The Instigator
Pro (for)
6 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
14 Points

The US is an international bully, and NATO is a gang of thugs!

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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision - Required
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/22/2011 Category: Politics
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 3,407 times Debate No: 16092
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (6)
Votes (3)




The US has been viewed world wide as a the world's most advanced and righteous country. And under that assumption they go around the world harassing and interfering in the business of other less powerful countries, namely Iraq, Afghanistan, and in the past Vietnam, Korea, Somalia, etc.

In the 50's-80's the US fought against communism, in the 00's the US now fights against terrorism. The US leads us to believe that they are the upholders of peace and justice, while they are the ones who spend $666 billion USD annually for their military. This is six times the amount the next big spender China invests in their military.

Furthermore, the US is not a great example of freedom, human rights, or democracy. As the US runs a fixed two party system, which is only one party better than a one party dictatorship. Suppose I enter a buffet and was offered two types of foods only, naturally we would not call that a buffet. And naturally the US is not really a democracy, because most of the time both parties give the voters limited choice. Furthermore, the RECENT human rights abuses commited in Abu Ghraib, and Guantanamo Bay further stain the US 'already imperfect human rights record.

The US sets rigourous control on nuclear stockpiling, sanctioning any country that is not related to NATO who even dares to research nuclear technology, when they the US themselves have stockpiled over 12,000 warheads in their arsenal. Having military bases stationed all over Europe, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Thailand, Korea, Japan etc. The US military's reach is global, and they are ready to intervene on any country's behalf if and when they choose to.

The world is a schoolyard, and the US is just a bully, and NATO is a gang of international thugs.


My opponent appears to be making two separate points.
1. The U.S. is an international bully
2. NATO is a gang of thugs

My opponent states that the U.S. spends "spend $666 billion USD annually for their military. This is six times the amount the next big spender China invests in their military."

This is very true, but the amount the U.S. spends on a military budget compared to China is not necessarily a measure of military might.

For instance I'm sure we can all agree that China is still developing as an economic power and many of its people still live in poverty while the U.S. is, despite the recession, a very economically healthy country.
Based on this one can conclude that U.S. service embers whose pay checks are part of the defense budget, are substantially higher than that of a Chinese military service member. The U.S. also provides soldiers medical care, education, housing, and other other various benefits to U.S. military and women.
North Korea only spends 6 billion or so USD on their defense budget, yet they have over an army larger than that of the U.S. in terms of active and reserve personnel (
How much do you think North Korean soldiers are paid?
This proves that, despite spending less on a military, countries can have effective militaries by cutting non-weapon or non-combat expenses for their personnel that the U.S. doesn't.
The U.S. also has to watch the backs of many other allies. For instance we have given military aid to the nations of Israel, South Korea and various others due to the threats our allies face. Israel faces the threat of being constantly attacked by enemy Arab powers, South Korea faces the threat of being annexed by the North and the list goes on of various other countries that face threats that the U.S. buffs up its own military expenditures for.
The U.S. also competes militarily with Russia as well as China.

Here is a brief summarization of these countries military might

( China
( Russia
( India

The U.S. is ranked no 1. in terms of military power, but our major competitors, Russia and China are right behind.
We also have to worry about the fact that India has gotten rather, chummy, with the countries of Russia and China who collaborate with each other on military technology and military exercises.

Here is a 5th generation fighter that Russia and India are working on developing
Here is an article celebrating the resumption of Chinese and Indian military exercises

In conclusion seeing that the U.S. has several military competitors and many global strategic interests the U.S. has a legitimate reason to have a rather high defense budget

The U.S. does not necessarily have a two party system, we have several political parties people can vote for such as the Green Party, the Libertarian Party, the Communist Party, the Labor Party, the American Nazi Party, etc.
The fact that no other parties than the Republican and Democratic parties do well is not due to oppression on the part of the U.S., you can vote for whichever party you want, it's because they aren't popular and don't propose ideologies that most people agree with. If a significant number of people began voting for any other parties beside the two major ones we have now, then we wouldn't be a two party system.

The various political parties Americans are free to vote for.

Abu Ghraib was a tragedy, but it wasn't done on a wide enough scale to say the U.S. violates human rights and the U.S. was the one that took actions punish those responsible and the soldiers responsible were imprisoned for various of amounts of time in units of years.

The argument over Gitmo is another debate. The prisoners are given sufficient amounts of food and water, given regular exercise, are violators of the Geneva Accords, and Water boarding, the most well known form of "torture" which was used on Gitmo prisoners is used on U.S. soldiers for training purposes. That's right, when we prepare our soldiers to fight against other countries that follow the Geneva Accords we water board some of them to give them the feel of what interrogation countries might perform on our captured soldiers. We train them so they won't talk if they are water boarded, but we don't prepare to them to endure forms of torture such as if our soldiers captors begin slicing off their fingers.

Yes we do attempt to control nuclear stockpiling for very good reasons. The countries today that posses nuclear weapons such as the U.S., Russia, China, India, France, the UK, etc, are all very stable countries NOT run by dictators. The fear the U.S. has is that in a country such as Iran or North Korea, where there is one lone psychopath in charge, their are few safeguards if any preventing a nuclear strike. For instance, a U.S., Russian, British or Chinese president/leader can't singlehandedly launch a nuclear strike. In the current countries with nuclear missiles, the order for a nuclear strike to be carried out goes through countless military and political leaders ranging from senators, and 4 star Generals all the way down to the lower ranking officers who personally launch the strike.

I know this for a fact since my father was a B-52 bomber commander. He was given partial launch codes to launch nuclear tipped cruise missiles from his plane in the event of a nuclear war, he couldn't fire them alone and neither could anyone else whether you were the President, an Air Force officer, The Speaker of the House, or the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

In North Korea, Iran or any other country NATO and the U.S. attempt to restrict from possessing nuclear weapons, there is no such system. All it will take is for the fanatic leaders of the militant nations with nuclear weapons to determine which country they just happen to hate that day. In other words, the possibility of a nuclear strike being launched from the nations NATO doesn't want to get nuclear weapons, rests on the whim of the absolute dictator in charge of the country.

Yes we have many allies such as many countries in Europe, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and so on. So?
They obviously don't mind and that doesn't mean we are some bully, countries can kick us out if they so please. For instance, the U.S. had airbases in Libya, when Libya became a U.S. enemy, we simply left. Other countries know this and they don't mind. We have many strategic interests around the globe such as maintaining the security of our major European allies, making sure the vital oil supply in the Middle East is open, making sure we remain a deterrent to U.S. enemies such as North Korea and Iran, keeping the sea lanes open via seaports, etc.
How does having military bases, many of which we use to deliver rescue aid with, mean we are a "bully"?

It simply means we are good at we do which is securing U.S. and International strategic interests around the globe by having our allies agree to let us use their air bases.

Based on my arguments and my rebuttles to my opponents arguments, the U.S. is not an international bully and NATO is not a gang of thus.
Debate Round No. 1


sing_along forfeited this round.


My opponent had bad conduct for instigating this debate and forfeiting.

I also notice that he may just forfeit or narrowly meet the deadlines of his other debates.

I'm dissapointed he wasn't able to respond

Please extend my arguments.

In the mean time, enjoy this hilarious segment from a fantastic show called Frasier
Debate Round No. 2


I respect my partners stance on US foreign policy, but obviously he is a typical promoter of biased US propaganda. I'd like to apologize for the missed rebuttal, because I was up the last two nights preparing for my calculus exam.

Definition of “bullying” & “thugs”:

I’d like to define the meaning of “bullying” and “thugs”:

Bullying: The act of using force and intimidation to coerce another party to comply with one’s demands

Thugs: A group of bullies, lead by a single leader figure

On Military Budget:

I'm surprised he would actually bring this up, because even though the US is more economically dominant than China, it still dished out 4.7% of its national GDP on military related funding, as compared to China, which is 2.2%, of their gorss GDP so the US despite it being the richest country in the world is still dishing out twice as much as the Chinese invest in their military in terms of percentage of annual income.

My opponent may point out later that, the Saudi Arabia spend s11.2% of their GDP on military, but that only amounts to 43 billion, where in the US it adds up to almost 700 billion. Oh, and did I mention that countries like the UAE and Saudi Arabia, are top customers of US's weapons trade?
And just an update, the forecasted US military expenditure for 2012 is expected to be around 1 .4 trillion, double military spending in the past 4 years. And as of 2010, the use has spent 20% of its federal income on the Department of Defense.

Bottom line is the US dishes out inconceivably more for the military than ANY other country in the world. At least 10x times as much as the next big spenders in the world today as of 2011:
This justifies that the US is the most dominant military force in the world today.

On US foreign intersts:

My opponent has pointed the North Korean Army is, for a lack of better words, large and cheap. the North Koreans spend %25 percent of their GDP on their military… but still produce out a measly $6 billion dollars in total expenditure. I guess you can say that NK is trying its hardest with what they got to produce a strong army, but just don't have what it takes.

This also proves nothing as the NK army is armed with 60-70's Soviet guns and artillery, and 3rd gen fighter jets. The North Korean army does not pose a serious threat to the US (unless they are developing nuclear arms). Any planned invasion of the NK, would result in a lopsided victory by a NATO coalition, much like what happened in the Gulf War and Iraq. My point it the NK military is considerably weaker than the US military, despite its numbers, and I would request my opponent point out some more "credible " threats to US national security.

As for Israel and South Korea, again, there are many people who will disagree that Israel "belongs" in the Middle East in the first place. And as for South Korea, the US provides SK with foreign aid, but also the US positions over 30 military bases in SK and over 50 bases in Japan, all with capabilities to call an air strike and send ballistic missiles to fly through the Chinese and Russian peninsula with the push of a button. Where as China, Russia, and India have none such bases in such close proximity to the US border.

It is CLEAR that the US is only antagonizing and interfering with the diplomatic affairs counterpart nations, such actions can be viewed as "the act of using force and intimidation to coerce another party to comply with one's demands."
Moreover, I'd like to point out that my opponent is heavily critical of military exercises conducted by China, Russia and India. But he is not critical of military exercises conducted by NATO countries, such as Britain and Germany. So is he saying that other countries that do not share the same ideals as he US do not have a right to conduct military exercises? Enforcing one's own ideals and motives on others, that sounds like bullying to me.

On American Democracy:

THERE ARE ONLY TWO PARTIES in the US, because realistically, individual and non-mainstream parties rarely ever win. They don't win not because their ideologies are unpopular, they don't win because the media never mention these parties, and never air the speeches that the leaders of this parties make. They don't win not because they have unpopular ideas, but because they are rendered unpopular due to the lack of attention they're given.

But hey, lets back that up with just hard facts:

Barak Obama raised over $500 million USD for his campaign, and John Mccain over $300 million. And poor Ralph Nader, who doesn't belong to any of these parties, raised a measly $4 million USD, despite him being in 3rd place in terms of fundraising, with ~20 other contending parties behind him. Face it, it's practically impossible to come to power in the US, unless you belong to either one of the two major parties!

On American Human Rights Record:

My opponent quotes,
"Abu Ghraib was a tragedy"…
I quote,
"It sure is…, and the US doesn't have any good reason for being in Iraq in the first place!"

Take a look at these pictures, I don't think anyone can now seriously say that the United States is a model country for democracy OR human rights! Let's examine the war time conduct of the US military in recent times:

My Lai massacre:

Korean War Atrocities:

Gulf War Atrocities: (Refer to video)

I am not saying that the US is an extremely depraved violator of human rights, because brutality IS a fact of war. But moreover, I would like to make the point clear that the US is NOT in any form a "savior or model of human rights".
This just goes to show Americans are bigoted when they use words like "liberate", or "bring democracy" to another third-world country.

On US foreign intervention:

It is almost amusing, if not bait-worthy, that my opponent would bring in Libya into this debate, because right now Libya is a perfect example of why NATO is a gang of thugs. My opponent explicitly mentioned that the US are willingly compliant to leave foreign territories if they are not welcome there,…

Certainly, Gaddafi's government does not welcome ANY US interference, and the current no-fly zone is a perfect example of unwanted US interference in another country's affairs. Again the US & NATO is stirring up trouble for another country by supplying rebels with weapons, and shooting another country's air force just because they don't like that country.

But sure, my opponent will point out that no-fly zone is for a "just cause", to "overthrow a corrupt government" etc…
So, you might ask, where was the United States, to overthrow the Chinese dictatorship, or the Soviet Union, or Iran's theocracy? China, USSR, and Iran, all shared opposing ideals with the US, at least in a time in history, and I'm pretty sure the US did not "like" red China or the USSR.

In the words of the Sen. McCarthy,
"we are engaged in a final, all-out battle between communism and democracy…",

Despite the rivalry, US never dared to have an upfront and DIRECT confrontation with China or USSR, this was due to mutually assured destruction. HOWEVER, when weaker countries, like Vietnam, Korea, Iraq, share opposing ideals with the US, the US jumps head in to bust them down.



My opponent dropped my point regarding the fact that the U.S. provides additional benefits to U.S. service men that our competitors don't allowing them to cut billions we don't.

China, Russia, and India are very wealthy yet developing nations. Despite their economic stances these countries manage to develop 5th generation fighters, advanced anti-air systems, build large modern forces, conduct large joint excercises, etc.

In short, our competitors are allowed to build and maintain much more of a military at a fraction of the cost. If we bought tanks, jets, and paid soldiers for the same China does our budget would actually be smaller than China's.

Also remember we have at least two and maybe as much as 3 military competitors if you include India.

Since the U.S. has more expensive equipment and a higher standard of living we spend more on men and equipment and we still need to be either on par or barely ahead of 2 or 3 major military powers combined.

Thus the U.S. needs to spend more on defense.

Foreign interests

Let it be known there is no doubt in my mind that the U.S. would win in a war with North Korea.

But there is also no doubt in my mind that having large amounts of men and material, despite being outdated, would inflict large numbers of casualties on both civilians and soldiers.

North Korea has nuclear weapons. North Korea has rockets to deliver them. North Korea is run by a single anti-american dictator.

North Korea is a credible military threat.


If a full fledged war were to break out with North Korea the U.S. would win, definately, absolutely, no doubt.

But hundreds of thousands would die at the minimum.

North Korea has the ability to do this yet has a GDP half of Bill Gate's net worth.

Israel has won multiple defensive victories in the Middle East over the past 60 or so years, effectively proving Israel is a nation and has a right to the boudaries it claims. It has already set that precedent and is a very progressive and liberal nation compared to the Arab nations around it. There is no need nor no more use for further Arab attacks resulting in more casualties. It's ridiculous that opposing nations get "reset" buttons to try over and over again to recorrect their military errors of the past in yet another attempt to defeat Israel at the cost of thousands of lives.

Russia and China are trying to establish bases abroad as well.

And this isn't anything new. We and our competitors have always had bases in allied territory.
The only difference is that we have more allies, our allies like us, and allow us to use their territory willing.
We are better at what our competitors attempt to do.

In the event of a nuclear war all sides would lose, regardless of who struck first. It would take several minutes for a missile launched from Japan or S. Korea to reach major Russian or Chinese targets.
That's all the time it takes to counter attack. No one would survive the attack you hypothesize of occurring regardless of who had missiles where. The fact that we have planes able to carry nuclear bombs in Japan is a moot and irrelevant point.

I am not heavily critical of our competitors military excercises nor did I ever say they didn't have the right to participate in such excercises.
I was making the point that our competitors and potential enemies have strong militaries, low costs for material and men, and are active, making our competitors very realistic threats in the future, justifying a large U.S. defense budget.

You are trying to twist my words.

American Democracy

No there are hundreds and I showed them to you. The fact nobody votes for them is not a violation of rights when you are able to vote for Nazi's and Communists.

Yes they don't win because the Media does not cover all 100 or so OTHER minor politcal parties. That's because CNN, Fox, MSNBC, etc all have so much air time and so much news to cover. They don't have the time to report on all the minor parties because all of their viewers would tune out. I don't care what the Labor, Peace and Freedom, Nazi, Communist, and Green parties have to say and neither does anyone else because if a significant amount of people did, then the other parties would get airtime.
That's like saying it's unfair that no ice cream stores spend the money, time and resources making vomit/feces flavored ice cream that 5 or so people in the Western Hemisphere happen to enjoy.
The Media does not have the time, money or resources to report on what hundreds of minor and irrelevant parties have to say, and they shouldn't have to.

Human Rights.

Abu Grahib was committed by a handful of MP's, Mai Lai was committed by a platoon, the other varous unjust atrocities in Korea were committed by squads and other small groups.
The war crimes committed by small groups of individual soldiers does not mean the U.S. is significant violator of human rights.
And if it did then I could show you soldiers of dozens of other nations who have committed similar acts.
To argue the U.S. commits atrocities at an abnormal scale would mean every country that ever went to war was just as bad.

I looked over your sources in Korea which included a NORTH KOREAN PROPAGANDA PAINTING

Let me ask, can I paint a picture of a man eating a baby then claim it's evidence you eat babies?

The others proven killings of civilians were either committed by small groups of men or were inevitable accidents or necessary such as when people shoot to kill from behind people, or when you can't tell whether they are enemies or civilians, or when you need to bomb a bridge or a harbor.

To this day most South Koreans are members of the Pro-American South Korean Grand National political party.

U.S. Intervention

My opponent dropped the original argument over U.S. intervention to prevent other nations from acquiring nuclear weapons so I assume he agrees with me on that issue.

I was making the point that we leave when nations ask us to, we don't force our military installations on others if they don't want us there.

You have changed directions and are using my statements regarding other scenarious for the scenarios you just brought up. You are attempting to twist my words again.

However you appear to agree that Libya is a corrupt government violently murdering it's own people with airplanes and armored vehicals and onto your final point.

You are correct, a war with nuclear superpowers would have resulted in billions of lives lost. That's why the U.S. didn't want to go to war with Russia or China. How is that selfish or thug like of the U.S.?
What a sh!t stain on the U.S. for making decisions for an obviously selfish reason like that.

Are you actually serious? Are you attempting to use the point that when we are willing to fight bad guys and save civilians it's only when there isn't an enormous amount of lives lost as result of the ensuing conflict, as YOUR point?

We should help out militarily when the resources and lives lost end up being worth it but when it isn't we shouldn't get involved.

I have gone through and refuted all of my opponents points, he forfeited a round, he has dropped many of my points such as my arguments regarding U.S. prevention of other nations acquiring nukes, he has put words in my mouth twice and he has failed to fulfill the BoP by proving that U.S. actions are those of thug rather than a liberator with inevitable byproducts of conflict such as inevitable warcrimes committed by few individuals.

Vote Con
Debate Round No. 3


"Joint Strike Fighter program": $382 billion USD

"Virginia Class Nuclear Submarines": $79.2 billion USD

"ICBM Stockpile of 33,2525 nuclear warheads": $2.26 trillion USD

"Invading and intimidating weaker countries because you don’t agree with their ideology": Priceless.;

The Nuclear Issue:

On my first rebuttal I neglected to include my arguments against the US’ nuclear hegemony over other countries.

I want to make my position clear, the proliferation of nuclear arms promotes international safety, and I support nuclear proliferation. The less number of countries have nuclear arms, the less of a chance that a full out nuclear war can occur.

HOWEVER, in doing so, the United States can only allow select countries to produce and manufacture nuclear arms, and limit the production of other countries which do not share the same ideology as the US, such as North Korea, Iran, etc. to produce nuclear arms in order to protect the US.

Nuclear potential is a display of power, and the fact that the US limits other countries from possessing nuclear arms is to limit the spread of power to ambitious countries. The US plays a pivotal role in limiting the production of nuclear arms by any other country which they view pose as a threat to the ideology of the US. But the fact is, most countries produce nuclear arms to use it as a form of deterrence and not combat. The US imposes nuclear restrictions on other countries to limit their power, and thus it is a form of bullying.

I’d like to point out the fact that, during the time when the development of nuclear arms occurred in the USSR and China, in the 50’s and 60’s, the US was VERY opposed to such a move, and both countries independently developed nuclear arms without direct US assistance. Since then neither the USSR or China has detonated nuclear arms in an armed engagement. But Nagasaki and Hiroshima proves the US readiness and potential to detonate nuclear arms against enemy states.

The Nuclear Issue:

My opponent quotes:

“Yes we do attempt to control nuclear stockpiling for very good reasons. The countries today that posses nuclear weapons such as the U.S., Russia, China, India, France, the UK, etc, are all very stable countries NOT run by dictators.”

My opponent quotes that the listed countries which produce nuclear arms are run by “sane” leaders. But I’d also like to point out, that besides UK and France, the US did not promote any form of nuclear arms development for Russia, China, India, or Pakistan. In fact, the US was stringently against the production of nuclear arms by these countries. The production of nuclear arms by these non-NATO states were individual efforts undertaken secretively. Had these non-NATO states been open to the US about the development of their nuclear arms, I doubt the US would have given these countries their blessing.

Moreover, my opponent has implied that any country run as a dictatorship should not have the right to produce nuclear arms. May I remind him that currently China, is a run by one party dictatorship. And less that 20 years ago, the USSR was run by a one party dictatorship, during the time when it peaked its nuclear stockpile. With the US being not much of a democracy in the first place, as it consists of a 2 party dictatorship.

My opponent claims that due to the US’ complex government and military structure, the launching of a nuclear strike must pass through unanimous decision through multiple parties before the strike is made. Yet despite all these layers of precaution, the US dropped two atomic bombs which killed 500,000 civilians, the only country to do so in world history.

Gen. Douglas MacArthur, famed Allied commander and war-hero during WWII, urged the use of nuclear weapons against China during the Korean War. He was removed from his post as a result. Let the record stand that MacArthur was not removed because he suggested the use of nuclear arms, but he URGED president Truman to do so. Had MacArthur got his way, Beijing would have been paved flat.;

My opponent may respond that America did make a great effort in defeating Imperial Japan, but nonetheless, Americans are more than willing to do almost whatever it takes to advance their own motives, thus making them one giant bully. (just maybe not as bad as the Nazis though)

More on Military Expenditure:

My opponent quotes:

"U.S. service embers whose pay checks are part of the defense budget, are substantially higher than that of a Chinese military service member. The U.S. also provides soldiers medical care, education, housing, and other other various benefits to U.S. military and women...
our competitors are allowed to build and maintain much more of a military at a fraction of the cost. If we bought tanks, jets, and paid soldiers for the same China does our budget would actually be smaller than China's.”

Now, Take a look at this article:

Soldiers in Iraq still buying their own body armor

And now take a look at this article:

Raytheon won another $229 million in contracts for upgrades to Patriot missile systems in Kuwait

So basically, the US military is willing to invest in nothing for the lifesaving armor of infantry in combat, while there more than willing to dish out $156 million USD for high-technology ballistic missiles. Is there any way I can sign up for the US military as a satellite missile system? I hear the perks are really good.

Words of an American Bigot:

My opponent quotes:

I don't care what the Labor, Peace and Freedom, Nazi, Communist, and Green parties have to say and neither does anyone elseThat's like saying it's unfair that no ice cream stores spend the money, time and resources making vomit/feces flavored ice cream that 5 or so people in the Western Hemisphere happen to enjoy.

Whoa, thanks for speaking on behalf of 300 million other Americans based on your own opinion, bigot. He even goes on to comparing other ideologies to fecal matter, calling them irrelevant. Please come up with a more convincing argument next time.

American War Crimes:

Oh, sorry the picture of American atrocities in Korea was a North Korean propaganda video, but he should of read the article I supplied, which was written by a British source.

But here is a more comprehensive video of atrocities committed by Americans in Korea: (Refer to Video)

US Intervention:

My opponent says:

“Are you attempting to use the point that when we are willing to fight bad guys and save civilians it's only when there isn't an enormous amount of lives lost as result of the ensuing conflict,…”

After reading this, I think Noam Chomsky himself would jump up and slap my opponent across the face. For example, the US-backed Indonesian government lead by Suharto was responsible for slaughtering half a million men women and children.

How about the US backed Taliban during the Soviet-Afghan War, seemed like a good idea to fund and supply weapons to insurgent fighters against the Soviets. After the Soviets pulled out, the Americans left the Taliban with an armed arsenal which they used to massacre and torture thousands of civilians from 1989-1997, where the US did not intervene during this period. Thanks for saving civilians American hypocrites.

And how about the Vietnam War? (Stay tuned on that for the next round)




My opponent does not realize that simply quoting Wikipedia, is not a reliable source.

Data on Wikipedia can be easily manipulated by countless users so you must quote more reliable sources.

We limit the spread of power to unstable countries that aren't responsible. That's why we have no qualms with our competitors such as China and Russia owning nuclear weapons. They very responsible and we know they won't start a nuclear war because they have stable governments with many people in charge. They have a lot invested in the world and they don't want to go down as being the ones who dragged the world through turmoil. What does Ahmadinejad care? What does Kim Jong il care?

We impose nuclear restrictions on Kim Jong il and Ahmadinejad who have both outright stated they wish to destroy entire countries and races of people yet my opponent believes we are being bullies by doing so. I say we are being parents. When a country like Iran or North Korea is in the power of one individual who is clearly violent and hateful and makes serious threats to the lives of millions of people, they must be stopped from obtaining the weapons that enable them to act on those threats. The U.S. is stopping them and without blood spill. My opponent believes we should wait to stop them after Iran wipes the Jews off the planet.

When Russia developed nuclear weapons the country was run by Joseph Stalin, arguably the most evil man in history.
When China developed nuclear weapons the country was run by Mao Tse Tung.
We had a pretty good reason to oppose them possessing nuclear missiles.
Nowadays however, they are run by more stable governments.

I agree that it was terrible when soldiers began buying their own body armor. That was because there are shortages in body armor and this also isn't just the U.S.

Here is an example of when a British soldier was killed when they had to redistribute his body armor.

So while my opponent has a point that money should be going to body armor, keep in mind that they are given much higher pay than soldiers of competing nations, given abilities to go to good schools, given medical care, and given housing benefits. We do provide much more for our soldiers than anyone else, especially since our allies in Europe have similar issues with body armor.

An advanced ABM system is able to shoot down a rocket carrying a nuclear warhead.

My opponent believes that men who have publicly stated they want to destroy the U.S. and various U.S. allies should not be stopped from possessing nuclear arms and now he believes we should have no defense when Kim Jong il decides to finally carry out his threats and decides to launch a rocket at Tokyo or Seoul.
If this sounds ridiculous, it's because it is.

Word of an American Bigot

All right enough is enough. This is a debate where I'm forced to debate to win even though I may or may not agree the position I debate for.

For all you know I agree with you 100%

I claim my opponent has terrible conduct for using blatant personal attacks against me for arguing a position he wanted me to argue for.

Again, if a good amount of people wanted to hear what other political parties had to say the media would give other political parties airtime.
Media is a business, and like all businesses, it makes sense to supply the demands of the public. It makes no sense to simply show what Dems and Reps have to say when there are a significant amount of people who wish to hear what Ralph Nader has to say. So I repeat, an insignificant amount of people wish to hear what other parties say because apparently the media is making money off a large amount of people viewing Dems and Reps.
The only way to solve this solution is to have the federal government step in and force CNN, Fox, and MSNBC to display hundreds of other political parties. That would be tyranny when the government violates the 1st amendment of freedom of the press to report on whatever the hell you want, however, a business not providing a certain service such as reporting on Ralph Nader because it would lose them money, is not tyranny, its the FREE market in action.
My opponent has failed to solve the problem of getting more publicity to other political parties yet blames the U.S.

War Crimes

It doesn't matter. North Korea painted a picture of the U.S. soldiers murdering people and my opponent cited it as a reliable source.

I read the article. The atrocities were either committed by small groups of soldiers, were accidents where it is too hard or too risky to tell between civilians and combatants, or necessary such as in the demolition of a strategic bridge or a harbor or win the enemy shoots from within crowds of civilians.

My opponent has made a deliberately misleading claim when he said, "the US backed Taliban during the Soviet-Afghan War"

The fact of the matter is that the Taliban did not exist until 1994

We did in fact fund the Mujahadeen, which was an anti-communist guerrilla army.

The Taliban emerged as one of several factions and took power following a civil war and most of the people we funded in the Soviet-Afghan war fought them.

All throughout his arguments my opponent keeps drudging up past U.S. actions to show how the U.S. IS an international bully.

What's next? Is my opponent going to go back to when we moved the Indians off their territory? Or when the U.S. was engaged in the slave trade?

By using past examples he makes a good case to show how the U.S. WAS an international bully. But by his logic I can pull up crimes against humanity committed by France, England, Germany, etc not more than 60 years ago and claim that Germany is an international bully because they started the Second World War. The UK is an international bully because 300 years ago they conquered swaths of land as their colonies. France is an international bully because 200 years ago Napoleon conquered several major European powers during the Napoleonic wars. I can say Spain is an international bully. By using his methods by pulling up U.S. actions decades ago and claiming the U.S. is a bully I could use his same logic, pull up the fact that Germany started the Second world war, the fact that England still had a firm hold on India and Africa, the fact that France was waging a war in Vietnam, the fact that China invaded Tibet, the Fact that the USSR invaded Chechnya and claim that just about every major power on the planet is a bully.

The point is my opponent made this debate so he could support the idea that the U.S. IS currently an international bully, which he did by bringing up recent events in the Middle East, the current U.S. defense budget, the fact that NATO attempts to prevent other nations from getting nuclear weapons, etc.

When he realized he couldn't win there, he decided he had to go back to Korea, to Vietnam, to Rise of the Taliban in Afghanistan, to Indonesia, etc, and if he loses those points as well he'll go back to the Mexican American war, to Westward Expansion, etc.

So far, by using past U.S. actions, my opponent is not supporting the resolution that the U.S. IS an international bully, only that the U.S. WAS an international bully during the Cold War and before.

This was find the first few times but now I realize it is becoming the basis for his entire argument, now he's going to bring up the Vietnam war which was 40 years ago to show that the U.S. today is an international bully when in fact it only shows that during the 60's and 70s the U.S. was an international bully.

All of his arguments regarding past U.S. actions from the 1990's and before are irrelevant. They don't support the resolution that the U.S. is currently an international bully.
Debate Round No. 4


For some reason, the video I was suppose to post on the 4th round didn’t show up, anyways here it is: (Refer to top most video)

The Vietnam War:

After several Oscar winning movies, countless documentaries, journals, editorials, protests, which criticized the Vietnam war, I’ll pass on the section where I have to prove that the Vietnam War was an act of unnecessary US aggression, instead feel free to visit these links:

The Iraq War:

My opponent claims that I shouldn’t use historical events, like WWII & Korea, to justify my points. To be fair, I kept all of my references to events that occurred in WWII or later. Maybe he was sleeping through the first lesson in history class, when the teacher said “history has the tendency to repeat itself.”

But nonetheless, here is criticism of a more recent war, that’s still going on, hopefully he doesn’t play the “history” card on this one again.

(Refer to Second Video)

Military Expenditure:

My opponent still insists that the US military’s medicare and education to its service members. But yet he has no evidence to support that Chinese and Russian militaries don’t provide the same education and medicare for their soldiers.

On a personal note, I was kind of interested in joining the US military as an officer cadet after high school graduation because I heard that they would pay for my education.

So I contacted a Naval recruiter and realized that after graduation I am expected to serve in the Navy for contracted service terms that can range anywhere from 5-10 years. Moreover, if I choose to disenroll in the ROTC, I would have to serve at least 2 years and complete my term of service as an enlisted member, or make recoupment for all of my tuition fees. Naturally, having 5-10 years spent in the military and climbed up the ranks, people usually grow accustomed and stay in the military.

I speculate that these perks don’t make up for the majority of military spending, seeing how the US is too cheap to even buy the latest body armor for its soldiers who put their lives on the line.

Correction on the Afghan Conflict:

It was my mistake, the Taliban didn’t exist until 1994. But that really doesn’t change the fact, that the CIA funded and supplied Osama Bin Laden with weapons and training, which he then used to form the Taliban to slaughter and torture thousands of people.

Final Thoughts:

Many good points were brought up by my opponent in the defense of the US’ actions. But nevertheless, the US international aggression is evident and cannot be mitigated, even if my opponent chooses to negate history, and dodge responsibility for the US actions in the past.

The US is the world’s top developer and supplier of military arms in the world. This is evident when we look at the financial spectrum, and see the US military spending is 10 times that of the next big spender. Today in the US the military-industrial complex is as strong as ever, with companies like Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, Blackwater, all acquiring multi-million dollar contracts with the Department of Defense to fund the US’ armed conflicts.

My opponent has tried justify that despite the US’ top military spending, the US promoting peace, and doing it for a just cause. Where I have pointed out, that the US is only pursing its militaristic path to advance its own motives, such as in the Korean War, the Vietnam War, the Gulf War, and currently the Iraq War, and during these conflicts the US wartime conduct was not the most commendable.

With the US vast span of military bases worldwide, it poses as a threat to other world superpowers such as China, Russia, and India. China and Russia do not have any bases even close in proximity to the US shorelines. But US has bases stationed in South Korea, Japan, Germany, etc. All which cause a potential danger to the China and Russia. Such bases serve no purpose to the immediate defense of the US, but to provide an airbase for US spy-planes who wish to take photographs of Chinese and Russian military secrets. A recent example of this occurred:

Many of the US actions are not approved by non-NATO states. Such as the introduction of Israel, the division of North/South Korea, the Vietnam War, etc. Much of the US’ conduct since WWII, has only proven to antagonize smaller countries which the US wishes to take advantage of.

The US also limits the capability of other countries to become major powers of the world by limiting their development of nuclear weapons and advanced weaponry in general, using the threat of invasion, or economic sanctions. Even though countries who were once run by dictators, such as China and Russia, had independently developed nuclear weapons and have not used them since. Whereas the US only permits NATO countries like Britain to develop nuclear weapons.

Don’t get me wrong, I also do not hope that Ahmadenijad or Kim ever get their hands on a nuclear weapon, but I’m making my point that the US doesn’t have much of a reason to limit other countries development of nuclear arms, if they themselves are stockpiling ridiculous amounts of it.

I’ll conclude with a final quote:

“Whoever has the Americans as allies does not need enemies.”

–Madame Ngo Dinh Ngu, first lady of South Vietnam (1924-2011)

On the Wikipedia Issue:

My opponent says that my frequent use of citing Wikipedia is not credible. He should go tell that to my Engineering Design Prof. I think I’ve cited Wikipedia extensively for numerous the design reports and proposals I submitted for the semester, and even the Prof. himself cites Wikipedia in lecture.

The fact is, only stingy English teachers and professors don’t like Wikipedia simply because its open-source, and something they aren’t used to. May I remind my opponent that the open content capability of Wikipedia makes it far superior to “old school” encyclopedias such as Encyclopedia Britanica, as it can be almost updated on a daily basis, keeping up with corrections and current events. This makes the amount of inconsistencies in Wikipedia far lower than Britanica’s.

Moreover, currently Wikipedia is so tightly watched by its moderators, that any controversial change is almost immediately spotted. Plus the fact that almost every factual statement made on Wikipedia is linked to an external source at the bottom of the page.

If my opponent thinks Wikipedia is not credible, I would like him to prove the credibility of any other site he finds on the web. And I would also advise him to “get with the information age and stop being so conservative”.

I challenge my opponent to a debate on the credibility of Wikipedia.




Again all arguments regarding Vietnam are irrelevant.

The U.S. took miltiary action in Vietnam 40 years ago, arguments pertaining to past U.S. actions such as these are irrelevant as they don't support the resolution the the U.S. IS an international bully. Countries do change in such a time span.

Iraq War

My opponent has brought no arguments of his own to bear, only links to the arguments of others and a video of Noam Chomsky.

I'm not going to respond since my opponent has presented no arguments to the table to oppose the U.S. war in Iraq.

Military Expenditures

Russia, China, and India are all developing nations with much lower Human Development Index rates than the U.S. as well as an average per capita that would qualify a U.S. Citizen as living in Poverty

Russia is number 62 out of 178, below Mexico and Uruguay
China is number 85 out of 178, below Lebanon, Russia, Mexico, and Samoa
India is number 128 out of 178 below Honduras, Gaza strip, Indonesia, and Vietnam

A nations HDI is based off of its literacy rates, education, standard of living and physical well being.

Since our major competitors score very low I find it very, VERY unplausible that they provide their soldiers the same pay and benefits as we give U.S. servicemen GDP per capita

The U.S. is number 3 at 37,000 USD
Russia is number 82 at 8920 USD
China is number 118 at 4990 USD
India is number 143 at 2880 USD

My opponent wants evidence that shows our competitors don't provide their soldiers as much as we provide ours.
The average GDP's per capita of our competitors would qualify a U.S. citizen as being poverty stricken, know any soldiers that are in poverty while they serve?

Chinese conscripts do not get the pay, education, housing, and medical care of U.S. soldiers. The mere fact that China is still a developing nation with an average per capita 1/4 of that of the U.S.'s should have been a strong indicator.

Yes the Military spends large amounts of treasure to pay for the education of an officer and in return you have a job as a military leader after you get out of college for a certain amount of years. That is perfectly fair.

Afghan Conflict

1. U.S. involvment in the Afghan Soviet war was 30 years ago and only supports the resolution the U.S. WAS an international bully
2. Your own sources state that non-American sources gave several hundred million dollars every year to fund the Mujahadeen so they would have been funded and equipped without the U.S.
3. Your own source states that Bin Laden does not give any credit of the Mujahadeen victory to the U.S. even though he can pin all of his atrocities on them.
4.We funded a guerrilla group to defend their homeland from a Soviet Invasion, not the Taliban to kill it's own people. The fact that the Taliban developed ulterior motives after the war ended is not the U.S.'s fault and currently we are involved in a war where we killed Bin Laden and destroyed the Taliban's hold on Afghanistan.

Two Party System

My opponent has dropped this topic so I assume he has recanted his position after I posted my arguments.

Final Thoughts

1. The U.S. is a first world nation with a much higher standard of living and cost of living than our competitors Russia, China, and India therefore manpower, material, and development cost significantly more. If we paid what the Chinese paid for helicopters and began enforcing conscription, we would have a low defense budget as well.

Since my opponent claims wikipedia is valid I'll take advantage of it as a source

An American MBT (Main Battle Tank) costs 6.21 million USD

A Russian T-90 costs between 2.77 and 4.15 million USD half of a U.S. tank and this is one of their most expensive ones while the more common tanks range in cost from 1-2million + USD

And the Russians are notorious for their formidable tanks and they can produce as many as 3-4 for the same price we make 1.

2. The U.S. is competing agains the next top 3 military powers combined who pay much less for equipment do to the fact they are developing nations. This gives the U.S. a clear reason to have such a high Military budget because you need to factor in the fact that we spend more on material and men than our competitors and we have 3 major competitors.

3. Past U.S. actions are irrelevant as they do not support the resolution that the U.S. IS an international bully

4. The fact that the U.S. has bases world wide does not signify U.S. aggression, especially since the nations we have bases in are our good allies and give us permision to use their territory for our military. It shows we have many friends around the world
Our bases don't threaten our major competitors, why should they? Russia, China, and India can destroy the world each in a matter of minutes. If hostilities were the open up it wouldn't matter who struck first

Spy-planes have long become obsolete and according to my opponents own source the U.S. was allowed to operate aircraft where the collision occurred.
Nowadays nations use spy sattelites which can take more accurate photos and can't be intercepted or shot down legally as they don't violate a nation's airspace.

5. For the nth time past U.S. actions are irrelevant as they don't support the resolution that the U.S. IS an internation bully, only that the U.S. WAS an international bully.
6. Again the current states that own nuclear weapons are nations such as Russia, China, U.S., India, UK, France, etc.
All of these nations have very stable governments and proper safeguards in place to prevent an innappropriate nuclear strike being launched.

North Korea and Iran don't have stable governments. They are run by hateful and insane individuals who have pledged to destroy the U.S. and her allies, it should be obvious as to why they can't be allowed to posses nuclear technology seeing as they aren't responsible.

Even Russia, a major U.S. competitor, is on our side.

We have very good reason to prevent Kim and Ahmadenijad from possessing nuclear arms seeing as Kim and Ahmadenijad are absolute rulers with no regard for human life and have made direct threats against the U.S. and U.S. allies.
It wouldn't matter if we had enough nuclear weapons to blow up the solar system, we wouldn't launch a nuclear strike based on the whim of a dicator.

I don't care to debate over wikipedia's credibility. So whatever, wikipedia is fine.

Con's conclusion

My opponent has made direct insults against me by calling me a bigot for debating against a position he wanted me to argue over, he has forfeited a round while he was the instigator of this debate, he has dropped my point regarding the U.S. 2 party system while he was the one who brought it up, I have successfully shown why the U.S. has a high defense budget, my opponent's points regarding past U.S. actions are irrelevant seeing as they don't support the resolution that the U.S. is currently an international bully, and he made no arguments of his own to oppose the current U.S. miltiary actions in the Middle East.
Debate Round No. 5
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by quarterexchange 6 years ago
I just want to let you know sing_along, that it may take me longer than usuall to reply.
Apparantly they dug up the info of several spam accounts, one of which happened to be a younger sibling, now I've been accused of owning several spam accounts and voting for myself.

It may take me a couple days to make my argument while I try to get myself cleared.
Posted by phantom 6 years ago
I once posted my debate argument 1:30 minutes away from the end time.

I thought I had 10 hours left then I looked and I had 12 minutes!
Posted by phantom 6 years ago
Afraid not
Posted by quarterexchange 6 years ago

CAN sing_along MAKE IT ?!?!
Posted by quarterexchange 6 years ago
I just want to make a correction, the first link I posted was apparantly messed up when I copied and pasted

Here is what it is supposed to be for the few of you who care.

I'll try it again here, (

If this doesn' work just compare

United States of America

North Korea
Posted by phantom 6 years ago
I click accept and someone else has taken it. Sigh.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 6 years ago
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:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro gave opinion without support beyond other opinion. To support "bullying" Pro would have to argue that it would be good for the world if every two-bit dictator had nukes. Otherwise it is containment, not bullying. Loses conduct for forfeit.
Vote Placed by detachment345 6 years ago
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro forfeited and liljohhnny keeps votebombing this particular user and voted against con based on sources and grammar when they were both even
Vote Placed by liljohnny818 6 years ago
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 Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:61 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro forfeited