The U.S.A. is not the evil country everyone makes it out to be
Debate Rounds (3)
2nd round: Making arguments
3rd round: Rebuttals and closing arguments
Thank you and good luck.
America is a wonderful place to live. We have one of the highest standards of living in the world, with almost everyone having running water, abundance of food, air conditioning, you get the point. Why is this so? It's not because we take from other people like most critics would say.
It's because we have one of the best constitutions and economic systems ever seen by mankind. Everyone has a shot at making it big, even if they start from nothing. This idea of wealth creation is an uniquely American way of doing things. If America is so bad, then why does everyone want to come here? It is the best place on earth to live, due to democracy and most importantly freedom of speech.
First, a definition:
evil, adj. Profoundly immoral or malevolent.
I'm sure we both agree that morality does not apply to a country, as a country is not a person and morality is a human construct.
malevolent, adj. Wishing evil or harm to another or others; showing ill will; ill-disposed; malicious.
The United States of America can certainly be called a malevolent state. Its government wishes harm on many others, especially other nations and their respective governments. The way its citizens are treated within the country by the government is not necessarily representative of its foreign policy. Take The Third Reich for example. With the exceptions of Jews and political dissidents, Germans were not necessarily direct victims of in-state tyranny. However, as history shows, Germany's foreign policy under Hitler was extremely hostile, domineering, and focused on genocide.
Am I comparing America to Nazi Germany? Yes, in the aspects of each that are comparable. Like Nazi Germany, America is marked by very passionate nationalism and belief in superiority. This is why America behaves like "the world's policeman" and assumes responsibility to invade countries not because they pose a direct threat to it, but because they are wracked with conflicts supposedly stemming from groups that our government (the U.S. government) disagrees with. In this way, much like Nazi Germany, America asserts superiority over all other countries simply by virtue of it being the world's sole superpower.
The fact that people from other countries want to live in America and strive to despite its domineering foreign policy and rampant nationalism is not necessarily indicative of their belief in the cultural or national superiority of America; the motivation for these people is money, and money equals, supposedly, a better life.
Besides, what of the thousands Central American immigrants who try to make a living in the States (and are at a disadvantage unless they can afford legal immigration)? Are they so confident in America that they just would prefer to live there, or are they on the verge of desperation? The fact that the number of immigrant children trying to move to the U.S. this year is nearing fifty thousand should already suggest that desperation is the key factor. When confronted with the lesser of two evils, the lesser option is usually chosen when a choice is possible.
The causes of desperation include, but are not limited to, cartel violence, widespread corruption, poverty, and horrendous living conditions. Though it would be easy for my opponent to vouch for America's greatness due to the ostensible plethora of opportunities available for immigrants, the reality of the matter is quite different. The opportunity is only there for people who can afford to live in the U.S., and that cuts out a huge chunk of possible immigration. While this does not necessarily make the U.S. "evil", it certainly says a lot about how hard it is for most people in the world, who are indeed considered poor, to get in.
As to the foreign policy I mentioned earlier, and its outright malice, I will now make my statements.
The U.S. has a long, surprising history of supporting a myriad of shady, tyrannical, greedy, and generally despicable characters.
To name a few (well, admittedly more than a few):
1. AFGHANISTANI DRUG LORDS
Many argue that the point of the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan may have really been over drugs, and this could be true. After the withdrawal of Soviet forces from the country, U.S.-backed militant group leaders made a mess of the place and increased opium production to a record-breaking high of somewhere between two thousand to three thousand four hundred tons a year. Interestingly enough, the Taliban state cut the opium production by ninety-five percent while Afghanistan was under its power- alas, this was undone in the year 2001 through events that I am sure my opponent is familiar with. After the U.S. invasion, the opium kingpins were reinstated. It is also noteworthy that the new President Karzai's brother was one such drug lord, who had famously received backing from the American Central Intelligence Agency. After the 2011 Kandahar offensive executed by the U.S., Abdul Razziq was bestowed the position of provincial police chief, and ran a heroin smuggling operation already worth about sixty million dollars US.
2. ALBANIAN FASCISTS AND JEW-HATERS
I am sure my opponent is familiar with the stigma against Communism, and the pragmatic actions taken by the U.S. government during the events immediately succeeding the end of World War Two. What he may or may not be familiar with is the fact that the U.S. government declassified documents detailing their recruitment of 743 war criminals from the Axis side. One such war criminal, Xhafer Deva, was employed by the U.S. and United Kingdom, along with others, to stir up dissent in communist Albania. Curiously enough, and doubtless of immense interest to my opponent, Deva was tasked to oversee the deportations of "Jews, Communists, partisans and suspicious persons" to the infamous death camp located at Auschwitz. This was revealed by in a recovered Nazi document. Says a lot about the current Ukrainian regime, eh? Of course Albania, being the smallest of the Communist countries, would be a prime target. Who knows what the other Nazi and Italian fascist recruits did, hm?
3.ARGENTINIAN JUNTA "DIRTY WAR"
Some documents were declassified by shady American government in 2003 that revealed bizarre machinations that had taken place in Argentina, a place located in a continent noted for being screwed repeatedly, and painfully, by the United States government and its CIA cronies. Some of the documents, detailing an explicit conversation between SecState Henry Kissinger and Foreign Minister Admiral Guzzeti shortly after his junta's seizure of the country. Kissinger stated that he approved of the use of the junta's "dirty war", namely the killing of 30,000 mostly young people, and the theft of 400 children from the families of their dead parents. In the words of Kissinger, "Look, our basic attitude is that we would like you to succeed... the quicker you succeed the better." There you have it, ladies and gentlemen. In the eyes of the U.S. government, whether it is justified or not, convenience takes precedence over human life. But then again, you could infer that from the crass massacre of civilians in the Middle East. Let's just send a drone in, and, what the heck, who cares if there's collateral damage. We got who we think are terrorists.
4. KHMER ROUGE
Of course you've heard of the Khmer Rouge. Who hasn't? Well, have you heard that the U.S., so determined to "cleanse" the world of "godless" Communism, actually ABETTED the monsters who served the infamous mass-murderer Pol Pot, the man who killed two million of the country's inhabitants? The Khmer Rouge, driven out of Cambodia, then known as Kampuchea, were instantly swept up as pawns potential opposition by the then-glorified leader of our country, President Richard Nixon, and his so-called "US Kampuchea Emergency Group". Its mission was to FEED and SUPPLY the Rouge exiles in order to pit them against the Vietnamese government. $12 million was put to this purpose to aid some 40,000 troops. Satellite intelligence, along with land mine training (which is now responsible for the maiming of hundreds of Western Cambodians a year) were also given by the U.S. to the ruthless Rouge. Oh, and I neglected to mention the illegal bombing conducted by the Nixon administration in 1969, the falsification of the flight logs of the American pilots responsible for this callous horror, the killing of at least half a million Cambodians as a result of this, and the total amount of bombs dropped- Surprisingly, more than were dropped on both Japan and Germany by the U.S. Air Force in WWII.
I'm not going to try and disprove most of the points my opponent made simply because they have no sources and without them I don't think they mean anything. Instead I will be making my own points.
Point 1: American giving
People in the U.S. give a very large amount to charity. Numbers don't lie. Americans give over 335 BILLION DOLLARS TO CHARITY. If that is not an example of American goodness, then I don't know what is.
There also was a recent statement by president Obama that I found very inspiring. When we helped prevent the massacre of civilians trapped on a distant mountain, here's what one of them said: "We owe our American friends our lives. Our children will always remember that there was someone who felt our struggle and made a long journey to protect innocent people." That is the difference we make in the world. Now I'm not an Obama fan by any means, but that is pretty cool.
Point 2: The government does not fully represent american values
People are easily manipulated, plain and simple. That's why politicians can gain power. But they are just a fraction of the people in the U.S. In general, America brings good to the world. Using your definition of malevolent, people in america do not wish to bring harm to the rest of the world.
Point 3: It's not just the U.S.
For evil to be evil, their has to be a good. Otherwise it's just the way things are. In almost any example that you could possibly give, even if it were an immoral act, there is always somebody else who has done the same thing. Everyone acts as if we are the sole perpetrators of moral law and that we are one rung below satan, but in reality nobody is perfect. There will always be evils in the world and there is no getting around that. Also, everyone looks far back in the past at americas wrongdoings, but this is ridiculous. That would be like looking back at something that you did when you were a child and didn't know any better, but now know is the wrong thing to do. Slavery being a prime example, however if you look back through history almost every civilization throughout history at one point had slaves.
Rebuttal: I will be making some arguments against some of the opening statements that do not require sources.
You compare America's nationalism to that of Nazi Germany. There is a big difference from being proud of where you live, or even believe that where your country is the best in the world, and taking over all of Europe. Secondly, we do not "invade" the same way either. Nazi Germany invaded with the intentions of taking it over and making it apart of Germany. We come in and give it back when we're through.
Now on to immigration. You posed the question, "are the thousands of immigrants so confident in america that they would prefer to live there, or are they on the verge of desperation. I believe that it's both. Of course they're desperate, they are coming from some of the poorest countries in the world. But they also know everything else that's great about america. That children get free education, the right to vote, no civil war, freedom of speech, etc. This is the reason that the U.S.A. is the best place in the world and they know that. Their desperation just points to the true safe haven that America provides.
I would like to thank my opponent and the voters.
(P.S. Do you live in the U.S.A.?)
Perhaps I was wrong to compare America's nationalism to Nazi German nationalism, for one reason: The U.S. media and government both distort facts and leave out information with the intention of keeping the populace quiet.
Even so, the U.S.A. is a federal republic (1), which means that it is a political organization. If any of the letters in the name denoted the people residing in the country the United States of America, then my opponent's statement about America not being evil because the majority of the POPULACE is not evil would be true. The political body, which my opponent admitted has great capacity for manipulation, and has implied that he agrees that they are indeed malevolent, constitutes the actual United States of America, when combined with the territory of the United States of America, simply because the United States of America is not merely an ethnic group or a body of people living somewhere on a continent. It is a state, or an inhabited area of land under a government (2). Nothing about that definition suggests anything about the populace, only the people that constitute the government.
I didn't say anything about "far back in the past" (which is subjective), and I never listed any incidents that occurred roughly around the same time as the exploitation of African slaves in America, so I won't even bother refuting my opponent's statements regarding such. I did, however, take note of the U.S.'s actions in Afghanistan, and backing of drug lords there (3). I think we both agree that the year 2001 counts as in modern time, rather than "far back in the past". I would have liked my opponent to state what "far back in the past" means by his definition. Perhaps he will be as kind to do so later. I would appreciate it and thank my opponent for the clarification.
About my opponent's statements of "American giving":
I do realize that the American populace organizes funds to help other people abroad. This accomplishes two things at the same time: It 1.diverts attention from the government's actions and 2.makes people feel as though they are "making a difference". As I stated earlier, the people of America cannot represent whether the country, which is a state (4) is evil or not, as the state is constituted by a political body. The people in charge decide what they want to do to other countries.
Although Americans do give over "355 billion dollars to charity" (needs additional information), and they are supposedly doing good, can you really put a price on the life of a person? Because the American government has been responsible for, directly and indirectly, the deaths of at least a million people abroad since the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki (3)- and the U.S. intervention in Vietnam claimed the lives of more than three million inhabitants of Vietnam (5), 1.1 million of those North Vietnamese and Vietcong forces (5). Hefty price tag for what amounted to a U.S. defeat, don't you think? Keep in mind that the U.S. backed Ngo Dinh Diem, a brutal dictator whom the Vietcong disagreed with and were fighting against, and the French rule of Vietnam also. It's true that the U.S. later disavowed Diem, but its justification for the war (to prevent the spread of Communism) is wrong and evil no matter which why you slice it, as Communism by itself is not inherently evil. It's shameful that the U.S. can't allow other people to disagree with its conception of how they should be governed, especially seeing as how the U.S. had no territories in Vietnam to begin with.
Also, studies have been conducted that seem to suggest that little money that goes to most charities, such as the one conducted by the Tampa Bay Times and Center for Investigative Reporting in conjunction with CNN (6). The study identified fifty charities across America that generated upwards of 1.4 billion dollars in the past ten years, but directly spent less than four percent on the needy people they were ostensibly aiding. If this is going on in America, then who knows what's going on overseas, where tracking money flowing from the U.S. is more difficult? When the most recent earthquake devastated Haiti, almost none of the relief money flowing from the U.S. went to directly to Haiti (7).
Perhaps the U.S. is a "land of opportunity", but it also seems to want to make itself the ONLY land of opportunity, and furthers this goal through diabolical, despicable, tyrannical, vile, and inconsiderate means.
As to my opponent's question of whether I hail from the United States of America, the answer is "yes", and also that I am not proud of it. I hate what it has helped to do to Ukraine, and to my relatives living in her capital city.
I thank my opponent for a very lively and engaging debate so far!
This Round's Arguments:
Last Round's Arguments:
Source 3 for this round
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by bladerunner060 2 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||0|
Reasons for voting decision: I can't score this properly. The resolution was "The U.S.A. is not the evil country everyone makes it out to be". What the heck does that mean? It was never really discussed. Both sides gave positive and negative aspects of the US--but to address the motion, we'd have to consider whether the overall portrayal is unfair, and neither side really addressed that.
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.