The Instigator
Wylted
Pro (for)
Winning
15 Points
The Contender
imabench
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Senator Joseph McCarthy was a hero

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 4 votes the winner is...
Wylted
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/29/2014 Category: People
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,305 times Debate No: 67627
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (12)
Votes (4)

 

Wylted

Pro

The resolution is: Senator Joseph McCarthy is a hero.

Context- The debate is specifically about Senator Joseph McCarthy's action during the 2nd Red scare which took place in the 40s and 50s. Any events not pertaining to The Red Scare or McCarthyism should be excluded from this debate unless they somehow provide proper context.

By hero I mean that McCarthy had the qualities of noble intentions and actions.

Rounds are 72 hours long and 10,000 characters.

I've made this debate so hopefully only Imabench can accept. If anybody else accepts then they willingly and knowingly forfeit. I'm issuing the challenge in this way to build interest as this may be something that interests those who've only heard 1 side of the McCarthy debate.

Imabench is known for his trolling debates and he is so good at those that often times people forget that he's actually a really good debater. I look forward to debating Hall of Fame Member and Vice president of the site Imabench.

Please let me know in the comments or PM if this resolution needs to be altered in some way or just the rules in general.
imabench

Con

I dont know why in the living hell I didnt get a notification that this challenge had been sent but Im glad someone pointed it out to me.

I accept, and will argue that Senator Joseph McCarthy was by no means a hero.

You may state your case :D
Debate Round No. 1
Wylted

Pro

Thanks Imabench for accepting the debate.

Senator McCarthy though unorthodox was trying to warn the American people that several branches of the United States government including a lot of areas that had access to top secret documents as well as the ability to influence foreign policy had been infiltrated by enemies of the state, spies.

If I prove that McCarthy was right, that spies had infiltrated high levels of government, influential think tanks etc. then certainly he was right to want an investigation into the matters. Certainly being concerned enough about national security to willingly become a laughing stock and ruin your political career in the pursuit of the higher goal of saving your nations sovereignty and security is a good thing.

VENONA PAPERS

The Venona papers are now declassified documents that show Senator McCarthy was correct when he stated that the United States government was infected with Soviet spies. [3]

"The Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations has just made public its hitherto sealed closed-door hearings 50 years ago showing widespread Soviet penetration of the U.S. government. Despite the negative media spin, the hearing transcripts show its chairman, Sen. Joseph R. McCarthy, was ahead of his time.

A prime example is the case of the atomic scientist J. Robert Oppenheimer, whose advocacy of sharing nuclear secrets with the Soviet Union helped bolster the war machine of the genocidal Joseph Stalin. This gave the Soviets a leg up in the Cold War that lasted nearly a half century and took millions of innocent lives."
[2]

That should be the end of this. McCarthy wasn't on a which hunt, he was right. Communists infiltrated sensitive locations and needed to be removed.

ACCUSATIONS OF A WITCH HUNT

I have in my hand 57 cases of individuals who would appear to be either card carrying members or certainly loyal to the Communist Party, but who nevertheless are still helping to shape our foreign policy."[4]

These names cam from what's known as the Lee list. A list compiled by Robert E. Lee as part of an investigation by the house appropriations committee on security risks.[5]

The senator was actually against naming names. He directly states so.

"[I]t would be improper to make the names public until the appropriate Senate committee can meet in executive session and get them," explained McCarthy. "If we should label one man a Communist when he is not a Communist I think it would be too bad."

McCarthy began to read the cases and just referred to them as numbers. His intention was to protect people from any undue public suspicion. He merely asked for an investigation, but while reading his list senator Scott Lucas interrupts him yelling.

"I want him to name those Communists." "if those people are not Communists the senator will be protected."[6]

McCarthy made an honest attempt to protect these people until his opponents demanded their names and forced him to reveal them publicly. Looking back at history, it's clear why his opposition forced this issue.

McCarthy once again tried to protect the names from being publicly exposed. He merely wanted an investigation but his opposition was trying to force a witch hunt in order to tarnish his name and reputation.

"The Senator from Illinois demanded, loudly, that I furnish all the names. I told him at that time that so far as I was concerned, I thought that would be improper; that I did not have all the information about these individuals ... I have enough to convince me that either they are members of the Communist Party or they have given great aid to the Communists: I may be wrong. That is why I said that unless the Senate demanded that I do so, I would not submit this publicly, but I would submit it to any committee -- and would let the committee go over these in executive session. It is possible that some of these persons will get a clean bill of health...."

In hearings of Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations (PSI here after), 83 individuals plead the 5th amendment and 9 refused to testify.[8] Of the 83 people who pleaded the 5th several were proven later to be spies. some prominent examples are:

1. Mary Jane Keeney, a United Nations employee, and her husband Philip Keeney, who worked in the Office of Strategic Services;[9]

2. Lauchlin Currie, a special assistant to President Roosevelt;[10]

3. Virginius Frank Coe , Director of Division of Monetary Research, U.S. Treasury; Technical Secretary at the Bretton Woods Conference; International Monetary Fund; [11]

4. William Ludwig Ullman, delegate to the United Nations Charter Conference and Bretton Woods Conference;[12]

5. Nathan Gregory Silvermaster, Chief Planning Technician, Procurement Division, United States Department of the Treasury and head of the Silvermaster network of spies;

6. Harold Glasser, U.S. Treasury Representative to the Allied High Commission in Italy;

7. Four staff members of the LaFollette Civil Liberties Committee, a Senate subcommittee on labor rights;

8. Allan Rosenberg, Chief of the Economic Institution Staff, Foreign Economic Administration; Counsel to the National Labor Relations Board;

9. Solomon Adler, U.S. Treasury Dept., went to China and joined government of Mao Zedong;

10. Robert T. Miller, Office of the Coordinator of Inter-American Affairs; Near Eastern Division United States Department of State; also identified in the Gorsky Memo from Soviet Archives; McCarthy's Case #16 and Lee list #12;[14]

11. Franz Leopold Neumann, consultant at Board of Economic Warfare; Deputy Chief of the Central European Section of Office of Strategic Services; First Chief of Research of the Nuremberg War Crimes Tribunal; also identified in the Gorsky Memo from Soviet Archives;

12. Laurence Duggan, head of United States Department of State Division of American Republics;[16]

There are a ton more names I can add to that list but I think, I've made my point. (these descriptions were taken from citation 15)

CONCLUSION

I think we can see that McCarthy's actions were noble and that his intent was noble. The guy is a hero. It's unfortunate that he was forced to reveal names of people who he was trying to protect until due process was done, but his opponents forced him to, for the obvious reason to discredit him.

I look forward to Imabench's opening arguments. Good luck.

sources
[1] http://www.senate.gov...
[2] http://www.michaelkeller.com...
[3] https://www.nsa.gov...
[4] http://faculty.tnstate.edu...
[5] U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, State Department Employee Loyalty Investigations (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1950).
[6] http://books.google.com... (Blacklisted from history pg. 202)
[7] ibid pg 438-439
[8] Drummey, James J. (May 11, 1987). The Real McCarthy Record. The New American, Section III. Committee Chairman (1953-54). http://www.knology.net...
[9] Buckley, Jr., William F. and Bozell, L. Brent (1954, 1995 Printing). McCarthy & His Enemies, The Record And Its Meaning. Regnery Publishing Inc.. ISBN 0-89526-472-2. Congressional Record, (February 20, 1950). Page 1956. U. S. Government Printing Office.
[10] Congressional Record, (June 14, 1951). Page 6574. U. S. Government Printing Office.
[11] http://fl1.findlaw.com...
[12] http://fl1.findlaw.com...
[13] http://fl1.findlaw.com...
[14] Alexander Vassiliev, Notes on A. Gorsky"s Report to Savchenko S.R., 23 December 1949.
[15] http://www.conservapedia.com...
[16] Joseph R. McCarthy Papers, Series 14, Senate Subject Files, Marquettte University Library Special Collections.
imabench

Con

Vote pro I kinda got temp banned....
Debate Round No. 2
imabench

Con

imabench forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
imabench

Con

imabench forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
12 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by imabench 2 years ago
imabench
Yeah sorry about that
Posted by Ragnar 2 years ago
Ragnar
You could do a rematch in a week?
Posted by Wylted 2 years ago
Wylted
I was wondering why that response was so fast
Posted by Duncan 2 years ago
Duncan
Generally, a Hero is someone known especially for their bravery and altruism.
Posted by Wylted 2 years ago
Wylted
I want to define it but I'm afraid I run the risk of either making it too inclusive and losing all meaning or making it overly narrow and therefore meaningless.

If you have any advice for defining it, I'd appreciate it.
Posted by Ragnar 2 years ago
Ragnar
Please define Hero.
Posted by Wylted 2 years ago
Wylted
Thanks, I hope you enjoy i.
Posted by bossyburrito 2 years ago
bossyburrito
Wow, this is actually a very interesting topic. I'm going to follow this.

Also, good job specifying that you're only arguing for his anti-communism tactics. I don't think his anti-gay positions would be as easily defended.
Posted by Wylted 2 years ago
Wylted
I know :(
Posted by EndarkenedRationalist 2 years ago
EndarkenedRationalist
I don't see how this was remotely true...but good luck.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Blade-of-Truth 2 years ago
Blade-of-Truth
WyltedimabenchTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Concession by Con due to a temp-ban.
Vote Placed by Krazzy_Player 2 years ago
Krazzy_Player
WyltedimabenchTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: FF
Vote Placed by Atheist-Independent 2 years ago
Atheist-Independent
WyltedimabenchTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Full forfeiture.
Vote Placed by Zarroette 2 years ago
Zarroette
WyltedimabenchTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Con told me to vote Pro, so argument points to Pro. Source points go to Pro, too, because they were very relevant to making the winning case. No conduct points will be awarded because Con politely indicated that he would be unable to respond.