the u.s should stay out of foreign affairs
Debate Rounds (3)
The resolution is clear: The United States should stay out of foreign affairs.
Foreign affairs is defined as matters having to do with international relations and with the interests of the home country in foreign countries. 
I am Con, meaning that I must show why we should not stay out of foreign affairs.
My opponent is Pro and has the majority BOP to affirm his position beyond any and every counter-argument I make in regards to the resolution that the United States should stay out of foreign affairs.
Globalization is defined as the development of an increasingly integrated global economy marked especially by free trade, free flow of capital, and the tapping of cheaper foreign labor markets. 
No one can argue that we are not moving towards a more globalized world. With the invent of the internet, mass cable television programs, and worldwide news sources, we are starting to see the world develop greater communication methods which indeed allow us to live in a newly globalized society. Even here on DDO, I am holding conversations with individuals from Pakistan, Germany, Britain, and Australia among other foreign countries. Just a few decades ago such communication would not have nearly been as possible with such ease. It goes further than that though, we as a Nation have international relations with almost every country in the world now partly in due to such advancements in globalized communication. We have corporations based in America which outsource to India, China, Pakistan, and other countries in terms of jobs. We have goods which we both import and export to and from our neighboring countries including energy resources such as oil as this image from an NPR article shows:
 The article itself, which is linked in source reference #3 shows how America depends on several other nations other than just ourselves to maintain our current oil dependency.
It is evident that the necessary trade practices, lines of communication, and maintaining good relations are all key elements that can be attributed to the success of America in terms of globalization. My opponent must show how ending such things would actually be a benefit to the United States as a whole, because if we are to affirm his position and end all of our foreign relations, surely a negative impact would be felt in all three factors. Maintaining our current position in regards to current affairs is key in our efforts of having positive relations with various nations around the world in this new globalized world.
II. Maintaining dominance in the fields of Intelligence.
What is the end-game of all of this? The borders between nations, the differing religions all striving for control over the souls of the masses, the extremist movements fighting for control over a certain region. Everything falls under the efforts for control. Control over the valuable resources, control over the strategic locations, control over the minds of the many. We can be good sheep and pretend this isn't how the world works, but let's call it how it is shall we? Our world is in a perpetual state of war over control. World-wide control. Every war has been over either land, influence, passion, or all three. I only hope my opponent is aware enough of how the world works to see the point I am now going to make:
If we pull out of any and every foreign affair, we lose a significant advantage of knowing what is going on in this world. My opponent might have failed to realize the military advantage we as the United States have over most countries in this world in regards to how far-reaching our intelligence efforts really go. Essentially, if we were to remove ourselves from foreign affairs then that would include removing our embassies, relations with other international intelligence agencies, and our overall ability to sway political, corporate, or personal interests in our favor.
We are in the age of advanced civilizations with immense technological capabilities including thermo-nuclear warheads such as Big Ivan, better known as Tsar Bomba, which has a payload of 57 Megatons. In an article relating to that very bomb, "That's 1,400 times Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined and ten times the entire combined fire power expended in WWII. In one bomb. One explosion. And, incredibly, that's only half of what it could have done." 
As my opponent can hopefully realize for himself, our current efforts in regards to our involvement in foreign affairs is vital to our ability of maintaining accurate and current developments in any country, be it technological advancements, political movements, dangers being posed to our imported resources such as oil, etc.
I. Opponent lacks justification in his claims.
"the united states wastes its time intervening in the affairs of other nations. we pump billions of tax dollars into other countries in aid but it never gets anything done those countries go into chaos anyway..."
My opponent makes this argument in his first round. The issue with this is that as Pro, my opponent has a burden to prove the accuracy of those claims. The only example he gives is of Egypt.
How is Egypt in chaos right now due to American causes? This is a question my opponent will need to answer with evidence that can be considered valid. My opponent also said that we pump billions of tax dollars into other countries but with no results. I would think it wise that my opponent provide some evidence to back up this grandiose claim of his. As it currently stands, there is no reason we should take my opponents word as accurate when he has failed at providing any valid sources which would further give weight to his claims.
II. Problems in Egypt = Problems everywhere?
My opponent listed Egypt as an example. The problem with this, aside from what I pointed out just above, would be that problems emerging in one country does not justify the U.S. stopping it's foreign affairs in any other country aside from the one in question - in this case, Egypt. It does not hold that we should end all forms of foreign affair activities for the sole reason of supposed issues arising in one country.
Until my opponent can show that every country we have foreign affairs with is worthy of being dropped from our agenda, I see no reason why this resolution should stand in favor of the affirmative position.
I have provided arguments and rebuttals which cover both my own position and attempt to negate the affirmative one. I thank my opponent for starting this thought-provoking debate, and now return the floor to him.
I want to thank my opponent for his response and will get right into it.
My opponent begins his round by stating that he has nothing against a globalized economy. This is not a concession though because he then attempts to justify his position by implying that there is a difference between globalization and our involvement in foreign affairs militarily. This is false. While they are not literally the same thing, the latter is necessary for the former to work. We cannot expect our precious resources such as oil to travel through hostile regions without the necessary protection. We cannot expect our consumer goods from Asia, which cross seas via shipping vessels, to make it here without the necessary influence in regions where pirating is a reality. In order to maintain control over our import and export shipping routes, necessary measures must be taken to secure the materials. By removing our influence in any regard or from any region only heightens the risk of theft or other dangers to occur to our traded goods.
I ask my opponent to present a realistic plan of action to secure such trade routes and other regions which hold America's interests, in terms of resources, if we are to not use our own security forces. Are we to depend on the security efforts of the local regions which in themselves might be prone to corruption or lack of basic military/security strategy? How can we depend on such regions to hold our best interests in heart when they themselves are not Americans or recipients of such imports/exports? Based on these points alone it should be evident to my opponent that some involvement in foreign affairs with military efforts are not only wise, but also imperative if we are to continue our current efforts for international trade and globalization in general.
II. Maintaining dominance in the fields of Intelligence.
My opponent failed to even acknowledge this argument. I ask that he please provide a counter-argument in order to maintain his BOP for the affirmative position of this debate. At this point, this argument stands unchallenged by my opponent and is thus extended it from round 1.
III. Continued lack of justification (Egypt).
My opponent failed to expand on the Egypt contention he raised in round 1. He made the claim that the problems in Egypt are the fault of American efforts in Egyptian foreign affairs. I have asked for him to expand on this in my previous round to show how it is, in fact, America's fault. I would ask that my opponent acknowledge this rebuttal and provide a counter argument as it currently stands unchallenged.
IV. Iraq, Pakistan and Yemen.
In regards to Iraq, my opponent presents a case where it was a waste of time and effort due to the insurgents continued attacks even after we left. That is a poor excuse considering that what we actually accomplished was putting an end to the reign of Saddam Hussein. With this in mind, I would ask my opponent to consider what would have happened had the late Hussein or his sons gained control over WMD's? Saddam Hussein posed a threat to American interests, as did the high numbers of Al Qaeda operatives which were, at-least temporarily, blocked by American forces from gaining control over the factories and resources available to Hussein's regime in the area. The fact that they are continuing such acts of brutality in that region are due to Obama's decision to remove forces from the area. So you are basically arguing that because they are continuing attacks we shouldn't have ever wasted time there, but in reality they are continuing attacks because we left.
Pakistan and Yemen are also highly contested areas. I still do not see why three cases should give cause to ending American efforts in foreign affairs on a global scale. What about Europe, East Asia, South America, or Africa? My opponent assumes that three cases of controversial efforts give balance to the rest of our efforts which span across this globe, this is ludicrous. My opponent still lacks justification for attempting to end all of our foreign affairs efforts because of these cases. I would ask that my opponent show how at-least 50% of all of foreign affairs efforts are evidently harmful and should stop. Perhaps then we might have a debate where ending such acts are justified. Until then, my opponent has a huge mountain to climb in regards to showing how these three cases actually give enough weight to his argument that American should stop all of their involvement in foreign affairs.
I have provided rebuttals to each of my opponents arguments. I now await for my opponent's closing round in which I hope he will touch on each response including those he failed to provide rebuttals for in his previous round.
I thank my opponent once again for this invigorating debate and now return the floor to him once more.
After reading Round 3 from my opponent I am led to believe that he made a major error when creating this debate. I believe that in his mind, the resolution reads: the u.s should stay out of foreign affairs militarily. That seems to be the major point my opponent is arguing. Unfortunately, that is not the resolution we are debating. We are debating whether the U.S should stay out of foreign affairs. This not only includes militarily, but also economically, intelligence gathering and influence efforts. This is keeping in mind that the foreign affairs is commonly defined as matters having to do with international relations and with the interests of the home country in foreign countries.
My opponent seems to be arguing solely that we should not get involved in military conflicts in other countries. That is a completely different discussion from debating on whether or not the U.S. should stay out of foreign affairs. Perhaps my opponent wants to start a resolution stating that the U.S. should not give aid to other countries financially.
Up to this point, my opponent has listed 3 countries in which our aid or military efforts had a negative or null result. Throughout the entire debate I asked my opponent to explain how such a minuscule amount of examples could possibly justify banning our activities in regards to foreign affairs on a global scale, but even now he has failed to do so.
Egypt's government collapsing is a reason we should stop all of our foreign affairs on a global scale? That is absurd.
My opponent then goes on to say that "...as for guarding raw materials like oil from insurgents and para-military groups that's not intervention in a foreign conflict that's protecting what's ours we paid for it so naturally we want to protect what belongs to us."
This statement alone shows my opponents true intentions, which is that he is against intervention in foreign conflicts. This is not the same as involvement in foreign affairs, and this is why we now see him arguing for a resolution that isn't here.
I would suggest my opponent create a new debate resolution with a topic more appropriate to his actual position. Taking the position of being against foreign affairs is indeed against globalization, intelligence gathering, influence efforts and political relationships between world leaders. At this point, there is no reason why we should stay out of foreign affairs when in reality my opponent only wishes to stay out of military conflicts, which in itself is an entirely different debate. At this point, there has been no good reasons for stopping our current foreign affair practices as we are currently in a globalized economy and world as a whole.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by benko12345678 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:||0||6|
Reasons for voting decision: While I do think the US do get over-involved, this debate goes to con. Pro's arguments were nonsensical and he didn't even refute con's points.
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.