The United States has a moral obligation to mitigate international conflicts.
Debate Rounds (3)
A person has a moral obligation to help someone in need of aid. If I was walking down the street, and I saw a small child getting abused on the side of the street, I have an impulse, a little voice in my head, telling me I need to help. Let us say that I was too weak to help the kid, so I decided to refrain from helping him. Does that all of a sudden stop the impulse in my head shouting at me to help? of course not. this is very simple. Lets say I wanted to go to Disneyland, but I didn't have enough money to go. does that stop me from wanting to go to disneyland? no it does not. it is simply not arguable that there is a voice shouting at me to help the kid getting abused on the street.
Contention 2. The united states has a moral obligation to help people in need of aid. The same thing can be applied to countries. Multiple philosophers have said, a country is of one mind, one body. Because we are a completely unified body, the same argument can be applied to countries as well as people. So the United States has a moral obligation, an impulse that urges the United States to take action. it is for this reason that the United States has a moral obligation to mitigate international affairs.
Contention 3. This is the side for you
Whether you believe that the United States should or shouldn't get involved in international affairs, this is the side for you. Again, the resolution doesn't state what the US should do, it just says the United States has a moral obligation. The key is this, the united states has a moral obligation to help any country. that is not deniable. however, the us also has a moral obligation to keep its people safe. No matter which obligation outweighs the other. both are there
in summary, the united states, just like a person, has a moral obligation to help countries. it doesn't matter whether the Us should, or how big the obligation is, it just matters that they do. thank you
I know this was a short argument, but to sum myself up: The USA is too poor to do anything externally right now.
And why should the USA maintain their status as the world police? They receive hatred because that everywhere. Russia and China mock them because of their seeming inability to do anything, the middle east (obviously) denounces them for this, and many European nations see the USA as an arrogant world "bully." Would intervening in conflicts like Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria be the right thing to do? Probably. Is the American nation forced to intervene? No. And nor do they want or need to. And under Obama, I'd say never. He's a weak leader, and the supporters of the nations that they have attempted to intervene in have been much more economically stable than the US, and thus being able to provide much more effective support. That was not the case in Vietnam, but in Iraq and Afghanistan, the USA was throwing away money, and borrowing money they couldn't pay back.
The last three of four wars that the USA has intervened in have been failures (Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, with the success being the Gulf War) so why should they risk more lives and money on Syria? It would be highly more effective to, in a manner of speaking, make a sequel to Zero Dark Thirty. Take a helicopter, fly it out of Israel or somewhere, and drop some SEALs on Assad's roof. Why should they waste thousands of lives on a full out war, that even has a slight chance to end up becoming World War III? When you consider the losses the USA may suffer, you may even say they have a moral obligation NOT to interfere.
1. No matter what you believe, this is the side for you. If you believe the US should mitigate international conflicts, or whether you believe the US should not mitigate international conflicts, you can, with a clean conscience, vote with me today. Remember, the resolution says nothing about whether the US should or should not mitigate international conflicts, it is only talking about moral obligations.
2. My side and arguments are undeniable. It is undeniable to say that the US has a moral obligation to help countries in need. It is also undeniable to say that the United States has a moral obligation to protect its people. It has a moral obligation to do both. Whatever obligation is stronger will be the determining factor. Even if the US has a stronger moral obligation to protect its people, it still has a moral obligtion to help the countries in need.
3. My opponent. As my third voting issue, I would like to bring up my opponent's case. After my first speech, he simply was talking about how the United States should not mitigate international conflicts. Same with his second speech. This is not on topic. We are not debating whether the United States should mitigate international conflicts. We are simple talking about whether they have a moral obligation.
For all these reasons, please vote with me in saying the United States has a moral obligation to mitigate international conflicts. Thanks!
The USA has no moral obligation to assist people like the people of Syria, Iraq, or Afghanistan. In most cases, the USA was asserting its own beliefs upon the people of these places. They didn't want those policies, nor do they now. The 'moral' obligation here is not to assist those across the world, but rather to assist your own people. The only situation in which the USA is in any way obligated to intervene, and that includes MORAL obligations, is if it is of benefit to the American people. The reason the USA intervened in wars like World War I and World War II was because it was in the best interest of their people. They joined World War I because if they did not, there was potential that they would eventually face invasion themselves. They joined World War II because the Japanese bombed them, and they had to intervene to prevent any of their own people from getting hurt. They joined the war in Afghanistan because they needed to kill Bin Laden so that he couldn't execute any more plots like 9/11. They initiated the war in Iraq because Sadaam Husein was funding the Al Qaeda, and that posed a terrorist threat to America, and so they had to protect their people. I believe that the moral obligation to intervene is non-existent, but rather the moral obligation to protect its own people is. None of the wars they joined that I stated were because they felt 'morally obligated' to intervene on the behalf of others, but rather because they felt morally obligated to intervene on behalf of their own people.
I assume that this debate was initiated because of Syria, and so I will respond to that: The USA will do more good NOT intervening in Syria, rather than intervening, because, in the long run, fewer people will die under the dictatorship of Assad than will die under the dictatorship of the Taliban. Therefore, the USA is morally obligated to leave Syria alone.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by funwiththoughts 3 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||3||0|
Reasons for voting decision: Con DID say that everyone (which includes the US) has a moral obligation to help those in need, so ...
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.