The Instigator
HunterLienhart
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
crossfade102495
Con (against)
Winning
15 Points

Kony 2012 : Should we be involved?

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 3 votes the winner is...
crossfade102495
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/9/2012 Category: Politics
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,984 times Debate No: 21859
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (4)
Votes (3)

 

HunterLienhart

Pro

We are just getting involved as a country with the project, Kony 2012. We want to help those in Uganda by sending American troops to ASSIST the Ugandan army in capturing the leader of the LRA, Joseph Kony. The arguement is that we have problems at home, and problems in other countries to take care of. People think that another country that we are in, is going to put more of a toll on us. We are in Uganda to ASSIST them, not to involve ourselves in a war. The children are suffering in ways that no one should have too. They need our help.
crossfade102495

Con

I accept this challenge from my opponent. I will take the role of CON and would like to make my opponent PRO aware that this will be my first debate.

My argument is that our problems at home should be rectified before we ever consider attempting to fix problems in other countries. Our founding fathers believed in non-interventionism, which is the philosophy of not getting involved in foreign affairs which do not directly concern us. While we still abided by this idea, our country grew and prospered. Once non-interventionism was abandoned, the United States was thrown into multiple wars and "police actions." These have crippled the economy and caused a general deterioration in foreign affairs.

Secondly, whenever the US has become involved in the affairs of another nation (most notably Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Korea, and Vietnam), the action has caused a great cost for America. In the Korean War alone, over 36,000 men lost their lives within 4 years [1]. Though that is a slightly exaggerated example, Americans have a tendency of going to war after saying that they won't. My question to my opponent is, what would be the methods used by the US to capture or kill this man?

Finally, we were also in Serbia (1999) to "assist" them. Our assistance ended up killing over 3500 innocent people and exposed the country's inhabitants to nuclear radiation [2]. I don't think another one of our "assistances" is needed anywhere.

I await my opponent's rebuttal.

1- http://koreanwarstuff.com...
2- http://www.allvoices.com...
Debate Round No. 1
HunterLienhart

Pro

The idea of Kony 2012 is to create a greater awareness for the government, to let them realize what we want and what they can do. It really is up too them on what proccess's and procedures are done to capture Joseph Kony.

We are in Uganda currently to assist in capturing him. We are spending a very little amount of money on the soldiers that we do have there (which is a VERY small number). The only people we could possibly getting ourselves involved with, is the LRA (Joseph Konys' rebellious army) The LRA has no one to help them. The international supreme court has Joseph Koney as the TOP IN THE WORLD war criminal, and every country in the world will soon be after him.

The government isn't even interested in sending more troops at this point. To get more troops sent into Uganda, we have to raise awareness and show the government that we want him stopped.
crossfade102495

Con

My opponent failed to address my point about non-interventionism as well as my point that we should focus on our own issues instead of the issues of other countries. These are two important parts of my argument which I would like addressed.

"We are spending a very little amount of money on the soldiers..."
This is only partially true, actually. PRO insinuates that we are spending a small amount of money overall. However, I found a record showing that $45 million in military equipment was sent to Uganda and Burundi [1]. This does not sound like a "very little amount" to me.

We have no reason to send more troops over there beyond the idea of the "Responsibility to Protect." There are no American interests in Uganda and frankly the Ugandan government can handle this problem on their own. If not, then let some other country help them. What do we stand to gain by killing this man?

Finally, "The only people we could possibly getting ourselves involved with, is the LRA [sic]."
What about the possibility of killing innocent men and women like in Afghanistan and Iraq? We killed over 115,000 innocent civilians in Iraq [2] while trying to take down Osama bin Laden and Al-Qaeda. Do we really need to risk that again?

1- http://thenewamerican.com...
2- http://www.iraqbodycount.org...
Debate Round No. 2
HunterLienhart

Pro

I must have not been clear when I stated that we are only there to assist. We are not drawing all of our attention towards Uganda. We are indeed still in war in other countries, and none of that is going to be distracted by very few of our troops trying to find a man in Uganda.

The Ugandan government can most certainly not handle this on their own. Joseph Koney has been abducting children, putting them in armies, making them sex slaves, and making them kill their parents for 25 + years now. How is that handled? It's not. The whole population of America is begging the government to do more about this issue. Everyone is getting involved and everyone wants to make change.

Killing innocent people in this situation is very unlikely. We are searching for one man with one army. With Osama Bin Laden, the whole Pakinstanian government was corrupt. He had his connections who were telling him what we were doing, and at the same time they were trying to lead us towards him. That was leading us in all the wrong directions, and we were making honest mistakes. COMPLETE different situation.
crossfade102495

Con

"We are not drawing all of our attention toward Uganda."

I would like to make the point that we most likely will not be successful if this is another hit-and-run mission where we only go in halfheartedly. If we were to truly intend to capture this man, it would require the devotion of a fairly large amount of troops and a fairly large sum of money.


"The whole population of America is begging the government to do more about this issue."

Actually, there are quite a few Americans who do not wish to get involved in this struggle since it isn't our battle to fight to begin with. The idea of "humanitarian" effort has been used to justify America sticking its nose in other people's business. Like I stated earlier, the NATO/US intervention in Serbia was supposedly performed in order to help the people there. We are spending too much money on foreign intervention missions regarding situations that don't affect us in the least. It always ends up costing us a lot of money, men, and resources and normally makes the people of the country which we are "helping" hate us. For example, that same bombing of Serbia is estimated to have cost the United States a total of $25 billion. [1]


"Killing innocent people in this situation is very unlikely..."

The point that I am making is that many civilians were killed in Iraq and Afghanistan because they were virtually indistinguishable from the insurgents. Osama bin Laden was also just one man with one army. I'll point out that Kony had the support of many fanatics in the country of Uganda. The only true resistance to him was the government itself, which was merely afraid of being overthrown. If you knew the history of the Uganda, you would know that Kony is simply trying to restore control of the country to the original inhabitants, the Acholi. The government of Uganda was extremely abusive toward the Acholi people in the 80s and 90s [2], which sparked the resistance by Kony himself. They were forced into camps in 1996 which have a mortality rate of 1000 deaths per day. If anything is to be considered a crime against humanity, it is that. Really, the only reason that there is sentiment over here in the United States is because of the Invisible Children video.


In conclusion for this round, there is no reason to rush into this country with guns blazing trying to kill this one man and his army. We need to understand the history of the country, including that of the Acholi people.


1- http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com...
2- http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 3
HunterLienhart

Pro

First off,

By you saying "Kony is simply trying to restore control" is like saying "Adolf Hitler was simply just trying to fix the economy". Yeah, we're aware. So, by trying to restore control, it's okay to abduct little kids and rape them, make them kill their families, and put them in armies? What kind of sicko are you?

I also saw that you are using wikipedia as a source. You are aware that anyone and everyone can post on wikipedia, right? I'd like to point out that I haven't used one source from the internet in this debate. I'm not here to use information against my opponent. I'm here to debate about how I personally feel and debate about what is humanly right.

Leaving Uganda alone in the dark, is not right. If we don't step in, who knows how much worse that country will be. If Kony rises to greater power, he won't just be running from us. He'll be coming after us. He already knows that we're in his country and he knows that we're after him. By the day, he's becoming more powerful. Solving the problem now, will be better than solving it later.

The few Americans that don't wish to be involved in Uganda, are just Isolationists. They want to be alone as a country, which in ways is right. Before world war ll this would have been easy to accomplish, but now it would be very hard to turn away from the rest of the world with how much influence we have on it.

Having the army we do, this should be a piece of cake. Our army is way stronger and larger than their resistance. The problem is, we are too afraid to send everyone in. We could very easily send A LITTLE AMOUNT of advisors into their country, and train the Ugandan Army. Just like we trained the Saudi Arabian Air Force.

I hope the voters realize that staying out of this, could end worse than it already is. Entering Uganda to assist them in capturing Joseph Kony, the number 1 war criminal in the world, will be the least of our worries.

I thank my opponent for debating with me.
crossfade102495

Con

I would like to express the fact that I am frankly appalled that my opponent would call me a "sicko." Disregarding that, the comparison between Kony and Hitler is completely invalid due to ceteris paribus, which requires all comparisons to be equal in every factor outside of that which is being compared. Not to mention, I never said that what Kony did and is doing was okay.


To address the attack on my Wikipedia source, I apologize for using it but my opponent also has no right to criticize me for it considering that he had absolutely no sources during this entire debate. One cannot base their argument purely on emotion or else it falls flat. I have consistently used sources and facts to back up my claims.


The claim that Kony would attack us is absurd. He has no reason to do so unless we give him one. PRO's logic is the same type of thinking that got the US into the situation with Iraq. "If we don't get them first, they'll get us." It is totally flawed and illogical.


Isolationism is when a country refuses to trade and communicate with any other nations. I object to this strongly. I believe in strict non-interventionism, which states that we have no right nor reason to get involved in the affairs of another country unless they directly affect us. We are no better than any other nation and we have no right to police the world and "solve" everyone's problems.


My opponent first states that "...we are too afraid to send everyone in," and then goes on to say that we could "send a LITTLE AMOUNT." This is a major contradiction.


I ask the voters to listen to reason as well as the idea of non-interventionism. Realize that this is basically an extension of the Iraq War in another country. Thank you.

I also thank my opponent, PRO, for this debate.
Debate Round No. 4
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by Lordknukle 5 years ago
Lordknukle
Lol @ Pro.
Posted by 000ike 5 years ago
000ike
the resolution should be a statement, not a question.
Posted by MrBrooks 5 years ago
MrBrooks
Con makes very good points, and uses credible sources-minus the one wikipedia source. Pro is just spewing the propaganda from the Invisible Children video without actually offering any sources or proper rebuttals to Con's arguments. Good show Pro, especially for your first debate.
Posted by Daax 5 years ago
Daax
Con makes some excellent points in this debate.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by 1Historygenius 5 years ago
1Historygenius
HunterLienhartcrossfade102495Tied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: I am with 000ike.
Vote Placed by 000ike 5 years ago
000ike
HunterLienhartcrossfade102495Tied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Fairly easy decision. At no point did Pro address Con's argument for non-interventionism and cost to the U.S. Most of Pro's arguments moreover were based on conjecture and devoid of sources. I also took off conduct because Pro became offensive in Round 4, calling his opponent a "sicko."
Vote Placed by THEBOMB 5 years ago
THEBOMB
HunterLienhartcrossfade102495Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 
Reasons for voting decision: Con's case was better than pros. Con shows how humanitarian interventions usually turn out to be bad for the people they are helping. Pro's attacks were adequately refuted by con.