The Instigator
EvangilisticOmega
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
GoOrDin
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

Whether the U.S. should financially support countries that persecute Christians.

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/5/2015 Category: Economics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 4,362 times Debate No: 82117
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (14)
Votes (0)

 

EvangilisticOmega

Con

U.S. should not financially support countries that persecute Christians because the U.S. is already in nearly 18 trillion dollars of debt and it also morally wrong to support these countries because the U.S. was founded on Christian morals. We funded Pakistan and they did what? they hid one of the most wanted men to the U.S. blatantly in our faces, The U.S. also funds Sudan, and what do they give back? Terrorists.
GoOrDin

Pro

I would like to thank my opponent and remind them that I am a Christian, before we continue this debate. I will just begin here:

1.) The USA funds these regions to demonstrate the moral values and economic strengths of This Christian country. whether the intent of the government is too advocate Christianity or not, our strengths historically and in modern practice originate there.

2.) The USA as a supporter of any country, is subliminal reinforcement that would subdue aggression and create a sense of stability. This sense of stability would decrease those countries pre-existing issues like social incompetence and depression.

3.) by uniting he world, we as a world become more understanding of each other first most, but also we simply are not ignoring the problems.

I think those will be the major points I will stress and reinforce during this debate.
I am very interested to hear what your responses are; hoping that you understand economics enough to see that investing in our own poverty is not a profitable industry. (* those countries have no capacity. The poverty in our own countries are from lack of ambition. )
Debate Round No. 1
EvangilisticOmega

Con

I acknowledge that you are a Christian and that we share the same beliefs and I will continue to keep that in mind. I agree that the intent for funding these countries is to subdue aggression although I do not agree that it will create stability, you stated that it creates a sense, and I appreciate that you had the forethought to say "...Create a SENSE of stability..." and how you stated that it did not create actual stability. I think that it is immoral for the U.S. government to fund other countries solely for the reason of maintaining allies. I think that if other countries gave back something of substantial value and i acknowledge that some do yet most don't. And i do not think that is possible to unite the world in perfect peace and harmony, and even if we were to unite with near perfect peace between countries I don't think that that will create a better understanding of each other.

Thank you for accepting and keeping it formal.

(When I say "we" I am referring to the U.S as a whole)
GoOrDin

Pro

I would like to remind my opponent that Christian individuals live in all those countries, and atheists live in America.

To suggest that we don't reach out to the poor, because of a single party of a nation indicates it is anti-Christianity... sort of biased.

It is also important to remember that you do not have to identify or recognize yourself as a Christian to be one. and so to suggest a nation is anti-Christianity when agnostics and atheists represent the better portions of the examples and references people commonly make to the church (in our own country, never mind foreign countries) it is hard to ignore their plights.

Also.
If a country is anti-Christianity, you can imagine the oppression in said country.
Debate Round No. 2
EvangilisticOmega

Con

I see. Although, I think that this debate may be unwinnable. I do not think that all countries that are anti-Christian are not wealthy or in depression. Take North Korea for example, they are one of the most (if not, the most) anti christian countries in the world yet what do they have? Nukes.

I do agree that my previous argument was semi biased and I thank you for pointing that out.
GoOrDin

Pro

well. I think enough has been said to let it stand.
Debate Round No. 3
14 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by awnett 11 months ago
awnett
America is basically a christian nation. If we support countries that persecute christians, we are basically supporting countries that are persecuting Americans.
Posted by lydiaaf 11 months ago
lydiaaf
Our forefathers completely founded our country on God. Any one who says other wise should read some history books.
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: IceeeStorm1816// Mod action: Removed<

3 points to Con (Arguments). Reasons for voting decision: I think Con's arguments stood out as more convincing to me.

[*Reason for removal*] The voter doesn't explain their decision, just repeating the result rather than providing any meaningful feedback.
************************************************************************
Posted by GoOrDin 1 year ago
GoOrDin
Christians are muslims by definition. it is a short coming to allow Christianity to come between us, when Jesus did not change 1 iota of the law. aka. we are muslims as Christians. do not think they are wrong because they assume u changed the law after the way Christians elaborate on their faith.
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: Dkice4// Mod action: Removed<

5 points to Con (Arguments, Sources), 1 point to Pro (S&G). Reasons for voting decision: We should not financially support countries who ostracize Christians and who do not show support for those who live near them. (I.e. the Syrian refugee crisis- Middle Eastern nations, who are closer by the way, did not take in a single person)

[*Reason for removal*] (1) The voter does not explain S&G or Sources. (2) The voter needs to assess the arguments given in the debate and not base their decision on their own views (and especially not on their own arguments).
************************************************************************
Posted by Edoleynik3 1 year ago
Edoleynik3
I'd just like to say, that when we support other countries with supplies, there is a difference with being kind by giving, and by blatantly giving them supplies knowing that they could use it against us, Yes, if we see someone in need we should help them, but by giving them supplies, you are giving them the supplies that they could use to kill our own citizens.
Posted by daisy425 1 year ago
daisy425
The pro side was very informative and convincing. GoOrDIn made me realize several truths about Christian. I also agree that we should help those less fortunate. If we continue funding these places we may eventually, as a nation, help with war, differences in opinions, and and help sustain a peace within nations.
Posted by EvangilisticOmega 1 year ago
EvangilisticOmega
Thanks for debating GoOrDin and yes i did IceeeStorm1816
Posted by GoOrDin 1 year ago
GoOrDin
:P

thanks for the debate
Posted by GoOrDin 1 year ago
GoOrDin
I argue both voters were biased against me as an individual.
No votes have been placed for this debate.