The Instigator
stephannnnie
Pro (for)
Winning
18 Points
The Contender
rougeagent21
Con (against)
Losing
14 Points

Imperialism is unjust.

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
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: 12/16/2009 Category: Politics
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 5,235 times Debate No: 10484
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (17)
Votes (5)

 

stephannnnie

Pro

Hello friends and neighbors. I am very, very new here. So please, be patient with me as I really have no idea what I am doing.

Round 1: I would like to begin with definitions and explanations of exactly what I would like to be debating about, Imperialism. A topic that I believe has the potential for a fantastic argument.

Imperialism:
1 : imperial government, authority, or system
2 : the policy, practice, or advocacy of extending the power and dominion of a nation especially by direct territorial acquisitions or by gaining indirect control over the political or economic life of other areas; broadly : the extension or imposition of power, authority, or influence[1]

The sources following are purely informative about the topic and it's history. All of witch are very helpful when it comes to a fast lesson.
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://www.michaelparenti.org...
http://www.mtholyoke.edu...

I look forward to a constructive debate.

Regards?
-Steph

[1] http://www.merriam-webster.com...
rougeagent21

Con

My opponent has agreed to use the second definition. I will gladly refute any arguments she decides to post in the next round. Cheers.
Debate Round No. 1
stephannnnie

Pro

I would first like to thank my opponent for accepting what will be my first debate on this site, and wish him the best of luck in his rebuttal.
Let's start off easy.
I have two focal problems with Imperialism that in my opinion are the key factors to this debate. The first being economic injustice. When it comes to economics, Imperialism is absolutely inequitable. An Imperial power with use military or political means to invade a country, take over and deprive them of their resources (example: oil), all while looking for new markets to spin some extra sort of profit, and I do not see why this could be deemed fair for the countries, the citizens and the rights that they have to their land. They will steal from them, and then they will sell to them.
My second problem would be cultural oppression. These actions are justified by dual mandate, the Imperial powers attempt to teach and mold the inferior citizens. Clearly, the dual mandate is just a paraphrase for Westernization. While stripping them of their economic rights, they also force feed these citizens a culture and a language, while the Imperial power disregards the countries traditions.
The core and foundation of an imperialistic empire is expansion by any means necessary. It is because of these reasons that I think Imperialism is unjust.
I look forward to going into more detail in upcoming arguments. Best of luck, opponent.
rougeagent21

Con

I am extremely sorry, but I will not be able to post until the next round. We have had a ton of guests over recently.
Debate Round No. 2
stephannnnie

Pro

stephannnnie forfeited this round.
rougeagent21

Con

rougeagent21 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
stephannnnie

Pro

While you give respectable examples of Imperialism at its best, opponent, let me give examples of a lack of Imperialism where it is needed the most. Hopefully, this will prove to you that Imperialism in the majority of cases has a dual mandate. I know, of course, that this will do nothing for my resolution, as the dual mandate is invariable, but for arguments sake, I will still try and prove my point.

Let's look at a "hypothetic" genocide taking place in Africa. While a war zone type situation is going on in the Middle East simultaneously. People are dying in both countries; things are hard for both groups of citizens. The prosperous under bellies of the Middle East have precious amounts of oil that the super power in question (let's say, the United States) are lacking and in desperate need of. Yet, in Africa, where no finite resources lay, people are still dying, as in the Middle East. Aren't both situations just as serious if we assume that a constant and similar amount of people are dying in both regions? Aren't these citizens lives equal? If Imperialism is as honorable as one would hope, then why would the United States decide to intervene in any way they possibly could; risking their men's lives and insane amounts of money to set up a martial law typesetting, putting their own country at a economic loss, while the citizens of Africa continue to die. Of course, the reason is the oil that is in the Middle East, and the United States need to attain it at all costs. An example of dual mandate; of course, remember, this is all "hypothetic." (;

Irrelevant arguments aside, the idea of Imperialism isn't a question of moral duty, but an issue of intrusion and basically "sticking a nose in other people's business." Under any circumstance, I do not believe that it is tolerable for a country to invade another under Imperialistic pretences. Moral duty and ethic obligation hold no contest to written and enforced laws and boundaries. They are set up for a reason. To disregard them even with the best intentions would be a breach to that countries freedom and authority other their citizens.

Moral believes have nothing to do with the root motive of the idea of Imperialism. It is their country, and essentially, their business.
rougeagent21

Con

rougeagent21 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
17 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by stephannnnie 7 years ago
stephannnnie
Thank you for dealing with my ammature little deabte, here. I learned a lot, and my next debate will be a lot better, with no irrelevent arguments next time.

Thanks for a good learning experience.
Posted by rougeagent21 7 years ago
rougeagent21
I suppose I do have this bad habit of accepting debates when I can't stay on schedule. I'm really disappointed I couldn't put more time into this one, it looked so tempting :D
Posted by rougeagent21 7 years ago
rougeagent21
B/A -Tied
Conduct -PRO
Spelling/Grammar -CON "All of witch are very..."
Arguments -CON
Sources -Tied
Posted by mongeese 7 years ago
mongeese
Rouge, it seems that you always have guests over or something.
Posted by rougeagent21 7 years ago
rougeagent21
Ah, I missed it. I would pose a short closing argument if the voters will consider it.

My opponent does not at all address my observation on her burden of proof. Even in her last argument, she has not upheld her burden. (She even disregards her own preceding arguments "Irrelevant arguments aside, the idea of Imperialism isn't a question of moral duty, but an issue of intrusion and basically "sticking a nose in other people's business.") I would urge a negative ballot on the solely reason that my opponent has not fulfilled the role of the affirmative. (While I realize that I have had a pretty pathetic showing myself.)

Sorry for my absences, I appreciate my opponent's understanding. Good job stephannnnie :)
Posted by stephannnnie 7 years ago
stephannnnie
No worries.
Posted by rougeagent21 7 years ago
rougeagent21
Glad to hear it. Sorry about my abscence.
Posted by stephannnnie 7 years ago
stephannnnie
Nice arguments, opponent.
I will post in round 4.
Posted by rougeagent21 7 years ago
rougeagent21
Well, here go a few, rather brief arguments.

Note that under the resolution, my opponent has the burden of proof to show that imperialism is invariably unjust. If I can provide an example of just imperialism, I will have disproved the invariable resolution, and fulfilled the role of the negative. I will start with this, and then move on to further debunk m opponent's case.

Imagine for a minute this realistic scenario. A country (say, Iraq) is currently murdering portions of its citizenry for completely unjustified reasons. Another country (say, the United States) wants Iraq to stop. The US could use economic sanctions in an effort to stop the murdering. Is the US acting imperialistically? Yes sir. Is the US justified? Yes. Why? The US is justified because they are doing the morally correct deed.

My opponent's entire case consists of examples where Imperialism is stretched beyond its definition. Imperialism is turned into direct persecution of indigenous peoples. The imperialist mindset is not that of wiping out entire regions, but of extending influence to those regions that all may prosper. Please disregard my opponent;s examples as she takes imperialism far beyond its actual meaning.

Even if you consider my opponent's examples, I have still given evidence that imperialism can be justified. Therefore, I propose a negative ballot. Thank you.
Posted by rougeagent21 7 years ago
rougeagent21
Yup. Sorry.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by rougeagent21 7 years ago
rougeagent21
stephannnnierougeagent21Tied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:16 
Vote Placed by Johnny_Canuck 7 years ago
Johnny_Canuck
stephannnnierougeagent21Tied
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:60 
Vote Placed by wjmelements 7 years ago
wjmelements
stephannnnierougeagent21Tied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:41 
Vote Placed by TFranklin62 7 years ago
TFranklin62
stephannnnierougeagent21Tied
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 stephannnnie 7 years ago
stephannnnie
stephannnnierougeagent21Tied
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:70