The Instigator
David12N
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
8elB6U5THIqaSm5QhiNLVnRJA
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

The US should intervene in every conflict

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/15/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 407 times Debate No: 73500
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (0)

 

David12N

Pro

There is a lot of people being killed and injured in war zones and sitting on the fence is not a morally neutral position. So I am arguing that the US military {in particular using peace-keeping missions, air strikes and special forces} should be sent to every conflict zone in the world if there is at least a reasonable probability of success.
{I should mention I don't know if I actually believe this}.
8elB6U5THIqaSm5QhiNLVnRJA

Con

If the US should intervene in every conflict then using conflict to intervene means the intervention should be intervened.
Debate Round No. 1
David12N

Pro

I would see a difference between an intervention to stop the mass killings of innocent people and pre-existing conflicts. The argument that the intervening should result in an intervention does not prove the initial intervention was not right.
8elB6U5THIqaSm5QhiNLVnRJA

Con

A: The US(of A) should intervene in every conflict.
B: USA should use conflict to intervene in every conflict.
C: USA should limit the conflicts it intervenes with to the ones it will be most capable to successfully stop.
D: USA should limit the conflicts it intervenes with to the ones where it has any responsibility in.

C: (reached either by A+B alone, A+B+C, A+B+D or A+B+C+D) USA should intervene in its intervention as soon as physically possible to do so.

Thus Pro's argument self refutes.
Debate Round No. 2
David12N

Pro

Apologises if my argument was not clear enough. A person that commented in the comments section had a better understanding of what I was arguing.

I would argue it does not self-refute. A} Was just the title of the debate and not a detailed representation of what I was arguing. That was found within the description. B} I never argued that the US should use only conflict to intervene in every conflict. I cited peace keeping missions as one possible intervention and that does not have to entail conflict. The mere presence of the mission can help keep the peace. D} I never argued. In fact I argued the opposite that there is no limit to responsibility and all conflicts are our responsibility and there should only be intervention where there is a reasonable chance to succeed.
8elB6U5THIqaSm5QhiNLVnRJA

Con

8elB6U5THIqaSm5QhiNLVnRJA forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by David12N 2 years ago
David12N
The blow back could be an issue no matter what conflict you entered and so unless one argues for a blanket ban on any intervention then blow back could be an issue all the time and not a deciding factor on intervention. The argument that we should go in to the Sudan to stop the violence but not say an equivalent violence and misery that may be happening in other parts of Africa or the world seems wrong.

The factor that another country might help would presumably exist in other conflicts besides the Sudan. So I am arguing we should not be picking and choosing which mass killings of innocent people and mass suffering to stop and have a more morally consistent approach and say it is wrong all the time and there is going to be an intervention.
Posted by CommunistDog 2 years ago
CommunistDog
Although it is morally right to support each and every country that is not democratic or is going to war but it might also start a war with America and another nation. For this reason, I believe America should not intervene with international conflicts except for a few such as the Sudanese government, because of the mass genocides and because a closer nation, Nigeria, is fighting against that genocide and might side with America.
No votes have been placed for this debate.