The Instigator
thefinale
Pro (for)
The Contender
TheRealEmrys
Con (against)

Non-interventionism

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Debate Round Forfeited
thefinale has forfeited round #2.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
00days00hours00minutes00seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/22/2016 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 week ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 132 times Debate No: 97276
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (1)
Votes (0)

 

thefinale

Pro

My argument is that the most successful and peaceful form of foreign policy is Non-Interventionism. The basis of my argument is that diplomatic solutions can come easier through tough negotiation and through peaceful deals and compromising (assuming that said countries citizens aren't being harmed or the country is being harmed somewhere in the process). Declarations of War are only necessary when said country is being heavily heavily influenced negatively or under attack. Regime change is overall harmful to diplomacy and democracy.
TheRealEmrys

Con

I would like to thank my opponent for his argument and I will put mine against it.
I will start of by using history. In the interbellum Europe was acting like my opponent is suggesting. Non-interventionism, let people choose what people choose and in the end peaceful debating will solve the issue. But sadly, thats not what happened. In the treaty of Versailles, Germany was fined to pay huge amounts af money to France, Belgium and the UK. These fines were so devestating that they put Germany in crisis. There was famine, no money, misery. The perfect climate to produce a demagogue. Which is exactly what happened. Adolf Hitler stood up. He was elected by the German people and took control of a state in crisis.
One of the first things he did was stop paying the fines. No money went to France or Belgium or the UK. And there the European countries made their first mistake, acting as my opponent suggests, with non-interventionism. They did not stop Hitler. Hitler rebuild the German economy to an extend where it almost surpassed France's. He continued by annexating Austria. Through a referendum, I agree, but Germany grew. In the treaty of Versailles, Germany was also ordered to disband their army. Another thing Hitler ignored. He then invaded Czechoslovakia. At that point the nations realised something was wrong. So what did they do?
Non-interventionism.
They gave Hitler everything he demanded. He got the Sudete country, he got Austria, he got everything. And Hitler continued.
The European nations did this to preserve peace and to act through peaceful treaties, non-interventionism.
But there are cases where this system does not work. Because a year later, Hitler would stand in Paris, supreme leader of all of Europe. And the only thing that could stop him was war.
Therefore, non-interventionism is not a good thing. People like Hitler are not one of a kind. People with his ideas and charismatic speaking will come back. And we need to have a defense mechanism, a deterrent, stronger than treaties and non-interventionism.

I thank my opponent again for this debate and look forward to his reply
Debate Round No. 1
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by lannan13 2 weeks ago
lannan13
Is this US-centric or generalized?
This debate has 4 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.