Should the us be the world police force?
Debate Rounds (3)
Forfeits results in whoever didn't forfeit winning automatically.
2. First argument
3. Counter argument
4 Warp up your argument
2. Due to these nations fighting themselves and due to the corruption the people there live like there parents. This causes a lack of economic growth in such nations, this means that the nation is stuck in the same problem unable to fix it. These people shoukd have something better, then be treated like they are worthless. The people in such areas just lack the understanding and education to fix these problems. So to ensure peace and ensure the people around the world thrive we should act as the world gobal police force. If we do this we should combat terror, combat nations with corruption and poor human rights, and ensure that civil wars are less likely to breack out. We should deal with these types of problems on a nation to nation basis, this is due to problems change nation to nation.
3. There is simply no other nation or group that can do this other then the usa. So the must logical answer would be to have the us be the worlds police force. Also if we apply our basic laws there ( if we take out a government and doing the phase of rebuilding that nation) we could take out the drug trade, and human trafficking problems. This would also ensure that the world ia a better place.
Contention 1: Constitutionality
I think most, if not all Americans would agree that the constitution is important, and my opponent can agree or disagree with that position. But if he agrees with it, he's contradicting himself. If he disagrees with it, I will argue he's wrong on substance. It is impossible to follow the constitution and be the world police force. I personally believe that if something is not authorized in the constitution, it's unconstitutional at the federal level. But I'll put that point of view aside because not my opponent nor most of the voters probably share that position. Instead, I'll just argue on the basis of what the constitution says about war and other things of that nature. Here's what George Washington says, "The constitution vests the power of declaring war in Congress; therefore no offensive expedition of importance can be undertaken until after they shall have deliberated upon the subject and authorized such a measure." So this says that only a Congress can declare war. If you declare war, by definition you have to name or declare the enemy. And if your enemy is anyone who's doing something bad around the world, that's unfeasible and unconstitutional. Declaring war was meant to name one enemy, not anyone who does any violence around the world, and therefore a world police state is unconstitutional.
Contention 2: Ineffectivity and Unsustainability
This contention will be broken down into two parts; Ineffectivity and Unsustainability. First, let's look at ineffectvity. If you advocate for a world police state as my opponent is advocating for, your goal is most likely to spread democracy and peace around the world. Your goal is not to protect America because a police state causes blowback that hurts America, and I'll talk about that in my third contention. But let's say your goal is in fact to spread democracy and peace. It's certainly a noble goal, but the means are going to be, on balance, ineffective. If you really want to military get involved everywhere where there's violence in the world, we'd have to get involved in Brunei where women are oppressed. We'd have to get involved in Saudi Arabia where gays are killed. We'd have to get involved in Russia where there is an authoritarian regime. So the question is, are we really so great and powerful that we can stop violence in all of these places, many of which getting involved in could start world war 3? The answer, of course, is no. Now let's look at unsustainability, specifically, the fiscal cost. Currently, the United States has 19 trillion dollars in debt. Now I looked at my opponent's profile and he identifies as conservative. Now he may or may not believe in fiscal conservatism. If he doesn't, I'll argue he's wrong on substance, and if he does, he's once again contradicting himself. Advocating for a world police force is the opposite of fiscally conservative. It's fiscally liberal. Regardless of what my opponent believes, a world police force would put us further into debt, which makes us less safe.
Contention 3: Blowback
This last contention is the most important one. Webster defines blowback as an unforeseen and unwanted effect, result, or set of repercussions. Let's look at an example of blowback from when the U.S. has done intervention in a foreign country. In 1953, the U.S. went into Iran and installed the Shah to rule Iran. Why? Because the U.S had oil interests in the country and the Shah would be a better business partner. The problem with that was that the Shah was cruel to his people. The people of Iran starved and suffered. In 1979, there was a move in Iran to overthrow the Shah. The blowback from that was the taking of our hostages for 444 days. Let's look at another example, Iraq. In 2003, the U.S invaded Iraq and overthrew Saddam Hussein. Now, Iraq is in a chaos of Jihadism. The reason for this is because we came in and overthrew the government, and therefore destabilized the region. Now, my opponent might say that the reasons ISIS exists is because Obama pulled out too early and left a void for ISIS to fill, but if you're willing to do revisionist history, why not go back further than 2009 to 2003 and argue that the invasion of Iraq was a mistake in the first place?
I look forward to the next round.
stargate forfeited this round.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.