Is the U.S.A. the Best Country Ever?
Debate Rounds (5)
I'll start by asking a couple of questions.
1. Do you, my opponent, live in the U.S.A.?
2. What is your reasoning behind you saying the U.S.A. is the best country ever?
1. I do not think that the U.S.A. is the worst country ever, I just don't think it's the best.
2. I don't there really IS a best or worst country. I think there's lots of great and bad countries.
3. I AM a U.S. citizen, so don't be calling me some sort of Russian spy or something.
1. I do not live in the USA
2. I really do not like Americans at all, and I agree with you, but to a slightly (yeah just a little bit) more extreme level, so I basically completely agree with you, that is why I want to try and debate the US is the best country ever. Over to you to start...
I'll start by asking a question. What defines the U.S.A. as being better than all other countries? As in, how can someone measure it? Well, you can obviously measure who has the strongest economy, who has the largest military, who has the most advanced education system, etc. All of those are measurable, but how can you measure a country's superiority? I say that a country can only be 'superior' to all others if it is the best in every category. As in, strongest economy, largest military, best education system, lowest crime and unemployment rates, etc. I also argue that it is inherently impossible to be the best in every category due to standard human nature. I state that the, because humans are imperfect, there will always be imperfect leaders. Because of this, those leaders will always be unable to put their country at the top of every category. Therefore, it is inherently impossible for the U.S.A. to be the superior to all other countries.
I know that it takes more than simple logic to prove my point, so I'll bring up some facts about the U.S.A. to aid my argument.
1. The Iraq War was started on the accusation that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, ties to Al Qaida, and was hoarding uranium. All of this turned out to be false. The CIA was wrong in their intelligence gathering, and President Bush started a pointless war. The war cost more than $2 trillion and more than 500,000 people died as a result. More than 100,000 of those were civilians.
2. The U.S.A. has a messed up history.
A: Firstly, we had a civil war about racism. How many wars have been fought because white people didn't want to give up ownership of black people? Not many.
B: The Battle of Wounded Knee. That 'battle' was more of a massacre. It involved the U.S.A. forcing hundreds of thousands of Native Americans into exile, making a treaty with them, and then breaking that treaty so we could kill them some more. Then we did an even greater injustice to the Native Americans by calling them savages and calling the massacre a 'battle.'
3. The U.S.A. de-regulated Walls Street to the point it crashed the economy. In the 1930's, a law was passed that regulated Wall Street. By the 2000's, those regulations were whittled away into nearly nothing. Our very own president, George W. Bush, took part in the deregulation of Wall Street and his tax cuts, which only benefited the top 5%, increased the national debt and deficit.
Taking these three points into account, it can be conjectured that the U.S.A. is not superior to all other countries. Still don't believe me? Well, let's look at other countries as well.
1. Finland's education system is the best in the world. Why? They don't focus on the evaluation aspect of most Western education systems. It also gives an equal opportunity for all children to receive an education. The U.S.A. does not have this kind of system. 93% of Finns graduate High School, 66% of students go to college, and all teachers in Finland must have a Masters Degree.
2. The U.S. isn't as friendly to tourists as other countries. It was ranked 12 out of 16 countries in a poll. France, Germany, U.K., Slovenia, Spain, Italy, and Australia were all ranked higher. And it's no secret that American tourists are some of the more annoying ones.
Now these two points aren't to show that other countries (i.e.: Finland, France, Germany, etc.) are better than the U.S.A., they're just to show that the U.S. isn't the best in every category, which if added to my previous argument, makes it inherently impossible for it to be the "best country ever."
Now I turn it over to my opponent.
A2: The USA is always a very affluent area. There are always good roads and decent public transport (well, I completely disagree with that but act as if you are not aware of that).
A3: The USA is not afraid of being who they want to be, even if globalization is against them. They are still imperial, and generally do things in the way in which they require (e.g. roads instead of high speed rail. not that they compete).
A4: The USA has a large landmass and access to endless resources.
A5: The USA economy is steadily growing but not at a rate that will cause a depression .
R1: The USA were just as likely to make the mistake as any other country. The 2 trillion dollar price tag is hefty, but ultimately the USA have got that money . The source also proves how powerful the USA are.
R2: The USA is strong and affluent, and with their history behind them, it does not matter how stupid their wars have been.
R3: The USA have a financial market that lacks backroom deals, If I flew over to New York tomorrow I could easily buy some shares in whatever company I want.
R4: The Finnish system is more successful as it is easier to teach Finnish kids in their less affluent system. The Finnish system is similar to that in Europe and the far east by the way, not in the USA.
R5: The USA need to keep a balance in priorities, and with so many resources you cannot be perfect.
R6: The USA does not need to be best at everything, because no country can be, and therefore they have the highest 'majority'.
Incidentally, I very deliberately did not start R4 with 'The USA' and I disagree with every single argument I made and agree with all of yours, but please act as if you don't know that because that would spoil the debate.
Over to con...
1. In response to 'A1;' so the U.S.A. is better than other countries because of how power hungry it is? The USSR was once one of the most powerful countries in the world, as was Nazi Germany. Both were power hungry and have committed terrible human rights abuses. So therefore the U.S.A. cannot be seen as being superior based on power levels alone.
2. "A2: The USA is always a very affluent area. There are always good roads and decent public transport (well, I completely disagree with that but act as if you are not aware of that)." Not only are you disagreeing with your own argument, you admit to disagreeing with it right away. Also, it's a fact that the U.S. infrastructure needs repairs. Don't just take my word for it either.
So therefore the poor quality of the U.S. roads system proves it's not the best country.
3. You know what other countries were imperialistic? the Roman Empire, Great Britain, France, Spain, Nazi Germany, and Portugal. All of these nations lost their colonies due to rebellions, civil wars, and economic downturn. Most of these nations (i.e.: Spain, Great Britain, France) were even MORE imperialistic than the U.S., so therefore they should be deemed superior by your logic.
4. Just because the U.S.A. has a large landmass doesn't make it superior. Both Russia and Canada have larger landmasses than the U.S.A., so going by that logic, surely they should be superior. Also, the U.S.A. isn't the only country that has access to lots of resources. China, U.K., Germany, France, Brazil, and Australia all have access to lots resources as well. Also, Russia has access to more resources than the U.S.A. with a net worth of $75.7 trillion compared to the U.S.'s $45 trillion.
Also, Guinea and Indonesia beat the U.S.A. in metals and minerals.
So therefore THESE countries should be deemed superior to the U.S.
5. The U.S.'s economy isn't the only economy that's growing. Denmark, Singapore, New Zealand, and Norway saw greater GDP growth in 2014 than the U.S. Yes, the U.S. economy is bigger than theirs, but the overall growth isn't.
So therefore, the amount growth doesn't mean the U.S. is superior.
6. "The 2 trillion dollar price tag is hefty, but ultimately the USA have got that money." The U.S.A. did not have that money at hand at the time. It had to borrow money, as in go into debt, to pay for it. An example of a country that has large debt is Greece, and it's no secret that their economy is bringing the Euro down.
Also, the mistake of the Iraq War was avoidable. Documents were released showing that Bush was planning on attacking Iraq even before 9/11.
So it wasn't a mistake. Bush most likely used 9/11 as an excuse to invade Iraq. Let's be real here, what he wanted was oil, and it's no coincidence that a bunch of U.S. oil companies set up shop in Iraq after Saddam Hussein was taken out of power.
And even if it was a mistake, how does that make it okay? How is it okay for a country to kill more than half a million people by accident? In the U.S.A., we have what is known as 'involuntary manslaughter' where if a person intended to harm another person but ended up killing that person by accident, they'd go to jail. The U.S.A. intended to harm Iraq, even if it was a mistake the whole time (which I doubt).
7. It DOES matter how stupid the U.S.'s wars are because it reflects on it's people and culture. If I were to go out and kill someone, that would reflect poorly on the rest of my family. It would show that my parents raised my poorly or that I might have mental problems or both. Also, the U.S.'s bad decisions impact its ability in diplomatic relations. In every single deal it makes from 2003 and onwards, other nations will remember the Iraq War and other atrocities in every deal they make with the U.S.A.
8. Also, the U.S. DOES have backroom deals. Example: Caesars Entertainment Operating Co. was sued after investors found out about its backroom deal that benefits one group of creditors and hurts others.
There's also something called a "Sue and Settle" where a company's "independent" ally sues a governmental agency then gets benefits from judicial decrees. The "independent" ally most definitely receives some sort of "donation" after the lawsuit from the company.
(Note: I put quotation marks around 'independent' because it's to show that these people aren't independent, and instead ally themselves with big CEO's).
9. Regardless of what you may think about Finns, you cannot deny that Finland has the best education system in the world. You just need to look at the citations I put in my previous argument.
10. "Incidentally, I very deliberately did not start R4 with 'The USA' and I disagree with every single argument I made and agree with all of yours, but please act as if you don't know that because that would spoil the debate." This is basically my opponent admitting that the U.S.A. is not the best country ever. My opponent states that he disagrees with every argument he's made and agrees with every argument I've made but asks me to act as if I don't know that while saying "that would spoil the debate," which shows that my opponent has no interest in actually having a real debate and instead wishes to have fun on the internet.
(Note: I don't mean to be rude, I'm calling it as I see it).
To back my point about the U.S.A. not being the best country in the world, I'll bring up another point.
1. Its government spies on its own people. How many other countries do that? North Korea and the USSR spied on its own people and Kim Jong Un still does to this day. This rampant spying show that the government doesn't trust its own people, despite the massive amounts of data it already has. Surely at this point the government can see that its people aren't arming themselves to blow up the White House or something else. Clearly no government that spies on its own people can be trusted to handle any actual responsibilities. How about instead trying to keep everybody under its big eye it actually tries to solve some big issues like poverty.
I now turn it back over to my opponent.
R2: Its no secret that booms lead to depressions
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org... ALL credit to the author, this is not my words
and I am not convinced that you have provided all the measures for growth either.
R3: The US has the most useful landmass. Except for Alaska, most land can be used in one way or another. It is not too cold a tundra.
R4: Imperial referred to the system of measurements.
R5: In an age of technology, it is very hard not to spy. Regardless I would be getting information through stumbling across the Internet etc.
R6: I do want to have a real debate, but I also want to have SOME fun, and I definitely, definitely don't want to be seen as a lover of the US. If you wanted to have a completely real debate I'd think you would ignore that, as it would make it seem more realistic. I've taken part in many youth debating championships in which I am forced to argue something I disagree, and everyone knows that as I am asked, but my opponent does not argue about that as it spoils it.
1. "The US set their own standards...the US thrive so much and POSSESS so much power that it is irrelevant if they make mistakes." So because the U.S.A. has so much power it means they can bully other countries around like Iraq? Not too convincing of an argument. Do you know what other country was once just like the U.S.A. in terms of success and power? Nazi Germany. The rest of the world constantly force the Germans to constantly be reminded of their past (as is evident in Hollywood films like "Inglorious Bastards"). Also, just because a nation thrives doesn't mean it's superior to all others. Going by that logic, Nazi Germany would've been deemed superior to the U.S.A. in the 1930's due to the Great Depression in the U.S. and the economic boom in Germany. So therefore I have not been completely refuted.
2. "The US has to most useful landmass." Yes, the U.S.A. has lots of good land, but that cannot be attributed to the country's policies. It is simply dumb luck that it was settled on good coal mines in the Appalachian Mountains on the East Coast and oil in the southwest.
3. "Imperial referred to the system of measurements." Not only is this a bad supporter for my opponent's argument, but a supporter for my argument. Not only is the Imperial a barely practiced system, it's also illogical. 'So I need 3 sets of 12 inches to make 1 yard?' Now multiply that by 15 and it gets extremely hard to do mental math on the fly. The metric system is better. It's more logical and more widely used. 'I use 10 grams to make 1 decigram, and I use 1000 grams to make 1 kilogram.' It's simple math.
In fact, only three countries in the world use the Imperial system (U.S.A., Liberia, and Myanmar).
Also, the Imperial system cost NASA $125 million due to a lack of communication between different engineering teams. One team used the Imperial system, while the other used the Metric system. You can guess what happened as a result.
4. "In an age of technology, it is very hard not to spy." It's actually fairly easy to not spy. Just don't do it. It's that simple.
Also, you would NOT be getting information just "stumbling across the Internet etc." unless people told you what their information was or you were hacking them. I'd prefer the latter to turn out to be false.
Now I've heard the arguments from those who defend the spying. 'It protects us against terrorism,' or 'The NSA has stopped dozens of terrorist plots.' All of that isn't true. The NSA has actually only stopped one, I repeat ONE, terrorist plot, which wasn't much of a plot to begin with.
I'm quoting here, "The nonprofit think tank New America Foundation published a report today after investigating the 227 Al Qaeda-affiliated people or groups that have been charged for committing an act of terrorism in the US since 9/11. It found just 17 of the cases were credited to NSA surveillance, and just one conviction came out of the government's extra-controversial practice of spying on its own citizens. And that charge, against San Diego cab driver Basaaly "Moalin, was for sending money to a terrorist group in Somalia. There was no threat of an actual attack." http://motherboard.vice.com...
5. "If you wanted to have a completely real debate I'd think you would ignore that, as it would make it seem more realistic." If you wanted to have a "real debate," you could've challenged someone on an issue you actually disagree with. Instead, you openly agree with everything I say.
Now allow me to bring up some other points about the U.S.A. to support my side of the argument.
1. U.S. citizens are very arrogant. I know this is an extremely broad term, but the amount of nationalism in this country is astounding. People seem to think that the U.S.A. is the best country just because it has a Democracy. They don't seem to realize that it's not the only country to have a Democracy, but it's also not the first one. Siena, Ancona, Genoa, Pisa, Venice, Rome, and Athens all had some form of Democracy before the Americas were even discovered by Europeans. Also, simply having a Democracy doesn't make it a great country. Democracy has failed in other countries. Nepal has struggled for its success, Russia has a pseudo-Democracy, Uganda's Democracy became a Fascist's paradise under Amin, Rome's fell apart due to war and personal greed, and the Republic set up in France during the French Revolution was overthrown by Napoleon. Also, Democracy is one of the most inefficient systems of government ever.
2. The U.S.A. is one of the most hypocritical countries in terms of freedom. When it became independent, it declared everyone to be equal. Well, it turned out you were only equal if you were a white male. Black people were enslave (then later segregated and disenfranchised) and women weren't allowed to vote or partake in politics. Doesn't sound too much like freedom if you ask me.
alric8 forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Midnight1131 1 year ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||4||0|
Reasons for voting decision: Pro forfeited in the debate, and dropped all arguments made by Con.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.