The Instigator
Pro (for)
The Contender
Con (against)

Is the United States a bad country?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Debate Round Forfeited
Gresak has forfeited round #3.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/14/2018 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 1,105 times Debate No: 108058
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (0)




The United States is a cesspool of everything wrong with society. We are by far one of the most racist countries. We have hurt almost every other for economic gain and we have done nothing in the history of the U.S. to fix it. We spend the most money on health care than in any country yet receive the least benefit. We are a nation ruled by the wealthy that will do anything in their almost limitless power to turn a profit. Name a single good deed that the U.S. has done and I can list the worst of the outcomes because of that.


Hello, I'll be accepting your debate.
I believe that the United States of America is not a "cesspool of everything wrong with society".


Pro Claims, "The United States is a cesspool of everything wrong with society."
Of course this isn't much of an argument. If you claim this, then I have to ask you what exactly is wrong with society.

Pro Declares, "We are by far one of the most racist countries."
How? First of all, the only way a country can be racist is if it passes laws or policies discriminating aganist other races. Therefore, I would like Pro to give us the U.S. Law: code, title, part and chapter, that is "racist".
If you are referring to U.S. society being racist, that is a debate for another time. Despite this, I will address the society problem as well. A world wide study shows that the United States is among the least racist countries in the world, stating "Racist views are strikingly rare in the U.S., according to the survey, which claims that only 3.8 per cent of residents are reluctant to have a neighbour of another race." [1]

Pro Professes, "We have hurt almost every other for economic gain and we have done nothing in the history of the U.S. to fix it."
Every other what? You never clarified there. I suppose you mean countries? I want specific examples of the U.S. hurting "almost every other" if you are going to claim this.

Pro Proclaims, "We spend the most money on health care than in any country yet receive the least benefit."
While we have spent the most money on healthcare then any other country, I argue that we haven't recieved "the least benefit" from it. I assure you, there are countries with much worse healthcare then the United States.
Analyzing worldwide healthcare, the World Health Organization rated the United States 37 out of 191 countries with the most effective health care [2]. We do not have "the least benefit" of healthcare.

Pro Promulgates, "We are a nation ruled by the wealthy that will do anything in their almost limitless power to turn a profit."
Alright, where is your source on this? While the wealthy do have a better standard-of-living, and some do hold office positions, they do not have "limitless power" and don't try to make a profit 24-7.
If you are going to claim this, I want evidence of limited power, and people with high office positions exploiting their position to gain large amounts of capital.

Pro States, "Name a single good deed that the U.S. has done and I can list the worst of the outcomes because of that."
Alright, I accept this challenge.
However, when you list the "worst of the outcomes", this outcome must be worst then the benefit of the deeds. This is to prevent you from saying "X didn't get their way, so the deed is bad.", as nothing is perfect.
1. Fought on the Allies side in WW2, fighting and stopping Germany, Japan, Italy.
2. Provided much-needed irreplacable aid to the Soviet Union during WW2.
3. Stopped Soviet totalitarianism and imperialism.
4. Putting a man on the moon.
5. Electing a Black President (Also disproves your racism point)



[2] (Pages 18-21)
Debate Round No. 1


An example of racism for you.
Also keep in mind how many legal white supremacist groups we have in the U.S.

Here are some examples of the U.S. hurting other nations.
Are you familiar what the United States fought in Iraq for? I'll give you a hint it is a three letter word that rhymes with toil.
Here is how heat care screws people over.

And here is how the rich rule. (This shows a bit of that limitless power you were talking about.)

1. The United States only fought because they were attacked, If I am correct we let millions of people die before getting involved over our own self interest.
2. America wasn't the only one
3. They really weren't you are confusing your words. Communism and Imperialism are very different.
4. What was the benefit in that. Oh look we did something that some other country has already done.
5. Electing an African American as President made no difference to the U.S. as the rest of the branches were filled with conservative white men. Also Abeam caused so many innocent lives in the middle east to be lost further extending my racism argument.
To be Judges, my opponent has provided five "good" deeds done by the united states all of which have been refuted. My opponent also asks for evidence for what I state and I so graciously provide it for them. There are not enough good deeds that America has done to redeem it for all of it's mistakes.


So, before I start rebutting Pro, I want to point something out the infuriated me. My opponent has almost not debated what-so-ever in this round.
All he has done is throw links at me. He has not even vaguely summarized them, he has just lightly categorized him.
What infuriates me even more is that he states "My opponent also asks for evidence for what I state and I so graciously provide it for them."
While I have asked for evidence, all you do is throw links at me and ignore most of my requests. Please actually debate during this debate.
You have yet to claim what exactly is wrong with society and seem to have disregared both of my prior links.


Pro states, "An example of racism for you"
Despite Pro ignoring my request for him to give me the racist U.S. Law: code, title, part and chapter, he gives me links. I will still review and refute.
Link 1: The first claim this link makes is that countries like Mexico get the same amount of visas as a country like Andorra. How is this racist? We are giving out the same amount of visas to everyone. We are not limiting visas to people of a certain race, therefore it is not racist. It also claims that the "The 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act" favored Europeans. It provides no evidance, I even searched online and could find no evidance of this. The next claim is that in 2011, 10,000 special annual visas went out to Irish citizens. While I couldn't find an actual record of it passing, I will pretend that it has. The Irish have been discriminated in America for centuries. How is bringing more of them to America racist? If anything it is reparations.
Link 2: Pro links to a website called "", an Israli news site. This site is proven to have a politicalized agenda, with the newspaper being nearly completely unrepresentative of the public and government [1], and therefore is ineligible for evidance. Anyways, the website claims that Jim Crow laws were the inspiration and nearly identical to Nazi Germany race laws, of which I would staunchly disagree. While bad, Jim Crow laws did not force African Americans and other people to wear emblems on their clothes or to be sent to death camps.

Pro States, "Here are some examples of the U.S. hurting other nations."
He procedes to post links detailing sweatshop conditions in various countries.
The first link claims that U.S. firms have sweatshops in other countries. These firms are not the U.S. government, so this link is irrelevent. Despite this, the link claims "The apparel industry has been widely criticized for “exploiting” Third World workers in sweatshops, but the data show that these workers are better off than most people in their countries." Your own link proved your argument irrelevent, these companies are providing a better life from these workers then they can usually get.
The second link says nothing about the U.S. affecting sweatshop conditions, and even provides an argument supporting them.
The third link describes how U.S. contractors still have sweatshops in LA. U.S. contractors are not the U.S. government (whom you are trying to prove is hurting others.), so i'm not sure why this is here. Never the less, these "sweatshop" workers are payed MUCH better then sweatshop workers in other countries. These workers are also undocumented immigrants that are illegally in the country.

Pro States, "Here is how heat care screws people over."
(He most likely meant health care)
I also love how Pro disregards my previous WHO healthcare link, showing U.S. healthcare isn't so bad.
Here is my WHO link again for reference:;(Pages 18-21)
The first link has two points. The first states that rising obeisity and alcoholism in the U.S. makes the healthcare bad. What? While this is certainly a problem, it is a problem with the United States people, not the healthcare system. The second point is that the U.S. healthcare system is fragmented and disadvantages people, despite the rising life expectancy rising. It then talks about how some parents don't vaccinate their children, which isn't a problem with healthcare, but people.
The second link talks about the income of drug firms rising as drug sales increse and them exaggerating costs, which is a proven myth [2] (see myth #1). It also talks about limiting competition via patents to increase prices, also debunked [2] (see myth #1), and also talks about them creating bias in medical studies, of which no evidance is shown.
The third link claims that Big Pharma purposely creates below-standard medicine, which is false as most new medicine does not come from Big Pharma [2] (see myth #2).

Pro States, "And here is how the rich rule."
The first link (which is insanely long), claims that CEOs get more money then factory workers, and therefore through CEOs owning large amount of stocks, houses, and by donating to Republican presidental candidates, they "control" the United States. Right away, this was written during Barrack Obama's presidency, so the claim about gaining power through Republican candidates is false, as one did not win the presidency. The article talks about the wealth distribution between CEOs and factory workers, claiming this money somehow gets them power. While yes, it might give them power socially, it does not give them power politically, making this claim false.
The second and third link are from, a proven, opinonated, "extreme leftist" "news" site [3]. Not unlike the other link, these links claim that the wealthy are getting power in the government from donating to government campaigns/using Super PACs. How can we tell this isn't true? Donald Trump won this recent presidental election, while Hillary Clinton got the most money from Super PACs then any other Super PAC in history [4].

Deed Rebuttals

1. So that begs that question, should the U.S. be involved in all international affairs? Should we be the world's police?
2."America wasn't the only one" isn't an argument. You are supposed to "list the worst of the outcomes because of that." that is not an outcome, nor is it bad. Even if we aren't the only ones that did it, it is still a good deed.
3. Communism and Imperialism can go hand-in-hand. One is a type of government, the other is a technequie in government to gain more power. Some examples of communist imperialism: Soviet seizure of Kareila, Soviet invasion of Poland, Warsaw Pact satellite states, Soviet occupation of the Baltic States.
4. The benefits are increased interest in space exploration, Moon soil and rock samples, precursor for various space missions, increased scientific knowlage and study.
5. So, Obama using drone strikes against Al-Queda terrorist members is racist? They're the ones attacking those of diffrent cultures. Also, not all conservative white men are racist, just like not all liberals are anarchists or communists.

Pro almost never debated, but just threw links at me, of which i refuted.



Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by SteelPelican 3 years ago
Only 21 hours left, you ok Pro?
Posted by Arclite 3 years ago
Obviously you did not read your sources, nor make sure they supported and were relevant to your narrative [Wrong as it is]. For example, the third source you list about sweatshops does not show them to be harmful capitalist exploitation, but rather proves them to be a statistical benefit to those who are employed in them. I have a suggestion, that being you make your own arguments, and actually read the work you cite. The others you list are vague and merely allude to the US in lye of broader world events.

In other words, learn how to debate you communist panzy.

- Arclite <3

[You might think no one will read your sources, but you would be wrong.]
Posted by The-Voice-of-Truth 3 years ago
This debate has 0 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.