The United States overall is a benefit to mankind
Debate Rounds (4)
Con has to show how the US since its creation is a bad influence on humanity
I encourage creative arguments by the Con
Con may use the first round for arguments
4 rounds and 8,000 characters
A. the US has no real impact on these issues
B. That the US actually worsens the issue
A list of American inventions
1) The Airplane, essential for international transportation, migration, globalization, etc.
2) Electricity, that thing that powers almost everything you use today
3) Steel, the product that allowed for the construction of skyscrapers, essential for large ever-growing cities
4) The elevator, see above
5) The Bessemer Process, allowed for the rapid production of steel
6) The Telephone, revolutionizing communication
7) Computers, They run everything these days
8) The Telegraph, precursor to the telephone that did the same thing
9) The Traffic light, yes we invented it and traffic has been safer because of it
10) Smoke Detectors, central for fire protection and prevention
11) The Zipper, revolutionized clothing and the fashion industry
12) Gas powered tractor, greatly increased farming production
13) Radio, see telephone
14) Television, see Radio, also revolutionized how society's acquire information in general
15) Basketball, that created a sports sensation in the US and overseas
16) Batteries, Courtesy of Edison, powering a great deal of electronics
17) The Assembly, allowed for the development of mass production and revolutionized the American economy
18) GPS, helps people get to where they need to go
19) National Parks, the idea of preserving lands has done wonders for preserving nature
20) Liquid Fuel Rockets, allowed for the Space Race and exploration of the last frontier
A List of countries we've saved from foreign occupation
1) The Philippines, from Spanish occupation in the Spanish American War
2) The Philippines again, from Japan in WWII
3) Cuba, from Spain in the Spanish American War
4) China, from Japan in WWII
5) France, from Germany in WWI
6) France again, from Germany again in WWII
7) Kuwait, from Iraqi Occupation in the First Gulf War
8) South Korea, from North Korean and Chinese aggression in the Korean War
9) Great Britain, from German aggression in WWII
10) Israel, from multiple Arab invasions (mostly just provided weapons and funds though)
Lets look into some American Philosophy's that have changed society for the better,
1) Religious tolerance
2) Calvanism, the re-defining of christian teachings
3) Constitutionalism, That forged a United States of America and many other countries adopted it too
4) Enlightenment, Revolutionist philosophy that inspired things like Thomas Paine's Common Sense
5) Feminism, the movement for increasing standards of women was a very American idea
6) Universal Suffrage, allowing just about anyone to vote
7) Rehabilitation of criminals, America developed the first prison system where rehabilitation of criminals replaced medieval punishments of them
There are some notorious people in the world who no longer exist because of American intervention,
1) Saddam Hussein, A great threat to peace in the Middle East was eliminated by the US
2) Hitler, US contributed to his downfall even though he ultimately took his own life
3) Osama Bin Laden, we all know he was a threat to everyone
4) Pablo Escobar, Drug lord whose death was due to Colombian and US cooperation
5) Himmler, Another top WWII Nazi who went the same way as Hitler but only after he was captured by the US
America is beneficial to society because we allow immigration from all over the world to try to start a better life here. If I listed every ethnicity in the city of New York alone I would run out of characters. America allows for people of misfortune to try to come start a better life here in the united States,
"Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"
- Inscription on the Statue of Liberty
One of the easiest ways to contribute to society is to produce things that help make the average person healthier, America has done that on several occasions,
The development of medical techniques developed on the battlefield included
- Sterilizing medical equipment,
- Surgeons washing their hands after operations,
- Medicines against Typhoid and Gangrene,
- The foundation of the Red Cross
Ill end here for this round
These were basically the only issues he mentioned. So if he can show that the US greatly benefits society in at least 2 of these categories, he wins today's round. As the con, I must show that either the US makes little to no impact and/or that they worsen the situation in at least 2 of the 3 categories in today's round.
Last Clarification: If something does not benefit the majority of the people, then it is not beneficial to mankind/society overall. For example if the pro says, " well, the US is still benefiting people because people in their country can buy more oil from middle eastern war." that does not count as a valid point, because the US is not the majority of the world.
That is how you should weigh today's round voters. Anyways on to my three main points. I'm not going to refute his claims until the next round to make it fair to him, since he never had a chance to refute mine.
Contention one: The US does not benefit the world technologically.
When it comes to technology and innovation, the countries that actually benefit the world greatly are those in Asia. Look to Japan for example, whose main industry is technology. They are known for making key advancements in phones, cars and electronics in general. Also, When looking to well known companies that produce technology, most of them are not even American Companies. For cars, GM and Chrysler are non-existent outside of North America, and Ford barely makes an impact in Europe. Countries generally use their own brand of cars, like Volkswagens or Mercedes, not American cars. Airlines as well are making the shift from Boeing to Airbus, showing that the US is failing to innovate in this area as well. While the US may have started some of these industries, it is private companies around the world that are making the advancements and one upping US products, so they really do not benefit the world because they cannot provide other nations with proper technology for success. In fact, most people in the United states barely even use American Technology. The vast majority of it is made in China. So, clearly, the United provides little to no benefits in the industry of innovation and technology.
Contention 2: The US weakens the idea of World Peace.
When looking to the history of the United States, they are notorious for starting wars for no reason. In fact, the reason why the US is a country is because they fought with the UK, which is by no means a peaceful way to form a nation. Before the US was a country, the settlers basically eradicated an entire race of native indian people, which also shows why the US has oppressed people around the world. They also banned slavery much later than most sovereign nations, and to remove it, they fought each other in Civil War. The US's foreign policy ruins the world more so than it helps the world. When countries need their help, they refuse to help. Take for example the Hutu-Tutsi war in Rwanda, the US never sent any aid whatsoever to help them, which in turn lead to mass genocide that has spread to Congo. They also never helped Cambodia from the Oppressive Khmer Rouge, which greatly set back Cambodia. However, when it comes to their own political agenda, the US pounces,attacks and kills innocent people around the world. Look at the war in Iraq and Afghanistan. They were supposed to be in Afghanistan to remove Al Qaeda. Instead, they bombed the streets and tried to take the nation under their control, and attempted to remove the Taliban, even though they have virtually no connection to Al Qaeda or their supposed goals. Many innocent lives were taken, and no real progress has really been made on the country as a whole. Iraq as well has worsened. Neither of these countries ever asked for US aid, but they attacked them anyways. Iraq didn't even have Weapons of Mass Destruction, and all the US wanted was to control their oil for themselves, not for other countries to develop as stable nations. Many innocent civillians died and the country is on the verge of civil war. Also, a few decades ago, the US oppressed the people of Nicaragua, and killed countless innocent civilians for their resources. Further, East Timor, an area by Indonesia, had many innocent civilians of theirs brutally murdered, and another race of people almost died out, mainly due to the United States. These last two examples come from professor Noam Chomsky of MIT. Chomsky also goes on to add that the US has encouraged Israel to oppress the Palestinians living in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. The Palestinians have no rights, and are losing their land specifically because of Israel. Since the US gave Israel arms, Israel has abused their power and are even building Condo complex's for Israeli's to live in on Palestinian land. Also, ever since the US stopped occupying the majority of South American nations, the economies of Argentina, Chile, and Brazil have seen their economies skyrocket, and are started to transition towards being stable nations that can benefit the world, all primarily due to the fact that the United States left these countries. None of these events help world peace at all. In fact, the worsen world peace severely.
Contention 3: Social ideologies from the US really don't benefit society as a whole.
When it comes to philosophy, the US has taken the vast majority of philosophical ideas from other nations, including those of France and Britain. In events like women suffrage and slavery, the US was never the first to end/start these philosophies. They also fail to influence other nations positively, as their crime rate is the worst in the world according to http://www.mapsofworld.com.... So, considering that the US has the worst crime rate worldwide, it is clear that their system of law is broken, and that their ideologies really don't influence other people, or act as original ideas formed by the United States. In fact, as I stated in contention 2, the US is notorious for weakening nations and oppressing people to the brink of destruction. The only thing politicians care about is oil. That's why they supported the Libyan Rebels, that's why they were in Iraq, and because Iran controls 4% of the world's oil, they will probably declare war on Iran within this decade. None of their ideologies have anything to do with helping or benefiting the vast majority of people. These selfish political acts do not benefit society at all, and in fact worsen the stability of areas like the middle east. When countries stay away from US ideologies, they find more success. That is why over the past century, nations under dominant US control have failed to blossom as prominent nations. Overall, the vast majority of social ideologies are not even formed by the US, but are taken from other areas, and the ideologies they do design generally fail to make any impact on society as a whole.
For these reasons, I strongly urge a con ballot in today's round. Thank you.
According to the innovation argument presented by the con, if America is not first in innovation then they provide no net benefit. It is true that Asian car companies do better than American car companies in production but I distinctly remember a time when Totota's were being recalled because of braking problems, and then Honda's were also recalled for similar issues as late as 2011.
http://en.wikipedia.org... <- Toyota recalls
http://www.reuters.com... <- Honda recalls
Asian markets may produce more and sell more, but when you compare quality if them to American cars they are about the same. Also the US is starting to be quite innovative in the car industry as hybrid cars are really becoming a hit. Smart cars, the Nissan Leaf, Chevy Cruz, Fiat 500, Nissan Versa, Nissan Sentra etc. are (almost) all cars that are hits in America that have really high MPG rates. American cars can be innovative and of equal quality as Asian cars, and just because the US isnt number 1 in production does not mean they do not contribute at all....
As for airplanes, Boeing was founded in the US back in 1916, is still the largest airline in revenues, and is the top exporter for the US. Airbus on the other hand was founded in 1970 and does not create as much revenue as Boeing does, so Boeing is still a great innovation in airline travel, and since it was founded in the US it points towards the fact that the US is very innovative in the airline industry (which they invented actually)
" The vast majority of it is made in China. So, clearly, the United provides little to no benefits in the industry of innovation and technology."
Just because a majority of all the (occasionally lead tainted) stuff we use comes from China does not make them more innovative than us. Most of these goods are put together in factories and sweat shops where workers work in conditions far inferior to the ones American workers endure to make goods the workers cannot often afford. America produces goods from a combination of robots, mass production techniques, and high quality goods while China still relies on sheer force of the masses of low skilled laborers just trying to get a job.
Evidence that China's factories are comparable to sweat shops
The American revolution was the only way we could have won our independence, we tried many different techniques for independence and we only resorted to war after King George III gave us no other option.
The US treatment of native Americans over history has been nothing short of inhumane, i will concede that. However if you look in recent modern history the US has granted many tribes rights to their native lands and many tribes now live in sovereignty within the US, being free from any kind of taxation or intervention. The reason the Civil War happened is because the South was not willing to give up slavery and so the northern states rightfully launched a war to liberate the slaves because there was no other option.
The US does not have their own political agenda that determines their intervention. In the 1990's the US gave aid to Somalia fighting a devastating famine but withdrew after the Somali's grew hostile. After both World Wars America donated vasts sums of money to war torn nations to help rebuild and their efforts have been very successful.
The Taliban and Al Qaeda were close allies, they both wanted to enforce extreme Islamic law in the nation of Afghanistan, the Taliban harbored Al Qaeda and thus were a threat to world security. Innocent lives are always lost in war but the US never kills civilians on purpose and you know that. Also your idea of no progress being done in Afghanistan is purely your opinion, facts show that Afghanistan is much better off thanks to our help, Afghans now have more rights, more education, women's rights are a reality, and democracy has even spread to the region.
As for Iraq, really? We invaded Iraq just for their oil? You honestly believe that? Saddam Hussein was using chemical weapons on his own people, invaded two countries under his rule, threatened the peace of the entire region, caused the UN to solicit 16 resolutions against them (more than Iran or North Korea), lived in extravagant wealth while Iraqi's struggled against poverty, and you think the only reason we invaded was for their oil......
The US are allies with Israel but there is no legitimate evidence that we encouraged Israel to oppress the Palestinians, in fact the US is the largest influence in the region trying to bring peace to the Middle East...
East Timor = US was not the main cause on the genocide that happened, We have Indonesia to thank for that
The US never actually occupied any of the nations the Con listed. In fact the US never intervened in Brazil or Argentina and the one time we intervened in Chile it was to remove a communist dictator in the 1970's, ever since theyve been doing very well.
Let me just say that it is not the role of the US to be the big brother to the rest of the world and sort out each and every last genocide or conflict in the world. But the US has done wonders for world peace.
1) Constantly engaged in peace talks in the Middle East with Israel and Arab nations
2) Participating in sanctions against other nations that pose a far greater risk to world peace
3) The amount of food given to poor African nations has averted many conflicts in the region
4) US has provided aid to war torn areas like Darfur
5) In Bosnia the US intervened to bring an end to the genocide there
6) US provided a greta deal of relief to Haiti after their devastating Earthquake decimated their capital city
7) US provided aide to Japan following the Tsunami + Earthquake + Nuclear Meltdown
8) There is still the support the US gave in WWI and WWII tat saved Europe
9) Berlin Airlift was a stellar success of the US saving an area from sure destruction and ruin.
The social ideologies that the US had were taken from aspects of other philosophies but the US refined them in a way that revealed a great deal about Humanity and contributed to the world as a whole. As for crime rates, the US per capita is far more peaceful than other nations
Politicians are not obsessed with oil like the Con claims, there are always a dozen other reasons why the US ultimately takes action in an area and none of them involve oil. There was no oil in Somalia when we provided aid, no Oil when we helped take down Nazi Germany, or when Japan bombed us, or when we tried to overthrow Castro in Cuba, when we bought Alaska from Russia we didnt know there was oil there until later. US politicians are not obsessed with oil and the idea that they are is completely absurd.
When the Con claims,
"When countries stay away from US ideologies, they find more success"
I can think of many exceptions to that idea,
Cuba - Failed economy
Communist Russia - We all see how they ended up
North Korea - South Korea is way better off and they are a lot more like the US
Nazi Germany - No longer exists thanks to the US and Russia
British empire - No empire anymore
Belarus - Complete wreak
ill end here
Let's go to my opponents first point about Innovation.
In the first round he gave a list of American inventions, some of them not even being from America. An example of this would be the Telephone, which was actually invented in Canada. he also mentioned many products that really have no impact on life, like basketball, which for the record was invented by a Canadian. While basketball may be popular in some areas, soccer/european football is without a doubt, the world's sport, and provides far more benefits than basketball. Also, with Steel and the Bessemer process, the US was not the first country to invent that, in fact Europe had been using it hundreds of years before anyone, just not on an industrial level, so the innovation point on that one goes to Europe, not the United States. But, even if you want to believe that this is a US innovation, the Bessemer process hasn't been used since 1968, so clearly it is not a benefit to society. He mentions rocket fuel as well, but he fails to provide how that benefits the world economically, so it really isn't relevant. While the US may have started some of these communication industries, they do not continue them, and there were multiple other inventors around the world who were on the verge of creating those anyways. When it comes to television and electronics now, Japan and South Korea dominate those industries, with companies like Samsung, Nintendo and Sony, and are by far the leading innovators in technology, since their economy is based around technology. As with the issue with cars, the only reason why the US is near the top is because they have a high population, and lack other means of transportation such as trains, so citizens are essentially forced to buy cars to get anywhere in the country. He also tries to say that the US is leading in the making of hybrid cars, this is NOT true. the two main leaders of hybrid cars are Nissan and Renault, both of which are non-us groups. Also, I suggest voters look to the movie An Inconvenient truth, the US was listed as the highest contributor of pollution in the world by a mile, because they refuse to switch to eco-friendly materials.
Now let's move to the idea of world peace.
My opponent says that the Taliban was similiar to Al-Qaeda, but the goal of the war was NEVER to overthrow the taliban to begin with. Here, take a look at a passage from Noam Chomsky on the taliban. "The war aim in Afghanistan was not to overthrow the Taliban. That was an afterthought, so whatever you think about it is irrelevant. There were people who were very much committed to overthrowing the Taliban -- Afghans like Abdul Haq, who was one of the most respected Afghan leaders. Haq's position was that it was undermining their efforts to overthrow the Taliban from within and in his view the US was bombing the country in order to show its muscle and to scare the world, but not to overthrow the Taliban. One can argue about right or wrong about bombing Afghanistan, but that was not the aim, it was added three weeks later when the war was almost over."
As for Iraq, oil is the EXACT reason why they are there. There's a reason why almost every country in the UN vetoed on the war in Iraq. But, because the US doesn't care, they went in anyways. Sadam Hussein was not a good leader, but the US had ZERO reason to overthrow him in the first place. Plus, at the moment, Iraq is on the verge of civil war, so their occupation provided little benefit. Also, look to where most troops are stationed. They are covering the oil heavy areas and Baghdad, that's about it. Plus, there were much better ways to handle the situation. Here's another passage from Noam Chomsky to show my point:
you can go down a list from A-Z and pick out a lot of countries of which that's true. Does the US have any special right to do this? Of course not. In fact if anyone believed Bush's arguments, and the arguments of the pro-war people, there's a very simple way to overthrow Saddam Hussein which has many advantages to the one that's being pursued -- help Iran invade. The Iranians will tear Saddam Hussein to shreds, they'll kill anyone who's anywhere near him, they'll destroy all the weapons of mass destruction, they'll make sure any successor never develops any "weapons of mass destruction", which is a great contribution to disarmament, there'll be people on the streets of Basra and Karbala cheering as the Iranian liberators come in, there won't be any problems with the UN, there won't be any US casualties, there won't be any Israeli casualties.
Now, I invite you to take a look at my opponents source he had about South American invasions. He claims that the countries I listed were never invaded. However, even his own source proves me right, it mentions the innocent killings in Nicaragua as well as El Salvador. He mentions the dictator being overthrown in Chile, that was in 1974, a LONG time ago, and the US stopped occupying most of these nations after 2002. While the US never directly occupied places like Argentina and Brazil, their occupation of other nations preveted these nations from being successful, since they lacked trading partners. Ever since they have stopped with South American occupation, they have all found success economically, and South America may become influential in the future.
Here's a better list of foreign occupations in history. It even shows the CIA OVERTHREW democracy in Iran for the Shah system, clearly providing no benefit.
As with the issue with East Timor: Indonesia was part of it, but the US and other nations took sides with one of the tribes and killed off thousands of innocent people. They also gave substantial amounts of weapon aid to Indonesians. However, the issue was barely covered by the New York Times compared to that of the Khmer Rouge. He also brings up the Somailia invasion, however that went absolutely NOWHERE. Somalia is still the #1 most failed nation in the world, and provides zero benefits to society.
My opponent today has listed countries that were freed from the US in the Wars so im going to cover that now.
1. Phillipines - The US actually tried to turn them into a territory, so they only wanted to occupy them. They have provided little benefit to the country, as election fraud is common there and they do not really benefit the world economically http://www.historyguy.com...
2. Cuba- The US also put an embargo around them in the Cold war and US citizens are not even legally allowed to visit Cuba. So clearly, his point is moot here.
3. China- The only reason why China was able to become free from Japan was because of the extremely unethical nuclear bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, killing thousands of innocent civilians who had no war involvement.
4. France: In WW1, the US barely helped, and it was actually France that did the vast majority of the work. That is why they are #3 in number of casualties in WW1
5. Britain- The British royal air force saved the day on this one, not the US. Even my AMERICAN history textbook says this
6. Israel- But, as i've said, this aid has also lead to large scale oppression on Palestinians, so no real benefit here.
Now onto social ideologies.
The constitution has not spread worldwide, South American's tried to adapt it but do not even go by it now. Women suffrage was not US first- they just followed suit from multiple other European nations. While he mentions non US ideal nations that fail, Germany now doesn't even go by US ideals and multiple South American, European and Asian nations are extremely successful without following US ideals.
I suggest we have a part 2 to this. 4 rounds doesn't allow me to make all my points with limited the limited space.
The Telephone was an Patented in America and the first one was actually made in Boston.
Just because Soccer may be more popular then Basketball does not mean that Basketball has no contribution to society at all.
The US invented the Bessemer process, Europe was using far different techniques that took weeks to create one beam of steel, the Bessemer process did the same thing in a matter of Minutes, no technique in Europe that was used for "hundreds of years" like you claim existed.
That last one shows how the modern manufacturing of steel uses technology and techniques from the Bessemer process so it is a very valuable contribution to society both in the past, present and future since it opened up the ability to mass produce steel, build skyscrapers, and is looked back upon when trying to perfect more modern steel manufacturing techniques.
Liquid rocket fuel is what fuels rockets and the space shuttle to carry people and machines up into space to learn more about the mysteries of the Universe, it is CERTAINLY relevant to society!!!
As for the all the electronic industries (the US was the first to create) we as a nation still contribute to them and we still use them quite frequently. Dont act like everything is made in Asia and therefore they deserve all the credit because if it werent for America these technologies wouldnt even be available to east Asia nations to build their entire economy off of.
Oooooo thats another good point for my case actually. Many US inventions are what drives many east Asian economies who mass produce and continue to try to perfect it, so the US clearly contributed to society because their inventions drive the entire economies of other parts of the world.
I never said the US was leading manufacturer of hybrid cars, I was just showing how we have contributed the the field of Hybrid cars. On another note guess which car company was the first to mass produce hybrid cars....... Motorola, an AMERICAN CAR COMPANY
An Inconvenient truth was made back in 2006, since then China has in fact become the worlds top polluter, so Cons (falsified) argument does not stand.
The Con is basing his claim that the US never intended to overthrow the Taliban because of somsething one conspiracist says. We invaded Afghanistan to remove the Taliban from power and prevent Al Qaeda from using the nation as a base of operations for launching terrorist attacks against the world (and the US succeeded)
The only thing more implausible than your reasons for why the US allegedly invaded Iraq is Noam's idea for what should have been done (Noam is the same person ranting against the US media in the cons video) The US should have funded the Iranians to declare war on the Iraqis and fight the war for us? At this point I still have 3900 characters left but even that is not enough to completely tear into that argument based on no facts, no evidence, no collaboration from others who actually know anything about military strategy, etc.
As for South America, the con admits he was lying about the US occupying Brazil and Argentina (keep that in mind when you vote)
As for the other cases of the US intervening (not occupying) south American nations try to take a look for yourselves at the source I provided.
The times that the US did intervene was to protect the democratic governments of these nations from communist and dictatorical movements and to try to bring down dictatoral governments that already existed for the sake of world peace in the region. the casualties were the results of the movements the US funded the US didnt actually kill anyone like the Con is trying to say.
I agree that 1974 (it was actually in 1973) was a long time ago, yet you used it in your argument and the intervention was to bring down a marxist president who would have driven the country into the ground....
My source shows how the US never occupied any territory in South America since 1966.
The source the con gave regarding Iran shows only how the US intervened to try to evacuate their own embassy during the revolution.... Also regarding East Timor, indonesia was the biggest factor in the genocide and the US and the outside role played a very limited role, as my other sources have already shown....
We did not invade Somalia, we intervened to bring food to them because they were suffering from the worst famine Africa had seen in decades, it is not the fault of the US that the Somali government is terrible we only wanted to feed the starving civilians, theres nothing wrong with that.
Philippines - The US corrected their mistake and decided to let them govern themselves, as for the election fraud thats their own fault not the US
Cuba - we embargoed them to prevent World War III for the sake of world peace, my argument is relevant....
China - as far as history sees it China was liberated from Japanese occupation from US intervention. however "unethical" you claim it is it still ended the largest war in world history.
France - Our supplies helped them though and that is what helped them survive. Also you conveniently left out the WWII argument I had.
Britain - the RAF didnt overcome the german submarines blockading the isles and almost forcing Britain into submission through starvation, the US supply ships did that. Maybe you should re-read that textbook
Israel - You havent given any actual proof that the US encouraged the oppression of the Palestinians so until you do so this argument still stands.
You completely ignored my other ideologies and the two you gave, one you made up and the other you utterly lied about. I never listed womens suffrage as a US invention and constitutionalism has spread throughout most of the world.
seems pretty worldwide to me....
All in all the US has been the home to many innovations and inventions that have greatly benefited the world, some of which drive the entire economies of entire nations. Just because the US isnt number 1 at them anymore does not mean the US never ever contributed anything at all to those fields like the Con believes. The US has saved many nations from foreign occupation while also providing aid to deprived regions to help people, all in the name of world peace or ending world hunger. The US has had a hand in bringing down many infamous people in history while also developing their own ideologies which changed the world as we see it. The US has been a contributor to science and medicine and even today is doing society in whole much good. Is the US perfect, no. Are they sort of close? Nope. Have the US provided a great deal of benefit to the world?
Vote Pro :D
Innovation + Tech
My opponent is saying US contribution benefits society. However when I show that the vast majority of contributions are not from the US in technology, like in phones, hybrid cars and computers, the US does not benefit society overall because they do not contribute the majority (as stated in the framework) of society. He even admits this to an extent. He claims that because the US invented them, they benefit society. But when I show you that it's Asian countries that control and advance the industry, the US really has no benefit. He claims US innovations drive Asian economies, that's not true. Private companies are what drive economies and considering the main contributors are Asian companies, that means they drive each other, not US innovation. With rocket fuel, if space exploration was truly a benefit, the US wouldn't have shut down their shuttles, and cancelled their constellation program. It's really not relevant be abuse it doesn't benefit society economically, something he never responded to. For the record - Motorola is a phone company, not a car company... He never provided sources for his medical innovations either, so those could have been founded by anyone.
Telephones: It was mainly developed and invented in Canada, because that's where Bell lived. If it weren't for him, the telephone would never have been patented.
For the inconvenient truth, Just because China pollutes more now, that doesn't mean the following two factors,
1) The US almost pollutes more than them, despite having 800 000 000 less citizens
2) Their overuse of CFC's decades ago that caused a hole in the Ozone layer has made the US the catalyst of global warming (As stated in an Inconvenient truth)
As for the Bessemer process, my source says it hasn't been used since 1968, and it's been one upped. But, even then, my opponent has not provided how skyscrapers benefit society, he just assumes they do.
So, because the US does not benefit the majority of the world, they do not benefit the world OVERALL, so innovation point flows to Con today.
Now onto world peace.
Noam Chomsky is from Israel, and has studied middle eastern cultures for over 30 years. So this, "old man" you seem to believe is not credible, actually knows more about foreign policy than almost anyone in the world. You clearly did not watch the other 16 parts to the documentary, but that's understandable, so even though he explains in detail the issue with East Timor, i'm going to call this point moot here since the US did not do all of the work. But, by calling this point moot, this makes the following points of yours moot.
Britain- RAF took out the biggest threat, and they still had a navy of their own, making them the majority contributor.
France- France contributed the most in defending their country in WW1, and it was a collaborative effort from Britian, the US and other allied nations, so the majority contribution was not from the US. http://en.wikipedia.org...
Israel- You even conceded this one yourself when saying that the US only contributed arms.
Africa- Other nations give substantial amounts of aid too. But also, you never provided one specific example where their aid actually provided substantial benefits...
Philippines- Their "mistake" led to over 200,000 civillian deaths, and you never listed how they ever benefited the Philippines, just that they allowed for them to leave Japanese occupation. http://www.historyguy.com...
Cuba- Really, it was to prevent World War 3? Is that why it's still around now and breaks UN international law? To prevent world war 3? http://www.amnesty.org...
Here is some evidence as well to show that the US supports Palestine oppression. http://en.wikipedia.org...
Afghanistan- Regardless of whether it was the US's intention to overthrow the Taliban, there were better ways to handle the situation, as stated by Chomsky. It wasn't the Army the killed Bin Laden, the attack was carried out by Joint Special Operations Command forces working with the CIA, so the army really was not necessary to remove Bin Laden, and lead to the killing of over 25,000 civilian deaths. The US never considered any other options, and simply just attacked and bombed Afghanistan, and not for the better. He claims his "sources" say Afghanistan is better now, but he never provides any. Plus, considering that Afghanistan's only industry is opium, they really will not able to benefit the world economically, regardless of what the US does.
Iraq- The situation could've been handled much better here as well, as stated by Chomsky. Considering that their claimed to be primary reason for attack was for weapons of mass destruction, and that there was no weapons of mass destruction, this clearly shows that the handled the situation terribly. Even though they overthrew Hussein, there are still tonnes of dictators around the world that oppress their countries, so why else would they be attacking Iraq? Oil. http://en.wikipedia.org...
The US is lacking in oil within their country, and in order to remain as a world power, oil is crucial to their success.
South America- considering that South America has not had the US do anything to "help" them since 2002, and the fact that the nations there have been doing well economically directly shows that these nations do not need help from the US.
Some points my opponent never responded too
Rwanda- never intervened, and is now verging on the highest amount of genocide in history
Khmer Rouge- never intervened, and Cambodia was ruined because of that
So, because the US does not handle situations properly, and because they fail to pick and choose their battles properly, a con ballot is urged on this issue.
Now onto social idealogies. I wasn't able to fully respond to this last time because I ran out of characters. He claims I made stuff up, so ill just go down the list and refute his ideas he had.
1. Religious tolerance- The US is not very tolerant actually. But, despite that, they don't influence the world in this category at all. http://www.firmstand.org...
2. Calvanism- That was during the protestant reformation in the Dark Ages... The US wasn't even around then.
3. Constitutionalism- http://en.wikipedia.org...- this source shows only 5 countries only really adopted it, so not really a benefit. He never actually shows how this benefits the world overall
4. Enlightenment-http://en.wikipedia.org... it started in Europe and the US just followed suit.
5. Feminism- http://en.wikipedia.org... It started in the UK and Australia, the US just followed suit.
6. Universal suffrage- as I tried to say before, the Us just followed suit.
7. Rehabilitation of criminals- The US has the highest crime rate in the world http://www.mapsofworld.com... so this system doesn't even benefit their own country, let alone the world.
I thank my opponent for today's round, he is a STRONG debater!
For these reasons, I urge a con ballot in today's round. Thank
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Viper-King 2 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:||2||3|
Reasons for voting decision: Tough flippin decision. I'm gonna go with con because his framework never got reponded to which means it was under his terms and he refuted all of pro's points! Con 3-2.
Research this debate: United States