The Instigator
mphoenix
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Danielle
Pro (for)
Winning
21 Points

Reduce U.S. military and/or police presence in South Korea Japan Afghanistan Kuwait Iraq or Turkey

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
Con Tied Pro
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: 11/9/2010 Category: Politics
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,344 times Debate No: 13602
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (3)

 

mphoenix

Con

I just want to hear anyone's opinion on this idea. I personally am a negative, but I want to hear both sides to this. cool
Danielle

Pro

Many thanks to my opponent for beginning this debate.

Because I've been pressed for time and admittedly waited until the last minute to post a round, I'll use this space as a framework for setting up my arguments and presenting some examples of things I will be mentioning in this discussion.

Topics I plan to touch on include:

a) How America looks to the rest of the world in light of their presence here;
b) How the countries themselves respond to American presence;
c) How it ultimately effects our foreign policy in general;
d) Whether or not staying in these places is actually useful;
e) Whether it stands on a cost-benefit analysis to stay;
f) How much money it's costing, and what it means for us;
g) How this issue divides the nation;
h) The exploitation and other immoral acts that occur as a direct result;

etc.

I welcome my opponent to begin making his opening arguments in the next round (as he is the instigator of a non-agnostic resolution, and thus accepts burden of proof) or he may merely choose to present a similar framework, and allow me to make the opening arguments in R2.

Thanks again, Con, and good luck -- I look forward to an interesting debate :)
Debate Round No. 1
mphoenix

Con

mphoenix forfeited this round.
Danielle

Pro

Well, essentially my opponent has forfeited this debate. He didn't post an opening round, he forfeited the second, and he cannot make any new arguments in the last... so he's given us nothing to work with. That said, I'll expand a little bit on some of the points I made in the previous round, in case Con comes back to respond.

A) The rest of the world looks unfavorably upon America as a bully or dictator for using our military to police the globe [1].

B) Studies show that things haven't improved all that much in Afghanistan since America sent their troops in. There has been a surge of rape, murder, violence, corruption, drug trafficking, women and children's rights are still being stifled, etc. [2]. Meanwhile their country is being plagued by war between the U.S. armed forces and terrorist groups, which citizens say isn't making things better but worse because of all the innocents dying as a result, and the never-ending environment of war.

C) Policing the globe hurts our image and foreign relations, as well as can present come conflicts between the U.S. and the U.N. and/or the U.S. and other countries (like France for example) [3]. Indeed the U.S. has scuffled with some of our allies who disagreed with the wars and refused to help us participate. This divisive issue has been very straining.

D) Is our presence in other countries actually useful or necessary? Consider, for instance, U.S. goals in places like Afghanistan. One of the main ones were finding Osama bin Ladin, and removing al Qaeda from power there. However new reports suggest Bin Ladin may not even be in Afghanistan, but probably Pakistan if alive at all. Moreover al Qaeda has not been in Afghanistan since 2001, with Gen. Jim Jones, the president's national security adviser, saying that there were less than 100 al Qaeda remaining there [4]. This begs the question... what are we still doing there?

E/F) Policing the globe is expensive. We've spent over 368 billion dollars in Afghanistan ALONE [5]. Adding in other countries (Iraq, Kuwait, Japan, South Korea, etc.) and the number increases to trillions. This doesn't seem to be worth it on a cost-benefit analysis; we're seeing the value of the dollar significant decrease, the economy is coming crashing down on us as we know it; many states cannot remotely afford to pay their debt; etc. yet we're still pumping money into OTHER people's economies. Indeed there was a far better (moral) and less expensive way to combat terrorism - perhaps through increasing intelligence and certain strategic military operations instead of occupation. As a result of this massive expense, our deficit has increased to the point where we've had the worst recession since The Great Depression. Our government should be using tax dollars to help Americans, and be far more frugal in terms of spending. We should only have troops where they are NEEDED, and so far, my opponent hasn't done anything to prove that they're NEEDED to protect the interest of Americans in any of these countries.

G) The country is sharply divided in this issue. A CNN Poll taken in February 2010, 9 months ago, had 65% of people OPPOSING the wars [6]. We can assume that numbers of non-support have only increased since then, considering we've lost more money, more American lives, and have gained nothing substantial - certainly not on a cost/benefit analysis. With nearly 2/3 of the nation being vehemently opposed to such an endeavor, this is obviously something that needs deeper consideration and examination. Why are we REALLY there? Again Con hasn't given us any reason of why we should or need to be in any of these places thus far.

H) Refer to Point B. Many Afghans are being hurt by American presence there, such as the infamous story of American soldiers who killed Afghan citizens for sport, and collected their fingers as trophies [7]. Clearly the Taliban are not the only ones committing human rights violations there.

Alright, well, this was a short analysis... Let's see if my opponent comes back for the final round. Good luck!

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[2] http://www.enotes.com...
[3] http://www.slate.com...
[4] http://www.nypost.com...
[5] http://www.costofwar.com...
[6] http://www.pollingreport.com...
[7] http://www.allvoices.com...
Debate Round No. 2
mphoenix

Con

mphoenix forfeited this round.
Danielle

Pro

Please extend my arguments and vote PRO, as Con hasn't provided any argument or rebuttal as he's forfeited every round.
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Danielle 6 years ago
Danielle
RFD - S/G is self-explanatory. Con wrote about 3 sentences and there were several errors. Conduct - Con because Pro didn't even attempt to make an argument or rebuttal as he forfeited every round. Arguments go to Pro for the same reason. Same with sources; Con didn't have any.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Vi_Veri 6 years ago
Vi_Veri
mphoenixDanielleTied
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 m93samman 6 years ago
m93samman
mphoenixDanielleTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Danielle 6 years ago
Danielle
mphoenixDanielleTied
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