The Instigator
lannan13
Con (against)
Losing
2 Points
The Contender
RocketEngineer
Pro (for)
Winning
14 Points

Resolved: On balance, the United States federal govenment is justified in interveening in the intern

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...
RocketEngineer
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/23/2013 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 892 times Debate No: 35901
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (9)
Votes (3)

 

lannan13

Con

This is Round 1. Rocket vs. Lannan13 in the DDO tourney.

The full resolution is Resolved: On balance, the United States federal govenment is justified in interveening in the internal political process of another nation, in an attempt to stop human rights abuses. Before we get going let me lay out some rules.

Rules
No trolling.

No Forfeiture.
Try to keep swearing to a minimum.
1st round is acceptance and definitions as seen fit by the debators.


Definitions

On balance: Taking everything into consideration; all in all.
http://www.ahdictionary.com......

Justified: To demonstrate or prove to be just, right, or valid: justified each budgetary expense as necessary; anger that is justified by the circumstances.
http://www.ahdictionary.com......

Intervene: To interfere, usually through force or threat of force, in the affairs of another nation.
http://www.ahdictionary.com......

Politics: The methods or tactics involved in managing a state or government.
http://www.ahdictionary.com......

Nation: A relatively large group of people organized under a single, usually independent government; a country.
http://www.ahdictionary.com......

Human rights: The basic rights and freedoms to which all humans are considered to be entitled, often held to include the rights to life, liberty, equality, and a fair trial, freedom from slavery and torture, and freedom of thought and expression.
http://www.ahdictionary.com......

Abuses:An unjust or wrongful practice:a government that commits abuses against its citizens.
http://www.ahdictionary.com......


RocketEngineer

Pro

I accept and look forward to this debate!! :)
Debate Round No. 1
lannan13

Con

Contention 1: The Theory of is.

Because of the wording of the resolution and where is is placed all I have to do is point out one event where the US wasn't justified. The resolution states the US is justified, not was. Thus meaning that the US hasn't done anything wrong yet.


Chile

In Chile, the United States wanted a more American supportive government and they interveened in the 1970's, but it only turns out that after the assasination the nation's new leader is anti-american and commits great attrocities of which weren't happening before the US interveened and caused a coup to get rid of the old government in Chile.https://www.cia.gov.........

Kyrgyzstan

The US interveened here to inorder to eliminate an Islamist regieme inorder to install a western friendly government and it came out even worse. The current government restricts water rights which are key to these people and the reason that we don't hear about it in America is becuase the United States doesn't want to admit their own failure! http://spectator.org.........

Middle East

Many people argue that we've gone into Iraq and done great for their government, but the truth is that we went in their for oil and in Pakistan and Afghanistan the United States discovered a REM (rare earth metal) depossit and decided to exploit it!http://isreview.org.........

That's it for now, so I now await my opponent's response.
RocketEngineer

Pro

I will be debating for the Pro position for the debate: The United States is justified in interfering with other countries when human rights abuse occurs.

Lannans points

Because of the wording of the resolution and where is is placed all I have to do is point out one event where the US wasn't justified.

I am going to argue that this is abuse of conduct. My opponent didn't set these parameters up in the opening round, thus I had no way to agree to them. I am going to be arguing that overall the U.S. is better off intervening, not that every case was a good option.

CHILE

I am confused about my opponents source here... It's seems to be a link the the CIA's home page with no actual conclusive evidence of what he says actually being true.

"The arrival of Joel Roberts Poinsett, in 1811, marked the beginning of U.S. involvement in Chilean politics. He had been sent by President James Madison in 1809 as a special agent to the South American Spanish colonies (a position he filled from 1810 to 1814) to investigate the prospects of the revolutionaries, in their struggle for independence from Spain." (1)

The United State's involvement in Chile was Justified as an attempt to stop tyranny to the Chilean political system.

Kyrgyzstan

Again this is just another source of a site's home page lacking any clear evidence of my opponents point. But aside from this, failure doesn't mean the attempt was morally and philosophically correct. The US doesn't have to be succesful in order for their mission to be moral.

Middle East

Again, the source cites the homepage of a site. Anyways there were other reasons the United States went to the middle east aside from j=what my opponent noted.

Afghanistan and Pakistan, though situated in Asia, are considered part of the Greater Middle East. U.S. intervention in both Afghanistan and Pakistan started with the Carter Administration after the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. The relations of the U.S. with Afghanistan and Pakistan have been closely tied to the War on terrorism that has happened there. American policy has been instrumental in coordinating the ongoing conflicts in Afghanistan and northwestern Pakistan. In recent times, political situations of both countries have been bracketed under a single theater of operations, denoted by the newly-coined American term "AfPak." (2)


Rocket's Arguments

Every human has the right to life, and should be able to pursue the right to happiness. These are the beliefs of our founding fathers that have been adopted over time, yet still remain what the United States relies on. We rely on the freedom and independence our government ensures us. Unfortunately, not all other countries sympthesize with these same goals.

Argument 1: It’s within the United States bet moral interests

The United States interfering with other countries isn’t something that should be required when it comes to human rights abuse. I will not be arguing that the United States should interfere with EVERY human rights abuse that occurs. Unfortunately the pool of resources, people, and time could make this impossible. My point will be that The United States “should” as defined in the resolution, do their best to prevent human rights abuse where and when they can.

For this debate, let’s assume that war is a last resort to the process.

Arugment 2: The United and States protects the values of its citizens; why not others?

Our Country (the U.S.) is probably one of the freest countries in the world with the most opportunity. Our constitution guarantees us freedom free from government tyrants and dictators. With this freedom, most of our human rights are met with Justice and Equality. Some countries in the world do not serve their citizens this same way. Some countries governments inflict human rights abuses themselves, or put little effort into stopping abuses from other groups.

Human rights, however, encompass all human beings, not just those who share societal relations. If we believe that human rights abuses are cruel, and are stopping them in our static environment, than why not do the same universally? If we feel that we have a moral obligation in any regard to human right violation, the same should apply everyone. This leads me to point 2.

Arugment 3: Ability and responsibility

If we have the means and ability to protect people from In-Justice, shouldn’t we pursue it?

I will use an example: If you saw someone being robbed on the street, would you walk away and let it happen? Or would you call the cops, and/or step in to help the person being robbed? Note: this doesn’t have to be through an initial method of violence.

Protection of innocent lives, and rights coincide with the goals of the United States, thus we should be obligated to attempt diplomacy with other countries in order to stop these occurrences.

I conclude, that it is in the best moral interest sometimes for the US to interfere with political structures of other countries.

1. http://en.wikipedia.org...
2. http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 2
lannan13

Con

lannan13 forfeited this round.
RocketEngineer

Pro

I extend the previous arguments, and await my opponents response.
Debate Round No. 3
lannan13

Con

Sorry for the FF, I had to work my school's registation and I tried to hurry.

Contention of Is

My opponent says this is abuse of conduct, but this is false because he agreed to the resolution in a PM and in round one. Thus meaning he accepted all uses of the definitions. He also says it should have been stated in round 1 but that is also false because the rules state that round 1 is for acceptance and definitions and this is a contention, an arguement, thus meaning that it didn't fit in round 1 and is totally leagal. So extend all agruements.

Chile

Sorry about the link here is the actual link https://www.cia.gov...

My opponent says is this case that we were justified, but as I stated in round 2 we helped set up a dictatorship in Chile. Does that sound link what Pro is saying?

Kyrgyzstan

Again sorry about the link here is the correct link http://spectator.org...

My opponent says it was morally correct, but is rationing water when you have plenty of it and human rights abuses sound morally correct and we outsted the leader because he was Mulsum.

Middle East

My opponent says that we're justified here, but another thing that we did is fund Al-Qaeda and helped cause 9/11 http://www.theinsider.org.... We in the end killed millions of people for nothing in a major loop, is this morally correct? I think not!

Rocket's arguement's

My opponent goes and says that we should involve ourselves because we're correct on our values, but the thing is that eastern values differ than western values and we shouldn't go meddaling with their beleifs. Over their what we call human rights abuses they call their religon of Islam. We can't go over their and fight them because of their religon or it would spark another Crusade.

What we do to those citizens of the nation we interveen in we end up hurting them. Let me introduce to you a card

Intervention violates the rights of those in the intervening nation.
On a related note, Dobos argues that intervention is potentially immoral on the grounds that those in
intervening nations are denied information and choice:
DOBOS, NED. 2010. ["A State to Call Their Own: Insurrection, Intervention, and the Communal Integrity
Thesis." Journal Of Applied Philosophy 27, no. 1: 26-38. Academic Search Complete, EBSCOhost
(accessed March 6, 2013).]
Of course none of this should be taken to suggest that intervention is justified all things considered
wherever rebellion is. Even where the means employed and the ends sought are similar, a foreign
invasion can be expected to provoke stiffer resistance than a local uprising, augmenting its costs and
potentially impeding its success .Thus inter-state war can fail to satisfy the prudential constraints (proportionality, likelihood of
success) where intra-state war would fulfil them. Humanitarian intervention might also conflict with the domestic
obligations of the state that prosecutes it, depending on how one conceives of the social contract that
binds a government to its people. According to what Buchanan calls the ‘discretionary association’ view,
citizens empower their government to act as an agent or trustee for the sole purpose of promoting their
interests. We each submit to the authority of our government and relinquish a portion of our earnings in
tax in return for this service.The contract says nothing about using public resources to render assistance
to foreigners.50 Therefore humanitarian intervention involves a state violating the fiduciary rights of its
taxpayers. It might also be said to violate the rights of the military personnel deployed. Martin Cook
describes the ‘implicit moral contract’ between a state and its armed forces as follows: The military
contract obliges military personnel to run grave risks and to engage in morally and personally difficult
actions. They do these things on the basis of the implicit promise that the circumstances under which
they must act are grounded in political leadership’s good faith judgment that the defense of sovereignty and integrity of the nation (or, by careful extension, the nation’s vital interests) require their action.51
The crucial point here is that soldiers implicitly agree to fight and die only for their country and its vital
interests. A government that uses military force to defend human rights beyond its borders thus
tramples on the rights of its own armed servicemen and women in the process.

Con's sources

Wikipeadia isn't a creditable source so I do implore that Pro finds something else to back up his arguements.

Conclusion

In conclusion we can see that the US isn't justified. With the conention of is states that I need to find 1 thing wrong and I have showed that there were things wrong with everything, even what my opponent brought up. You can give Conduct to Pro due to my FF, but I do ask for you to vote Con.


RocketEngineer

Pro

Lannans arguments

Contention of is

Let me explain to you why this is an abuse of conduct: Lannan unfairly stated a win premise that I hadn't agreed on. While I plan on refuting every one of his points, no where in our private message, did I agree to him winning if just one instance wasn't justified. However, my opponent in definition is wrong. "Is" doesn't mean just one. It is open to interpretation, but it could also mean that on balance (which is a how a debate should be decided) that U.S. has done more harm than good in their process of intervention.

Chile

First off I never said we helped set up a dictatorship, so I am confused as to what my opponent is talking about?

Also, my opponent's own source works against him.

Let me post some experts from it.

CIA actively supported the military Junta after the overthrow of Allende but did not assist Pinochet to assume the Presidency. In fact, many CIA officers shared broader US reservations about Pinochet’s single-minded pursuit of power.

Evidences that the government had not supported Pinochet's Rise of Power, and actually discouraged it IE reservations.

In the 1960s and the early 1970s, as part of the US Government policy to try to influence events in Chile, the CIA undertook specific covert action projects in Chile. Those hereby acknowledged are described below. The overwhelming objective—firmly rooted in the policy of the period—was to discredit Marxist-leaning political leaders, especially Dr. Salvador Allende, and to strengthen and encourage their civilian and military opponents to prevent them from assuming power.

These actions, as stated by Lannans source, were to prevent a dictatorship from growing.

Kyrgyzstan

The things that my opponent lists as "bad" intervention, are false. "rationing water" for example. We were giving water to a country that was already lacking it. They wouldn't have had the water had we not been there to give it to them. We ration it so we can distribute it equally among them.

Also my opponents claim of us "ousting" a leader because he is Muslim, is false, and not backed up by any source, meaning we must drop this point.

Middle East

We didn't "help cause 9/11" by funding them. You realize that 9/11 was caused by two terrorists driving a plane right? This required no more resources than two human beings with access to an airplane to be able to take over these flights.
Any of our support towards Al-Queda, had nothing to do with 9/11. Terrorists made a choice, and by that choice, Americans suffered. We didn't cause this by trying to help out other countries.

Rockets Arguments

Argument 1: Dropped.

Argument 2: U.S's protecting the value of it's citizens, why not others?

How do we hurt their citizens? My opponent fails to explain this. Human Rights meets the definition that Lannan provided in R1.

The basic rights and freedoms to which all humans are considered to be entitled, often held to include the rights to life, liberty, equality, and a fair trial, freedom from slavery and torture, and freedom of thought and expression.(3)

This means, by my opponents own argument, that all humans are defined by the same rights. By protecting these rights, they aren't different from our own rights at all.

Argument 3: Dropped.

Sources:

My opponent says wikipedia isn't a "credible source". He fails to explain why however. That information in the source, is readily available on other websites, meaning the information still holds true. What my opponent should have done if he wanted to attack my sources, would be to point out something within them that is wrong or flawed. He didn't do this, so we must assume the information within them still holds true. Also one of your sources comes from a blog, made up of someone's own take on U.S. intervention, lacking a source of it's own. How is that any better than wikipedia?


Conclusion

I feel I have won this debate for the following reasons:

1. My opponent's own sources basically refute his arguments.
2. My opponent has dropped two of my arguments.
3. My opponent has breached conduct multiple times; setting up the debate on unfair principles without my agreeing to it, and Forfeiting a round, and posting his real sources only in the final round giving me only one round to debate his actual arguments...
4. Giving false information in his arguments and presenting them as fact.

Please vote Pro.

3. http://www.ahdictionary.com...
Debate Round No. 4
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by RocketEngineer 4 years ago
RocketEngineer
Thanks for the votes!
Posted by wrichcirw 4 years ago
wrichcirw
1) I have no idea where CON is going with his "is" argument. He argues that the debate is about the present, then brings in historical arguments. Doesn't make any sense.

2) PRO: "If you saw someone being robbed on the street, would you walk away and let it happen? Or would you call the cops, and/or step in to help the person being robbed?"

There is a gigantic difference between calling the cops and stepping in yourself. Personally, I'd call the cops and stay out of it. Internationally, there are no "cops", so you don't have that option. Either you step in and risk the robber assaulting you, or you stay out of it.

We happen to be the "world's policeman" but this is a self-appointed title, and I'm certain there are nations out there that simply do not see it that way.

3) "Let me introduce to you a card..."

Plagiarized from http://debate-central.ncpa.org.... Invalid and not considered. Sources and conduct to PRO.

4) PRO: ""Is" doesn't mean just one. It is open to interpretation, but it could also mean that on balance..."

lol, ok. Whatever, I guess...this makes more sense than anything CON posted.

---

CONCLUSION

CON needs to run a spell-checker. It's "INTERVENE" not "INTERVEEN".

Plagiarism and a forfeited round automatically score sources and conduct against CON.

Arguments PRO - he was simply more convincing in pointing out myriad holes in CON's argument, and his own case was not properly rebutted.

I found CON's 9/11 argument to be compelling, and merits a higher impact than other points, all of which were successfully rebutted by PRO. For this, I will not dock CON S&G (consider it a 2/3 points for arguments).
Posted by thett3 4 years ago
thett3
*This renders Cons offense pretty much non-existent because his arguments were predicated on the idea that he only needed to show on negative example, not the cost-benefit analysis that "On balance" requires.
Posted by thett3 4 years ago
thett3
Conduct to Pro for the forfeit and for Con trying to argue that he only needs to show one bad example of US intervention to negate the resolution. This is ridiculous (Hello, "On balance"?), and if Con wants to make arguments like this that skew the resolution heavily he needs a serious justification. Quite frankly, I didn't even understand what he meant when he said "Because of the wording of the resolution and where is is placed all I have to do is point out one event where the US wasn't justified. The resolution states the US is justified, not was. Thus meaning that the US hasn't done anything wrong yet." This renders Cons offense pretty much non-existent.

Arguments to Pro because contentions one and three were totally dropped. They could definitely use being fleshed out, but with no Con response I'll accept them as fact. Con drops that its a moral obligation (C3), rendering his counter argument about it violating the rights of those intervening useless because my rights aren't violated if my tax money is being used in a manner that I'm morally obligated to use it in.

Anyone interested in debating or reading arguments in favor of intervention: http://www.debate.org...
Posted by thett3 4 years ago
thett3
Conduct to Pro for the forfeit and for Con trying to argue that he only needs to show one bad example of US intervention to negate the resolution. This is ridiculous (Hello, "On balance"?), and if Con wants to make arguments like this that skew the resolution heavily he needs a serious justification. Quite frankly, I didn't even understand what he meant when he said "Because of the wording of the resolution and where is is placed all I have to do is point out one event where the US wasn't justified. The resolution states the US is justified, not was. Thus meaning that the US hasn't done anything wrong yet." This renders Cons offense pretty much non-existent.

Arguments to Pro because contentions one and three were totally dropped. They could definitely use being fleshed out, but with no Con response I'll accept them as fact. Con drops that its a moral obligation (C3), rendering his counter argument about it violating the rights of those intervening useless because my rights aren't violated if my tax money is being used in a manner that I'm morally obligated to use it in.

Anyone interested in debating or reading arguments in favor of intervention: http://www.debate.org...
Posted by RocketEngineer 4 years ago
RocketEngineer
Thanks Justin :)
Posted by JustinAMoffatt 4 years ago
JustinAMoffatt
Kind of a short Voting Period though...
Posted by JustinAMoffatt 4 years ago
JustinAMoffatt
Aw shoot, now I'm scared that I'll face ya'll later in the tourney....

Lol, but seriously, great job guys :)
Posted by dragon_slayer489 4 years ago
dragon_slayer489
WOW Lannan I feel this is a ( how should I say this ) but wow just wow
good wording in your topics
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by donald.keller 4 years ago
donald.keller
lannan13RocketEngineerTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:24 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct: Con ff'd. This is especially bad since he said FFing was against his own rules. Argument: I felt Pro gave a more convincing argument overall. Sources: Pro had some, but Con really backed up his statements with them, including a source with every paragraph. This leaves out of stacking he did in R1, since those sources weren't very important to the overall argument.
Vote Placed by wrichcirw 4 years ago
wrichcirw
lannan13RocketEngineerTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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: see comments
Vote Placed by thett3 4 years ago
thett3
lannan13RocketEngineerTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Comment #6