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

Should Foreign Powers with different cultures & beliefs be allowed to expel political/social groups?

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
Eric567 has forfeited round #2.
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: 4/5/2018 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 339 times Debate No: 112383
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)




One fundamental aspect of international law and peace is maintaining the autonomy of foreign governments. For example, to prevent further aggression after the annexation of the Crimean valley, many countries put sanctions on Russia, dealing blows to its economy. Autonomy is defined as: "(of a country or region) the right or condition of self-government, especially in a particular sphere." Due in part to early-human migrations, human culture is a vast world, consisting of many cultures that evolved based on the environment they developed in. This, as you might tell causes issues with international law. How can we define what is and isn't moral, or legal when to us, foreigners overseas these laws are "civilized", yet too distant nations who have committed to peace, are now finding their laws and social structure changed by us, foreigners. This causes resentment, especially with theocratic, traditionalist, and right-wing societies. This is a major reason why insurgencies and terrorism occurs, resentment against foreigners who have forced our ideals of acceptable society upon them. We shouldn't do this, as this will create more problems than it can possibly hope to solve. In short: Who are we to strip the other people's restrictions on sexuality, gender, political party, ethnicity, and such IF A MAJORITY OF THEM WANT IT (If its a minority that wants these restrictions in place, that's different), "Why do they hate us?" Stripping them of their beliefs is PART of the problem!


Title is set up in a question form which absolutely must mean pro"s answer is yes and con"s no. Title"s expression "expelling political/social groups" and pro"s argument"s point "stripping of their beliefs" are equal. Pro"s position means he should answer yes to their claim, but they are rationalizing the opposite. Pro is defending independence, autonomy and diversity in all countries, while referring to their position in the debate he should support invading other countries" moral.
As con I am now going to state that foreign powers should not be allowed to expel other countries" political/social groups because they have the right to autonomy. I think values inside other countries will change on their own if the majority of people wants so. Outsider countries can"t know for sure if the changes they would force would improve the quality of life in the target country or not, and invading too much would most likely cause resentment and distrust and lead to conflicts. As the old saying says, when in Rome, do as the Romans do.
From pro I now expect rationalizing from their own side and naming the countries of which freedom of defining "sexuality, gender, political party and ethnicity" are violated and how. You didn't name which countries you were referring to by "us", "theocratic, traditionalist, and right-wing societies", "distant nations" and "foreigners overseas". Nor did you explain what "these laws/their laws" or "problems than it can possibly hope to solve" are. Pro is stating that this kind of violating actually occurs in the world, but pro hasn't showed any proof. Until now it has been nothing but speculating.

"How can we define what is and isn't moral, or legal - -"
As much as I dislike the idea of using a rhetorical question in a debate, I want to give pro one too: How can we define what is and isn't moral when it comes to human race and relation of countries?
Debate Round No. 1
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
No comments have been posted on this debate.
This debate has 4 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.