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

Resolved: The United States should adopt a policy of isolationsim.

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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/20/2011 Category: Politics
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,259 times Debate No: 17148
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (0)
Votes (1)




Resolved: The United States should adopt a policy of isolationsim.

First round is acceptance only. All argumentation will begin in round 2.

The debate shall run as follows:

R4-Voting Issues/Final Focus

Good luck to whom ever might accept!


I accept, and I wish my opponent luck.
Debate Round No. 1


Resolved: The United States should adopt a policy of isolationism.

Hello, ladies and gentleman and thank you for viewing this debate. Before I begin my main arguments, I would like to take but a moment to establish a framework for today's debate. In this debate, the Affirmation must prove that, as an application in the U.S., a policy of total isolationism is in the best interest of the U.S. Simply proving that isolationism is good will not suffice for an AFF. victory because this debate is regarding U.S. policy. As the Negation, I must prove that isolationism is not in fact in our best interest. I will accomplish this via three main points enforced by a series of sub points.

Allow me now to quickly define a few terms:

Adopt- To ratify into effect

Isolationism- Refusal to partake in affairs including military operations, trade, and diplomatic negotiations with any other country

Contention 1. The Economy-

Subsection A. Export Revenue: Those in favor of this policy may attempt to argue that from a fiscal standpoint this social ideal is in our best interest, but those who make such claims simply have not looked deeply enough into this proposal to see the severe monetary harm it inflicts in our already overexerted economy. The Central Intelligence Bureau reports that every year, the United States generates roughly $1.27 Trillion from exporting goods. This figure accounts for a sizeable chunk of our GDP and is also the only thing preventing our National Debt from exceeding our GDP itself. According to, the National trade deficit is currently a few billion over $14 Trillion and it is estimated that by Fiscal 2011, our National Deficit will exceed our GDP by over $1 Trillion. If we were to adopt isolationsim, our debt currently would be greater than our GDP and by fiscal 2011, would exceed our GDP by more than $2 trillion. Taking this into consideration, it is evident that isolationsim will idubitably cripple our economy and plunge us futher in debt. My opponent may suggest that under a policy of isolationsim, we will no longer need to repay our debts but this too is undesirable and I will eloberate upon this further later in my constructive.

Subsection B. Lack of energy: In addition to the lack of capital (paper money/ U.S. Dollars) the U.S. will not have enough energy to power it's infastructure contributing further to economic damge. Without the ability to import coal and oil, the U.S. will not be able to collect enough resoruces to power itself at current rates. The Energy Information Agency (EIA) stated that 46% (about 1/2) of all electricity in the United States is produced via some type of fossil fuel, specifically oil & coal. Once again according to the CIA, out of the 18.69 million bbl/day the U.S. uses 11.31 million bbl/day are imported from other countires. Will Brownsberger — State Representative, Democrat, 24th Middlesex District, says that oughly 1/3 off all U.S. energy is imported. Without adequate energy the U.S. simply will not be able to function even on a national level. Without the energy required to operate factories and other forms of machinery the U.S. will simply not be able to produce enough comiditees to sell even to its own people.

Point 2 National Security-

Subsection 1. China- If we were to adopt and ratify a policy of total isolationsim, it would require U.S. to "blow-off" our debt to China. The Treasury Department estimates that our debt to China is approximately $843 Billion. Deciding one day that we no longer had to pay this marvellous sum of money is not only unethical, but would exaserbate and inflame animosity with China, which could potentially lead to war. states that China has an active military personnal of 2,225,000 and and a force of 8,200 tanks. While I undertand that this debate is not about whose military is stronger, one cannot deny, and I can say without contradiction, war with China would be extremely costly and supposing we had stopped exporting and importing, we would not have the finances our energy required to effectively mobilize an army of such scale.

Subsection 2. Middle East- With isolationsim in effect, we would be forced to withdraw from the middle east. While in theory this sounds grand, it would hinder our ability to stay aware of threats particularly in that region and we would be left to rely on old intelligence.

Point 3 Terminating Alliances-

Subsection 1. Brittan & France: I need not stress this point much at all, but ratifying a policy of isolationsim would require U.S. to end commuinication with both Brittan & France -- two longtime allies who have supported and aided the United States on its climb to becoming the World Power it is.

Subsection 2. Isolationsim is immorale: The U.S. has provided substantail militaristic support to many nations for years, and withdrawing said support would increase the likelhood of invasion and it would be immorale of us to abandon our allies. To name a few:

South Korea- 28,000 U.S. troops (1)

Japan- 32,000 (2)

Kuwait - 10,548 (3)

Lastly, I would like to quickly note possibly the country most suceptible to invasion without the U.S. international pressence: Israel, while we may not have any personell on Israeli soil, our presence has prevented large scale invasion from enemies such as Iran & Jordan.

This is a morales argument, and unless my esteemed opponent can justify abandoning a longtime friend and allowing them to potentially be invaded, I have won this particullary aspect of todays debate.
(1)- Global
(2)-Depertment of Defense
(3)- Wikipedia

I thank you all for reading/following this debate and encourage you not only to vote, but to vot in favor of the Negation becuase of my attention to what is in our economic best interest, diploamtic best interest, and also what is moraley correct in making this descision.

------Thank You---------


Deathbeforedishonour forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2


I extend my arguments and my case stands.


Deathbeforedishonour forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3


Deathbeforedishonour forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
No comments have been posted on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by thett3 7 years ago
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:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfiet. And Tacos are good.