morality in foreign policy would lead to national security crises, is logistically impossible to uphold as a policy, is incompatible with preserving the national interest, and finally that the entire question makes the fallacious assumption that a universal morality can exist. With that, it is safe to say that I have proved my point beyond the shadow of a doubt. The negative rests.
rougeagent21

Pro

OPENING STATEMENT.

I'd prefer that my statements not be "done away with" as I try to make everything pertinent to the round. Thank you.

Of course I realize that the national interest ought to be preserved. If a nation does not seek the national interest, then it is not fulfilling its duty. A government by the people ceases to be by the people when it does not act as if the people themselves were not in its stead.

A. I believe I did accurately attack this argument. His whole argument was about how morality and the national interest are mutually exclusive. I addressed this.

I would like to see what airspace policy my opponent is referring to. Please provide a source.

Examples support the argument. Having said that, I will defend my example.
First of all, Al Quaeda was based in Afghanistan, Sudan, and Fatwas at the time of the September 11 attacks. We were not in Iraq at that time. Secondly, we did not even enter Iraq until 2003! To say that the attacks were morally based would be a statement of complete obliviousness. "We fought you because we are free ... and want to regain freedom for our nation. As you undermine our security we undermine yours," Bin Laden said. However, we had not touched Afghanistan's security! Israel had had some run-ins with Lebanon in arguments about borders and such, but the US only supported her ally. We did not violate Al-Quaeda's security. Even if we had, my opponent;s only options are to admit that we did right, or to claim that the 9/11 attacks were justified. One of these seems logical.

B. I concede that the US has an obligation to its citizens FIRST. However, our planet is infested with humans, even with those outside of the US. We cannot ignore their rights. We can either start acting like it, or remove the words "freedom and justice for all" from our pledge. I do not think my opponent wishes to justify the deaths of over 500,000 Iraqi children over economic benefits. However, if he truly wishes to do so, please state that next round clearly.

"Also, I find it interesting that my opponent chose to point out the humanitarian crisis created by the war in Iraq (which he conceded through silence was caused by a feeling of moral duty); I had not really considered the possibility that trying to be moral could lead to moral problems, but I suppose he's right!"

I concede nothing through silence, only through speech. I was obviously not silent in my last argument. Refrain from putting words in my mouth if you please.
For my opponent;s information, the invasion of Iraq was in the nation's interest. It was done for retaliation and for atomic security. (Whether or not those atomic reasons were justified have yet to be determined) Both of these provide for the national defense, and thus protect the national interest. THIS IS WHAT MY OPPONENT IS SAYING WE NEED TO PROTECT. Moral duty was not the driving factor. Secondly, it was in trying to protect the national interest that these atrocities occurred. The sanctions were not acts of war, but of economics. Protecting our interests brought death the hundreds of thousands.

Really, the main backing I had for my reasoning about the world's policeman was the Truman doctrine. As previously stated, a government is but an agent of its members. Therefore, a just government's actions are in the national interest by definition, whether or not my opponent agrees with it. The Truman doctrine is still in effect, by the way. (To be followed by Eisenhower's policy of "massive retaliation")

C. My opponent seems to misunderstand my arguments here. I need not address a universal code of morality. I only need to address morality as it pertains to government. Now, my opponent's only real attack on my argument is that there are divisions in views of morality in the US government. (Amongst others) This is completely true, and thus I agree. I am not saying that everyone in the US will eventually sing Kumbaya and hold hands and agree on morality. I am saying that a JUST government represents the morality of a nation collectively. That being the case, a nation's morality is decided by the government, and thus is the national interest. (Since a just government acts in its member's interests)

I would hardly call US citizens "property." 1860s anyone? Last time I checked, millions of deaths due to nukes have MAJOR moral implications. Last time I checked, 6 million Jewish deaths have MAJOR moral implications. I am in no way justifying Stalin and his administration for their nefarious crimes, but I am saying that the US sided with what we had believed to be the lesser of two evils. That is not debated. In addition, the US had deemed Communism immoral. It violated our inalienable human rights, and thus violated morality. Therefore, our actions against communism were not only in the national interest, but in the interest of morality. All of these issues affect both morality and the national interest. My opponent only likes to point out how it applies to the national interest.

I believe I have refuted all current points. I ask the voters to consider how morality and the national interest are both affected by a government's actions, and how both ought to be considered. Thank you.

http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 2
Master_Debater

Con

By doing away with the opening statement, I mostly meant the formalities we'd been putting at the top. I accept his parameters for the kind of government we should look to as being valid.
Contention A. My opponent attempts to defend his example of the United States policy of warning and then destroying unidentified aircraft as being an example of morality being used in our foreign policy. I'm a little confused as to why he asks me to cite a source here; I was responding to his example, not coming up with one of my own. But I will reiterate my response to this example. Our policy of protecting our airspace makes perfect logical sense. For reasons shown clearly in the 9/11 attacks, we have to watch our airspace closely. It also would not make any sense to shoot down planes without warning; that would lead to dead civilians and be harmful to US interests. Thus, this strategy employed by the American Military is the rational option, one that could be devised using reasoning completely devoid of morality.
My opponent misconstrues my argument about why we invaded Iraq. I was not contending that we invaded Iraq because of 9/11, although the anger the American public felt made it an easier sell that the war would have been otherwise. Let me quote my original case: "For example, in Iraq, Saddam Hussein was a murderer and genocidal maniac. So under false pretenses we invaded his country, expecting to be treated as liberators. Instead, we became embroiled in a deadly quagmire that gave Al Qaeda resurgence and posed a genuine threat to our national security." That is the rationale I believe the Bush Administration was following when it went to war.
My opponent then goes on to quote Osama Bin Laden, but misconstrues the original meaning of this line. Bin Laden is not an Afghan; he is in fact obscure Saudi Arabian royalty (a family that obviously no longer supports him). The country he was referring to was not Afghanistan as my opponent alleges but rather Saudi Arabia, who makes significant portions of its GDP from oil sales to the United States. Indeed, one of Bin Laden's founding principles in the creation of Al Qaeda was the removal of U.S. bases from Saudi Arabia. This quote has been taken out of context and does not really pertain to the round.
But I think the basic point of my contention is being lost in the argument over specific examples. I contend that if we try to follow a moral code, it will lead to national security impacts of large proportions, because any time you take into account factors other than military capability and absolute necessity for national survival, you run the risk of over extending your military and being inefficient at achieving your goals. This is a problem the United States is suffering from now.
Contention B. My opponent appears to contend that sanctions looking after the national interest killed 500,000 Iraqi children, and that if I support looking to the national interest first and foremost I have their blood on my hands. This is not the case. If you look at the timeline, we put sanctions (presumably the ones my opponent is referring to as it is the only time we have ever sanctioned Iraq) directly after the Persian Gulf War, in which the Iraqi military was crushed into oblivion by American and NATO forces. The affect this had on the Iraqi economy was profound. Combined with the fact that Saddam is a Genocidal maniac who took what supplies Iraq still had and kept them to himself. Thus there is no way to know how many deaths were actually caused by sanctions, but it is certainly less than the figure he just read to you.
Sorry: silence is concession is a debate term that I did not explain thoroughly enough. I'll concede that you did not concede anything.
"It was done for retaliation and for atomic security. (Whether or not those atomic reasons were justified have yet to be determined)"
This is exactly the kind of thinking I would like to dispel. It was done for neither retaliation nor atomic security. It is quite clear today if you research the issue that Saddam Hussein, while a bad guy, had absolutely no connection to Bin Laden and Al Qaeda. There was nothing to retaliate for. And as my opponent pointed out earlier, if it was for retaliation, why attack in 2003? His second argument is equally false. I would like to first point out that it is now an absolute fact that Hussein DID NOT have nuclear weapons; we have had total control of that country for seven years now and have found absolutely no WMDs. The only question that remains is whether or not the Bush administration knew at the time that there would be no nukes. "On Sept. 18, 2002, CIA director George Tenet briefed President Bush in the Oval Office on top-secret intelligence that Saddam Hussein did not have weapons of mass destruction. Bush dismissed as worthless this information from the Iraqi foreign minister, a member of Saddam's inner circle, although it turned out to be accurate in every detail. Tenet never brought it up again …. The war in Iraq was coming, and they were looking for intelligence to fit into the policy, to justify the policy." A quote from Salon.com.
My opponent cites the Truman Doctrine as proof we are the world police. I'd like to point out the conflicts that the Truman Doctrine has gotten us into: namely Vietnam and Korea. Thousands upon thousands of Americans dying in wars that we really have no stake in. Yes, we may be the world's police, but we certainly shouldn't be. He also includes a line that the government is but an agent of its members. Absent any polling information, I'm not sure how that applies.
Contention C. Normally I would say why his argument about the government representing a collective is false, but I can't do that and still fit inside the 8,000 character limit. However, I don't need to. My original argument is simply that different views of morality causes conflicts we could otherwise avoid. This is still true even if a nation represents its people's morality. As I pointed out originally, the morality of the people of Saudi Arabia is vastly different from that of America. Morally, it is not out of the question that we may feel obligated to free their women from the persecution they endure; not being able to drive cars, wear clothing other than burkahs, etc. Obviously, any kind of tension with Saudi Arabia, who we depend on for the majority of our oil supply, would be against the national interest. The same is true of Countries in Africa, or Asia, or even Eastern European countries. Moral codes vary, and cultural differences have all too often lead to war. If we were to operate using simple logic instead of the biases associated with our culture, this problem would largely disappear.
The claim that I referred to American citizens (or any humans for that matter) as property is blatantly untrue. The line I assume he gets that from is meant to be read as "harming American citizens AND destroying American property." I would not call humans property, that is obviously not acceptable.
My opponent then said that we sided with the lesser of two evils when it came to Hitler and Stalin. This is not entirely true. We made peace with Stalin because we wanted to win WWII, and couldn't without his help. Now, the moral thing to do would be to turn down the help of a man as evil and murderous as Stalin, but that would have lost us the war. We made the practical decision, not the moral one. And our eventual opposition to Communism was in large part about protecting the human rights of Americans. That is what the whole Cold War was about. We didn't want to become a Russian satellite, and our citizens would lose all of the benefits that were associated with capitalism. The only time morality entered the equation, the way it seems to me, was in our decision to protect democracy in strategically unimportant areas, such as Korea and Vietnam. This turned out to be a mistake. Thus, the Cold War backs up by assertions. The Negative Rest
rougeagent21

Pro

==========
Contention A
==========

My opponent says we are getting too tangled in specific examples here, and that we are losing the origins of the argument. I really don't see how the original argument has any bearings without supporting examples, but I will grant my opponent's request and drop the examples. Voters, please decide for yourselves given the arguments your verdict on my opponent's argument: "I contend that if we try to follow a moral code, it will lead to national security impacts of large proportions, because any time you take into account factors other than military capability and absolute necessity for national survival, you run the risk of over extending your military and being inefficient at achieving your goals. Is it possible to achieve national policy goals AND be moral? It seems like an easy "yes," but please decide for yourselves.

==========
Contention B
==========

Please do not take my statistics the wrong way, I am not putting blood on your hands. My opponent clearly was not the one who sanctioned Iraq. However, the sanctioning policies were immoral. First of all, let me remind you that this death toll consists of the deaths thought to have been caused by the sanctions, and do not include the normal death rate. Secondly, the sanctions killed the Iraqis BECAUSE Saddam is a "Genocidal maniac" who horded the remaining supplies. Due to the US cutting off supplies, the little remaining resources were kept for the dictator, and thus hundreds of thousands died. This does not seem to achieve morality OR national policy. (Of saving face in the global realm)

In addition, the annihilation of the Iraqi army was not the cause of the economic collapse. If anything, it aided the economy. Thousands of paychecks did not have to be paid, and food rations were kept for the home front. Clearly it was the sanctions that acted immorally.

No connection to Al Qaeda? The last time I checked, housing insurgents counts as a connection. Some of the main terrorist camps were in Iraq prior to the US invasion.

Truman Doctrine-World Police?
While my opponent does not agree with our status as policeman, he concedes that we are. I see the need to further clarify the "agent of its members" idea. A just government is made of the members of its society, and represents said society. (Thus, an agent of its members) The government must act according to its members' wishes, or it ceases to be just. Therefore, a just government's actions are in the national interest, and thus uphold national policy and morality.

==========
Contention C
==========

My opponent throws up a few straw men during his defense here. Noting the resolution, the affirmative is not arguing that a government must act according to morally, but simply that it must consider morality in its actions. I am not advocating a policy where we "free the women" of Saudi Arabia.

My opponent still fails to realize the moral implications of our dealings with Stalin. Practical or not, we supported morality by ending the killing sooner. Had we gone against Stalin, more soldiers on both sides would have died, AND he would have kept slaying his own citizens. This route is less moral than the first because while we would be rebuking Stalin's actions, the real-world effects would be more devastating and immoral.

Wrapping up, I would like to point our attention back to the resolution. The affirmative advocates for moral responsibility in foreign policy actions. The negative advocates practicality. Note that the affirmative still acts practically, but CONSIDERS the moral implications of its actions. Seeing as morality when practical seems the better option than practicality regardless of morality, I urge an affirmative vote. Thank you.

http://www.weeklystandard.com...
Debate Round No. 3
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by rougeagent21 7 years ago
rougeagent21
No problemo. I never get offended online. Sorry if I returned fire a bit if you are insulted by that.
Posted by Master_Debater 7 years ago
Master_Debater
I meant to post this paragraph at the top of my last speech, but was unable to due to the 8k character limit. I'll post it here instead:

There was a loss of civility in the last round, which was at least partially my fault. I'd like to apologize to my opponent if I insulted him at all; it was unintentional.
Posted by Master_Debater 7 years ago
Master_Debater
Sorry if my contention C defense got a little confused in this last speech. I was having a hard time putting my ideas down on paper.
Posted by rougeagent21 7 years ago
rougeagent21
Munch.
Posted by Cody_Franklin 7 years ago
Cody_Franklin
Mannnn... If I weren't embroiled in three or four debates already, I would eat this up.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by Anacharsis 6 years ago
Anacharsis
Master_Debaterrougeagent21Tied
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 
Vote Placed by MadSammyboy 7 years ago
MadSammyboy
Master_Debaterrougeagent21Tied
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 Master_Debater 7 years ago
Master_Debater
Master_Debaterrougeagent21Tied
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 sidobagga 7 years ago
sidobagga
Master_Debaterrougeagent21Tied
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:25 
Vote Placed by rougeagent21 7 years ago
rougeagent21
Master_Debaterrougeagent21Tied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04