The Instigator
iExplicit
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Azul145
Con (against)
Winning
9 Points

Should the United States wage war against foreign leaders who oppress their people?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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...
Azul145
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/5/2012 Category: Economics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,119 times Debate No: 27860
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (4)
Votes (3)

 

iExplicit

Pro

It could be argued that waging war on foreign leaders who oppress their people is a good thing. Well, it isn't. Without intervention, the situations could become serious and they affect the surrounding nations. With that in mind, I think the US should try to intervene to put out the spark that could ignite much more disasters. What would the US gain? Nothing. But the other countries would gain something. It's all about keeping peace and order in the world. So, the US should wage war.

The constutions human rights are universal rights. They apply to everyone around the world. Also, if they are our ally, we must intervene.
Azul145

Con

It would be very stupid to wage war on every country that oppresses their citizens. Yes there must be peace in the world but it would cost the U.S. too much money to help everyone. We do help some and look where it gets us. We helped Iraq and everybody got ticked at Bush and the world said we were meddling.
I have three main points to back up my argument.

(1) Money
(2) Enemies
(3) Allies

For my first point I would like to remind you that we are currently 16 trillion dollars in debt. We can obviously not afford any wars let alone more than we are already in. There are many dictators in the Middle East, Africa, Asia, and Central and South America. The exact amount is unknown because the definition of an oppressive leader differs. There are many out there and on CIA.gov almost every country has had a dictator of some sort. The U.S. can't help them without sufficient funds.

If the United States helped everyone than we would make many enemies and some would hold grudges. We would also pull our allies into helping us and that would cause them problems too. After a while we can assume that countries would plot against us like they are right now. It is not good to go around making enemies because the U.S. will fall if we do.

If the U.S. declared war on the countries with oppressive dictators our allies would disappear they would see we are declaring war on everyone and refuse to help us. Then when we get attacked we will have no more allies. Thank you
Debate Round No. 1
iExplicit

Pro

You do bring up a valid point, I will give you that. But, the question comes up. What if they're our ally? Should we go in and assist to bring the country back to it's original state? Also, it's human rights. We should protect and preserve them. Most wars have deepened our debt, but in World War II, our economy was boosting because of it. What if a war boosts our economy again? And that brings me back to, the Constitutions Human rights are essentially universal rights. So we should try to preserve them. It goes with the domino effect. If one country falls due o their leader oppressing them, who's to say others wouldn't? In Vietnam, we tried to stop the spread of Communism, and we just delayed the inevitable. It's for the greater good that we assist other countries.

I don't recall of any incidents in history where invading for human rights has failed. We are the worlds police, whether we should be is a vastly different question. Protecting human rights often involves going in and stabilizing a region or country. Stability is generally a plus for economic development. And the world needs strong governments.

Thank you.
Azul145

Con

You did not refute any main points so this debate is in my favor. Right now, a war would only hurt our economy not help it regardless of who we attacked. Yes we should help our allies and some people that are in great need. We do not need to help everyone or be the "worlds police". My main points still stand and I wish pro good luck.
Debate Round No. 2
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by wrichcirw 4 years ago
wrichcirw
CON was more persuasive.

Advice to CON:

Change this:

"For my first point I would like to remind you that we are currently 16 trillion dollars in debt. We can obviously not afford any wars let alone more than we are already in. There are many dictators in the Middle East, Africa, Asia, and Central and South America. The exact amount is unknown because the definition of an oppressive leader differs. There are many out there and on CIA.gov almost every country has had a dictator of some sort. The U.S. can't help them without sufficient funds."

...to this:

"For my first point I would like to remind you that we are currently 16 trillion dollars in debt. [1] We can obviously not afford any wars let alone more than we are already in. There are many dictators in the Middle East, Africa, Asia, and Central and South America. The exact amount is unknown because the definition of an oppressive leader differs. There are many out there and on CIA.gov almost every country has had a dictator of some sort. The U.S. can't help them without sufficient funds."

All you have to do is type "16 trillion" into google. Then, you'll notice the 3rd link says exactly what you want to say. This backs up your argument and makes it more credible and harder to dispute. It takes 10 seconds once you get used to it and it's a great habit to get used to as early as you can.

Cheers, good debate.

[1] http://www.foxnews.com...
Posted by wrichcirw 4 years ago
wrichcirw
"I don't recall of any incidents in history where invading for human rights has failed."

Somalia is one. One could argue that Japan invaded several countries in East Asia during WWII because they wanted to promote their concept of human rights in the region. That didn't turn out very well.

http://wgordon.web.wesleyan.edu...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
Posted by wrichcirw 4 years ago
wrichcirw
"Most wars have deepened our debt, but in World War II, our economy was boosting because of it"

This is unfortunately not true. We were heavily indebted during and after WWII. What boosted our economy was that we were the only industrialized country left in the world, since Japan and Europe were all blown to hell. We were able to pay back our debts very quickly.

(see 2nd chart)
http://www.theatlantic.com...
Posted by yweuiuyywe 4 years ago
yweuiuyywe
Hi buddy :

HOT SELL Product Brand is below: ==== ( http://www.fullmalls.com... ) =====
,nike shoes,air jordan shoes,nike s h o x shoes,gucci shoes ,true religion jeans, ed hardy jeans,coogi jeans,affliction
jeans, Laguna Beach Jeans,ed hardy T-shirts,Coogi T-shirts,Christian Audigier T-shirts,Gucci T-shirts,Polo T-shirts,coach
handbag,gucci handbag,prada handbag,chanel handbag .
free shipping
New to Hong Kong : Winter Dress
New era cap $9
Air jordan(1-24)shoes $33
Nike s h o x(R4,NZ,OZ,TL1,TL2,TL3) $33
Handbags(Coach lv fendi d&g) $33
Tshirts (Polo ,ed hardy,lacoste) $16
Jean(True Religion,ed hardy,coogi) $30
Sunglasses(Oakey,coach,gucci,Armaini) $12
Bikini (Ed hardy,polo) $18
Come back tomorrow for another Daily Dose of Style! Bookmark this page >>
give you the unexpected harvest

==== ( http://www.fullmalls.com... ) =====

==== ( http://www.fullmalls.com... ) =====

==== ( http://www.fullmalls.com... ) =====

==== ( http://www.fullmalls.com... ) =====

==== ( http://www.fullmalls.com... ) =====

==== ( http://www.fullmalls.com... ) =====

==== ( http://www.scnshop.com... ) =====

Recommended rick :

Name:LeBron 9.5-2

http://www.fullmalls.com...
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by wrichcirw 4 years ago
wrichcirw
iExplicitAzul145Tied
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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: see comment
Vote Placed by GorefordMaximillion 4 years ago
GorefordMaximillion
iExplicitAzul145Tied
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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Honestly, I'm still undecided on the issue however...
Vote Placed by htennis 4 years ago
htennis
iExplicitAzul145Tied
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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: I hate two-round debates. Too short. PRO drops CON arguments.