The Instigator
AizenSousuke
Pro (for)
Winning
12 Points
The Contender
Jifpop09
Con (against)
Losing
9 Points

The American Indepenence was net harmful

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...
AizenSousuke
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/18/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,189 times Debate No: 46173
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (16)
Votes (4)

 

AizenSousuke

Pro

First round is acceptance.
Last round is rebuttal only, no new arguments/evidence.

The American War of Independence is defined as the conflict that produced an independent state from British North American colonial holdings in the mid to late 1770's CE.

Pro argues that the world would have had more net benefits if the U.S.A. had not won independence.

This is to be weighed on net benefits, and is a factual debate.
The burden of proof is shared.

I look forwards to a respectful and fun debate.
Jifpop09

Con

I accept.
Debate Round No. 1
AizenSousuke

Pro

If the rebellion did not start, or failed to find enough popular support (both of which were very likely possibilities for failure). The U.S.A. would have been unable to gain independence, and thus would have become in essence, a richer, more populated, and less cold version of Canada.

For the purpose of this debate, I am assuming that the USA becomes a constitutional monarchy, with a liberal democracy and the English monarch as head of state. The USA would be a part of the Commonwealth, and international affairs would be guided by London, much as Canada and Australia were and are today.

Since Canada is in North America, in a setting similar to the USA, it is reasonable to conclude that American society would develop much the same way as Canada did in OTL.

Canada today is a positive force on the world, and most importantly, is not a negative force on the world.

My argument assumes that OTL USA has many negative traits and actions that could have been prevented by following the path of OTL Canada and Australia.

The world would have greater net benefits if the USA were a British dominion for the reasons that:

I. Less imperialism, less aggression, less unnecessary violence leads to less net harms
II. Canadian/Australian-type societies are more liberal and produce more net benefits.

I will concentrate on I. and move into II. on my next round.

I. Conflicts that would have been avoided

1. Manifest Destiny

British dominions rarely took aggressive expansionist actions towards fellow western countries, Certainly not on a large scale when they did.


Britain would very rarely use its colonies to seize the colonies of others. The one exception being French Canada. In East Asia, Africa, and Latin America, British colonies halted all expansion once they reached the borders of a fellow European colony.

Thus, it can be extrapolated that if the USA were a dominion, it would not have had a reason nor the authorization to invent and execute the idea of “Manifest Destiny” and wrest large portions of North America from Mexican and Spanish hands.

This means the Mexican-American and Spanish-American wars would have been prevented.
R32;Also, Dominions have never declared war on each other, and thus the War of 1812 could never have occurred as the USA could not possibly attack Canada in order to occupy North America.

The land wrested from Mexico in the war already had Mexican nationals living on that land, and their descendants continue to live there. Today, Mexican-Americans are treated as second-class citizens in a country that, if history had gone a little differently, would be theirs. (1a)


2. Pacific colonial empire

Britain did not have great ambition towards the Pacific ocean. The only real pacific powers of OTL were the USA, Russia and Japan. Japan and Russia both competed with America in the Pacific in that respective order.

America’s Pacific ambitions led it to snatch a great many strategic islands, and then build massive navies to project American power across the Pacific. This prompted West-facing Japan to turn east and match the power of America. The resulting naval arms race helped justify and spur Japanese imperialism in east Asia, which led to Japan waging several wars in order to capture strategic pacific bases, just as America had done. This face-off culminated in the Pacific War of 1941-1945, as Japan and America’s navies wrought destruction upon each other and hundreds of islands caught in the crossfire, including densely populated places such as Indonesia, the Philippines, and the Japanese home islands themselves. (2a,2b)

After the Japanese defeat, the Soviet Union rose as the next contender against the USA in Pacific strategic dominance, characterized by a large nuclear-capable submarine fleet. The threat of nuclear war between the SU and the USA led to yet another arms race, this time not only in fleets and bases but also in nuclear weapons.

If the USA were a dominion of Britain and thus had not become a Pacific power, these conflicts would have been avoided. Japan and Russia would not have needed such large navies, and thus the military ambitions of all parties would have been reduced, leading to less conventional war in the late Nineteenth and early Twentieth centuries, as well as less threat of nuclear war in the mid to late twentieth century.

3. Latin America hegemony

British dominions were democratic countries that did not forcefully exert their influence on neighboring countries. If the USA had not had its own hegemony, Latin America would not have spend a century and half being bullied by the “Northern Giant”. The cost incurred during this time period is incalculable. Military and economic interventions in Latin America crushed the people there and rendered them down to mere tools for the American market.

Later, especially during the Cold War, the USA would outright depose governments that it did not deem likable enough and replaced them with USA-friendly dictatorships in exchange for economic boons, such as the drug trade. Countless hundreds of thousands have been killed by the strongmen that the USA has hired in Latin America. (3a,3b,3c)

If America were a dominion, the USA would not have had the ability to develop it’s own hegemony under the supervision of London, and thus the countries of Latin America would not have been stomped under the American heel. To this day, thousands flow our of South American countries to flee the terrible economic conditions and repressive political conditions. Both are results of American hegemony that could have been avoided.

4. Cold War interventions in Asia/Africa

The continued desire for global domination, the need for expansionism and economic imperialism meant that the USA would mercilessly compete against other countries to secure a slice of wealth for itself, at the cost of the people living on exploited land.

Britain, when it was a world power, did not aggressively antagonize nor vilify their political rivals. It is clear that if the USA were a British dominion, it would have been unable to justify violence with "it hurts the communists". Thus, tragedies such as the Vietnam war(4a), the Cambodian (4b) and Laotian genocides(4c), the East Timor genocide(4d), the Afghan wars 1979-present(5e), the Iranian Shah(5f), the Second Gulf War(5g), and countless other political conflicts in Africa all would not have been supported and thus would have had either a much smaller negative impact, or not even have started at all. (5h,5i).

5. Involvement in Europe
Since the USA was not directly linked to any European power, it pursued an isolationist policy vis a vis Europe. This meant that American involvement in European affairs, especially conflicts, was severely limited.

It is undeniable that if America had remained a dominion like Canada, it would have supported Britain through thick and thin, as Canada did through all of Britain’s conflicts.

Thus, if the entirety of American industrial might were available for Britain during times of need right from the beginning, the most destructive wars in history could have been ended much more quickly, if not prevented completely.

If the Allies had full access to American men and materials from the first day rather than only during the final year, WW1 the war would have ended sooner, resulting in fewer deaths and far less destruction. If WW1 had ended more favorably due to early USA participation, Russia might not even have had the Russian Revolution, which is an entire can of worms on it’s own.

If the Allies had full access to American men and materials from the first day rather than only starting from halfway into the war, the Nazis would have been defeated much earlier, and their genocidal plans would have been foiled before they could go into full motion.

This is even ignoring the fact that the enemies of democracy would have been much more wary of starting war if they were not assured American neutrality. The Central powers and the Axis were only so bold because they thought that the USA would not join the Allies, the side of democracy.

Conclusion of Argument I.

The USA as a dominion of Britain would not pursue imperialism, would not pursue an aggressive approach to the Cold War, would not support dictators all over the world and would not ferment violence and conflict for the sake of profit.

By not having a completely independent USA, there could have been many less harms incurred against the people of the world.

Less harms means more net benefit for the entire world.

Sources:
1.
a)http://www.economist.com...
2.
a)George W. Baer, One Hundred Years of Sea Power: The U. S. Navy, 1890-1990 (1994) pp. 108-9
b)Harlow A. Hyde, Scraps of paper: the disarmament treaties between the world wars (1988) p 239

3.
a)http://www.zompist.com...
b)http://www.globalresearch.ca...
c)http://friendlydictators.blogspot.com...
4.
a)http://en.wikipedia.org...
b)http://worldwithoutgenocide.org...
c)http://legaciesofwar.org...
d)http://en.wikipedia.org...
e)http://en.wikipedia.org...
f)http://rt.com...
g)en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War
h)http://en.wikipedia.org...
i)morallowground.com/2013/01/20/us-supports-brutal-dictators-in-4-of-7-least-free-nations/
Jifpop09

Con

I will be arguing that your queen and commonwealth are a joke in modern day society.


If the rebellion did not start, or failed to find enough popular support (both of which were very likely possibilities for failure). The U.S.A. would have been unable to gain independence, and thus would have become in essence, a richer, more populated, and less cold version of Canada.

A. The reason the rebellion did receive support was due to the abuse by the British Monarch ( Not English, which is why the Scots want to leave you)

B. The US is richer then Canada.

C. The US is more populated then Canada.

http://americanhistory.about.com...

http://www.census.gov...

http://data.worldbank.org...

Canada today is a positive force on the world, and most importantly, is not a negative force on the world.

Enlighten Me...

I. Less imperialism

A. Your arguing about imperialism. The whole commonwealth was built on imperialism. America did exercise control over a couple of nations that were either too small at the time, or had to radical governments to be put in power. We invested massive amounts of money into other nations infrastructure, and most of them have stuck with us to this day. Despite opportunities for independence.

Less unnecessary violence leads to less net harms

A. America was a isolationist country for most of its history. Despite some conflicts in the cold war, we have a smaller track record then other nations.

Manifest Destiny

A. Spain sold us our lands after they started to lose theirs to white colonists. These colonists were not living within jurisdiction to the US. For example, The Republic of West Florida.

B. The Mexican-American war occurred because of a border dispute between the US and Mexico. Even though Texans had rightfully won their independence, and agreed to join the US, Mexico still claimed the state. Mexico sent a army to fight after we started patrolling the borders. Not really the Usa's fault on this one.

http://militaryhistory.about.com...

British dominions rarely took aggressive expansionist actions towards fellow western countries, Certainly not on a large scale when they did.


No, they just bullied the countries they deemed beatable.

Pacific colonial empire

To blame Japans imperialistic invasions on the US is silly. When the war started, we only controlled the Philippines and the American Samoa. Japan started the invasions in order to fuel their economy while not relying on foreign imports.

http://militaryhistory.about.com...

British dominions were democratic countries that did not forcefully exert their influence on neighboring countries. If the USA had not had its own hegemony, Latin America would not have spend a century and half being bullied by the “Northern Giant”.

Not true. Britain and France participated in the same economic colonialism as the US did. Britain and its dominions were not democratic at the time, because the monarch exercised a lot more power. While the US may of had some contribution in Central America. Most of the conflict stemmed from clashes of fascist,Marxist, and democratic forces.

http://www.lse.ac.uk...

Cold War interventions in Asia/Africa

Vietnam War: French asked us to aid them, and bailed out shortly after our arrival.

Korean War: Soviets, Koreans, and Chinese troops invaded the UN democratic country of South Korea. We just defended them.

Bay of Pigs: They aimed missiles at us, so we infiltrated their country.

Eritrean War of Independence: Supported oppressed Eritrean against the socialist Derg.

As you can see, our aid in these wars were not really intentional. Keeping the world from nuclear war was the main goal in the cold war.

The USA as a dominion of Britain would not pursue imperialism, would not pursue an aggressive approach to the Cold War, would not support dictators all over the world and would not ferment violence and conflict for the sake of profit.

You keep pretending like the rest of the world did not engage in colonialism. America practiced a little thing called capitalism, and it is not the same thing.





Debate Round No. 2
AizenSousuke

Pro

Clarification:

This debate is not about the U.S. joining the commonwealth, nor is it about the likelihood of the American Revolution failing.

The purpose of this debate is to assume that the U.S. never achieved independence, and then to compare the outcomes.


II. U.S society- Canadian style

If the U.S. had developed the same way that Canada had, the U.S. would experience many benefits that it does not fully enjoy today.

Canada ranks sixth in global happiness. Canadian citizens are happy because they have a liberal democratic society.(1)(2)

The primary contributors to happiness are social bonds, quality of life, and freedom.

1. Social bonds
American society is the most typically example of a hyper-individualist society. The people of the U.S. are lacking in social bonds. On average, Americans spend less time socializing that their counterparts elsewhere. Americans started the trend of urbanization, where communities became more secluded and separate. Voter apathy in the U.S. is one of the worst in the Western world.

2. Quality of life
Studies have found that societies with high welfare and social spending achieve a much higher quality of life than those who don’t. Free universal health care, social services, higher education and investment into lower education all lead towards a high quality of life.”on an international level those states with the most extensive social programs tend to be the ones with the highest turnouts.”(4)

3. Freedom
North American societies pride themselves on freedom. Canadians have an open democracy with a free press and no significant censorship. In terms of Freedom, the U.S., Australia and Canada are very similar. In fact, Canada ranks ninth in the world on the democracy index(5). If the U.S. had adopted a British-dominion type society (such as Canada or Australia), there would be little noticeable harms towards civil rights and civil liberties.

Conclusion:

While American society has many benefits, a Canadian/Australian type society produces even more benefits. Canadians are happier, better educated, more democratic, and are healthier. If American had modeld itself on Canada in it's formative years, U.S. citizens could have benefited from these boons as well.

Rebutals

Imperialism and Violence

“America was a isolationist country for most of its history. Despite some conflicts in the cold war, we have a smaller track record then other nations.”

Wrong. and wrong. American “isolationism” was a front, so that America could covertly dominate places like Latin America through repeated “interventions” which usually involved the use of naval fleets, occupation by the marines and army, and later, CIA operations.

America did not become the world’s most powerful empire in history by being peaceful. In fact, America is most probably the largest terrorist state in the world. World famous and well-respected Noam Chomsky even states that the U.S. should be recognized as the “world’s largest terrorist” (15,16,17).

“Your arguing about imperialism. The whole commonwealth was built on imperialism”, “You keep pretending like the rest of the world did not engage in colonialism. America practiced a little thing called capitalism, and it is not the same thing.”

Britain and many other European powers certainly participated in imperialism. But Britain’s dominions did not. There are no stories of Canadian or Australian troops unilaterally invading neighbors in order to assert economic or political hegemony. If the U.S. had joined Canada and Australia in dominion status, the U.S. would not have been able to create its global empire.

Less empire/imperialism = less harms = good

1. Manifest Destiny

“British dominions rarely took aggressive expansionist actions towards fellow western countries, Certainly not on a large scale when they did.

No, they just bullied the countries they deemed beatable.”

Con has not cited any proof that Britain seized large European territories. I know that the con will never be able to provide such sources (outside of fiction), because such events never occurred.


“Mexico sent a army to fight after we started patrolling the borders. Not really the Usa's fault on this one.”

This was propaganda used by the U.S. government to justify war and expansion to the people. The government had an expansionist policy and several high-ranking politicians coveted the territories of California, Oregon and Texas (6).

The war was started on purpose, which clear objectives. Normally, minor border disputes do not result in the annexation of half the land of one of the countries involved.

“Spain sold us our lands after they started to lose theirs to white colonists”

Spain did not sell Cuba and their territories in the Caribbean to anyone. They were indisputably taken by force and force alone. On the subject of Florida, U.S. forces would regularly raid and assault the Spanish, forcing them into a situation where they had no choice but to give away the land. “West Florida was declared to be a U.S. possession in 1810 by President James Madison. The Army then took control”(7).

2. Pacific

“To blame Japans imperialistic invasions on the US is silly.”
I am not blaming the U.S., I am just saying that heavy U.S. involvement in the Pacific greatly facilitated Japan’s move in the direction towards imperialism.

“we only controlled the Philippines and the American Samoa.”
And Hawaii (still a territory at the time), and the Marianas, and Guam, and Midway, and Johnson Atoll, and Wake, and Kingman Reef, and Palmyra Reef, and Howland, and Baker, and Marshall and Jarvis and trade posts in China. Plus investments and economic interests in both China and Japan, as well as naval bases and airbases in all of the above plus the NSF Diego Garcia base in the Indian Ocean, a ship support base in Hong Kong, and the Sembawand naval base in Singapore, and Pine Gap and Alice Spings in Australia and Paya Lebar Air base in Singapore.

It is clear that the U.S. was determined to make its presence and domination felt in the region, putting pressure on the locals, such as the Japanese.(8)

3. Latin America

“While the US may of had some contribution in Central America. Most of the conflict stemmed from clashes of fascist,Marxist, and democratic forces.”

This is not true. The U.S. was heavily involved in the overthrow of democratically elected leaders in order to install friendly despots. People who complained and fought for a return of democracy were deemed “marxists, fascists, and socialists”. CIA operations alone, such as Operation Condor, killed tens of thousands in order to put down dissent and keep allied dictators in power (9)(10)

4. Cold War

“Vietnam War: French asked us to aid them, and bailed out shortly after our arrival.”
Ho Chi Minh originally wanted U.S. support against European imperialism, but was turned down, and so was forced to turn to the Soviets and Chinese. The people of Vietnam democratically elected a socialist government to rule their new independent country. The U.S. cancelled the elections and instead chose war. (11)

“Korean War: Soviets, Koreans, and Chinese troops invaded the UN democratic country of South Korea. We just defended them.”

Not true. The U.S. defeated the North Korean invasion, and the invaded the sovereign country of North Korea, right up to the Chinese border. Understandably, the Chinese were not happy about this. The Chinese had issued warnings to the U.S. from bringing troops too close to China, but these warning were ignored, leading to a protraction of the war and much more bloodshed. “MacArthur felt that the North Korean army had been essentially destroyed by the middle of October, and, against the recommendations of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, he sent his forces into the northernmost parts of North Korea”(12).

“Bay of Pigs: They aimed missiles at us, so we infiltrated their country.”
The only reason why the Soviets considered moving weapons, both nuclear and conventional, to Cuba was because the U.S. had surrounded the Soviets with many bases, and had nuclear missiles stationed in nearby Turkey.
“After the US had placed nuclear missiles in Turkey and Italy, aimed at Moscow, and the failed US attempt to overthrow the Cuban regime, in May 1962 Nikita Khrushchev proposed the idea of placing Soviet nuclear missiles in Cuba to deter any future invasion attempt” (13).

“Eritrean War of Independence: Supported oppressed Eritrean against the socialist Derg.”

Eritrea is a corrupt and despotic country that is famous in only one subject - human rights violations (14).


5. Europe
Con did not refute my points on the harms in Europe that could have been avoided. They are dropped points and are thus uncontested.


Sources:
1)http://www.theglobeandmail.com...
2)http://www.cbc.ca...
3)http://seetheconnection.com...
4)Richard Sclove p. 241
5)http://www.economist.com...
6)http://www.history.com...
7)Samuel C. Hyde Jr., "Consolidating the Revolution: Factionalism and Finesse in the West Florida Revolt, 1810," Louisiana History (2010) 51#3 pp 261-283
8) http://monthlyreview.org...
9)http://www.aljazeera.com...
10)http://en.wikipedia.org...
11)http://en.wikipedia.org...
12)http://www.sparknotes.com...
13)http://en.wikipedia.org...
14)http://www.hrw.org...
15)http://www.veteranstoday.com...
16)http://topdocumentaryfilms.com...
17)http://www.washingtonsblog.com...
Jifpop09

Con

My computer cradshed and I lost my argument. I am also out of time. So I guess this is a forfeit for this round.
Debate Round No. 3
AizenSousuke

Pro

Conclusion

If the U.S. had not gained inependence and had stayed a dominion much like Canada, the world and the U.S. would have benefited greatly, because there would have been much less imperialism in the world, as well as much better domestic social policy on the North American mainland. These would have provided greater net benefits to the American people and much less net harms to various Africans, Latin Americans, Asians and even Europeans.

Pro arguments on domestic societal benefits in North America were dropped and are thus uncontested.
The only arguements that con was able to muster were attampts at justifying violence and war crimes abroad.

It should be clear that the pro argument shows that the promp carries much more net benefits than the status quo that the con argued for.

I strongly urge a vote for the Pro
Jifpop09

Con

This debate is not about the U.S. joining the commonwealth, nor is it about the likelihood of the American Revolution failing.
^
For the purpose of this debate, I am assuming that the USA becomes a constitutional monarchy, with a liberal democracy and the English monarch as head of state. The USA would be a part of the Commonwealth, and international affairs would be guided by London, much as Canada and Australia were and are today.

1. You made this about monarchy. Please clarify resolutions in round 1.

Canada ranks sixth in global happiness. Canadian citizens are happy because they have a liberal democratic society.(1)(2)

1. The statistics are only off by about 1-5%.
2. America is providing freedoms for 9.2 times the people (California alone).
3. Not all freedoms are good (Anarchy).
4. America has a higher labor freedom index.

http://www.infoplease.com...
http://www.heritage.org...




American society is the most typically example of a hyper-individualist society. The people of the U.S. are lacking in social bonds. On average, Americans spend less time socializing that their counterparts elsewhere. Americans started the trend of urbanization, where communities became more secluded and separate. Voter apathy in the U.S. is one of the worst in the Western world.

1. America has social bonds, and they are not without risk.
2. America is not hyper individualist. We have a strong nationalistic bond which unites us.
3. Urbanization is not a bad thing. As the need for rural occupations lessens, people need to seek new areas of work by moving to cities.

http://www.usnews.com...



Wrong. and wrong. American “isolationism” was a front, so that America could covertly dominate places like Latin America through repeated “interventions” which usually involved the use of naval fleets, occupation by the marines and army, and later, CIA operations.

1. It was certainly not a front. It was a real political philosophy that many American politicians adhered by.

2. US marine interventions in South America were believed to prevent further civil wars and have stopped a predicted three revolutions (Cuba, Haiti, DR) and a genocide (Haiti)

3. American placed troops within several countries who had failed to pay debts to europe. Stopping Britain and French fleets from invading, and ensuring they payed their dues.

4. America had forced France to leave Mexico and dissolve their monarch.

5. In conclusion: American interactions with South America in the late 1800's and early 1900's prevented european colonialism, enforced the monroe doctrine, prevented war, and jump started the economies of several nations (Haiti, Cuba, Panama, Venuzuela, Domican republic, Mexico).

http://millercenter.org...
http://history.state.gov...



Thus, it can be extrapolated that if the USA were a dominion, it would not have had a reason nor the authorization to invent and execute the idea of “Manifest Destiny” and wrest large portions of North America from Mexican and Spanish hands.

1. Canada and Australia had all engaged in their own manifest destiny. The first nations and aboriginees were completly erradicated in Southern Canada and Eastern Australia.

2. What you do not realize, is that the British army was comprised from all dominions. Canadians and Australians did fight in wars, but as a part of the british army.

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca...
http://www.britannica.com...
http://www.myplace.edu.au...





This was propaganda used by the U.S. government to justify war and expansion to the people. The government had an expansionist policy and several high-ranking politicians coveted the territories of California, Oregon and Texas (6).

1. Indisputable historical fact. Mexico ambushed our expeditionary force.

2. The disputed territoties were predominantly white colonists and many revolts already were in the process.

3. Mexico had 30 different governments from 1835-1850 and neglected their territories.



Spain did not sell Cuba and their territories in the Caribbean to anyone. They were indisputably taken by force and force alone.

1. Two things contributed to this war
a. Veleriano was an abusive governor who oppressed cubans.
b. The spanish are presumed to have shot down an american ship in Havana.
Probably thinking that the US were going to support the revolution.

2. Cubans were already fighting Spain.

3. We honored our agreement and gave Cuba independence.

4. In conclusion , America had liberated millions of oppressed cubans and ensured a peaceful transition to democracy.

http://www.pbs.org...
http://www.spanamwar.com...



America’s Pacific ambitions led it to snatch a great many strategic islands, and then build massive navies to project American power across the Pacific.

1. We did not start snatching islands until WW2. A war we did not want to enter.
2. We defeated Japan! Count that as a good point.

http://www.ushmm.org...



And Hawaii (still a territory at the time), and the Marianas, and Guam, and Midway, and Johnson Atoll, and Wake, and Kingman Reef, and Palmyra Reef, and Howland, and Baker, and Marshall and Jarvis and trade posts in China. Plus investments and economic interests in both China and Japan, as well as naval bases and airbases in all of the above plus the NSF Diego Garcia base in the Indian Ocean, a ship support base in Hong Kong, and the Sembawand naval base in Singapore, and Pine Gap and Alice Spings in Australia and Paya Lebar Air base in Singapore.

1. Wake, Midway, Johnston,Howland, Kingman, and Baker have a population of 0.

2. Palyrma Atoll has a population of 4 and it is incorporated.

3. Trading Posts have nothing to do with colonialism. Either do bases.

4. The Marshall Islands are an independent country (really)?

5. Investments fall under capitalism. Making our people wealthier as well as their countries.

http://www.infoplease.com...



“Vietnam War: French asked us to aid them, and bailed out shortly after our arrival.”
Ho Chi Minh originally wanted U.S. support against European imperialism, but was turned down, and so was forced to turn to the Soviets and Chinese. The people of Vietnam democratically elected a socialist government to rule their new independent country. The U.S. cancelled the elections and instead chose war. (11)

1. I have never seen anyone confuse the French Indo-China War with the Vietnam War.

2. France did pull us into the war and later pulled out. Fact.

3. Legitamacy about the elections can be brought into question, but most americans protested the war anyways.



http://alphahistory.com...
http://www.history.com...



Not true. The U.S. defeated the North Korean invasion, and the invaded the sovereign country of North Korea, right up to the Chinese border.

1. It was a UN coalition. The US was a huge contributor, but nations all across the globe fought.

2. It is called a counter offensive, and it was strategic in order to establish a defensive line near China. Not an invasion.

3. I Deserve Another Good point! America may of been the only thing stopping millions of citizens in the ROK from being a part of one of history's most oppresive regimes.

http://www.history.com...
http://www.authentichistory.com...




The only reason why the Soviets considered moving weapons, both nuclear and conventional, to Cuba was because the U.S. had surrounded the Soviets with many bases, and had nuclear missiles stationed in nearby Turkey.

1. We are justified in preventing nuclear destruction from Stalin.

2. Without US missiles, the USSR would of exploited every country on earth through nuclear dominance. Racking in the good points!

http://www.history.com...





Eritrea is a corrupt and despotic country that is famous in only one subject - human rights violations (14).

1. Were Americans wrong for wanting to replace Africas most oppresive regime with a democratic government. The Socialist Derg was responcible for the red terror and was just as bad.

2. America helped with the democratic transition for Ethiopia. Good Point!


http://www.ethiopiantreasures.co.uk...



The Three Communist Powers
-------------------------------

Castro, Fidel, and Mariam.

It is undeniable that if America had remained a dominion like Canada, it would have supported Britain through thick and thin, as Canada did through all of Britain’s conflicts.

1. It is undeniable that Britain had a lot of "questionable" conflicts over land and imperialism.

http://www1.somerset.gov.uk...



The Central powers and the Axis were only so bold because they thought that the USA would not join the Allies, the side of democracy.

1. The main central and ally powers were imperial. It was a war over land and stupidity.

2. WW1- Germans invoked war.

3. WW2- Axis attacked the US.

http://www.debate.org...



Conclusion:

- I provided many examples of how the US had defeated oppresive regimes

- I adequately explained how without US nukes, the USSR would of abused its power.

- My opponent has shown a horrible knowledge on historical fact.

- My opponent twisted history to benefit her resolution.

- Certainly this debate was out of Anti-American sentiment.

- My opponent has not provided the burden of proof. How does being a dominion of Britain ensure a better life in 200 years? How is she so sure we will not end up like Britains "other" colonies.

Debate Round No. 4
16 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by whiteflame 3 years ago
whiteflame
On avoidable conflicts, I think Pro takes some absolutely massive liberties describing both what would happen in the absence of an independent United States and what England, Spain, France, Japan, Russia, China, every European nation involved in WWI and WWII, every Central and South American country, and countless island nations would do (seriously, the list is just mind-numbingly long, and the possibilities in alternate history range from idyllic to staggeringly awful).

But I'm left baffled again. Not only does Con often accept what Pro frames would occur, but he argues the most easily defensible points on actual history (which, by the way, Pro is mostly right about). I see no arguments whatsoever on the broad range of alternate histories that would occur if the world's largest superpower essentially never existed except from Pro, and most of his arguments border on or exist in the idyllic. The mentality that none of the empires that existed around the time of our independence would retain or grow their power bases, the idea that war would only go down in a world where these same empires are constantly sitting next to each other overseas, and, stranger still, the idea that many of the nations that became empires wouldn't capitalize on a world without an incredibly powerful military in the Pacific to worry about, are all viable points of attack. And none of them come up. So all I have to go on is whether or not the number of wars that have occurred in our actual history would decrease. And Pro has created a chance of that happening.

So much as I find myself completely at odds with Pro on most of his arguments, Con is giving me no way to vote for him. Hence, arguments also go to Pro.
Posted by whiteflame 3 years ago
whiteflame
...I'm really at a loss for how this debate went so wrong, though I think a lot of it had to do with that dropped round. I have a lot to go through, hence this is coming in a comment rather than directly in a vote.

I'll start with conduct. The reason for the vote is mainly due to the slew of new arguments in the final round, which are frankly bewildering. I'll get to their effectiveness in a moment. The fact that Con called Pro's entire argument "Anti-American sentiment" borders on a conduct violation, as does the virtual forfeit in R3, though neither would have sufficed on their own.

As for sources, too many of Con simply makes too many unwarranted, unsourced assertions, many of which are directly addressed by Pro with sources.

Lastly, arguments. This is a bit hairy. Before I launch into it, Con's shotgun approach in the last round is not very effective. On a site like this where there is literally no excuse for not warranting, sourcing, or at the very least explaining your arguments, providing the

1.
2.
3.

Format in rapid succession is just unconscionable. From my perspective, it works not in the slightest, and that's coming from a heavy NPDA background where I saw this all the time. Few if any of the arguments you've used in R4 have gone beyond the basic bullet point approach, and none of them have been weighed or measured out to influence my decision. Hence, most of them just go away.

But onto the main points. Pro presents that the U.S. would be just like Canada if not for our independence. I don't know if I buy that, but since I don't see any arguments against it, I can only evaluate if that's a good thing. And from all I see, it is. Con simply doesn't provide a response that actually addresses Pro's points, and the freedom points he does use aren't impacted at all.

I don't much buy the imperialism point, but again, the best arguments are coming from Pro, and I don't see sufficient response from Con, even in the last round, to dismiss it.
Posted by Jifpop09 3 years ago
Jifpop09
Fine, take away a conduct point if you must.
Posted by AizenSousuke 3 years ago
AizenSousuke
I am not generally one to nitpick, but hasn't the con made new points and introduced new evidence in the final round, contrary to the agreed-upon rules?

Even if you forfeited your third round by accident of circumstance, that does not give you the right to ignore the fundamental framework of the debate. That would be, in effect, cheating.
Posted by Jifpop09 3 years ago
Jifpop09
No, I was just saying something off topic and generalized. Shame on me.
Posted by AizenSousuke 3 years ago
AizenSousuke
I do believe that the assertion "all *insert large normal group here* hate everyone or *insert subject here*" is a gross overstatement.
Canada and Quebec do have a relationship of heavy interdependence.
"They worship the french, and treat anyone who is not french terribly." it would be fair to assume that this statement is very biased, without even needing to go to Montreal.

That aside, what is the point you are trying to make?
Posted by Jifpop09 3 years ago
Jifpop09
Quebecois's hate everyone, and Canada or Quebec can't survive without each other. Ever been to Montreal?
They worship the french, and treat anyone who is not french terribly.
Posted by AizenSousuke 3 years ago
AizenSousuke
*heard of referendums
pardon the typo
Posted by AizenSousuke 3 years ago
AizenSousuke
If this, if that. This is highly subjective and hypothetical debate, but nonetheless, I would prefer we not become sidetracked with other possibilities not directly pertinent to the subject at hand.

"Many" is too vague. If "many" meant a politically significant number, then surely, Canada, a democracy, would follow the mandate of the people and would take the action that the people desire. This is not the case.

A significant number of Quebecois want independence, that I know, as I have actually head of referendums being proposed and implemented. But not of Canada as a whole.
To date, only one country (a small African one at that), has quit the commonwealth. It would seem most are quite comfortable with the way things are.
Posted by Jifpop09 3 years ago
Jifpop09
If Quebec attended the continental congress, I can assure you what the results would of been. Many Canadians hate being a part of a monarchy and commonwealth.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Seeginomikata 3 years ago
Seeginomikata
AizenSousukeJifpop09Tied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct: Con forfeit. It was very clear that new arguments weren't allowed in the final round, which con agreed to, but ignored. Not fair. While this whole debate is based on a very subjective matter of "what if", I found that pro's arguments were just more plain relevant. Pro adressed all the issues brought up by con with undeniable facts. Con did not adress Pro points and used biased rhetoric instead of facts. The overly pro-American word-vomit was a huge turn-off. At least half of con sources draw information from American government wartime propaganda. Not trustworthy in my opinion. A lot of people don't like wikipedia, but I haven't found much wrong with it, personally. Thus, conduct, sourcing and arguments go to pro.
Vote Placed by Buckethead31594 3 years ago
Buckethead31594
AizenSousukeJifpop09Tied
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: Conduct to Con for Pro's Wikipedia sources. I believe Con had the most convincing arguments, because he successfully dismissed the ideals of individualism, among other things. Nice work from both sides.
Vote Placed by whiteflame 3 years ago
whiteflame
AizenSousukeJifpop09Tied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Given in comments.
Vote Placed by progressivedem22 3 years ago
progressivedem22
AizenSousukeJifpop09Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Sources to Con, since Pro made frequent use of Wikipedia, which is obviously not a credible site. Arguments to Con, also, since he successfully countered Pro's case and pointed out the factual inaccuracies therein -- e.g., on individualism and isolationism -- and made some good points about South America in the 1800s.