The Instigator
astrosfan
Pro (for)
Losing
28 Points
The Contender
beem0r
Con (against)
Winning
29 Points

The USFG should have the power to limit citizens freedom of protest if it weakens our military power

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  
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
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/2/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,226 times Debate No: 3881
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (16)
Votes (14)

 

astrosfan

Pro

First I thank my opponent for accepting this debate and ask all who vote on this topic to vote on what is presented in the round not what you believe

So to clarify this topic, what I am affirming is that the US government (though acts of congress) should have the right to limit citizens rights to freedom of speech and protest against a war if found that it put the US at a military disadvantage during a time of war.
To define some words. All come from www.merriam-webster.com
Limit- to restrict the bounds.
Disadvantage- to place at a disadvantage

So I affirm this topic with the values of utilitarianism though the criterion of protection.

Contention 1: protest of wars has caused the US to lose military power
After WW2 the US military dominance was absolute, but now in the present day the US has lost wars to developing nations of Vietnam and Korea only decades after defeating the military power of Germany. The problem has arose from the fact that people no longer support our military, with the lose of the draft along with drop in military recruitment because protest of wars. Thus because of this weaken military state the US government has lost it power to protect it's citizens.

Contention 2: to protect the people the government has the right to limit people's speech
The role of a government in a society is to protect the people in this society and maintain order. The fact that government should protect the rights of it citizens requires that these people are free thus implying that the government has to protect people so they can have these rights. So in order to protect the rights of the citizens the government has the to take away these freedoms to protect it's ctizens
beem0r

Con

I accept the definitions.

=========================
Response to Contention 1:
=========================
This seems to simply be a point showing that protesting does weaken our military power. However, this is a necessary assumption already, as the resolution reads IF it weakens our military power.

However, there were some things I still must disagree with. My opponent claims the Vietnam War and the Korean War were lost because protests weakened military power. First, I would say that Vietnam was lost because the draft itself weakened our military power. A draft inherently causes bad morale - not only at home, but on the part of soldiers who are being FORCED to fight. This is the real problem.

I don't think protesting was what caused us to 'lose' the Korean war, and I challenge my opponent to show otherwise if feels he needs this point. We lost because we were overwhelmed by Chinese forces, unfamiliar terrain, etc.

By accepting this debate, however, I automatically accepted the premise that protesting can sometimes weaken military power, and that it's that type of protesting we're talking about.

=========================
Response to Contention 2:
=========================
I will make several counterpoints to this, each of which I will give an irrelevant name to.

=========================
The Quintessential Pirate:
=========================
Where protests against military action by the general populace might lower morale and thereby weaken the military, the government taking away the rights of its citizens would lower morale even further.
First, the soldiers would still know that there were people who disagreed with them, since they'd know the government had to implement this policy.
Second, most soldiers have such high morale because of what they're fighting for - for you and I to be able to enjoy all the rights and privileges of being an American. It is through the protection of this ideal that so many men and women are proud to be soldiers. The government making a policy limiting citizens' ability to protest would be a huge blow to military morale. Most soldiers are glad that you and I have the right to voice our opinion, be it against the government or not.
My opponent's plan therefore weakens the military EVEN FURTHER.

=========================
The Entangled Tusked Boar:
=========================
Most wars are not fought to protect US citizens. Two of these types of wars have already been named in this debate - Korea and Vietnam. These wars were fought to push the political agenda the US Government wanted to push.
Therefore, as a general rule, maximizing military power cannot be used as an reason to take rights from its citizens. first and foremost, a Government must protect the lives of its citizens and the rights of its citizens. Since the lives of its citizens are not in imminent danger here, the next most important thing for the Government to protect is our rights, not its own global political agenda.
The Entangled Tusked Boar is only relevant if my opponent manages to get past the Quintessential Pirate, since as long as the Quintessential Pirate Stands, taking away our rights does NOT improve military power.

I'll leave it at that, as this is a 4-round debate.
Debate Round No. 1
astrosfan

Pro

first extend across my value criterion which is dropped by my opponent. the fact that us military power leads to peace thus leading to a utilitarianism world

Defending my first contention
First extend my argument that protest has hurt US military power. Because of the fact the draft is gone the US military is based sole on volunteers so if people believe a war is unjust then they will not join. The reason that people see war (using Vietnam as an example) as being unjust is because other people's protest and speech. http://en.wikipedia.org... As this site states the reason for protest of the war is because people had "greater access to uncensored information compared with previous wars and extensive television media coverage" meaning that if you are limit this information then fewer people will protest. Thus because of fewer protest more people will support the war and we will have a larger military power. Without sufficient troop levels winning wars become harder (using the Iraq war) because despite having technology that land a bomb from 10,000 feet within a foot of its target yet we still can't win a war against people still using Russian made weapons from the 70's. the US military has even had to lower it's standers in an attempt to get more troops yet because of war protest fewer and fewer people are willing to sign up. Also protest has also cause other foreign powers to pull out of Iraq mean that there are even fewer troops there and makes it harder to win.

Defending my seconds contention
The pirate
First on this argument I'm going to defend my opponent's attacks then turn his arguments. To start off the fact is that people do join the military defend people's right but they also do it to help other people thus this minimizes the effects that removing people's rights will have. But turning my opponent's argument, if fewer people protest fewer people will be against the war as I stated above this means that military recruitment will increase meaning more troops to be fighting thus even if they have lower moral they will still have the ability to win easier.
The boar
Now while most wars aren't fought to protect citizens they are fought to improve how people live. Note how South Korea is the 12th largest economy in the world (http://en.wikipedia.org...) while North Korea remained economically weak. http://en.wikipedia.org.... The US also fights wars to help the oppressed, by giving up our right to protest for a short time we give others their freedom forever thus justifying my value of utilitarianism. Thus we should give up rights so that people can have the basic rights that they have been deprived of.

Adding a new argument that will further support the above arguments
The Uncle Sam Syndrome
This argument will sound bad but it really not. People's opinion's are shaped by propaganda, now without the power given by the resolution people will mainly receive anti-war propaganda thus influencing them to be against the war, but with the power of the resolution these people will hear more pro-war propaganda meaning that more people will join the military and/or support the people in the military because people will see this war as helping people. Thus because of this more people will be in the military and support the people in uniform thus increasing moral.

Adding a new contention
US military hegemony leads to peace
Bradley A. Thayer, Associate Professor in the Department of Defense and Strategic Studies of Missouri State University, 07, American Empire: A Debate
"Peace and stability are major benefits of the American Empire. The fact that America is so powerful actually reduces the likelihood of major war. Scholars of international politics have found that the presence of a dominant state in international politics actually reduces the likelihood of war because weaker states, including even great powers, know that it is unlikely that they could challenge the dominant state and win"

Us military has the power to stop low level conflicts and cause peace
Bradley A. Thayer, Associate Professor in the Department of Defense and Strategic Studies of Missouri State University, 07, American Empire: A Debate
the power of the United States creates stability in international politics. That is vitally important for the world, but easily forgotten. If the security and stability provided by the United States were taken away, most countries would be much worse off ,and arms races, vicious security competition, and wars would result

A. American hegemony is necessary to promote the continued integration of the global economy
Bradley A. Thayer, Associate Professor in the Department of Defense and Strategic Studies of Missouri State University, 07, American Empire: A Debate, p. 43-44
Economic prosperity is also a product of the American Empire. It has created a Liberal International Economic Order (LIEO)-a network of worldwide free trade and commerce, respect for intellectual property rights, mobility of capital and labor markets-to promote economic growth. The stability and prosperity that stems from this economic order is a global public good from which all states benefit,
beem0r

Con

==========
Rebuttal to:
"first extend across my value criterion which is dropped by my opponent. the fact that us military power leads to peace thus leading to a utilitarianism world"
==========
My opponent made no such argument in round 1. He made no mention of peace, he simply made mention of protection. He clearly mentioned that he meant protecting the lives of US citizens:
"Thus because of this weaken military state the US government has lost it power to protect it's citizens."
and
"So in order to protect the rights of the citizens the government has the to take away these freedoms to protect it's ctizens"
Show that.

However, the peace argument is made later on in his R2, so I'll wait until I get there to rebut it. However, I didn't drop any argument, and if you still claim I do, please post where you referred to this "fact that us military power leads to peace thus leading to a utilitarianism world" before round 2.

==========
Re-responding to Contention 1
==========
Let's look at the resolution, one more time.
The USFG should have the power to limit citizens freedom of protest if it weakens our military power

See the IF? That means that we are debating on the assumption that protests in fact DO weaken our military power. It is a given premise, it is not supposed to be debated. Whether it's true or not, I have to accept the fact that protest hurts US military power, at least in the cases we're talking about.

In the rest of this round, I will be showing primarily how taking the rights from the US public will weaken military power EVEN MORE than protests do.

==========
Defending the Pirate
==========
First, my opponent accepts that people do join the military to protect people's rights, so at this point, there is in fact harm done to the military, through lower morale and less recruits, when people's rights are taken.

However, he claims that another force at work - the elimination of protests against the war - would help the military more than it was hurt by the rights being taken away thing. He also admits that the morale would still be low with his plan: "thus even if they have lower moral they will still have the ability to win easier."

I will now argue that taking the rights of protest from people would not get more people to join the military.
~~~~~~~~~
The Uncle Sam Syndrome
~~~~~~~~~
My opponent points out that propaganda is primarily what makes people's opinions. He speculates that there would be more pro-war propaganda if protests were forcefully stopped and less anti-war propaganda. I will argue on both accounts.

"More pro-war propaganda":
Since freedom of the press still exists in my opponent's plan, and people don't like having their rights taken from them, and news companies generally like to get things people care about out into the open, they would be likely to show more anti-war stories and less pro-war stories.
Also, a lot of the Pro-war propaganda is based on how free we are, and how we're gonna give everyone else their freedom, and this would become bitterly ironic and would end up hurting the Pro-war cause due to the extremely visible hypocrisy.

"Less anti-war propaganda":
Protests are a minor form of propaganda. Having our rights taken from us, we would speak out more against the war than we would have with protests.
First, people who want to protest would have nowhere to vent their opinions, so they would talk about it a lot more on the phone, in person, and on the internet.
Second, people would assume negative things about the war just from the fact that the government had to limit the right to protest.
Third, people would be upset about their loss of rights, and would talk about it in person, on the phone, and on the internet.
Fourth, people would be upset at their loss of rights, and would talk about the war negatively as much as possible just to spite the US government for acting so heavy-handedly.

Not to mention the negative morale of the Military, since their ideal "protecting the land of the free" image will fade. They'll feel more and more like tools and less and less like the noble freedom fighters they are.
I believe that is enough support for the Pirate, at least for this round. Also, they won't like fighting for a heavy-handed government. Soldiers with high morale get the job done a lot more effectively.

==========
Responding about the first Boar
==========
Keep in mind that the boar was just there to show that the reasoning my opponent gave for Contention 2 was faulty and usually not applicable. To quote his C2:
"So in order to protect the rights of the citizens the government has the to take away these freedoms to protect it's ctizens"
The boar was only meant to show that this thinking was flawed, since wars are generally not fought to protect US citizens. Since my opponent has moved on from that, the Entangled Tusked Boar is now rotting somewhere on the side of the road, mangled and no longer useful. The rest of the response to my opponent's boar response will be under the new boar.

==========
The Rejuvenated Zombie Boar
==========
Alright, I accept where my opponent has taken this. So wars aren't fought primarily to protect US citizens, but they're fought to improve people's lives, which is definitely what the majority of wars are fought for. Well, at least in this debate.
Lowering our military power lowers our ability to do just that - improve people's lives. Since the Pirate shows that taking our rights will in fact lower military power even further, it will make us less able to improve people's lives the way we do. Thus, in the interest of improving these people's lives, the government should not take our right to protest wars. That's in addition to the other reasons - the fact that our society places a lot of value in rights, the fact that it would be hypocritical to take away your own people's rights while fighting for the rights of others [and hypocrisy causes a lot of problems in foreign relations, in media [did I mention propaganda?], etc.], destroying the entire county's self image [we're the 'land of the free, remember?], etc.

==========
US military hegemony leads to peace
==========
Great. Peace is good. And my opponent's plan has been shown to reduce US military power.

==========
Us military has the power to stop low level conflicts and cause peace
==========
Stopping conflicts is fine too. I really am enjoying all this extra firepower.

==========
American hegemony is necessary to promote the continued integration of the global economy
==========
Certainly a noble cause, and it's definitely a good thing based on utilitarianism. One more reason not to take our right to protest away, I guess.
Debate Round No. 2
astrosfan

Pro

On the first point to clarify what was said, I was saying that you dropped the value criterion from my first speech "So I affirm this topic with the values of utilitarianism though the criterion of protection" and then was showing how my newest contention linked to my value. But the fact that you dropped my value criterion still stands.

Then on the debate over the first contention
Well my opponent basically conceded that we shouldn't debate over it so I see no point in debating it further

My second contention

The pirate
Well first to make things easier group "the pirate" and "the Uncle Sam" because they kind of work together. Next my opponent argues that people join the military to protect people's rights while this maybe true I have 2 arguments to defend against this. One because of the fact that there will be more pro-war propaganda (which I will defend below) people can be made to think they are protecting people. 2 people also join the military to help other people and defend their rights as I will get to in "the boar". Then my opponent argues that this will weaken our military but I again have 2 arguments to defend this. 1 as I said above that the plan will not lower people's moral. 2 because the fact less people will think the war is bad their will be an increased number of people serving in the military. Thus because more people are in the military the US military power will be increased

Now to defend the Sam part. My opponent breaks it down into arguments about more pro-war and anti-war so I will do the same.

More pro-war
First off I would like to clarify that when I clarified the resolution in the first round by saying freedom of speech I was including the freedom of press as well as petition so what my opponent says has no point. Then my opponent claims that it is hypocritical but again I have two answers to this. 1 first this will not be seen as hypocritical because US propaganda will prevent it from being seen this way and because no will say that it is because it is against the law. 2 as long as there is a justification behind it there is nothing hypocritical about it.

Less anti-war
This point is based off the fact that people get their ideas from other people and because there will be less protest and less anti-war news on the TV then less people will think this way. Look in my second round when I say that one of the driving force behind protest during Vietnam was the fact that there was anti-war news on TV, meaning that if there is no anti-war news then less people think badly of the war. then secondly because of pro-war propaganda people will be more likely to support the war thus turning your argument. Now of each point
1.Because of the limit on speech there will be no communication against the war
2.As I said above government propaganda will make people support the war
3.Cross apply what I said in point one
4.Cross apply what I said in point 2

The boar

Well most of the stuff I going to use to defend against this I have stated above. First as I state when I defend the pirate that this will not make our military weak it will make it stronger. And secondly opponent claims that it is hypocritical to take rights away to give others rights, but as I stated in my last round that we only give up our rights for a short time but we give the ones we help rights for ever thus justifying these actions

Last contention
This just shows more benefits of US military strength so if you don't buy what I said in the boar you will buy the fact that the US hegemony leads to a better world.
beem0r

Con

I didn't "drop" my opponent's value criterion. I don't know what kind of backwards world my opponent is living in, but there's nothing to rebut in "So I affirm this topic with the values of utilitarianism though the criterion of protection."

You make your case through your contentions, therefore they are what I have to rebut. You don't rebut a criterion. When you make an actual point, I rebut it, as I have been doing so far. There is no point being made in the statement I pasted above, so I have nothing to rebut.

==========
Defending Uncle Sam's Pirate
==========
My opponent's first claims are that his plan would not reduce morale or reduce recruits. My opponent's reasoning here is that there would be more pro-war and less anti-war propaganda, a point he is continuing to fight for.
However, we will see in my the pro-war and anti-war propaganda points that more people will in fact be against the war in my opponent's plan.

~~~~~~~~~~
Attacking "More pro-war propaganda would exist"
~~~~~~~~~~
First, my opponent has decided to change what he's advocating. So far, he's solely been advocating limiting the right to protest, but now he is also advocating getting rid of freedom of the press and freedom of petition. Some would call it abusive of him, I'm just going to roll with it.

So fine, the original point I made here that the press would air more anti-war stories no longer holds in this case.
However, I will defend the statement I made about how the pro-war propaganda is viewed - as being hypocritical.

My opponent states that "1 first this will not be seen as hypocritical because US propaganda will prevent it from being seen this way and because no will say that it is because it is against the law. 2 as long as there is a justification behind it there is nothing hypocritical about it."

1. Propaganda cannot prevent itself from being viewed as hypocritical. If we have propaganda saying "Wow look how awesome we are, we're fighting for people's freedom!" people WILL see that as hypocritical if the government is taking our rights, especially since now they've taken even more rights than last round. People will have to be informed that they no longer have these rights, and they will be upset about it [because we are a people who value and take pride in our freedoms]. People will therefore see the hypocrisy in the government actions, since they know that A> America is acting like it's honorably fighting for the cause of liberty, while at the same time B> America is throwing away American liberty. Since people would see both A and B, they would see the hypocrisy, and they would not be affected normally by the Propaganda. Propaganda only works if you can get people to fall for it, and you wouldn't be able to after telling people "Hey, by the way, you just lost a bunch of rights, so don't do X Y or Z." People tend to look at the Propaganda you put out a little more carefully after that.

And
2. That's just wrong.
Hypocrite:
1 : a person who puts on a false appearance of virtue or religion
2 : a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings

Source: Merriam-Webster

See that a lack of justification isn't a prerequisite for being a hypocrite? You may have a very good reason for acting in contradiction to your stated beliefs, but that would not stop you from being a hypocrite.

America would be stating that we're some kind of freedom fighters, here to bring liberty to the world, but we would be taking that same liberty at the same time, which is indeed being hypocritical.

~~~~~~~~~~
Attacking "Less anti-war propaganda would exist"
~~~~~~~~~~
People don't primarily get their ideas from the TV or from protests. People get their ideas from other people, from talking with friends, from reading blogs, watching videos on youtube, etc. People mostly get their ideas from these places, and those who do rely on the news would turn away from it once they found out the news was being artificially censored. People would use whatever information source they still know they can trust, and that would be those I listed above.
After the government makes a policy to try and control what ideas can be said, PEOPLE WOULD NOT TRUST GOVERNMENT PROPAGANDA.

My opponent states that "Because of the limit on speech there will be no communication against the war,"
HOWEVER, there is no limit on normal communications. I can stil talk with my buddy fred all I want. I can still post a blog about whatever I want. I can still make videos about whatever I want. I can still contribute my opinion on forums online. I can still assemble a meeting to talk about whatever I want.
Perhaps my opponent will try to transform America further to deal with this.

And the rest of the points go to whoever's plan indeed does have the best military power.

To recap the important points:

I showed that once the Government tramples our rights, we will have little regard for what they have to say. That is to say, their Propaganda would no longer be able to work very well, since we would approach everything they said with major skepticism.

I showed that people will still talk about the war negatively, through whatever aoutlets are available. People will still speak out to spite the government, as I showed last round.

I also showed that people will already view the war negatively from the fact that the Governemnt even had to take away the people's rights.

I also showed that Military morale would suffer, because their ideal image of America would be shattered.

Overall, I have showed that US Military Power would suffer if our rights were taken. With this weakening of the military comes less ability to have peace, less ability to integrate into a globabl economy, and less ability to help people.

Not only that, but I have shown disadvantages to taking our rights that exist whether or not Military Power is weakened by doing so. First, the loss of our rights is a negative thing in its own right, especially in a society where rights mean so much to us. The loss of our dignity is another. The existence of hypocrisy is another. The heavy-handedness of the government, and the disrespect for the government that comes from that is another.

Now I await my opponent's final performance.
Debate Round No. 3
astrosfan

Pro

Well this debate has been boiled down to whether the resolution will increase military power so I will get right to it.

More pro-war

1.First the example that my opponent give it flawed for 2 reasons, 1 because what to say that is what they will use as propaganda, what to say they will not say that this war is to protect the US because if a country is controlled by the enemy then they could attack the US. 2 it will not be seen as bad because people only give up their rights for a short time helping the other forever.
2.This is not hypocritical because as I said we should give up our rights for a short time to help give others these rights forever

Anti-war

My opponent claims that people will still get the information, but look to what I said in my last round how people watching the news during the Vietnam war caused the protest so if they didn't have this information then there would have been less anti-war action. The next problem with my opponent's argument is that the government can control the things he is talking about, i.e. they can take a blog post down or remove a video of the internet. Now while they can't control each person this will not have a large effect because without the power to act they will not be able to convince other people to join their movement.

To overview this round I have show that with out these rights people will not be able to protest or speak negatively about the war and how the government will be able to convince more people to join and make a stronger military.
beem0r

Con

My opponent first claims that the now ineffective types of propaganda would no longer be used. Instead, we would just have the same few types of propaganda, but more often than before. The big problem here is that people would notice this big of a change. Because we are so used to how things are, people would notice a difference if the Government took away rights and started spewing propaganda, the same messages over and over. This tactic only works on those who have been raised without their liberty. My opponent is suggesting changing so much, and expecting people not to notice something's wrong. This is foolishness.

And now to respond to this:
"2. This is not hypocritical because as I said we should give up our rights for a short time to help give others these rights forever"
First, I showed using the definition of hypocrite that that is indeed hypocritical. I did this last round. My opponent offered no valid counterargument. Not that that matters. The important thing here is people would indeed see that we're being hypocritical - a nation that views liberty in the highest regard suddenly throwing those notions out the window as soon as it's supposedly helpful. Which it isn't even.

Next, on the anti-war side of propaganda, let's see what my opponent has to say.

He said:
"My opponent claims that people will still get the information, but look to what I said in my last round how people watching the news during the Vietnam war caused the protest so if they didn't have this information then there would have been less anti-war action."

As I have been stressing, especially last round, the news is not the only place people go for information, especially when they notice that the freedom of the press has been tainted, making the news unreliable.
People spread their views themselves. I made the argument that the internet and normal person-to-person communications would be the primary outlet through which anti-war propaganda would flow. My opponent did not argue against it.

"The next problem with my opponent's argument is that the government can control the things he is talking about, i.e. they can take a blog post down or remove a video of the internet. Now while they can't control each person this will not have a large effect because without the power to act they will not be able to convince other people to join their movement."
The government does not have control over the internet. Without server access, they cannot take down blogs or take down videos. MY opponent is advocating that the government do more and more preposterous and unnecessary things every round. First, they just took away the right to protest. Then, privately owned press gets shut down if they make anti-war statements. Then, they try and take control of the entire internet? I'm sorry, but the internet would not stand for this. Not the internet I know, at least. People would create bots to post their messages all over. People would shut down government websites. People would once again be pissed off at the government for dragging their liberties through the mud. The government, in this case, would do even more to spread anti-war propaganda just by censoring it. Once again, a people who have their liberty and value it as many Americans do are not going to stand for something like this. This will piss them off far more than any unjustified war ever would.

What my opponent is urging the government to do could lead to an uprising. A wise man once said, "A people should not be afraid of its government, a government should be afraid of its people." Right now, our government has very little to fear, since it has not infringed on our rights.

Our government would become the very thing we are so often trying to eliminate. It is not worth it, even if military power was marginally increased. However, military power isn't increased. People who know freedom will have their voices heard, through whatever outlet they can, often at any cost. Not only this, but the military would see the grave oversteppings of the government. Many would decide the government is no longer fighting for, and would go AWOL. Many would feel the need to do something to get the people their freedom back, perhaps by going on strike until the government re-granted our rights. Many would simply suffer from severe loss of morale. Many who would have joined would join no longer.

I believe I have shown that my opponent's plan displays a complete lack of foresight. It may seem intuitively correct at a glance, but the unintended consequences end up causing even greater poroblems than existed originally.

Not only that, but it's simply not fair. There's a reason we have rights. Fairness and liberty have value on their own, even from a utilitarian standpoint.

For great justice, take off every zig. Oh, and vote con.
Debate Round No. 4
16 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Alessia_Riddle 9 years ago
Alessia_Riddle
I desperately needed to comment on this, just because of a single point that was brought up, that of the opinion freedom of protest should be limited because wars are started or entered to protect the US.
There is nothing more confusing to me than the U.S.'s need to go into so many other countries for so many reasons other than protecting ourselves, and, to put it bluntly, we usually don't get into wars for protection.
In my opinion we shouldn't be so invasive of other countries, particularly on behalf of any kind of issues they may have. Just because we are a 'superpower' or, to put it in casual terms, the big kid on the block, doesn't mean we should go shoving it in everyone's face. Friends may come and go, but enemies accumulate, and I'd be surprised if other countries don't eventually decide 'Hey, why not make the US get out of our faces for once?'
Sometimes, we can be a stupid country...
Posted by DoubleXMinus 9 years ago
DoubleXMinus
No thanks needed, you deserve it. I'm surprised the voting is so close in that debate, too.
Posted by brittwaller 9 years ago
brittwaller
Thanks XX-, I appreciate it. A stretch, maybe:)
Posted by DoubleXMinus 9 years ago
DoubleXMinus
Lol Britt, I understand why you have connected the two, but it's still a stretch ;)

Your opponent dropped the ball, almost like he got tired of defending his views... so I voted for you.
Posted by brittwaller 9 years ago
brittwaller
Exactly. Did anyone ever vote on this one? Another example of the issue at hand, I believe.

http://www.debate.org...
Posted by DoubleXMinus 9 years ago
DoubleXMinus
I just don't even feel the need to respond to that.
Posted by astrosfan 9 years ago
astrosfan
@doublexminus scene when has the public been smart. look at this web site people never vote on what the is right they vote on what they think is right. secondly only America could we have a show called are you smarter then a 5th grader and the people lose because they are not smart
Posted by brittwaller 9 years ago
brittwaller
I would indeed. I would also think that on a topic such as this, any unthinking, "popular," or casual voters would vote CON. And as usual, there are only explanations for four votes. So it goes...
Posted by DoubleXMinus 9 years ago
DoubleXMinus
I'm still disheartened by the fact that the voting is so close on this matter. Wouldn't you agree, Britt?
Posted by brittwaller 9 years ago
brittwaller
Vote CON. I don't even know where to begin with PRO's arguments... the worst case for militaristic imperialism I've ever seen.
14 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by studentathletechristian8 8 years ago
studentathletechristian8
astrosfanbeem0rTied
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 
Vote Placed by Corycogley77479 8 years ago
Corycogley77479
astrosfanbeem0rTied
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:70 
Vote Placed by Logical-Master 8 years ago
Logical-Master
astrosfanbeem0rTied
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:24 
Vote Placed by astrosfan 9 years ago
astrosfan
astrosfanbeem0rTied
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:70 
Vote Placed by Alessia_Riddle 9 years ago
Alessia_Riddle
astrosfanbeem0rTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by GenEd 9 years ago
GenEd
astrosfanbeem0rTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by thefinechina 9 years ago
thefinechina
astrosfanbeem0rTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Chisaku 9 years ago
Chisaku
astrosfanbeem0rTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by Somnambulist 9 years ago
Somnambulist
astrosfanbeem0rTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by SportsGuru 9 years ago
SportsGuru
astrosfanbeem0rTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30