The Instigator
fredman15
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Ragnar_Rahl
Con (against)
Winning
5 Points

Should the US have entered Worlkd War 2

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...
Ragnar_Rahl
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/31/2010 Category: Society
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,098 times Debate No: 12669
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (9)
Votes (1)

 

fredman15

Pro

I think the US had no choice but to enter WW 2 because Japan bomb us at pearl harbor that tick us off then also Hitler was dominting the world them 2 things was just getting us mad and causeing us more and more to enter the war beside World War 2 was the main reason we got out of the Great Depression
Ragnar_Rahl

Con

The attack on Pearl Harbor was preventable. The intent to go to war was there and was clear, when it could easily have been made clear that the US was not hostile, had they not wanted to be. It is thus hard to justify Pearl Harbor as necessitating the war-- the decision had been more or less made and waiting for an excuse at that point.

Hitler was not "dominating the world." He was dominating much of Europe, true, but that stretches resources thin. And he was running into a place that conquerors have always failed at--Russia. Russia, notably, was our enemy for the next war. It would have been in our interests to let them slaughter one another. And in the interests of generations of Russians too, who would have had a chance at freedom when the Nazis and Soviets killed one another off- a chance at freedom somewhat lower than the chance of survival otherwise, but a free life is worth much more than one spent in slavery.

Now, of course, had one such party (axis or soviet) conclusively defeated the other, and if Axis, had they fought one another over their empire (as surely they would), we would have to fight the winner. But that would not be World War 2. It would be easier (weakened enemies) and not have a cold war at the end. Thus, World War 2 should have been rejected in favor of World War Two and One Half, as I dub this alternate possible war.
Debate Round No. 1
fredman15

Pro

fredman15 forfeited this round.
Ragnar_Rahl

Con

Kentucky Fred Forfeits
Debate Round No. 2
fredman15

Pro

fredman15 forfeited this round.
Ragnar_Rahl

Con

Enjoy that KFF
Debate Round No. 3
fredman15

Pro

fredman15 forfeited this round.
Ragnar_Rahl

Con

Ragnar_Rahl forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by democrat435 6 years ago
democrat435
lol. awesom job. con had this from the start. lol
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 7 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
just noting, I shall be gone for the last round or so. But no matter.
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 7 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
One can have a Manhattan project without an invasion of Europe you know.
Posted by I-am-a-panda 7 years ago
I-am-a-panda
Eh, 1) Germany was actively researching a Nuclear bomb 2) The US was attacked by Japan AND THEN Germany declared war first.
Posted by Sniperjake1994 7 years ago
Sniperjake1994
The U.S should not have entered WW2. Why? Cause the U.S was so f**king stupid when the Allies and Germany couldn't pay off their debts. Instead the U.S circulated its money and Germany and Allies' debt numbers simply went down without actually paying back. Not only that but Europe started the war, we are not considered its colonies and after WW1 we became the super-power, so why waste resources and bring up Soviet Russia for the Cold War =-> which leads us to present day fight on terrorism in the Middle East. We should have simply just stayed out of its way and let Germany conquer Europe and play defense for the Western Hemisphere. Either way Germany or Japan wouldn't had developed a nuke due to knowledge and manpower, and we wouldn't have Einstein thus the issue with nuclear wouldn't exist today.
Posted by I-am-a-panda 7 years ago
I-am-a-panda
"but i would probably feel pathetic and dirty afterwards :P" - That sounds a lot different than taking up a debate and using semantics
Posted by I-am-a-panda 7 years ago
I-am-a-panda
The Texas Delegation, with something along the lines of "HURR DURR FDR WAS AN DIOT EVERYTHIGN HE DID WAS WRONG STUPID LIBERAL!"
Posted by belle 7 years ago
belle
i would love to take this and be a complete b*tch about it, but i would probably feel pathetic and dirty afterwards :P
Posted by Koopin 7 years ago
Koopin
Lol, who would be con?
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by I-am-a-panda 7 years ago
I-am-a-panda
fredman15Ragnar_RahlTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05