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

President Obama Will Take a More Internationally Interventionist Stance During His Last Tenure

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/16/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 539 times Debate No: 70185
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (0)




During most of the time that President Obama has held office, we've seen him fairly unwilling to interact with other countries militarily, and soft power has often taken too long or been totally ineffective. All that being said, there has been a bit of debate over whether or not he will take a more interventionist stance. I would like to bring this debate to this site, if any are willing to accept. The format for debate will be as follows:

Round 1: Acceptance, stating why you would like this debate. I don't wish to sound condescending or anything of the sort, but please provide something more substantial than "Yes," or "This sounds good." I am looking for a reasonable debate.

Round 2: Affirmative and Negative constructive, no rebuttals, just first arguments and their support.

All further rounds will be refutations until the final round, which will be a final focus of the debate and conclusion.

I'm looking forward to a good debate!


I totally accept the challenge, and I think that It is important for whoever is looking to see both viewpoints, then decide for themselves what they think. I don't think Obama will take a firmer military stance in the last tenure. See you there!
Debate Round No. 1


Before I begin, I would like to thank you for accepting this debate! I'm looking forward to a good one! Without further adieu, let's get into the constructives!
Throughout his past term and into his present tenure, president Obama has been, while not isolationist, certainly unwilling to use hard power (which is understandable, however we'll address this later), reluctant to provide definitive soft action, and has been, for the most part, concerned with domestic issues. Now, this is not to say that our president is totally in the wrong, (which is another debate in its entirety) but for now we'll just focus on the main point: President Obama has leaned away from definitive interaction with other countries, and because of all these reasons, he's taken a lot of heat from it. Now, while all this seems fairly negative, it is going to be for these exact reasons that our president will move toward a more internationally interventionist stance. So, first we'll discuss times where our president has failed to take definitive action against or for another country; we'll use this as proof that he has had a fairly inactive term (interventionist-wise at least). Then, we'll discuss the heat he's taken over it, from both the United States, and the rest of the world, and see that this is going to be fairly decisive in both his and our decision. Finally, we'll discuss the world today, and the pressure that he has to move more internationally. This all being said, let's go ahead provide a few definitions, and move into our first point:

From Mariam-Webster online dictionary:
Interventionism - a government policy or practice of doing things to directly influence the country's economy or the political affairs of another country
(Please note that while the definition is that of Interventionism, an interventionist is simply one that practices such a ideology)

Ought - Moral obligation, duty

1) President Obama has failed to take definitive action many instances
For this, we'll look at the Ukraine crisis, North Korea, and last of all, ISIS. Let's start with Ukraine.

A) Ukraine
As most everyone is aware, last year Russia invaded Crimea under the argument that, "It was ours first." Needless to say, most everyone took a fairly dim view on this, most of all Crimea. Time and time again, the US was asked to provide aid in the form of hard power. We turned down these requests for the fear that we may incite another World War by attacking Russia. Alright, that's a fair enough argument. But what about soft power? Well, that was half-done at best. We knew that places sanctions on a country that was in the process of invading another country was a long shot at best, yet we still did it. We never pushed, never prodded; we never "intervened." The presidency was (and still is being) bombarded with petitions to move for Crimea, and take a definitive stance, yet, as always, it has remained silent on this issue.

B) North Korea
Frankly, I don't need to give our readers yet another link that states that NK is a, well, pretty bad place to live. It is common fact, known to pretty much everyone in the world. In fact, freshman year I was forced to watch a documentary entitled "Inside North Korea" in geography. In spite of all this, what has our president done? That's right, sanctions! Sanctions that the UN really expects to be upheld by a country that is, in essence, a cult. The only people they listen to is China. Obviously, we already know all of this. Now, China is typically opposed to any sort of violations of state sovereignty, which is why the US ought to be discussing North Korea much more frequently to achieve some sort of solution to the massive human rights abuses in the country. Once again, we find the people of the world, not just the US calling for a more interventionist, definitive action. Once again, it is rejected; once again our president bears the brunt of the heat for inaction.

What is possibly the greatest Human Rights abuse today (a hard decision, but just barely wins the HRA awards over North Korea) is spreading. It started in the Iraq-Syria region, and has been gaining members under the "Let's make a new world!" bit. Of course they also guise under religious pretenses but seeing how many of them haven't actually read the Qur'an, this is largely false...(an entire spiel could occur here, but for topical purposes, we'll simply say that ISIS is bad, 'k?) The point here is that our president has only recently started taking interventionist measures, which are bomb runs. In a fairly uninspiring speech, we also learned that we're moving into the middle east as well. The fact still remains that this took quite a long time to occur. Now, we'll revisit this in our third point, but for now, let's move on to how we are viewed by the world:

2) The world frowns upon president Obama's inactive policies.

The people of the US have time and time again called for reform for issues both domestic and abroad. Obama has been hammered time and time again for his failure to, well, get stuff done. The rest of the world feels the same way. Japan's prime minister, Shinz!3; Abe, has described our president as, "Weak willed and uninspiring." Wow. That's pretty brutal. Just as bad is the fact that China and several other countries share the very same view. Once again, we see pressure to move more internationally, and more interventionist; to take a definitive action.

3) Our president is beginning to move towards more interventionist methods.
Earlier, I mentioned that we would discuss ISIS again, and here's holding to that promise. As I stated earlier, our president has began sending in drones, bomb raids, and most recently, ground troops. All this military support points towards a more interventionist stance. Yes, it is only one instance, but still a fairly significant one.

Pulling this all together, we find that our president is taking a LOT of heat over inaction. This, more than anything, will be pressure towards a more interventionist, more definitive, presidency. Further, we see that a lack of definitive action is only going to be detrimental, especially taking the two countries and ISIS into consideration. So, in order to protect both his country and his reputation, president Obama will move towards into a more interventionist state.
Over to you! I apologize, but I'm new to this site and didn't realize that there were so few rounds, so if you wish to address my constructive with a rebuttal as well in your turn, that's fine with me.


Just to lighten the mood, I'll say that I was eating chocolate chips while I read your argument. (Don't expect my argument to be very good, the chocolate chips were more interesting than your argument.) Anyways, I am probably not the prime candidate for a debate. Let's open with my response to MDW's argument.

Maybe the reason he finally starts sending military forces is to, in essence, cool down the rage of republicans and be able to say something the next time somebody asks him about his rather soft military stance, not because it is right. I also think that you don't have a lot of conclusive evidence, you do have info, but I think that instead of having a real conclusive argument, you have a opinion.
Not that opinions don't count, but they're not wholly valid in a debate. On to my argument!

Honestly, I don't have much here, but I think that since he has done very little in the past, that is quite possibly a sign of what he will do in the future. Unless he has a complete change of his viewpoints, or get REALLY pressured from other people, he will probably not take too big actions in his military stance. Thanks, and over to you!
Debate Round No. 2


First, I would like to apologize for my failure to provide sufficient entertainment. I would have included graphics, but perhaps this will suffice? I was out of chocolate chips, but luckily I had a bar laying around.

|__|__| Hershies _|__|

In all seriousness, I'm not trying to write a novel. I tried to make my points (dull though they may be), as conversational as possible. So, in short, I'm sorry that you didn't think this debate more entertaining that chocolate chips (though they are fairly amazing.) All flippancy aside, let's move onto the final rebuttals.
Let's address the attacks made on the debate itself. To quote, "Not that opinions don't count, but they're not wholly valid in a debate." The argument here is going to be that while this would typically be the case (for example, had the resolution been "Has placing stop signs in Cuba led to nuclear war?" I would be in a hole), this is a fairly opinionated debate. I will be more than happy to tell you how Obama's last term works out, simply lend me a time machine and we'll be good to go! Frankly, we do NOT know what's going to happen. The purpose of this debate has been to look at past evidence (something both sides have done) and come to a conclusion based on those actions. So, while we can look at hard evidence of what has happened, we can only use reasoning and judgement to come to a conclusion.

Next let's examine the argument, "...Maybe the reason he finally starts sending military forces is to, in essence, cool down the rage of republicans and be able to say something the next time somebody asks him about his rather soft military stance, not because it is right." In other words, you are saying that the only ones to criticize Obama are the republicans? Honestly, my case may perhaps be boring, but must you really ignore my entire second point, which addresses just that? To offer a brief recap, essentially, it simply provides the opinions of world leaders such as the prime minister of Japan and the president of China which are that, "Obama is weak-willed, and uninspiring." It's an extremely harsh statement, fanning that fire under our presidents behind to move more internationally. If we don't want to look to world leaders, we can look to the countries asking for aid. Crimea immediately springs to mind. Do we have a clear action there? No, and people are suffering for it, and because these people are suffering, well, no one's happy about that. Clearly, we see, republicans are NOT the only ones to call for a more definitive action.

Finally, let's look at your argument that "The leopard doesn't change his shorts" in your final paragraph. This is a paraphrasing, of course, but the argument remains the same. The only thing I have to say here is that things have changed in the country. You cannot simply say that people don't change, and leave it at that. Once again, you ignore sections of my case, in this case -ha, ha, ha- it's my third point which shows that our president is indeed starting a move towards more internationally interventionist methods. Are we at the stage that we would like to be yet? No. However, his recent actions do show a (albeit somewhat unwilling) change in his stance.

Bringing it all together again, we see that all the arguments made against my case have already been addressed in my constructive. We see that our president is starting to move (once again, a bit unwillingly), to a more interventionist stance. We find that this pressure to a new stance comes not just from the republicans, but also from the democrats, those guys in between, and frankly from the whole word. Once more, we see that this pressure is what is forcing him into a new stance as opposed to the almost isolationist one he held before (one could almost say that he's breaking the habit). Finally, we find that this IS a highly opinionated debate that can only be won through logic and reasoning, something that the pro has done throughout the debate, maintaining reasoning, keeping logic in flow, and holding his case together strong. The con has provided a fair argument, however, we must look to the pro for a truly reasoned argument.
Thank you for a good (if brief) debate, Moss. Though I am jealous for your having chocolate chips, I still wish you the best of luck in future debates, and look forward to your final rebuttal! Over to you!


Awfully sorry for the generalization about republicans being the only ones who dislike Obama. I wasn't saying that, it just seems like it's the majority. You, just to turn your own gun on you, cannot just say that because he is starting to take an interventionist stance doesn't mean he will continue to move in that direction. I think that because he is somewhat unwilling to take the firm stance, he will probably not be able to make a very big difference before his presidency ends. I don't think that you can back up an opinionated argument with a possibly if not probably biased opinion about how your arguments are more reasoned than mine. Your arguments admittedly are more substantial than mine, but that doesn't mean you win. The chicken who lays the most eggs doesn't neccasarily have the most chicks. (I just made that one up, sorry. Thanks for the interesting debate, but I must leave, a chocolate chip is calling me.)
Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by MyDearWatson 3 years ago
No problem, moss!
Posted by moss 3 years ago
Thanks for the chocolate bar picture, MDW!
Posted by LostintheEcho1498 3 years ago
This is really speculation. I would suggest making a topic that is more concrete. Otherwise this is more opinionated.
Posted by imnotacop 3 years ago
Well, He's been incredibly interventionist through out his presidency. I think he'll display it more, but I wouldn't say that it's really more interventionist in action.
No votes have been placed for this debate.