US involvement in foreign wars and affairs
Debate Rounds (3)
P2: It is not making us any safer by going into other countries and causing catastrophes there. We are killing innocent people for little to no purpose.
P3: US involvement will cause more people to go against us. As a country we believe we are better than anyone else and hate against America will continue to grow http://www.balancedpolitics.org.... .
C: We should stay out of foreign affairs.
P2) Countries should be working together. The UN helps provide vaccines and food to different countries that can help spread the cause of global cooperation about issues "that no single country can resolve alone". http://unausa.org....
P3) Involvement can help spread democracy. "Democracy cannot flourish in a lawless climate" http://www.foreignaffairs.com...
C) The US should be involved in foreign wars and affairs
http://history.state.gov.... U.S. The marginal interest did not justify the number of casualties
P2) Regardless of the U.N. "member countries act in their own interest rather than the common good, leading to bad decisions." http://www.balancedpolitics.org...
P3) The US cannot be the world police. Other countries will expect them to be involved every time
http://www.english.illinois.edu.... In this case being involved in a foreign war was able to help make the economy better for the United States.
P2) Even before Pearl Harbor FDR was trying to stretch neutrality to help Britain have a better chance of winning war, this made the US an "active" participant in war, thus he was not completely neutral before Pearl Harbor. http://millercenter.org...
P3) The issue is not to be a police but to intervene where help is needed because we are all members of the human race.
http://mailer.fsu.edu... 30 years of economic stability v. now being in a $17 trillion debt http://www.brillig.com... from borrowing money from other countries and losing every single war since WWII.
P2) FDR must have forgotten that we fought against Britain for equality, & that was the last time any countries came to the aid of the United States. We are in an economic crisis. We don't see any other countries rushing to our aid.
P3) Yes, and we still don't all have equality in the US
P2) If we were to concentrate on the past nothing would go further. FDR and Britain were working toward a common goal to stop the Axis. Countries should be able to unite and go after a common goal and not be influenced by past leaders.
P3) There is still a long way to go toward equality in the US, but it can be said that we have been going in the right direction. Years ago the thought of an African American president would have been inconceivable.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Seeginomikata 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:||3||2|
Reasons for voting decision: It is generally a bad idea to use sources from the official government websites when trying to come up with evidence that are in opposition to government policy. Keep this in mind for future reference! This was a tough debate to judge. Con made good points on the benefits of US intervention in the outside world, however I feel that such arguments are not relevant to the debate at hand. This is because I am assuming that the Con's resolution means negative interventions, such as invasions, CIA operations, drug war, terror war, military and economic aid for dictators, etc. The only reason why I'm voting con is because I refuse to believe that anyone would make a debate topic arguing against the things pro argued for, such as UN aid and relief. For the record, the US was never isolationist, and was constantly getting involved in the world abroad, especially Latin America. The World Wars was an inevitability, partially because the government was eager for participation in the war.
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.