The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
3 Points

The United States is justified in intervening in the internal political processes of other countries

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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/26/2013 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,456 times Debate No: 32968
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (1)




I affirm resolved: The United States is justified in intervening in the internal political processes of other countries to attempt to stop human rights abuses.
Justified means permissible. For example, I am justified in drinking a bottle of water after I run because I am thirsty, but it doesn"t mean I have an obligation to do so. Also, justified concerns the specifics of situations because different things are justified in different circumstances. For instance it"s justified for my dad to have a hammer in his toolbox even though hammers aren"t useful in all situations. The resolution isn"t a categorical statement that all political interference to stop human rights violations are good, but rather that it is permissible in certain circumstances like a tool in the toolbox.

For the neg to win, my opponent must prove that the action of the resolution is not permissible at all.

For the sake of clarification in this debate, I would like to define the following terms from
An online Dictionary:
Human Rights meaning inalienable fundamental rights to which a person is inherently entitled simply because she or he is a human being.
And intervening meaning to Come between so as to prevent or alter a result or course of events.
I value equality
My value criterion is normative standard because it is the best tool with which to measure if my value is being upheld in this debate. Normative Standard is the idea that the ultimate goal of a value or action can be shown to be moral if it universally applies to all people in all situations.
Moral Responsibility to Protect Human Rights
Luke Glanville says The "responsibility to protect" encompasses two broad propositions. The first proposition is that states have a responsibility to protect their own populations from mass atrocities The second proposition of the "responsibility to protect" concept is that bystander states or the "international community" have not simply a right but a collective responsibility to assist host states in protecting their populations and to act to protect these populations in situations where the host state is manifestly failing to do so.
What is important here is the process by which Shue arrives at what is to be considered a basic right, which in itself suggests a prioritization of basics rights. The most basic, of course, is the right to life, which is embodied by both security and subsistence rights, violations of which often result in death. Any international treatment of an individual that permanently places him or her in a condition whereby he or she cannot in the future hope to enjoy any other right is therefore a violation of a basic right. Death is such a condition. Other "less permanent" but conceivably perpetual conditions include enslavement, impairment from physical abuse, and forcible Expulsion, the aim of which is to destroy the victim by treating him or her as entirely disposable. Violations of basic rights, then, are the most serious violations of human rights.
The responsibility to protect human rights does not change because people live in a different
country This more specific moral thesis: that our global institutional order is to be assessed and reformed principally by reference to its relative impact on human rights fulfillment. This is one way of saying that human rights in our time have global normative reach: A person's human rights entail not merely moral claims on the institutional
order of her own society, which are claims against her fellow citizens, but also analogous moral claims on the global institutional order, which are claims against her fellow human beings. Our responsibilities entailed by human rights are engaged by our participation in any coercively imposed institutional order in which some persons avoidably lack secure access to the objects of their human rights, and these (negative) responsibilities are extended, then, through the emergence of a global institutional order in whose coercive imposition we collaborate.
Allowing intervention urges an ethic of international cooperation

If we appreciated the full force of the principle of common humanity underlying humanitarian intervention and integrated it into the normal pattern of interstatal relations, we would see states as both autonomous and part of a wider community, bounded yet open, both self-determining and accountable to mankind, and having obligations both to their own citizens and to their moral kith and kin outside. We would then appreciate the moral need to share our material, political, ethical and cultural resources with the rest of mankind, and to cooperate in creating a just, peaceful and relaxed world in which many of the causes that generate the need for humanitarian intervention would disappear. Injustices, inequalities and mutual suspicions and fears, however,
are not the only causes of grave civil disorder, and the human capacity for brutality does not always follow the laws of political rationality. States may become a living hell, and the outside world may then need to intervene. We therefore need what J.S. Mill called "some rule or criterion" to decide when humanitarian intervention is justified and in what form.
In conclusion, having supported my value of equality, I urge a affirmation of the resolution that The United States is justified in intervening in the internal political processes of other countries to attempt to stop human rights abuses...


I would like to challenge your claim that intervention would result in states that are "self-determining and accountable to mankind". If the United States solves problems for other countries, it is depriving these countries of their ability to thrive on their own - much like a helicopter parent keeps a child from learning how to deal with playground problems by constantly swooping in whenever they feel that the child is at risk. The child is then unable to fend for him or herself. As a result, in adulthood, the child is either left dependant on the parent, or helpless. A country dependant on the United States in its adulthood, or future, would not have self-determination. A country that is helpless in the future would put itself at further risk for more human rights violations that they are still unable to solve without adopting United States policies or benefiting from intervention. When forming the United States, the colonists sought self-determination. As an independent nation, there were times of human rights violations, such as slavery. But because the rest of the world allowed the United States to deal with such problems on its own, the United States was able to keep its unique democratic ways of solving problems, thereby keeping the traits that make it an individual nation.

As far as sharing resources to create a more peaceful world, what is to say that the United States's resources and political systems are superior. The Great Recession, the glass ceiling, and the homicide rate are just the start of a long list that prove that the United States is not perfect. Not to mention, many of our systems would not suit other regions of the world, who have different cultures and backgrounds. I understand that your argument is addressing human rights soley. But, as I stated earlier and you implied in Contention two, when intervening for human rights, it is often inevitable for economic, political, and social intervention to take place. This is becuase, if the United States helps other countries deal with their problems, the United States's methods are usually Americanized. If America's intervention is causing more problems than it is fixing, this intervention is not justified. Perhaps if multiple countries worked together to intervene in other countries, the odds of justifiable results would be higher. But, as your resolution only included American intervention, implying that only one imperfect country is needed to do the job properly, it can be concluded that your resolution is too risky to be justified.

Your resolution threatens the national sovereignty of other nations for a cause that may not even work. Countries are sovereign for a reason. They have policies that protect their independent cultures and people. The United States is not justified in interfering with another country's ability to be successful.
Debate Round No. 1


sense its my birthday i automatically win((:


It is not your birthday according to your profile.
Debate Round No. 2


swayzie forfeited this round.


elizabater forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 3 years ago
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Rather than replying to the argument put forward, pro claimed victory due to his birthday...