The Instigator
Purlstone
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
carpediem
Pro (for)
Winning
14 Points

The United States ought not to intervene in the political processes of other sovereign nations

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
carpediem
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/1/2012 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 5,146 times Debate No: 23318
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (11)
Votes (2)

 

Purlstone

Con

Resolved: The United States ought not to intervene in the political processes of other sovereign nations.
The united state is an able moral agent, therefore has an obligation to carry out global security (utilitarianism)
(Just got the topic... So I think it would be fun to work out a few ideas here :))
carpediem

Pro

The founding fathers of the United States of America did not advocate foreign intervention. Thomas Jefferson is known to have said “Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations—entangling alliances with none,” while George Washington is also cited to have urged the nation to “Act for ourselves and not for others by forming an American character wholly free of foreign attachments.” It is because I believe, in accordance with these two great leaders, in the sovereignty of the United States and of countries throughout the world and the rights that comply with that sovereignty, that I affirm the resolution, “Resolved: The United States ought not to intervene in the political processes of other sovereign nations."


A few important terms include the following:

  1. Justice: To give each his fair due. Black’s Law Dictionary
  2. Sovereign nation: A nation with the self-sufficient source of political power, from which all specific political powers are derived. Black’s Law Dictionary
  3. Political process: The process of the formulation and administration of public policy by interaction between political leadership and public opinion. Merriam-Webster Dictionary



I value I will uphold is justice. Justice is the most important concept in this resolution because it is ultimately the code that society and the world accede to in order that they might endure. According to Black’s Law Dictionary, justice is to give each his fair due, in the context of this resolution, each sovereign nation their fair due. Each sovereign nation has the right of autonomy granted to them in the philosophy of the United Nations, the UN charter. When this right is infringed upon, justice is threatened, for in words of Martin Luther King, Jr., “An injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.” This brings me to my value criterion.


The value criterion I will use to achieve my value of justice is the right of nations to self-determination. Self-determination is defined by Black’s Law Dictionary as “Freedom of the people of a given area to determine their own political status; independence,” and is granted by the UN charter. This right of nations was instituted in order to ensure that a nation, once forming an autonomy, is given the ability to function freely, unrestricted from the interference of others. This allocated right is just because it is a provider of liberty.



Contention 1:
U.S. intervention in the political processes of sovereign nations violates the standards of justice by infringing upon the rights of autonomy granted within the UN charter. Each nations that has claimed for itself autonomy, has the right of liberty. The United States, however, with their foreign policy of intervention, disregards that intrinsic right to liberty. The gravity of this error, that of taking away another’s liberty, can only be adequately viewed from the eyes of the victim. Congressman Ron Paul explores this scenario in the following excerpt from his address to Americans:


“Imagined for a moment that somewhere in the middle of Texas there was a large foreign military base, say Chinese or Russian. Imagine that thousands of armed foreign troops were constantly patrolling American streets in military vehicles. Imagine they were here under the auspices of ‘keeping us safe’ or ‘promoting democracy’ or ‘protecting their strategic interests.’ Imagine that they operated outside of U.S. law, and that the Constitution did not apply to them. Imagine that every now and then they made mistakes or acted on bad information and accidentally killed or terrorized innocent Americans, including women and children, most of the time with little to no repercussions or consequences. Imagine that they set up check points on our soil and routinely searched and ransacked entire neighborhoods of homes. Imagine if Americans were fearful of these foreign troops, and overwhelmingly thought America would be better off without their presence.”


Because we, as secure citizens of the United States, do not have to face the harsh realities of foreign intervention, we cannot begin to understand the negative consequences brought upon that sovereign nation, from which is being stolen its autonomy. International law gives sovereign nations the right to liberty, and foreign intervention takes away that liberty, that autonomy, and that sovereignty of which was founded their nation.



Contention 2:
Maslow’s hierarchy of needs demonstrates the necessity of nations to maintain autonomy through self-actualization in order to attain a functional international society. According to Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, a nation (in this case) must self-actualize, or make itself the best it can be. A nation must adhere to its own responsibilities and further its own interests in order to constitute a healthy society. Foreign intervention hinders a nation from attaining self-actualization because a dependency on the interventionist nation is created. This dependency quickly begins a cycle of deterioration within the nation, which then negatively affects the rest of the world. Ideally, every nation should reach a state of autonomy, however this goal can never be remotely achieved if the United States continues to create reliant and helpless nations through their policy of foreign intervention.



Contention 3:
The United States is negatively affected by its own interventionist policies. As Congressman Ron Paul has frequently observed, “Foreign entanglements are the ties that strangle.” He goes on to state on the subject, “Our friend one day is our enemy the next. And all our friends’ enemies become our enemies. How many times have we armed both sides of a conflict because of this? This is not an intelligent way to interact with the world.” Not only are these alliances entangling, but they are costly as well. Congressman Paul recently highlighted the “irony of sending nearly one billion dollars overseas in military earmarks as we close down bases here at home to save money.” This is simply not a practical way in which to maintain our own autonomy. When all funds are exhausted, we will not be able to uphold the dependent nations we have created, much less satisfy our own needs. As Rome did before us, we will over-extend our resources and so debilitate our once great nation.

Debate Round No. 1
Purlstone

Con

Purlstone forfeited this round.
carpediem

Pro

Because my opponent was unable to refute my case, all contentions established in my affirmative constructive flow through to subsequent rounds. I will use this round to:

1. Clarify my sources from round one.
2. Refute the initial comments my opponent made in the beginning of round one.


Round One Sources

1. Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs

http://psychology.about.com...

2. Right of Nations to Self-Determination

http://www.marx2mao.com...

3. UN Charter

http://www.un.org...


As my opponent offered no new arguments, I will proceed to counter his initial arguments given in the first round. In order to do this with clarity I offer the following definitions:







1. Utilitarianism: The ethical theory holding that the proper course of action is the one that maximizes the overall happiness. The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy



2. Moral Agent: A being who is capable of acting with reference to right and wrong. The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy









“The United States is an able moral agent; therefore [it] has an obligation to carry out global security (utilitarianism).”

My opponent assumes that when the United States intervenes in the political processes of other sovereign nations, it, by definition by utilitarianism, “maximizes the overall happiness” of the globe. It is because the United States is an able moral agent, that they must not supply this political interference.



Utilitarianism
is the last value that could be achieved in this resolution’s scenario.
My opponent stated that the United States has an “obligation to carry out global security,” however, the nation hardly has the means to accomplish such and feat, nor would it be beneficial to them if they did. The U.S. spends billions of dollars each year on foreign intervention, and when, through political intervention, there is created a world of nations who cannot boast their own sovereignty and will rely on others for aid. The U.S., however, does not have the strength to maintain itself along with the other sovereign nations of the world; therefore it also jeopardizes its own sovereignty.



Another set of costs associated with interventions are political. The United States’ policy of intervention won the country few new friends and worsened its relations with several powerful nations. [1] The state of affairs is obviously one which has maximized overall happiness. Again, on this topic readers may cross apply specifically contention one and three in my affirmative constructive case, all of which, including contention two and my value and value criterion have gone uncontended by my opponent.



[1] A treatise on foreign affairs

http://people.umass.edu...

Debate Round No. 2
Purlstone

Con

Purlstone forfeited this round.
carpediem

Pro

I. To Review:


A. The United States ought not to intervene in the political processes of other sovereign nations because:


a. It creates for these nations a dependency on the United States that the United States does not have the means to sustain.

b. The creation of dependent nations, made weak through foreign political interference ultimately weakens stability of the entire world.
c. This interference harms the United States, itself through both expenses and foreign relations.


B. The policy of foreign interventionism does not maximize overall happiness.

a. Sovereign nations, having claimed their sovereignty and its rights granted through the UN charter, do not appreciate foreign intervention.

b. The United States, in distributing this political intervention, actually worsens its relations overseas.



II. Reasons for an Affirmative win:


A. Value Clash


a. As debate is in the Lincoln Douglas format, the point therefore being to uphold throughout the debate a single value, I will proceed to the value clash.

b. My opponent has not provided a value, nor has he clashed with mine, thus the value I have proved, being justice, stands.


B. Clash and Concession
a. My opponent has failed to clash with any points in my case; therefore they stand and flow through the round.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


One correction: In the last paragraph of my last round speech I said "The state of affairs is obviously one which has maximized overall happiness." This, of course is a discrepancy and should be replaced with "...has not maximized overall happiness."
Debate Round No. 3
Purlstone

Con

Purlstone forfeited this round.
carpediem

Pro

Extend all points and


VOTE AFFIRMATIVE!!!!!!!!!!
Debate Round No. 4
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by carpediem 4 years ago
carpediem
Like maybe two days... then three days... then three more days...
@Wallstreetatheist: Post a case in the comment section that I can rebut.
Posted by Wallstreetatheist 4 years ago
Wallstreetatheist
It's going to be a long wait.
Posted by Wallstreetatheist 4 years ago
Wallstreetatheist
He forfeits!
Posted by Purlstone 4 years ago
Purlstone
I hope he's posts. He's pretty busy and still needs to write another neg so he can post one. love third person.
Posted by Wallstreetatheist 4 years ago
Wallstreetatheist
It's getting close to crunch time. Will he post?
Posted by Wallstreetatheist 4 years ago
Wallstreetatheist
She's not. But, our team won the state championship this year.
Purlstone: http://public.wsu.edu...
Also, would you be interested in a debate on welfare or the minimum wage?
Posted by Purlstone 4 years ago
Purlstone
@carpediem, are you going to NCFL nationals?
Posted by Wishing4Winter 4 years ago
Wishing4Winter
This debate will hopefully be interesting. If you care for my input at all, LD style all the way.
Posted by carpediem 4 years ago
carpediem
Alright, I'll post my aff constructive, then my rebuttal in subsequent rounds. As of yet I won't clash with your opening remarks.
Posted by Purlstone 4 years ago
Purlstone
Yes LD all the way! :) So Since your pro, post your case in this round, and then we'll go from there.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Maikuru 4 years ago
Maikuru
PurlstonecarpediemTied
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:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Full forfeit by Con
Vote Placed by Wallstreetatheist 4 years ago
Wallstreetatheist
PurlstonecarpediemTied
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: Conduct: Con forfeited three consecutive times and deleted his account. S&G: Con said, "The united state is an able moral agent." The United States is capitalized and states (pl.) has an "s" at the end. Arguments: Pro had a case. Pro also argued throughout the debate, despite Con's forfeitures. Sources: Pro had sources... Meow.