The Instigator
CoolDebator18
Con (against)
Losing
4 Points
The Contender
lightingbolt50
Pro (for)
Winning
6 Points

Should the United States stop interfering with foreign affairs?

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 3 votes the winner is...
lightingbolt50
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/31/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 685 times Debate No: 51345
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (3)

 

CoolDebator18

Con

If the United States stopped interfering with foriegn countries the world may fall in to chaos. Take for example, the Korea. If the United States had not backed up South Korea the North would have invaded the South., which would have been a start of another costly war.
lightingbolt50

Pro

Ah, but for every beneficial war, there are 5 unbeneficial wars. Since your using that time frame, the original Afghanistan war (Which helped the teliban who would then go on to cause 9/11 and start the next Afghanistan war) or how about Vietnam, Which we ended up losing, anyways?
Debate Round No. 1
CoolDebator18

Con

You make a good point. But what about genocides? If United States had not intervened in World War 2 and helped Britain who knows what the outcome would have been. You may argue that United States only entered the war because of Pearl Harbor, but if we had not stepped into the war in Europe, do you still think that we would have created an organizations like the United Nations to end wars or help the people in need?
lightingbolt50

Pro

Yes, and WWII was one of the beneficial wars. However think about Iraq,Afghanistan,Vietnam,Indochina and all those wars that we DIDN'T benefit from. In fact the last time we fought a war to save ourselves was in WWII. We're just like big bullies pushing everyone around.
Debate Round No. 2
CoolDebator18

Con

Are you sure ALL the wars you mentioned were not beneficial. For example, in the Afghan war we trained the Afghans to fight for themselves. Thus we have created an ally and made the Taliban go in to hiding, making it harder for them to make their moves. Secondly,although the Vietnam War was a failure in many ways there was a distrust born between Russia and China which loosened the Communist ties between them. We also invented new medicines in the helping the people that were in trauma. Yes,
lightingbolt50

Pro

Oh, so you think after f*cking them up the arse they love America. And we wouldn't need to go to that war and the teliban wouldn't exist if it weren't for the first afghan war. It was one of America's proxy wars during the cold war. It funded the taliban which would eventually cause 9/11. Oh come on, the distrust would've happened anyways, the Vietnam war just sped it up by a few years. But don't forget, those medicines were created to help keep our troops alive and ease their suffering, something that war caused.
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by MUSA 3 years ago
MUSA
Chaos is a ladder. The climb to the top of the ladder is all there is. Chaos means change. Can change through Chaos be good ? Yes. See Revolutionary War in America for one. Are some people afraid to die from war ? Well, only stupid people wouldn't be. Would I go to war to benefit my children ? Yes. Would I go for somebody like the president ? No.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Wylted 3 years ago
Wylted
CoolDebator18lightingbolt50Tied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:20 
Reasons for voting decision: All the arguments were weak. The f word and in the last round loses conduct and con had less spelling mistakes.
Vote Placed by Zarroette 3 years ago
Zarroette
CoolDebator18lightingbolt50Tied
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:13 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro mentioned several times wherein the US should have stopped interfering with foreign affairs, and Con responded by giving examples where US intervention has been positive, hence negating the resolution. As I was reading, I was thinking that Con had it here, but Pro's final response was good enough to affirm the resolution, I think. Con failed to provide an instance wherein US intervention has been overall positive. Conduct to Con for Pro getting a bit mouthy at the end.
Vote Placed by lannan13 3 years ago
lannan13
CoolDebator18lightingbolt50Tied
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:13 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro loses conduct by swearing in the last round. The rest is pretty much a tie concidering that there wasn't much sources used and this is an example of a ping-pong debate. There was many topics dicussed, but after Pro finished with an attack on it Con pretty much moved on to another area instead of defend that key points. That's why the Arguments section goes to Pro.