The Instigator
Con (against)
3 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
0 Points

Resolved: The United States Ought Not to Provide Military Aid to Authoritarian Regimes

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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/21/2019 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,127 times Debate No: 120414
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (9)
Votes (1)




LD Case Neg
Does the world really need the U. S. "s help? The world is at war, Constantly, And the U. S. Is considered one of the largest military powers in the world, And their budget proves it. The short answer, Yes, Even Authoritarian regimes deserve the power of the U. S. Military. It can benefit the country and can benefit the U. S. In many ways. In this way do I prove the Neg in Resolved: The United States ought not to provide military aid to authoritarian regimes.
Value: Philosophical Absolutism
https://www. Merriam-webster. Com/dictionary/absolutism
According to Merriam Webster Dictionary, Absolutism is the: advocacy of a rule by absolute standards or principles. With this in mind, We can prove that the resolution of today"s debate is an absolutist resolution. So, By proving that at least One of the Countries I will list ends in aid being-overall- more beneficial than the Aff can prove, The Neg will have won, Because it has proven the U. S. Ought to militarily aid at least one country.
Value Criterion: Disaster Relief
Smith, James. "The Importance of Military-civil Coordination for International Disaster Response. " American Military University. May 29, 2014. Web. December 08, 2018. .
The U. S. Is the major contributor of military assistance in disasters around the world. The military by necessity is expert in getting personnel and equipment into areas where infrastructure is damaged or absent, As is usually the case after a major disaster. Military resources are often irreplaceable for general functions, Such as logistics, Mobility, And damage assessment, And specialized functions, Such as air traffic control and hospital ships.

Contention 1: Without U. S. Seapower, The government would suffer influential
Subpoint A: Bahrain
Cropsey, Seth. "The US Navy in Distress. " Strategic Analysis. January 2010. Web. December 10, 2018.

American maritime strategy has played a major role in binding together the international system that US foreign policy has aimed to establish since the beginning of the twentieth century. What are the consequences for the United States and its allies if those bonds crumble as a result of a shrinking Navy with reduced international presence, And a weakening ability to project power, Provide stabilizing presence, And respond to serious crises? The widely-shared current assumption that the immensity of US"China trade eliminates the possibility of serious Sino-American conflict recapitulates the United Kingdom"s decision a century ago that alliance with Japan was prudent and sufficient to secure the Crown"s interests in the Far East. If this assumption proves wrong the consequences for US influence in the Pacific would be as disastrous for us as they were for Great Britain. The historically unprecedented half century of relative naval peace in the Mediterranean may continue indefinitely, But such a prolongation would be a freak of history. The re-deployment of major United States naval force from the Mediterranean to support operations in the Middle East and Central Asia, Added to the declining US naval fleet would leave us with terrible choices if, For example, Turkey"s drift towards Islamism yields a naval force with ambitions similar to those of her fifteenth century Ghazi Ottoman rulers. What are the long-term consequences as our ability to maintain a global naval presence which heretofore has been judged beneficent erodes?
The size, Shape, And strategy of the US Navy are a critical element of America"s position as the world"s great power. Our ability to protect or rend asunder the globe"s ocean-going lines of communication is inseparable from our position as the world"s great power. But very few outside a small community of naval officers and selected military/foreign policy analysts appreciate the strategic results of American seapower"s slow but steady diminution. The eventual impact of this weakening includes, But is not limited to, A major shift of power away from American influence in Asia; the shattering of such key maritime alliances and partnerships as those we currently maintain with Australia, India, Japan, And Singapore; the rise of China as a hegemonic power; a debilitating loss in America"s ability to shape the future global strategic environment; and a powerful reinforcement of the perception that the United States is in decline. Globally, The continued attrition of US naval force also means a serious threat to the security of the world"s sea lines of communication and the choke points " such as the Straits of Hormuz " through which pass an increasing volume of global commerce, The departure of a visible and stabilizing American presence from allied ports as well as potential worldwide flashpoints, And the international perception that the United States is abandoning the critical element of military capability that undergirded the world system American policy has sought for over a century, Seapower. The consequences of a much-diminished US fleet are complemented by the American public"s ignorance of them, The slow yet steady pace of naval deterioration, And the increasing time and dismayingly large resources needed to recoup seapower surrendered slowly over decades.
The cornerstone of U. S. -Bahrain defense relations is U. S. Access to Bahrain"s naval facilities; the United States has had a U. S. Naval command presence in Bahrain since 1948. MIDEASTFOR (U. S. Middle East Force) and its successor, NAVCENT (naval component of U. S. Central Command), As well as the Fifth Fleet (reconstituted in June 1995), Have been headquartered in Bahrain, At a sprawling facility called "Naval Support Activity (NSA)-Bahrain. " It is also home to U. S. Marine Forces Central Command, Destroyer Squadron Fifty, And three Combined Maritime Forces. 46 The "on-shore" U. S. Command presence in Bahrain was established after the 1991 U. S. Led war against Iraq; prior to that, The U. S. Naval headquarters in Bahrain was on a command ship docked and technically "off shore. "Bahrain is uniquely key to the Fifth Fleet--no other alternative in the region. Katzman, Kenneth. "Bahrain: Reform, Security, And U. S. Policy. " FAS. 2015. Web. December 10, 2018. .
The cornerstone of U. S. -Bahrain defense relations is U. S. Access to Bahrain"s naval facilities. The United States has had a U. S. Naval command presence in Bahrain since 1948; MIDEASTFOR (U. S. Middle East Force), Its successor, NAVCENT (naval component of U. S. Central Command), As well as the Fifth Fleet (reconstituted in June 1995) are headquartered there, At a sprawling facility called "Naval Support Activity (NSA)-Bahrain. " It is also home to U. S. Marine Forces Central Command, Destroyer Squadron Fifty, And three Combined Maritime Forces. 37 The "on-shore" U. S. Command presence in Bahrain was established after the 1991 Gulf war against Iraq; prior to that, The U. S. Naval headquarters in Bahrain was on a command ship mostly docked in Bahrain and technically "off shore. " Some smaller U. S. Ships (e. G. , Minesweepers) are home-ported there, But the Fifth Fleet consists mostly of U. S. -homeported ships that are sent to the region on six-to seven-month deployments. Ships operating in the Fifth Fleet at any given time typically include a carrier strike group, An amphibious ready group, And some additional surface combatants, And operate in both the Persian Gulf and Indian Ocean/Northern Arabian Sea. In March 2012, The U. S. Navy doubled its minesweepers in the Gulf to eight, And sent additional mine-hunting helicopters, As tensions escalated over Iran"s nuclear program. In May 2013, The U. S. Navy move five coastal patrol ships to Bahrain to join five already there. The naval headquarters in Bahrain serves as the command headquarters for periodic exercises intended to signal resolve to Iran, Such as a mine-sweeping exercise involving 41 countries in May 2013. The naval headquarters also coordinates the operations of over 20 U. S. And allied warships in Combined Task Force (CTF) 151 and 152 that seek to interdict the movement of terrorists, Pirates, Arms, Or weapons of mass destruction (WMD)-related technology and narcotics across the Arabian Sea. Bahrain has taken several turns commanding CTF-152, And it led an anti-piracy task force in Gulf/Arabian Sea waters in October 2010. These operations are offshoots of Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) in Afghanistan, Which ousted the Taliban in 2001. To further develop the NSA, The U. S. Military is implementing a planned $580 million military construction program in Bahrain. 38 That construction, Which began in May 2010 and is to be completed in 2017, Is nearly doubling the size of the 80-acre facility by improving the decommissioned Mina (port) Al Salman Pier, Leased by the Navy under a January 2008 lease agreement and adding a new administration building and space for maintenance, Barracks, Warehousing, And dining facilities. The expansion will support the deployment of additional U. S. Coastal patrol ships and the Navy"s new littoral combat ship and permit larger U. S. Ships to dock at the naval facility. A separate deep-water port in Bahrain, Khalifa bin Salman, Is one of the few facilities in the Gulf that can accommodate U. S. Aircraft carriers and amphibious ships. 40 An earlier military construction program, Costing about $45 million, Expanded an apron at Shaykh Isa Air Base, Where a variety of U. S. Aircraft are stationed, Including F-16s, F-18s, And P-3 surveillance aircraft. About $19 million was used for a U. S. Special Operations Forces facility. The naval headquarters took on additional significance in December 2014 when Britain announced a deal with Bahrain to establish a fixed naval base in part of the Mina Al Salman pier.


So I'm going to cut right to the meat of the argument. You say that I have to make a compelling case that The United States shouldn't provide military aide to any authoritarian regime and that even a case in favor helping one wins the argument for you. I think you set the goal post in the wrong place my friend. Allow me to move it for you. My counter is simple. We can provide military aid to the people instead of the regimes. If any regime is immoral we should help it. We should condemn it and then help the innocent people under it's rule. This is my goal post. Now if you're going to make some case that The USA will benefit from this, You can spare me. I wouldn't want our country to benefit from any evil act. We get in, Save the people, And get the fork out of the. Easy as pie. Let the corrupt rulers die of ego poisoning and then plant a nice fat flag in their and feed it to the UN. Your floor opponent.
Debate Round No. 1


For voters too lazy to read my speech, Here is the summary:

1. We should militarily aid countries to turn them into Democracy. It shows us as the most thoughtful country for world views
2. Without military aid (to authoritarian regimes), We could have another 9/11 attack imminent.

My opponent begins with saying that it is immoral to militarily aid the regimes. However, There is evidence that states it could be morally obligatory to aid the regimes. However, I can prove this wrong with the reasoning stated:

Giving military aid to its people is the same as giving aid to the regime, As the resolution's vocabulary proves so. Military aid does not mean just setting troops, It also includes training their troops and providing financial aid to military, Providing armaments, Etc. We can't always station troops in their country for geographical reasons, But there is huge reason as I said in my speech that we should still militarily aid them with finances toward military budget, Or to provide small arms to their military. One I stated was the disaster relief.

With disaster relief, We can stabilize the region from possible invasion and from terrorist attacks, Which could stabilize the region, And even introduce them into democracy!

Second, As I stated in my evidence (which I believe is sourced, Tell me if it isn't), Bahrain (pronounced Buh-rain) is essential to naval military firepower in the region, And if we were to pull out, We would lose SO MANY important assets to contribute to our global firepower.
Next, I also said that with this withdraw, The world could be put into thought that the U. S. Is in decline, And needed to leave Bahrain for military, Financial, Or for political/Sovereign reasons. This could lead more terrorists into wanting another 9/11 attack by believing that we are in a state of decrease in firepower. That attack killed countless lives. If you want our nation to be attacked again and have millions of lives lost, Vote toward the Affirmative today (pro). However, If you want to save countless lives, And turn the world into a more democratized world, Vote for the Negation (con).


There are better ways to stop terrorism besides helping corrupt regimes. I also don't think we should do anything out of fear because that's how bad decisions are made. I'll make this clear, This is no amount of money, No strategic landmark, And no body of water that is worth helping corrupt regimes. I think you mentioned something about training their troops, Correct me if I'm wrong. I have no interest in strengthening the corrupt leader's army. Any military aide, In my opinion, Should come with one or both these contingencies: 1) Authoritarian Regime hands or power or has it forcibly removed if it's a global crisis. 2) Authoritarian Regime allows their citizens to be evacuated from the area, Or we do it forcibly if it's a global crisis.

You made a comment that we shouldn't pull out because it will make us look weak to other countries. I don't really care about what other countries think about us. Whether or not they think we're weak, They would find out how mistaken they are if they tried us. You make a appeal to fear and say that we could have another terrorist attack. There is no reason for us to believe that would happen so that is a non sequitur. Even if that would happen, Are you saying we should negotiate with terrorist? Because that's what we're doing if we help an evil country just so we don't "look bad"

Your floor. :)
Debate Round No. 2


I begin my speech with rebuttals:

My opponent speaks of forcibly pushing authoritarian regimes toward democracy. This, However, Is completely insensible, As this would violate our treaty in NATO. As NATO offered the Marshall plan {1}, Which in simplistic terms, Stated that we won't forcibly take Communism out of current Communist countries. However, We would contain the current Communist countries and keep the spread of Communism contained (however, The debate of the Cold War is a whole other can of worms).
As NATO applies these same concepts in current issues, And we are still in NATO, We shouldn't take into account that we should force Dictators out of their country, Merely keep the current ones in containment and influence them as the world Hegemonic power {2}.
As for training troops, I argue that training these troops and giving arms to the countries would be Morally CORRECT! As I stated in the Contention 2: stabilizing the country is the first step to Democracy. By democratizing countries, There is a less chance they will do morally questionable actions, And would lead to a more democratized America.
A more democratized America should be valued over my opponent's attack, Because this will lead to more, Well, Democratized and stable nations. Isn't that what we all want? A stable, Peaceful world with less dictators and more representative leaders prepared to make the right decisions? If you don't want the idea of a peaceful nation in mind voters, Vote against me and vote Affirmative (Pro).
Next, I will talk of my opponent speaking of how my Terrorism DA is non sequitur, However, This isn't true.
Take this example in mind:
You are North Korea, And you (North Korea) have recently engineered ICBM's (Inter-Continental Ballistic Missiles) capable of reaching America. However, You do not want to attack America (me) because I have better forces and do not feel prepared for war. However, I have recently lost troops because I don't have political power. Would it not be the perfect opportunity to attack if I look weak and have my back turned? If you had the opportunity to attack while I was unguarded, You would take every chance to attack! Weaken my forces so war becomes strategically in YOUR favor!

Attacking me would be in your favor now, And this is what losing Bahrain would look like to terrorists. And this is the reason why 9/11 was a true catastrophe. We were unprepared for an attack, Had so many miscommunications and had many problems face us during the attack. This was the problem behind the catastrophe, And this is exactly what could happen if the Affirmative is given the vote in today's debate. Would you, The voter, Want another 9/11? Would you, The voter, Want countless lives lost, And families torn apart? Yes, There is retaliation, But the damage has been done. People will be scarred for life, And others will never come back. This is what happens assuming my opponent is voted in today's resolution.

Next, Comes the attacks
One, My opponent tells us that no amount of money or strategic landmark and no body of water is worth helping corrupt regimes. However, I can prove today that it IS good to help these regimes.
1. It stabilizes the region, Leaving the country more open to democracy.
2. It gives a strategic landmark to attack Terrorists. It would be inefficient to attack a terrorist group in the Middle East if we live halfway across the world from them.
3. I don't care as much about the landmarks and the money, I care about the people. We can prevent another terrorist attack if we help these regimes! Not only can we save our people, But theirs as well.
I shall give another Example:
Keep in mind it is hypothetical, So Iran is not obviously the only example and most likely not the best. . .
Assume you live in Iran. Terrorists attack your city, But the only forces capable of preventing the forceful takeover of the attack is American Troops and Iranian troops supplied by Americans. The Americans stop supplying your troops and leave. Now, Iranian troops are inefficient and can not provide defense for you anymore. Lives in your town are taken and you are taken hostage with your town to negotiate for money. Even if U. S. Retalitates, You can not bring back the lives taken.
My opponent says that we don't help regimes for a good cause, But we do. By aiding these regimes [militarily], We save the native country we occupy and save their lives, And for these reasons, I stand firm over my opponent in the debate.


I concede the debate. You have convinced me that there are some conditions under which it may be appropriate to intervene. Under the agreed conditions, It would be dishonest for me to keep supporting my point. I would like to say that I would still keep these devil deals to a necessary minimum. Well played.
Debate Round No. 3


G. D. (Not Geometry Dash, Good Debate)


My confusion of G. D. Will forever plague me
Debate Round No. 4


The rage of Geometry Dash will forever plague the world


G. D. As well
Debate Round No. 5
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by omar2345 3 years ago

Simply wait until the timer runs out.
Posted by WrickItRalph 3 years ago
Is there a way to actually forfeit?
Posted by WrickItRalph 3 years ago
Posted by InfakeWars 3 years ago
Also, Debate is civil, But not without passion. I know VERY aggressive debaters in our class
Posted by InfakeWars 3 years ago
I'm sorry for if I am not as good as I normally am @WrickItRalph. I normally am better in face-to-face debates, And this is one of the first times I've ever debated behind a computer screen (our school doesn't allow tablets to be used in debates for some reason \_(~. ~)_/
Posted by WrickItRalph 3 years ago
Sorry for what? I'm confused. I thought your first argument was thorough and very well sourced. Don't let my debate style make you think I'm annoyed or angry. It's just part of my tactics.
Posted by InfakeWars 3 years ago
It's fine, WrickItRalph. Sorry, This is my case for L-D this year, So I am practicing it.
Posted by EzDuel 3 years ago
I think the US is helping the people in Venezuela.
Posted by WrickItRalph 3 years ago
I'm so sorry, But I said the word "should" when I meant to say "shouldn't" the first time. I'm sorry if it confuses you.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by EverlastingMoment 3 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Con did a very thorough job in painting the picture for both sides. Clearly rich in historic detail and modern analysis. I'm not going to go too deeply into this debate simply because Pro conceded so there really isn't any need for me to analyze the contentions made in detail. However, props to Con for the informative set of details presented in his case.

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