The Instigator
KCH
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Blade-of-Truth
Con (against)
Winning
24 Points

Should the United States serve as a world police force?

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...
Blade-of-Truth
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/13/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,311 times Debate No: 68270
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (3)
Votes (4)

 

KCH

Pro

As the most powerful country in the world, the United States has an obligation to assist developing countries and allies who are in need. Living in a global society means that we are all connected and the success, health, and well being of one country, large or small, can impact the entire world.
Blade-of-Truth

Con

I want to thank Pro for instigating this thought-provoking debate.

Clarifications

As Pro, my opponent must show that the United States should serve as the worlds police force.

As Con, I will show that the United States should not serve as the worlds police force.

Should is defined as: Used to indicate obligation, duty, or correctness. [1]

In essence, my opponent must show that there is an obligation, duty, or correctness for America serving as the worlds police force.

Arguments

I. There is no obligation

Obligation is defined as: An act or course of action to which a person is morally or legally bound; a duty or commitment. [2]

I do not believe there is a moral or legal obligation to police Russia. Nor is there a moral or legal obligation to police North Korea. If we impose our will into countries that are unwilling to have us serve in such a capacity, it is not only unjust but it also leaves no grounds for us to move in and serve as a police force.

Without such an obligation, there are no grounds as to why we should do such a thing. Pro must prove there is an obligation for the US to serve as a police force for each of the 196 countries (including Taiwan) currently found around the world. Duty is defined as a moral or legal obligation as well [3], thus that term falls into the same argument as this one for obligation.

II. There is no correctness in such an act

I'll leave this one up for my opponent to affirm. I do not believe there is any correctness in the act of imposing our police forces on sovereign nations who do not ask for such forces. To do so would be an act against their wishes. As I said, I'll leave it up to Pro to prove this challenge wrong, as it is his burden to do so.

III. Conflict of Interests

We cannot expect American trained or backed police forces to suddenly conform to the laws of another nation/country. In fact, we see this in our own country at the moment with state laws which contradict federal laws such as the marijuana legislation and passing it in certain states as legal when the federal law still classifies it as an illegal substance. Not only has this caused massive legal issues in each state in regards to state organizations and federal law enforcement agencies, but it also reflects the fact that even in America, in one nation, there are law officers who arrest people due to unclear laws. I see no reason why this would be any different in various nations where certain acts are legal there but considered taboo or illegal in America or by American legal standards.

IV. Lack of man-power

Where would the man-power come from? The US population only sits at 320 million right now. [4] With nations that have populations ranging in the Billions like China or India, I see no reason why they wouldn't be able to produce enough law officials themselves. Not only would this take precious numbers from our own country, but more so is the fact that we have locations in America itself which lack the proper amount of man-power in regards to police officers. In a study published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics, it is shown that there are roughly 2 officers per 1,000 civilians. [5] This gives weight to the fact that we, in America, are already under-manned. Spreading our officers on a global scale would be a net detriment to the small amount of officers we already have.

Rebuttals

V. "As the most powerful country in the world, the United States has an obligation to assist developing countries and allies who are in need."

I disagree. I've already shown how there is no obligation whatsoever. The burden is on Pro to show otherwise. As it stands, this is nothing more than an unproven claim regarding the obligation, and gives no reason to accept it as a valid claim. The fact that we are the most powerful country in the world means little to nothing, besides, we aren't even the most powerful in terms of economic strength. China surpassed us a little bit ago. [6]

So, not only is my opponent incorrect about the US being the most powerful country in the world, at-least in terms of the economy, but he is also using such a claim to justify the obligation which requires a legal or moral ground to stand on. No such ground has been given yet by Pro. Thus this argument stands defeated.

VI. "Living in a global society means that we are all connected and the success, health, and well being of one country, large or small, can impact the entire world."

While I agree that we are all connected, etc., this does nothing to justify the US serving as the worlds police force. This is nothing more than an emotional appeal fallacy and holds no ground whatsoever in providing justification for either the obligation or necessity to act as the worlds police force. Furthermore, Pro has given no reasoning as to why the well-being of a small country can impact the entire world. That's just silly. There are countless countries so small and insignificant that Pro probably hasn't even heard of them. No-one in America is affected by a famine happening in Nauru or Tuvalu. Unless proof is presented, this argument stands defeated as well since, as of now, it is nothing more than a logical fallacy known as emotional appeal.

In closing,

I have presented several counter-arguments to negate the resolution. I've also provided rebuttals to both points raised by Pro.

I will now return the floor to pro.

Thank you.

Sources

[1] http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...
[2] http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...
[3] http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...
[4] http://www.census.gov...
[5] http://www.theiacp.org...
[6] http://www.marketwatch.com...
Debate Round No. 1
KCH

Pro

KCH forfeited this round.
Blade-of-Truth

Con

My opponent has forfeited the final round.

I extend all arguments as they currently remain standing unchallenged.

Thank you.
Debate Round No. 2
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by Shrek_sDrecKid 2 years ago
Shrek_sDrecKid
Ha - people always chicken out when they see a stronger opponent join the playground; kind of reminds me of a fellow Kryptonian I know ...

And Taiwan is not a country - if you disagree, face the wrath of communist Korea, I mean China!
Posted by Blade-of-Truth 2 years ago
Blade-of-Truth
It's a fun challenge being set at 12.
Posted by Shrek_sDrecKid 2 years ago
Shrek_sDrecKid
You should extend the time to 24 hours instead of 12.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
KCHBlade-of-TruthTied
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: ff
Vote Placed by Tweka 2 years ago
Tweka
KCHBlade-of-TruthTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: FF
Vote Placed by lannan13 2 years ago
lannan13
KCHBlade-of-TruthTied
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:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture
Vote Placed by Maikuru 2 years ago
Maikuru
KCHBlade-of-TruthTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Full forfeit