The Instigator
funnybrad333
Pro (for)
Losing
6 Points
The Contender
DrAlexander
Con (against)
Winning
56 Points

RESOLVED: Globally speaking, imperialism should be allowed

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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/23/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,866 times Debate No: 4159
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (11)
Votes (18)

 

funnybrad333

Pro

A country is like any organism, it has needs. A country has many needs because it is responsible for its constituents.
Some of these include:
1) Protecting its constituents
2) Housing its constituents
3) Feeding its constituents
4) And all other forms of aiding its constituents

For the country to survive, it must do all these things, as a country without constituents is a barren, desolate place.

Darwin came up with the origin of species, a theory that all animals mutated and evolved from each other in the process of survival. By this law, the fittest organism to survive will survive, while the rest die, which in turn makes a generation of fitter organisms. This spawned the idea of social darwinism, the same theory yet related to humanity, as humans and societies must act in order to survive.

Imperialism is Darwin's "survival of the fittest" philosophy in action, yet with humanity. Nations should have the right to utilize imperialistic methods in order to survive, as the fittest nation should survive.
DrAlexander

Con

Your thesis:

"Since a country is like an organism, it should express its right to utilize imperialistic methods in order to survive"

My thesis:

"Since a country is interested in self-preservation, it should not undergo anything that strongly threatens its national security"

Funnybrad333, I understand what you are saying, surprisingly I agree with most of it as well. Unfortunately, I noticed a few errors within your logic that continues to get worse throughout your case.

Your first point is interesting, I have no clue for as to why you are talking about the role a country plays. A country by definition is the territory of a nation. I don't see how a territory has the capabilities of undergoing these imperialistic movements that your advocating. A country is a territory, it has absolutely no obligations. Now, i'll break this down to make what I'm saying more clear.

You wrote that "A country is like any organism, it has needs. A country has many needs because it is responsible for its constituents."

Yes I agree, a country has needs, as well as all other components of nature. But there is a difference between what something needs and what something is obligated to do. You are saying that a country has needs BECAUSE it is responsible? I have no clue how that works out. So I urge you to clarify.

You also wrote that "For the country to survive, it must do all these things, as a country without constituents is a barren, desolate place"

Your logic here is flawed once again, country's do not die, whatismore inanimate objects CANNOT die. A country that is barren or doesn't contain a populous is not necessarily a bad thing for the country itself.

What I have stated above is enough already for the voters to vote in negation(CON), because I have properly shown how your premise (a country having needs because it is responsible) is flawed.
This point invalidates your entire thesis. But in interest of argumentation I'll continue.

Later in your case you create the stance that "Nations should have the right to utilize imperialistic methods in order to survive, as the fittest nation should survive."

This logic is muted by the fact that whenever a nation undergoes any type of utilization of imperialistic methods, it threaten its national security. If a nation is threatening its national security it is, in effect, not upholding its first obligation, to protect it's constituents. Remember, you gave that responsibility to a country.

You wrote, "A country has many needs because it is responsible for its constituents.
Some of these include...Protecting its constituents..."

Insofar as movement towards imperialism threatens national security because such movement usually leads to war, a country's first obligation is not upheld. You are being inconsistent whenever you advocate imperialistic movement and self-preservation simultaneously. For that reason I urge voters to vote in favor of CON.
Debate Round No. 1
funnybrad333

Pro

For the sake of this debate, I'd like country, nation and society to be considered the same, instead of country being the land and society being the populous.

Since I am in a time constraint, my case will be brief.

"You are saying that a country has needs BECAUSE it is responsible?"

A country does have obligations due to it only being a country if it has a populous. If the country is to remain "alive" it must protect and secure its populous.

Now that I have clarified my main contention, I will describe the direct benefits and reasons imperialism should be allowed.

1) Imperialism deters overpopulation.

As a country lives, its populous grows exponentially. For a country to protect and secure its citizens to insure its own continuity, it must expand for more land. This way the populous can thrive.

2) Imperialism deters conflict.

If a country is to insure the protection and security of its peoples, the country must thwart all threats. Any adjacent country has the same needs as the country itself, and will fight to accomplish these needs.

Since every country is capable of imperialism, it should be allowed as globalization is just another impossible idealistic view.
DrAlexander

Con

Before I begin, I'd like to extend both of our thesis' and iterate the fact that, since my opponent concedes to his given thesis, if I prove it illogical, impractical, or in any way fallacious I win this round by default.

Opponent's thesis:

"Since a country is like an organism, it should express its right to utilize imperialistic methods in order to survive"

Due to the burden of proof on the affirmative side, this thesis is deemed illogical until my opponent proves it true.

___________________________________

Now to argue my opponent's case.

My opponent, once again, stresses the notion that a country has obligations, sounds more like a government to me, but I'll allow him to take that stance in order to sway away from a semantics debate. Furthermore, my opponent states that in order to remain "alive" it must protect and secure its populous. In response I'd like to say that I have already argued this point within round one, when I stated,

"This logic is muted by the fact that whenever a nation undergoes any type of utilization of imperialistic methods, it threaten its national security. If a nation is threatening its national security it is, in effect, not upholding its first obligation, to protect it's constituents. Remember, you gave that responsibility to a country."
Meaning since the country is not protecting it's citizens, rather instigating war, imperialism is not consistent with my opponents own social contract evaluation.

This has yet to be refuted so I'll ask the voters to extend this argument.

Government defined:

http://dictionary.reference.com...

____________________________________

My opponent now decides to add new arguments and he quite frankly creates an entirly new case. I don't know if this is fair or not to do in your second round, but I'll argue it regardless.

Opponent states,

"Imperialism deters overpopulation. As a country lives, its populous grows exponentially. For a country to protect and secure its citizens to insure its own continuity, it must expand for more land. This way the populous can thrive."

Exponential Growth

: occurs when the growth rate of a mathematical function is proportional to the function's current value.

The basic formula of exponential growth is the following.

x(t)=a*b^t

Where a quantity(x) depends exponentially of time(t) if
where the constant a is the initial value of x,

and the constant b is a positive growth factor

If b is greater than 1, then x has exponential growth. If b is less than 1, then x has exponential decay. If b is equal to 1, then x is constant.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Therefore, if I can prove that there are countries with a population that has exponential decay or at least a constant populous, then my opponent's argument drops.

The exponential decay law of populations is further examined on the basis of new observations of Japanese and Swedish cohorts. It is shown that the populations decrease exponentially at higher ages in accordance with the theoretical prediction, which confirms the previous conclusion... The results showing that the exponential decay law holds in sufficient approximation. All the evidences accumulated so far suggest that the decay law is a general theorem. On the basis of this information, we derive a general expression that estimates the limit age as a function of population. The predicted curve is in excellent agreement with the observed limit ages in Japan.

-Journal of Theoretical Biology, Volume 39, Number 4, December 1999, pp. 231-238(8)

France had a period of population decline as well.

http://www.un.org...

This means that there are country's out there who in fact are not suffering from overpopulation.

Overall, assuming imperialism DOES deter overpopulation, my opponent has yet to show for as to WHY we should take such drastic measures in order to deter overpopulation. His job as the affirmative is to give proof and a substantial amount of evidence to back up his claims. He doesn't uphold his burden of proof, thus I am winning off this argument as well.

__________________________________

Opponent states,

"Imperialism deters conflict. If a country is to insure the protection and security of its peoples, the country must thwart all threats. Any adjacent country has the same needs as the country itself, and will fight to accomplish these needs."

My opponent conjures up another unwarranted argument. He states a in order for a country to insure protection, is through the thwarting of all threat. Imagine if all the nations in the world agreed with my opponent. It would be catastrophic. You'd have North Korea shoot nukes at the United States and Russia, simply because they felt threatened. In response, of course, these nations would retaliate, ending in a nuclear holocaust. This is not an extreme approach, rather reality. Today in age we weapons capable of blowing up this Earth times over. Simply put, a world of nukes and deranged leaders couldn't survive the utilization of imperialism.

Opponents State, "Since every country is capable of imperialism, it should be allowed as globalization is just another impossible idealistic view."

Please prove this claim. As a counter-claim I'd like to say third world country's do not have the expenses to carry out a successful imperialistic reign. (ex. Sierra Leone)

http://allafrica.com...

___________________________________

"As of now, I can only see a CON vote"

-Alexander
Debate Round No. 2
funnybrad333

Pro

Well, I am resigning from Debate.org. It takes too much time to write an elaborate case, and I see that I am not apt in the field of online debate.

"Please prove this claim. As a counter-claim I'd like to say third world country's do not have the expenses to carry out a successful imperialistic reign. (ex. Sierra Leone)"

Who cares??? They are inherently inferior and should be annexed.

Vote PRO because the burden of truth is highly overrated.

To end my case I give you the gift of life...

http://youtube.com...
DrAlexander

Con

Interesting enough, my opponent forfeits. Not only does he forfeit this round, but he also resigned from our debating community. I wish him best of luck in all of his future ventures, and ask you to vote CON.

You should vote CON for more than my opponent's forfeit but also for his lack of upholding his burden, which he simply states as 'highly overrated', the burden of proof is a common debate manner in which my opponent fails to uphold. Furthermore, he expresses his elitism with his statement about how all other nations are inferior...I hope he is joking, because this site is open to people from many other countries, like Canada and Austrailia, I don't want them to believe that we Americans are so full of ourselves and prideful. I belief every country is equally important and deserve to be treated humanely. Extend ALL my points and please vote legitamately in negation to this resolution.

Post:
His video is SOO unoriginal.
:D

-Alexander
Debate Round No. 3
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by KommanderWill 8 years ago
KommanderWill
What does the instigator mean by imperialism should be "allowed".
Posted by DrAlexander 8 years ago
DrAlexander
Actually, I agree with you about him making an ill comparison with society and an organism, I should've gotten him on that, but I simply choose not to argue it for whatever reason. Thank you very much, it was a very relieving RFD, thanking for posting your thoughts about my debate. There will be many more ahead. Hopefully, we will be able to cross paths again.

Till then,

-Alexander
Posted by KommanderWill 8 years ago
KommanderWill
DrAlexander,

Given his strategy, I must applaud your initial and main point that imperialism is an ineffective policy for the aggressor nation. Such an arguement, reasoned well, all but kills any justification for imperialism.

His title should have spawned a debate about natural/human rights and the sovereignty of nations. But he changed that himself.

Personally, I think his darwinistic approach was simply awful. He sets up the state of nature, and the negative connotation at that. Upon reading that I wouldve said that there is a clear distinction between the state of nature and civilized society, and his arguement that imperialism should be allowed and accepted is hopelessly primitive and barbaric.

I look forward to seeing more of your arguements, DrAlexander.
Posted by DrAlexander 8 years ago
DrAlexander
Self preservation AND Social Contract...
(25 characters)
Posted by DrAlexander 8 years ago
DrAlexander
KommandorWill,

Exactly, your logic is consistent with Western philosophers like Locke and Rousseu. Unfortunately, my opponent uses Social Darwinism, and instead of taking a defensive position, he took an offensive position, which undermines a nations priority of self-preservation(Hobbes). He could've won if he did what you said, but instead he just quit.
:(

Thanks for your response.

-Alexander
Posted by KommanderWill 8 years ago
KommanderWill
I wouldve pulled a defense style arguement as the pro-imperialist side. If another nation is doing it, you must do it to protect yourself, otherwise you will be crushed by the imperial nation. Examples are plentiful.
Posted by DrAlexander 8 years ago
DrAlexander
Australia* not Austrailia.
:D
Posted by DrAlexander 8 years ago
DrAlexander
I'm extremely dissappointed with the outcome of this debate. So please leave comments if you notice errors in my position. I'd be more than happy to elaborate.
Posted by pakipride 8 years ago
pakipride
"Your logic here is flawed once again, country's do not die, whatismore inanimate objects CANNOT die. A country that is barren or doesn't contain a populous is not necessarily a bad thing for the country itself."
-haha my favorite!!
Posted by DrAlexander 9 years ago
DrAlexander
Can you elaborate on your position a little, I'm seriously considering accepting this..
18 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by JBlake 8 years ago
JBlake
funnybrad333DrAlexanderTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by pakipride 8 years ago
pakipride
funnybrad333DrAlexanderTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by KirkPorter 8 years ago
KirkPorter
funnybrad333DrAlexanderTied
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 
Vote Placed by Protagoras 8 years ago
Protagoras
funnybrad333DrAlexanderTied
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 
Vote Placed by KommanderWill 8 years ago
KommanderWill
funnybrad333DrAlexanderTied
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 
Vote Placed by shaqdaddy34 8 years ago
shaqdaddy34
funnybrad333DrAlexanderTied
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:30 
Vote Placed by tim 8 years ago
tim
funnybrad333DrAlexanderTied
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 
Vote Placed by saas 8 years ago
saas
funnybrad333DrAlexanderTied
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 
Vote Placed by bhao 8 years ago
bhao
funnybrad333DrAlexanderTied
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 
Vote Placed by Sheza 8 years ago
Sheza
funnybrad333DrAlexanderTied
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