The Instigator
Pro (for)
14 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

Interventionism is Preferable to Isolationism

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 2 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: Select Winner
Started: 8/21/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,821 times Debate No: 78870
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (33)
Votes (2)





This debate concerns the foreign policy of the United States. I will be arguing for the stance that the U.S. should act as the world's "policeman" and be involved in foreign affairs. Con will argue for the military withdrawal of the U.S. and lack of engagement in other countries thereof.


Interventionism - the policy or doctrine of intervening for the purposes of ending conflict, securing human rights, and stabilizing regions of unrest

Preferable - desirable, better

Isolationism - the opposition to any military action that is not in direct response to an attack on U.S. soil and the reluctance to engage in foreign affairs


1. BOP is on Pro.
2. No trolling/semantics/kritiks
3. Voting is on arguments only
4. Con accepts all definitions


First round is for acceptance. No new arguments in the final round (rebuttals that follow from the previous round are allowed). Otherwise, arguments and counter-arguments are free to be used in the discretion of the debater.

Thanks to AdventureExplorer for accepting! I'm hoping this will be a memorable one.


I Accept.

I hope both sides get to make there case in this great debate!

Best of Luck to Pro and Hopefully this becomes a fun and knowledgeable debate :)
Debate Round No. 1


= Case =

Interventionism is necessary for an orderly world.

"You may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you" -Leon Trotsky.

As part of my argument in this debate, I will show that if a massive world power known as the U.S. decides to become isolationist, the world will erupt in conflict. Without a policeman, criminals will roam free, doing damage that otherwise not be done without some authority that is needed. to stop them. My case is analogous to bullies on a playground: without any adult supervision, some kids will gradually come up and start bullying others. Similarly, without the help of the U.S., predator nations and organizations will form that will terrorize others, as has been shown in history countless times. For the U.S., pacifism is the greatest cause of conflict.

In this view of foreign policy, the country necessary for global order would need an outlook that is (1) committed to global security, (2) has military forces adequate to meet those commitments, (3) is willing to intervene in regional crises to protect allies and (4) is ready to confront or deter aggressive regimes. There is simply no other way to achieve global security and orderliness than by intervening, and a disorderly world is inevitable in the case of isolationism. While not everyone wants to grow up to be a cop, no one wants to live in a neighborhood where there is no cop.

There are many examples from America's reputation and history of intervention that entirely prove my points about global disorder and how better off the world was when America decided to get involved.

The 1930's

This first case will start as a great example of what happened when the U.S. decided to be isolationist and refused to intervene in any conflicts. It was the decade in which Franklin D. Roosevelt declared that "The definite policy of the United States from now on is one opposed to armed intervention"[1]. In that same decade, Japan invaded Manchuria in 1931[2] Italy invaded Ethiopia in 1935[3], and Germany took over Czechoslovakia in 1938[4]. Shortly afterwards, Nazi Germany invaded Poland, and World War II erupted. The Holocaust began and the world grew increasingly chaotic. All of this happened while the U.S. was away and had been taking a break from the world. Because it did, war began to scourge the world and dictators such as Hitler and Stalin tried to fill the gaps where America's presence as policeman was absent. It wasn't until December of 1941 and the bombing of Pearl Harbor that the U.S. finally decided to join the war and end the horrors that were being committed by the imperialist regime of the Nazis. Their war machine was stopped.

Had the U.S. been there and involved in the world in the 20's and especially the 30's, these conflicts could have been prevented or at least reduced so that the causalities were not as great as they were. The idea that "if America leaves the world alone, the world will leave it alone" was ultimately proven false. Unfortunately, that mentality still exists in the minds of some. To add, each of these countries, the invader and well as the invaded, had signed onto the Kellog-Briand Pact[5], which was treaty that outlawed war and reduced arms expenditures. This is an indicator that treaties do not always work in preventing war, because all the involved countries abused it despite signing it. One cannot expect foreign nations to always be honest in their dealings, especially with ones who desire more power, land, and conquest. The U.S. must be there to stop these nations if they get out of hand. The rise of militarism was not ended in the 30's, but it could have been if America acted as they should've.

Middle East

Iraqi Despot

Challenges to global security, threats and acts of terrorism, and possession of nuclear weapons are harmful to not only residents of the Middle East region but a danger to Western democracies. With the rise to power of communist and authoritarian dictators comes the higher possibility of war, genocide, and instability. If the U.S. leaves the Middle East unchecked, the worst will be brought out and dangers will be posed to its good citizens and the rest of the orderly world.

A perfect example of such was Saddam Hussein, the brutal dictator of Iraq for 35 years. His reign was a central threat to peace in the Middle East. He rewarded the families of suicide bombers with $25,000[6], actively harbored terrorists, and started wars (such as the Iran-Iraq war) for his own personal gain and conquest. In fact, "Baghdad actively sponsored terrorist groups, providing safe haven, training, arms, and logistical support, requiring in exchange that the groups carry out operations ordered by Baghdad for Saddam's objectives."[7] This was a serious threat to American security as it could have been the training ground for attackers similar to those that commissioned the events of 9/11. Iraq was a predator nation - one which would go to the extreme to cause terror in other pro-Western civilizations, such as Israel, Europe, America, and even neighboring states like Iran. Worse yet, Saddam possessed Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) which had the potential to eradicate the lives of thousands in a day. As British historian Andrew Roberts concluded in a recent video from studying this issue: "Any war against terror that did NOT involve toppling this brutal dictator who might supply WMD to terrorists for future attacks would have been absurd"[8].

And then there was Hillary Clinton, who justified her 2002 vote in favor of the authorization to use military force in Iraq: "I believe the facts that have brought us to this fateful vote are not in doubt. Saddam Hussein is a tyrant who has tortured and killed his own people, even his own family members, to maintain his iron grip on power. He used chemical weapons on Iraqi Kurds and on Iranians, killing over 20 thousand people. . . . It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security"[9].

Interventionism is most certainly better than isolationism. It is not preferable to allow a mass-murdering dictator who harbors terrorists and threatens the region with WMD, challenging U.S. authority to power and any pro-democratic nations. In an isolationist state, every threat would be ignored. The U.S. would simply retreat from all involvement, concluding that there is no reason to fight enemies and encourage democracy and human rights. There was no reason to doubt that Saddam had WMD, because he had already used it in the Iran-Iraq war of the 80's[10].

Post-Saddam Iraq

On May 20, 2003, the U.S. invaded Iraq, and it proved to be extremely effective. Baghdad was under American control by April 13, and just 8 months later, Saddam was captured and turned over to Iraqi authorities[11], until he was tried and executed. This proved to be not only effective in toppling a brutal and genocidal dictator, it prevented the rise of would-be Saddams. With the U.S. act of low tolerance for flagrant challenges to global order, other countries got the point. Libya's Muammar Gaddafi abandoned his nuclear program just one week after Saddam's arrest[12]. Iran seemed to get the point too: they also halted its nuclear program in 2003[13]. Syria ended its 29-year occupation of Lebanon not long after the invasion in 2005[14].

The occupation of Iraq by U.S. was very beneficial for the country. With America's help, "Iraq would write a new constitution, vindicate the ideals of democracy, create the institutions necessary for a free-market economy, improve women's rights, serve as a role model for other Arab states, tame Shiite and Sunni extremism, bridge sectarian and ethnic differences, and share its oil wealth in an equitable sectarian ratio. Iraq was to become another Japan, transformed from dictatorship to democracy"[15]

The intelligent application of U.S. military force in a counterinsurgency operation proved successful. An estimated 30,000 Iraqis were killed in 2006; by 2009, the number had dropped to less than 5,000 - a decline of more than 80 percent[16]. American causalities also fell from 823 to 149 in the same period[17]. This was a result of the routing of Shiite and Sunni insurgents by a combination of American and Iraqi arms. Intervention, as was shown here, saved the lives of Iraqis and prevented more death that would have been caused by Saddam.

Retreating in 2011 proved to be a mistake. Not long after the withdrawal of all U.S. troops by the order of Obama, the Islamic State (ISIS) would come to power and begin another war machine of death and destruction, and it all came by what I call isolationism.

[15] Stephens, Bret. America in Retreat: The New Isolationism and the Coming Global Disorder. N.p.: n.p., n.d. Print.



In favor for the best interests of the USA and the Globe I will be arguing for Isolationism which Pro has defined as “the opposition to any military action that is not in direct response to an attack on U.S. soil and the reluctance to engage in foreign affairs” I will hold that this means to not involve ourselves militarily in foreign affairs but I will pick up that we should still interact with other nations in terms of economics and diplomacy but rather America should mind its own business and not intervene in other countries with our military. For Example, Under my view we would not invade or support any wars in Mexico but we can still negotiate with them such as in trade agreements, having certain human rights in our laws etc.

“No nation is rich enough to pay for both war and civilization. We must make our choice; we cannot have both”

I will be debunking Pro's claim in the next round.

I will be arguing that US Interventionism has caused more global instability than it has solved. It has created a more greater national security threat to the USA. And if we continue on this path of foreign entanglements we will see the fall of the USA as a great nation.

In my view of foreign policy, diplomacy and cooperation of all nations will be valued higher than war. The USA will end it's overloaded defense budget that is adding more to our debt everyday, We will never intervene in other countries affairs as long as they don't attack us directly on our soil. Most Nations don't pose a threat to the USA the major security issue of the 21st century is terrorism which have no allegiance to any country and are fighting for a purpose through terror. Thus the US Government has launched a nebulous “War on terror” which has cost us trillions of dollars onto our debt. Has destroyed almost all the civil liberty's that this country once enjoyed and have increased peoples hate to America both at home and abroad and has increased terrorist activity. In my world, War will be something Americans don't even think about and I think through the cooperation of other nations we will fulfill George Washington's wishes which was

"My first wish is to see this plague of mankind, war, banished from the earth." -George Washington

Diplomacy and pacifism will be Americas foreign policy, As Martin Luther King showed in order to stand for something you must do it non violently and we go civil rights for Americans not as a result of destroying and intervening in society but through talking with political leaders and demonstrating what we stand for. Diplomacy, Cooperation, and understanding of other nations will lead to a better future for America and for the rest of the world.

Every Superpower that has continued in endless wars has fallen rather because of or part of the reason being to that war.

Romans: Most Historians today now attribute the fall of the roman empire to three things.
1. Military Overspending and trying to maintain all its wars in all parts of the empire which in that period was called “the known world”
2. Political instability and corruption
3. A disastrous economic crisis.

We could see all three happening in America today but since this debate is on foreign policy I will focus on the 1st one. The empire of Rome stretched from Britain to Persia but as rome now had to control and maintain order throughout the known world this unwinnable warfare lead to their demise. Fighting off barbarians in Briton, The Invading Goths and Hun's from Eurasia, and the endless skirmishes and wars with Persia back then called “Parthia”. This created huge amounts of debt for its already unstable economic system, the price of maintaining Europe as a policeman as spread the empires resources thin and thus they were unable to defend themselves from all the wars they were waging they slowly lost their influence and land and lost the wars they had to do since they took it upon themselves to be Europe's Policeman. They also took a hard hit to their overspending and how all these wars halted cultural and technological advancements in Rome which all coming together was a reason why the empire fell and America is looking like being in that dangerous situation.

In the words of Ben Franklin
“Wars are not paid for in wartime, the bill comes later”.

America spends the most money on its defense than the of the following top 14 countries defense spending combined. This overspending on defense and fighting in desert wars in the middle east is BANKEURPING America. As the Romans had a problem with their spending so do we, The cost of war is felt by the losses of Americans in unnecessary wars but the debt the war carries after its over is as bad. Since launching the war on terror and starting the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan has now come to a final bill of 5 Trillion dollars. This type of money wasted away in trying to run other countries affairs is IMMORAL especially when we have problems that need to be solved here at home. In trying to police the world and wiping out anybody who opposes us in the name of having security for its nation, in this chase we are going into bankruptcy

"We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security." -Dwight D. Eisenhower

Wars have come at a cost of our freedoms.

Besides losing our reputation and our money and men and women in wars that we had no business in interfering we have lose something that most American a few decades ago considered to be something that can be never taken away. In times of war governments will impose more oppression onto its people under the banner of fighting some foreign country.

The people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. Tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peace-makers for lack of patriotism and for exposing the country to danger. [Nazi leader Herman Goering]

"No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare. " -James Madison

"A state of war only serves as an excuse for domestic tyranny." -Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

Emergencies' have always been the pretext on which the safeguards of individual liberty have been eroded." -F.A. Hayek

Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety”

Ever since the USA has become the World Leader and started the global war on terror after the 911 attacks, Americans are now left with nothing left of the rights that they were born with. The List of civil rights and liberties that are now gone are long and the reason for this is to make America “safer” and the need for a less free society in order to help combat terrorism. The list of freedom abuses are

  1. NSA Surveillance of its citizens

  2. Warrantless Wiretapping

  3. DATA Collecting

  4. Torture sanctioned by the US Government.

  5. Jailing and Detaining American Citizens without trial or charge

    and so on.

Americas role in policing the world has made us not what America used to be with us always in some sort of war and in trying to make a world a orderly place we have made America an even worse place to be and almost almost the same as the terrorists we are trying to fight. Why do we detest terrorists for torture when we do it? Why do we detest foreign governments for violating freedoms when our government does the same?. If going to war to maintain order in other countries makes us not who we are then I say that interventionism in foreign affairs is not worth it.

I will be arguing that Usa Intervention has caused even more hatred and terrorist's being active toward a militant and interventionist USA but I will argue in detail on this since it rebuts how US Interventionism makes a world a more safer place which was brought up by Pro. But this argument can go both ways and thanks to Limits I will post this next time. I will also bring up how a warmongering USA have made countries all around the world hate us and the vast majorty of those coutnries believing that the USA is the number one threat to world peace.

Due to past Empires falling cause of war, A growing debt crisis , a erosiin of our civil liberties,
USA interventionism being counterproductive and actually detrimental to world stability and a loss of US credibility over in other countries makes a great case for why America needs to mind its own business

"Peace and friendship with all mankind is our wisest policy, and I wish we may be permitted to pursue it." -Thomas Jefferson

"War does not determine who is right - only who is left." - Bertrand Russell

Debate Round No. 2


Those were some interesting points by Con. His Round 2 sources are in the fifteenth comment on this debate.

The Role of World Policeman

As part of his case, Con compared the Roman Empire to the world power of today: the U.S. This is an unfair comparison on many accounts, and it asserts the role of "policeman" as to belonging to the Romans, which is historically incorrect. I will show several reasons as to why America's role in the world is drastically different to the Romans.

1) The Roman Empire was an expansionist state which focused mainly on growing its power and influence rather than helping nearby areas or allies. In fact, the existence of nations and allies as we know them today were drastically different from the foreign affairs of today. At its height, the empire was the most extensive political and social structure in Western civilization, and was responsible for the conquest of a huge portion of Europe including some of Great Britain, all of the north Africa coastline, and a chunk of of the Middle East[1]. In comparison, the United States does not seek to conquer or annex foreign territories. It does not seek to claim rightful control over nations that it invades, nor has it ever done so in recent history, with its involvement in wars in the past. It is nonsensical to compare America with the Romans because of the huge difference in their ideals and goals. The Romans sought to take land and control Europe, while America's foreign policy has always been to stabilize regions of conflict, support its allies against agression with military force if needed, and to topple brutal dictators who attempt to take advantage of their people. The Roman Empire's goals were nowhere near in comparison to what the U.S. currently seeks to accomplish, it being for the good of the world and for its security. In this way it strives to be the police of the world by ending terrorism when and where it becomes awful. The Romans were the complete opposite of policeman - they were barbarians in the sense that their mission was to conquer and to fight wars for the purpose of imperialistic goals. The reason for U.S. involvement in world affairs is not because of conquest, but for bringing security to the world.

2) The fall of the Roman Empire was due, in large part, to barbaric ways of conquest that in no way resembles the U.S. The Romans were not only involved with war all the time, they surrounded themselves with it. The political instability of the Romans, their desire to war with literally everyone that stepped in their way, and their overexpansion all contributed to the fall of the empire, and such reasons for their fall are unheard of in terms of U.S. problems. The role of policeman does not mean to fight with every enemy one has, but to intervene when serious conflict breaks out that can affect the lives of many. If the U.S. was like Rome, it would see itself as justified in an invasion of Cuba to gain more land. Clearly this is not the case, nor ever has been for the U.S.

To add, involvement in foreign affairs with the use of military does not affect the general population as much as Con seems to believe it does. What it means is the deployment of soldiers to other countries to help them out, while affairs inside the U.S. remain normal as they always have been.

Con's portrayal of interventionism is somewhat misleading. He seems to believe that in this view of foreign policy, a superpower must be at war all the time. One can be interventionist in the sense that they are willing and ready to protect their allies of needed, and not necessarily be intervening 24/7. In the first round, I provided four requirements for the U.S. to have if one wishes for an orderly world, two of.which included being committed to global security and being ready and willing to confront or deter aggressive regimes. The nature of such an outlook may mean that invasion is necessary at times, but not something that must happen every single day. In contrast, isolationism is the indifference to global security and aggressive regimes, and the unwillingness to defend the countries that the U.S. has already agreed to do by past treaties[2].


It's no secret that war can be expensive, but ultimately this contention does not win over the preservance of lives, which is oftentimes what invasion is about. My arguments have and will continue to show that intervention is worth it when it is done right. On another note, spending really hasn't been that bad in comparison with other past wars. For example, "compared to past U.S. conflicts, spending on the Iraq war has been relatively small—at its height, spending on WWII helped drive government spending to 42 percent of GDP, according to the Congressional Budget Office. At its height, operations in Iraq cost around 1 percent of GDP."[3]


Con has yet to prove that U.S. reputation has fallen as a result of interventionism. He also must show why other countries' opinions matter and how they hurt the U.S. in any significant way, if they do. This seems like a pretty minor point, and it is not backed up by any evidence. It rests completely on a bare assertion.

Cost of Freedom

A list of freedoms that have been "curtailed" was provided by Con, but he fails to connect any of them to war. How does invading Iraq or Afghanistan lead to NSA surveillance? Con needs to be a lot more clear by showing how using military actually affects this and how these scandals would not exist had we not been interventionist in our policies overseas.

Con claimed to be able to show how interventionism makes countries more unstable but has yet not done so. In my view, this world needs a policeman, and if the U.S. doesn't fill the gap, then others will try to take the reins of control and use it in an inproper way. The case for isolationism does not come close to being as strong for the one that is willing to keep promises on foreign commitments and help the world maintain the order it needs.





I Will be making my last two reasons why the USA should remain isolationist.

Usa Interventionism has caused even more Instability than it has solved.

It was been shown throughout history that as World Powers meddle in other countries affairs this has resulted in a more unstable world and therefore World Policemen who think they know on how to run other countries best have made the world even worse off.

Two Examples which really stand out are the 911 attacks and the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center which were caused by Usa intervention in the Middle East before the full out war on terror.

1993 World Trade Center Bombing.

The 1993 attack on the World Trade Center which injured almost 1000 people and killed 6 was created by Ramzi Yousef who is now arrested and severing life in prison. He made his motives perfectly clear,

"After his capture, Yousef declared that his primary justification for the attack was to punish the U.S. for its support for the Israeli occupation of Palestinian territories and made no mention of any religious motivations."

In Other words our intervention in the Middle east by helping Israel and fighting Palestinian has given this man reason to bomb the World Trade Center in 1993.

He also gave a list of demands after he bombed the Tower

We are, the fifth battalion in the Liberation Army, declare our responsibility for the explosion on the mentioned building. This action was done in response for the American political, economical, and military support to Israel, the state of terrorism, and to the rest of the dictator countries in the region.

Our Demands Are:
1 – Stop all military, economical, and political aid to Israel.
2 – All diplomatic relations with Israel must stop.
3 – Not to interfere with any of the Middle East countries interior affairs.

If our demands are not met, all of our functional groups in the army will continue to execute our missions against the military and civilian targets in and out the United States

911 Attacks

After the attacks of 911 Bin Laden praised the attacks and gave reasons why the bombings were justified which again relate to our meddling in the middle east.

Messages issued by bin Laden after September 11, 2001, praised the attacks, and explained their motivation while denying any involvement. Bin Laden legitimized the attacks by identifying grievances felt by both mainstream and Islamist Muslims, such as the general perception that the U.S. was actively oppressing Muslims.

Bin Laden asserted that America was massacring Muslims in "Palestine, Chechnya, Kashmir and Iraq" and that Muslims should retain the "right to attack in reprisal." He also claimed the 9/11 attacks were not targeted at people, but "America's icons of military and economic power,"


ISIS today is seen as the most deadly terrorist organization in the middle east but it has been shown that ISIS was created from the chaos and anarchy that followed when we toppled the government of Iraq. Granted the Iraq government was not what we wanted it to be but at the very least it maintained order and prevented widespread chaos even though it was not the government we wanted it to be. ISIS was formed by a bunch of Iraq militants took it upon themselves to seize the time when Iraq was now in anarchy by bombing Shia Islamic mosques, civilians, Iraqi government institutions and Italian soldiers partaking in the US-led 'Multi-National Force' and as the war went on they grew stronger and stronger from the on going war and gained more support for its radical views since Americans have been torturing POW and killing civilians via Drone Strike's. While Pro is right that our intervention has destroyed many governments that were flawed he forgets to see that doing all this has made the middle east more unstable and thus more extremists who hate amercia will rise up since they grew up with Americans killing there own countrymen.

No Brainier
It Is a No Brainier to see that while we destroys many peoples home's and countries and kill their family's. and with our Drone use which have killed innocent civilians plus we have committed a few war crimes ourselves, one such example is the torture prisoner abuse scandal in Abu Ghraib. All these outcomes which is from a direct result of the USA using the foreign policy of Intervention have fueled the hatred that people from the Middle East feel toward America which might inspire more terrorist attacks against the USA and its allies and will lead to a more unstable world as more middle eastern countrymen join the radical groups like ISIS and they justify there actions from the results of USA Intervention.

USA Intervention has made us look like a warmongering nation and this has made us loose credibility.

It is no secret that the USA's continued use of the flawed View on Intervention in other countries has made us have a really bad image on the world Stage. A poll was done in 60 countries with about 60,000 people and this International poll has shown that the Number One threat to World Peace is The United States. Yes, The so called most free and democratic nation in the world has now put itself on the world stage as the most major threat to World Peace. Which if we follow Intervention foreign policy then China, or some nation in Europe would be justified in invading America because we need to make a world a "safer place".

RebuttalTo the "Good" effects of Us Intervention in Iraq and going into the middle east in the first place

I Will first debunk the last two points Pro brought up in his case for Intervention.
The Most biggest flaw that Pro makes is that he says that Saddam Hussein possessed Nuclear Weapons and that was why we needed to invade Iraq and Topple his government. His Claim that Iraq had WMD has been false

After the passing of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441, which demanded that Iraq give "immediate, unconditional and active cooperation" with UN and IAEA inspections, Saddam allowed U.N. weapons inspectors led by Hans Blix to return to Iraq. During the renewed inspections beginning in November 2002, Blix found no stockpiles of WMD and noted the "proactive" but not always "immediate" Iraqi cooperation as called for by UN Security Council Resolution 1441."

Here are articles that go into more detail on how Iraq never had any Nuclear Weapons and that was just a tactic the Bush Administration used to justfy the Intervention in Iraq.

I have also shown that ISIS took control of the instability that the USA had created in Iraq and that Us Leaving did not give ISIS the chance to take over again.

Since i have showed that Iraq had no Weapons of Mass destruction and that the 911 attacks were made by a terrorist group who had no connection to Iraq so the entire invasion of the Middle East was based off a lie. What would of happened if the USA would of just minded its own business?

The Middle East might still have its bad governments but it would still have order in the region they might have there tiny fights from time to time but how would this effect the USA? Not one bit.

If Pro says we still need to be in the middle east for Human Rights reasons and that the governments there don't have the best democracy's then by that logic we should be bombing Saudi Arabia, China and Russia which don't have western liberal democracy's like we do but i dont think Pro says we should start World War 3.

A Report from Robert Pape who is a political scientist at the University of Chicago. says

"Each month, there are more suicide terrorists trying to kill Americans and their allies in Afghanistan, Iraq, as well as other Muslim countries than in all the years before 2001combined. From 1980 to 2003, there were 343 suicide attacks around the world and at most 10 percent were anti-American inspired. Since 2004, there have been more than 2,000, over 91 percent against U.S. and allied forces in Afghanistan, Iraq, as well as other countries."

I have shown that Post Iraq is worse off then it was when we invaded it, i have also shown how this war effort has made the world even more unsafe i have also shown how the Middle East posed no threat to the United States the only ones that did were the small bands of terrorist groups who were inspired by Usa Intervention before the war and now thanks to more Intervention we have created even more radical groups against the USA.

I have made my case on why the USA should mind its own business and remain isolationist or else if it does Intervention it will create even more instability and will create the problems I have mentioned before.

I will respond to the World War 2 Example Pro brought up in the next round.

Debate Round No. 3



I will admit that I am not a guy who will always be wanting to enforce a strict round structure in every debate, as I believe my opponent's and I should have a bit of freedom to structure our cases as we please. However, Con has made some framework errors that seem to hurt his side of this debate:

1) Con seems to have been mixing his case with his rebuttal in Round 3, and emphasizing on his own reasons for propelling isolationism with the line "I will be making my last two reasons.." Since I hold the BoP, Con should be working to refute my case more than anything as a fulfillment of my burden would mean an affirmation of the resolution, regardless of any arguments Con makes for his own case.

2) As my case is the biggest obstacle for a Con win, with it attempting to fulfill the BoP, it should have been imperative for my opponent to rebut it all. Instead, he decided to drop my 1930's argument and respond to it in the last round. This is unfair to me as I will be unable to respond to anything that is said about my WWII example, and would have been able to otherwise. This is a big part of my case, so stuffing its response into the last round is hurtful for Con's chances at negating it fully.

Attacks on America

My opponent states that the cause of the separate attacks on the World Trace Center were due to U.S. interventionism. There's issues with this thinking:

1) Con cherry picks two isolated examples of terrorism, and states that they could have been prevented by not being involved in the Middle East. This is naive thinking, because it doesn't take in the bigger picture of terrorism. In Round 2, I showed how the Iraqi dictator encouraged suicide bombers and how Baghdad fostered multiple terrorist organizations that were actively causing terror around them. Intervention in Iraq toppled this brutal dictator and ended up deciding the capitol city, which would lead to the listing of the terrorist hive that was functioning there.

2) The motivation for the attack of the WTC in 1993 was not U.S. interventionism. In Con's first quote, Yousef stated that his justification "for the attack was to punish the U.S. for its support for the Israeli occupation of Palestinian territories". This isn't America's intervention, but rather its mere support for the Israeli state. If Con wants attacks to stop, he should be advocating for the severing of alliances, not interventionism. Even so, the deaths of 6 people are too miniscule for America to go to such drastic measures.

3) This kind of reasoning bends to the will of the terrorists. If the U.S. we're doing something very good which was anti-terrorist in nature, there will be some retaliation. The fact that such retaliation exists doesn't warrant the full withdrawal of such a measure. Con listed demands that Yousef, but I hope that such demands are to be taken into consideration as they are made in the form of bribery.


In Round 2, I showed how intervention and the build-up in Iraq stabilized the region and lowered the death count there. Con, for some reason, assumes that Iraq was in chaos when we toppled Saddam but this is nothing but a bare assertion. I've showed how democracy spread there after we helped them out and how the order there was set into place by the time we had left. He also assumes that the Iraqi government, which encouraged and fostered suicide bombers, had order set in place there. This is preposterous thinking and in no way should be bought at face value.

ISIS was the group that formed after we had left. This is an argument for involvement because it shows what happens when troops pull out and the U.S. abandons a country: chaos returns. The president could have agreed to leave 10,000 troops in Iraq to help the country progress forward, but instead the U.S. abandoned their goals and terrorists soon filled the void.


Again, this point is moot. It is irrelevant because it relies on the opinions of some od 60,000 people across many countries in order to "prove" that the U.S. is evil. It's an Ad Populum fallacy, and the serving size of the poll was not even that big to begin with. I do not see how peoples' opinions affect the legitimacy of the benefits of U.S. intervention, but rather just focuses on personal thought in order to prove a point that isn't being proven.


The Weapons of Mass Destruction already *had* been used by Saddam in the Iran-Iraq war, and had been used on the Iranians[1], so to deny that he had them is simply nonsensical. Con states that a search was made in Iraq for WMDs which didn't find them, but reports of finding such disastrous weapons have already been made! In fact:

"From 2004 to 2011, American and American-trained Iraqi troops repeatedly encountered, and on at least six occasions were wounded by, chemical weapons remaining from years earlier in Saddam Hussein’s rule.

In all, American troops secretly reported finding roughly 5,000 chemical warheads, shells or aviation bombs, according to interviews with dozens of participants, Iraqi and American officials, and heavily redacted intelligence documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act."[2][3]

The above was reported by the New York Times in a front page article which testified of U.S. soldiers encountering chemical weapons which fit into the category of WMDs. Con links a U.N. inspector saying he found nothing there, but this is all made under the assumption that Saddam wasn't cleverly trying to hide them. Even so, the high probability of such weaons alone souls justify an invasion as such weapons could be used with the collaboration of terrorists to launch at nearby nations of begin an attack on the West.


Having shown the importance of interventionism in maintaining world order, I rest my case. It worked in both world wars, it deterred future outbreaks of conflict, and has helped stabilize the globe. Interventionism is *not* solely about spreading freedom and democracy, but more on reducing terrorism, maintaining security in a world where the cop exists and enforces the law for the good of the world, saving lives, and toning down explosions of war that always seem to erupt when the U.S. decides to take a vacation. Freedom and democracy simply come as a result of such endeavors, once threats are removed and authoritarian dictators are overthrown.

In my initial case, I elaborated well on these very things. Con cherry-picked parts of my case to respond to, while if ignoring crucial parts such as (1) the 30's example of the theory of world policeman, (2) Libya and Iran halting their nuclear programs following the U.S. invasion of Iraq, and (3) the stabilization of the country as a result of involvement. With me having the BoP, and with my opponent's failure to address them as well as show the overall downfall of intervention, I believe the resolution is resoundingly affirmed.

Thanks for the debate! Vote Pro!

[ 3]



I Will agree that the way Me and Varrack did this debate made it not as we intended, However,

1. I think we can all agree that we wanted a debate where Pro had a BOP and i would try to debunk his points to fulfil his BOP but however this debate ended up being both sides presenting there case and the other side trying to debunk it. I will say that this is partly my fault since i wanted a case for Isolationism to be better than Interventionism which i have shown but i have not done as good of a job debunking of Pro brought up in his defense. So for this round i will bring up objections to his main points for interventionism and the reason why i did not but it all in was because of the way the debate was formatted or turned out and the characer limit.

World War 2 and Interventionism
I Will rebut Pro's claim on how invading Germany earlier would of resulted in World war 2 not happening and by standing by we let Germany go out of control. First i will show how it is actully Interventionism which caused World war 2 but you will need to look at the core reasons why Germany invaded in the first place, It was because of certain reasons
Germany and most of the axis powers had a flawed view and that was called Interventionism which can be seen by Germany invading Europe, Japan invading Asia and so on. Now we need to adress why they got this idea on using intervention on our countries. It was because during World war 1 when they lost and they had to sign the Treaty of Versailles they were put with the blame of having started World war 1 and all this santactions and the Western World trying to act like it can run the world tried to punish Germany and as a result of this meddling this creates the seeds for world war 2 so i suggest Pro look at the cause not what was already happening and in my view since Germany was now invading the World and Japan invaded us then i will be perfectly ok in going to war with the axis powers. There's reasons on why countries are the way they are and most of the time its because we dont let them seddle out their own prombems and we try to do that and that leads to even worse promblems as i have shown.

ISIS and Iraq Instabilty
Pro says that ISIS being created by Us was a bare assertion which is false, I state my case and prove my arugment with links which if checked can find articles expalning how ISIS was created by the War on terror.
Accoriding to mutiple sourcses which i will site. When we invaded Iraq in 2003 we created a puppet goverment which was led by the Shia marjoirty which started to suppress the Shunna minroirty which led to tensions and then a uprising which created the perfect battleground for other terror groups to fight the USA which caused even more Instablity and terror on earth which could of been avoided if we just did not get involded. In other words The Us Invasion led to the creation to the very terriosists the Us wanted to get rid of in the first place because iraq was the perfect training ground for terrosim combined with massive poverty, umemployment and relgious funaticism this led to the creation of Isis. They came to light after Syria fell to Civil war and they started to overtake parts of Syria and Iraq and they easily toppled the 25 billion dollar army we gave to Iraq to defend itself with. Unless Pro says we should occupy all the unstable countries forever in the world and run them ourselves like puppet goverments then he needs to concede that Us Interventionism caused ISIS and the Iraq Instabilty.

WMB's In Iraq
Pro says that there were Wmb's in Iraq and he sites the widely sited New York times article about it which NeoCon's point to as showing that George Bush was Right!. However Quoting from a article that debunks said article,

The right was confused. The NYT piece, though important, referenced pre-1991 weapons. Everything Republicans said in the lead up to the 2003 invasion was still completely wrong.
With this in mind, over the weekend, the New York Times had another fascinating, well-researchedpiece on Iraq’s abandoned chemical weapons, and Republicans, apparently having learned literally nothing in October, are once again very excited by the prospect that Bush was “right all along.”

The fact that the right hasn’t given up isn’t admirable; it’s sad. Pouncing on details Republicans don’t understand actually has the opposite of the intended effect – these bizarre, misguided celebrations serve as a reminder of just how spectacularly wrong they were, are, and will continue to be.

To reiterate some of the points from our discussion in October, I can appreciate why the right is still a little sensitive on this. A Republican president lied the nation into a disastrous war, the consequences of which we’re still struggling to address, based in large part on weapons stockpiles that didn’t exist. That conservatives are still searching for some kind of evidence to justify the catastrophic Bush/Cheney failure isn’t too surprising.

But it’s still wrong. Saddam had a chemical-weapons program, but it was inactive and several years old by the time the Bush/Cheney era began. When the Republican administration insisted that Saddam had an active WMD program that Iraq might use to attack the West and/or share with al Qaeda, all of those arguments were brazenly untrue.

For the right that keeps misreading New York Times articles, a little common sense is in order – if U.S. troops had found WMD stockpiles, the Bush/Cheney administration would have said so. Indeed, they were desperate to do exactly that.

So yes Pre 1991 Iraq had a Chemcial weapons program but by the time we invaded it was inactive and several years old and i have shown before that Saddam was willing for the UN to investaige there Programs which Pro does not address.

Saddam helped fund terroist groups agaisnt The West
This is a running Theme in Pro's case which he says without Us Interventionism The Brutal Saddam would of funded terroirst groups to destroy us and he had WMBS which he would of used to nuke us as well and give to his terroist buddies.

I Would one again want to show Pro WHY its importent to look into why the Middle east hates us so much, its because as i shown by Miltary Interventionism. Simply minding our own bussiness and the promblems on what Saddam is doing whould not be a promblem only in a world where Amercia is the Worlds Policeman is it a problem but not in a Isolationist World and the consequences's are shown by 911 and the 1993 Bombing

Rebutal to the Rebutal of 911 and 1993
Pro claims that im Cherry picking and not looking at the bigger picture and then goes on to say how Saddam was finacing these terroists and they attacked us. However as i pointed out Saddam was not finacing terroists he was suppresing a certain relgious majoirty in the country which created some instabilty but he maintained the order better than we did. Plus i have also shown that If we had remained Isolationist than we would not have to be worried about what other countries think of us since we are not creating enemies over seas.

No Brainer
Pro Drops my concrete arugment agaisnt Interventionism in my "No Brainer" Section.

IN Tune with Pro's wishes i will be fighting his Arugments he brought up. So i will not be defending my Arugments for Isolationism this round. It is up to voters to decide if my arugments stand agaisnt Pro's rebutalls ( I think they do)

I Have shown that despite Pro saying that Interventionism will make a more orderley world i have shown that it does the exact opposite it creates more haterd agaisnt the USA which makes the World more Anti Amercian which makes more problems with us then if we just let them sort it out themselves there will be more peace in the world naturally. I have presented a viable model to show how the World can be a better place without war. I Have Shown how Interventionism causes more disorder in the country that gets Invaded and this in turn creates breeding grounds for terriosim agaisnt the Invader which can led to terrfying outcomes such as the 1993 Trade Center Bombings and the 911 Attacks. I Have shown how Constant Wars have led to the collapse of empires in the past and that amercia is following a simlar path and how Us Interventionism have burdned us with death of many amercians, have made familys lose there loved ones, and have given our soliders PTSD and have given us trillions of dollars in debt. I have also shown that Amercia one of the top prizes to show for us was our freedom and that has now been all but gone thanks to the War on Terror which was a result of US Interventioism.

For the Sake of a more Peacefull and great future world i hope voters see how Isolationism is in fact a better way than the CounterProductive, "War War War" Chant of Interventionism.


Debate Round No. 4
33 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Yonko 2 years ago
I would like to debate this with you.
Posted by tajshar2k 2 years ago
Since the BOP is on Pro, Con doesn"t necessarily have to give argument that are very strong.

Con"s arguments are about how The U.S idea of interventionism and militarism is very similar to Rome"s and that it lead to Political instability and economic crisis. Pro does exactly what I would have done. He shows how that isn"t an accurate comparison and how there is are several differences. Con"s arguments on spending is very misleading. He says the war is bankrupting America, but his case is more on how it is expensive. Pro shows how the cost of Iraq was just 1% of the GDP, which is very far from bankruptcy. His cost for freedom argument is easily debunked. Con needs to establish how interventionism in particular lead to things like the Patriot Act. He doesn"t show the clear connection, and Pro points it out. Con"s argument about how people like Al-Qaeda only attacked because of U.S interventionism and aiding of Israel. Con again doesn"t prove how this itself is interventionism, and helping somebody and giving aid is something else.

Also Con, you can"t just name something a no-brainer, because this is a formal debate. You haven"t even provided sources for what you said.

This was basically a one sided debate. Pro had a tougher job of changing the status quo, and has successfully done so. Con should have gave stronger arguments that showed the benefits of isolationism, but instead was on the defensive for too long, and didn"t provide sources to back himself up for crucial arguments.
Posted by tajshar2k 2 years ago
Post-Saddam Iraq

this one argument in my opinion wasn"t as strong. Pro claims that the U.S invasion of Iraq lead to the Iran and Libya from continuing their nuclear program, but nowhere on the sources does it say that. It could be a reason, but I not very convinced that was the main reason. Pro needs to prove that ISIS only came because of the U.S leaving Iraq. He has failed to do so. His point on reducing the civilian count is provided with tangible evidence, so thats all good.

Rebuttal by Con

I liked Con"s rebuttal to this. He shows that Iraq wasn"t really any better after the war, and the instabilty caused by the intervention led to extremists group gaining for influence. Pro didn"t really provide too much evidence, because there wasn"t any clear corellation between other countries stopping their nuclear construction to the Iraq war.
Posted by tajshar2k 2 years ago
Iraq Despot

I"l admit, it took a load of effort to read this without any bias, because I"m very anti-Iraq war.
Pro talks about how Saddam Hussien was a brutal dictator, and was a threat to the U.S. He talks about Saddam killing over 20 thousands of people, and how the U.S intervened and took him out of power. Without me going into the real truth about Iraq, the decision was straight forward. The U.S"s overall goal was to take Saddam out of power, and it succeeded. The brutal tyrant was taken out of power, and his practices were stopped. American Interventionism prevented Saddam from continuing to be a dictator, and in my opinion, I highly doubt any other country would have cared to stop him.

Con"s rebutall

Con rebuttal is how American interventionism left Iraq in a worse shape than it was under Saddams rule. He mentions examples such as the rise of ISIS were a result of American intervention. l. He also shows that American intervention in Iraq just lead to more violence and death. While this rebuttal shows how intervening in Iraq made things worse, Con ignores how it became worse "after" U.S troops left. This is an example of isolationism, and it"s clear ISIS came only after the U.S left. Pro wins because he shows interventionism helped stop the dictator, and how isolationism after the interventionism made the situation far worse. Whether or not the intervention was necessary in the first place doesn"t matter, because Con choose to elaborate more on ISIS, which backfired on on him. Con does mention how the WMD report was a hoax, but he didn"t elaborate enough on it for me to consider it be his main focal point.

Winner Pro
Posted by tajshar2k 2 years ago
My personal opinion
This can"t be part of the vote, but I thought I mention it. Pro you talk about how America wasn"t the world"s policemen at the time, but during the 20"s and 30"s, America wasn"t the superpower and was still developing. It could be argued that the role of the world"s policemen should have been the British Empire"s role, but thats my humble opinion of course. I don"t believe America could have been the world"s policemen, because it still was developing during the 20"s and 30"s. I can"t take points off for this, because Con failed to mention really anything but I thought I share my opinion.

Con rebuttal
Con, I"m not going to consider your rebuttal as much, because you took a cheap shot, and posted the WW2 rebuttal in the last round where Pro couldn"t even respond. That"s unfair in my opinion. Your basic rebuttal is about how interventionism caused ww2, but Pro says in his resolution he is talking about American intervention. The intervention you talk about is about Germany and Japan It's largely irrelevant anyways.

Clear Pro win because Con doesn"t specifically address U.S intervention and Pro"s mention of WW2 was a big blow.
Posted by tajshar2k 2 years ago

So I acknowledge that the BOP is on Pro, and he needs to prove that interventionism for the U.S is more preferable.


So Pro arguments are about how the U.S failed to commit to interventionism, he talks about how different countries in Europe began to invade other countries, while America didn"t intervene. So, I have a few problems with this. First, Pro needs to show how those countries began invading only after American isolationism. There isn"t any evidence of those things being stopped had America intervened, because it"s a big what if. Yes, it could have been prevented, but it also could have failed. The next point I think is pretty important and Pro scored big points on it. He showed how the U.S intervened in WW2, and this prevented the Nazis and Japanese from winning the war. This is a good point, because there is tangible evidence of American involvement helping, and it shows how American intervention is a good thing to begin. So Pro does establish a link on how American intervention helped end WW1, but one of his points on what it could have done wasn"t very convincing.
Posted by Varrack 2 years ago
Thanks for the vote Midnight!
Posted by Midnight1131 2 years ago
No brainer + Warmonger argument
This argument is worthless. Con states over and over again that intervention has fueled hatred of America, but hasn"t provided a single source or any real evidence. Simply calling an argument a "no brainer," doesn"t mean you don"t have to defend it.
Con does provide a source that shows people view the US as the #1 threat to world security. However Pro discredits this, pointing out that opinions do not show the legitimacy of something.
I give the win to Pro, because they showed how interventionism when used properly can prevent atrocities and save lives. Pro successfully defended his arguments, whereas Con dropped quite a few, the main issue I had with Con"s case was he dropped some pretty good arguments that were for the case of isolationism such as debt and cost of liberty, and instead chose to focus on discrediting the Iraq war only. His arguments regarding WMD"s had nothing to do with the ideologies of isolationism and interventionism in general.

I vote Pro.
Posted by Midnight1131 2 years ago
Debt "
Con makes a case that a reduced military budget could greatly help the economy, as the US spends much more on its defense budget than other nationals.
For his rebuttal, Pro says that cost does not mean as much as the protection of lives, which as he showed earlier, can happen when intervention is done right. He also stated that recent interventions haven"t cost nearly as much as big wars have in the past. This argument was also surprisingly dropped by Con in later rounds.
Cost of liberty "
Con lists some "abuses of freedom," which includes NSA surveillance, wiretapping, data collecting, torture, detaining without charge, etc. Con makes a case that it"s hypocritical to detest terrorists and foes for their human rights abuses when it happens right here at home as well.
For his rebuttal, Pro points out how Con didn"t show that his list was a result of the wars that were going on. This is important, because if those liberties were being curtailed already, and not as a result of interventionism, then it has no impact or relevance to the debate. This argument was dropped eventually by Con.
Next I will talk about Con"s arguments that were in violation of the framework of the debate.
More reasons
These were just a few examples that Con states were in result of US intervention. The WTC bombings, 9-11, and Isis. These examples are not exactly correlative evidence, however they do help Con"s case, as they show lives lost due to interventionism.
Pro points out how these cases are isolated, and that Saddam had encouraged suicide bombers and terrorist organizations even before US intervention. He also points out that the attack of WTC was not in response to US intervention. Pro points out again how Iraq was stable after the US intervention, unlike Con"s suggestion that it caused total chaos. He also shows that ISIS had formed after the end of the intervention, and when the troops went home.
Posted by Midnight1131 2 years ago
Main arguments on Con"s side were "

First of all, Con used quite a few quotes in this debate. I will not take any of them into account in this vote, because the ideas and wishes of some famous folks isn"t objective evidence in defense of isolationism.
Now moving on.
Con says they will show how the American intervention has caused more instability than it has prevented or solved and that it has created greater national security threats.
Con then gives his view of foreign policy and states that the US"s defense budget is adding to the national debt. He states that most nations don"t pose threats to the US, and only terrorists to. He also states that the War on Terror has cost trillions of dollars which the US can"t afford, destroyed civil liberties, and has increased terrorist activities and general dissent towards Americans.
For his rebuttal, Pro asks Con to prove that interventionism has led to the fall of US interventionism.
Con gives an example of MLK, and his nonviolent demonstrations for civil rights.
Roman Empire "
A good argument on Con"s side was the examination of the Roman Empire. Which Con states is considered to have fallen, according to historians, due to its military overspending.
For his rebuttal, Pro states that this comparison is unfair, and gives reasons. He says that the Roman Empire was not burdened with a role of "policemen," and that it was an expansionist state. He also says that the Roman Empire was led by warmongers, who took on more wars than they could handle, due to their expansionist goals. He says that this is not what the US does, as the US only intervenes in serious conflict. Pro also corrects Con"s idea of interventionism, and states that it does not mean a country is at war all the time, and it can be a readiness to protect ones allies. This argument was dropped by Con in latter rounds.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by tajshar2k 2 years ago
Who won the debate:Vote Checkmark-
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments.
Vote Placed by Midnight1131 2 years ago
Who won the debate:Vote Checkmark-
Reasons for voting decision: RFD IN COMMENTS. Please PM me if you have any issues with this vote.