The Instigator
17gioiad
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Kescarte_DeJudica
Con (against)
Winning
4 Points

Should the U.S. be involved in global affairs?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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...
Kescarte_DeJudica
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/1/2016 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 9 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 241 times Debate No: 90472
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (1)

 

17gioiad

Pro

Although the U.S. can't get involved with every problem the international community faces, reaching out and helping others from oppression should be viewed more openly. However, using the U.S's global power to spread democracy and fight other cultures shouldn't be an excuse to help. We should be involved because as a powerful country, we should stand up to brutal governments that are treating its people wrongly.
Kescarte_DeJudica

Con

I accept the debate on United States involvement in global affairs. I would like to thank my opponent for bringing up such an important topic for discussion, and I hope that this will be an invigorating and educational debate.

I will be arguing from the position that the United States was founded on the principles of neutralism, and that we have strayed too far from these original principles that composed our foreign policy. I will also present my case that while it is indeed noble to help other civilizations by spreading causes like democracy, we, today especially, are not in a position where doing so would be wise. This is because we have too many problems of our own, particularly the federal debt of over $19 trillion that needs to be repaid. Let the debate begin!
Debate Round No. 1
17gioiad

Pro

17gioiad forfeited this round.
Kescarte_DeJudica

Con

Since my opponent forfeited his opportunity to make his argument in Round 2, I will go ahead and make my argument. I hope he will find the time to make a rebuttal in Round 3, so that the debate can remain a debate, instead of becoming a one-sided lecture.

My first argument is that the United States as a country was originally founded on the principle of minding our own business and staying out of international conflict. The only real allowable exception was in the Monroe Doctrine, where we could come to the assistance of our neighboring countries in the Western hemisphere when they were trying to resist control from overseas empires (such as when Cuba attempted to declare its independence from Spain, for example).

However, throughout our country's history, our political leaders strayed from this idealism many times, often entering world conflicts in which we had no real purpose for fighting. In some cases, as in World War II, we entered wars in the name of "defense", when defense clearly wasn't the main motive behind the war effort. Or in a more recent example, in the infamous Iraq War of 2004, we fought in the Middle East in an attempt to overthrow the dictator Saddam Hussein. Although we were successful in the effort, once we left the country, the lack of defense enabled terrorist organizations to take control, thus creating a bigger problem then what there originally was. These are two examples out of several, in which we wasted unfathomable amounts of human lives and money without really accomplishing anything significant.

For my last point, my position is that our country cannot afford to interfere in any more foreign disputes. We are over $19 trillion in debt, and we have other problems which also demand our immediate attention, such as the economy. And think about that number for a minute: $19 trillion. Let me help put that in perspective. Let's say you start a business today, and immediately borrow and spend a million dollars for that business just today. And then let's say you do the same thing EVERY SINGLE DAY for the next 2005 years without making a penny off of the products you sell. You think you might have reached the national debt by that time? You aren't even close. In fact, you've probably only reached about one trillion dollars so far. Which means you would have to continue to spend one million dollars a day for another 36090 years!

So, if we have a debt that large, how can we continue to spend even more taxpayer money to get involved in international affairs? Believe me, I would love to see Democratic Republics set up all over the world in foreign countries as much as anyone. And it is certainly painful to see people in other countries, people just like you and me, face cruel and unjust treatment from their leaders. But we owe our loyalty to our own citizens first, and what the citizens of our country need is for us to stop policing foreign nations, establish a defense program which is strictly used only for defense and pay off the national debt. Then, we will be much stronger as a nation, and will to continue to hold our position as the leader of the free world.

Sources:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 2
17gioiad

Pro

17gioiad forfeited this round.
Kescarte_DeJudica

Con

Thank you DDO for hosting this debate. And thank you Pro, for giving me the microphone to my case for foreign policy to the nation! ;)
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by Kescarte_DeJudica 9 months ago
Kescarte_DeJudica
@Deadstatue

Thanks for making the distinction. You're right. The United States is a republic, not a democracy. And I am unable to recall any foreign democracy success stories either, even though the country has spent trillions of dollars fighting in the Middle East alone.
Posted by Deadstatue 9 months ago
Deadstatue
I'm pretty sure the US IS involved in every problem the global community faces right now lol. I'm having a hard time coming up with any country that the US has brought a stable usable democracy to. Also, does it matter that the US isn't a democracy?
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Edlvsjd 9 months ago
Edlvsjd
17gioiadKescarte_DeJudicaTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture