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

Should the U.S adopt a policy of Armed Neutrality?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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: 4/13/2018 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 549 times Debate No: 112700
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (1)
Votes (0)




I will be debating why a policy of armed neutrality will benefit the U.S and the world as a whole
This round is acceptance only


The world is moving around. what will happen if we stop for a second? we will left behind while rest of the world continuously move by passing us.

The whole world is getting ready for conflicts while political specialists warn regarding a 3rd world war.

North Korea do so. China is doing so. Russia always targeting western countries. While all these things , will you say to neutralize wepons and watch until other countries come and attack us?
Debate Round No. 1


Well, here's the problem with saying North Korea, China and Russia are starting another World War. That's because the U.S has been getting into other countries issues and "liberating" them. For example. before the U.S invaded Iraq, the country was stable, (but cruel to live in). But when Bush said they have nukes, which was a lie, invaded and destabilized the country, while killing hundreds of people in a war they didn't need to start. Due to this and other countries being invaded, and mixed with the changes of borders after WW2, has destabilized the entire middle east.

All the U.S should do to really prevent WW3 is to stop getting involved into every single problem that isn't affecting them. Heck, even major allies like Japan hate the military bases, and deal with their problems before dealing with other nations problems


I will directly go to my arguments as i can rebut through the arguments.

1) USA as a global leader - I believe the USA is the global leader for decades now. So what we are expecting from a leader? As a leader USA have some responsibility upon other countries. USA is not just going around every problem. It has a role to play. So i think by neutralizing you can't play your role as a leader which majority of the world expect from USA. Turkey and south Korea / Israel as examples they expect that USA will support them if they need at some point. Even Majority of Syrian people now expect something should be done by USA after deadly chemical attack by Assad's regime. They expect that USA will come and survive them from that hell known as Syria. The same thing happen at Iraq. Iraq was become a hell to it's own people with Sadham Husain's strict rule. They expect something from USA that point. Whether it was too much or not is another thing to discuss but as a whole i say that people around the world expect leadership role from USA. but if weapons are neutralized, then USA won't be able to fulfill their role. Then Countries like China and Russia will conquer US position as the leader. Then the power of USA will start to decrease.

National security concern as my second point i will address in the next round
Debate Round No. 2


So, now I'll refute Cons argument
1) Sure, the USA is a global power, but...... None of the countries the U.S has invaded in the last 20 years was like "Hey, U.S.A we need your help!" No, what the U.S is doing is imperialism and that's against what our founding fathers wanted. They wanted the U.S to be an isolated nation that was to be neutral until the conflict was endangering the nation.

2) Also, you said that I wanted the government to neutralize weapons, which isn't what armed neutrality is. Armed neutrality is when a country doesn't join a conflict, but will fight if attacked. Something both Sweden and Switzerland have, and they're some of the best countries to live in, why? because they don't spend so much money on their armies and ignore some major issues like a lackluster education system.

3) Now, you said our allies except us to help them if they need it. well, a counter to that is Japan. Japan is one of our major Asian allies, and yet they don't like that the government put military bases in Okinawa and started protesting, even though they're in N.K nuke radius. (also, Turkey isn't really an ally to the U.S anymore) So, clearly even our major allies don't like that we're placing our forces on their land, not to mention how would China and Russia take that position!? their militaries are far weaker than the U.S's and mainly with Russia, very disliked because of their own imperialistic issues.


It seems like you misunderstood my point. I accept the fact that neither Iraq or Syria openly came & say "hey US I want your support". But my point is US as the global leader has a responsibility to protect each person in the world. The best example is Syrian deadly chemical attack on civilian two days ago. Don't you hear children's crying at Syria? Don't you feel their tears & feelings? If that country does not protect it's citizen and if that country by braking all the rules in UN security council , would attack it's innocent civilians , i believe it's your duty to go and involve in order to protect people. Whether they request or not it's USA's responsibility. Imperialism might stand as a side purpose as every one want to grow it's power as it is human nature. But i believe that just because you have imperialism does not mean you should give up responsibility to protect people.

Just because founding fathers wanted something in the past does not mean USA should do the same thing now. Now the situation is deferent. Now USA has the global power more than 100 years ago.

I don't challenge the definition of armed neutrality. But i believe USA should not act like a fear and irresponsible country when thousands of innocent people were killed by country regimes like Syria.

It's silly that the countries like France , UK, Germany, Israel which were not much powerful when you compare to USA, will fight for humanity while the global giant is sleeping as it doesn't see the mass killings in the middle east.

Also we can't compare USA with Sweden because both countries have deferent roles in the international arena which i believe that USA has a leadership responsibility while countries like Sweden does not have.

Pro argued that China and Russia militaries are far weaker than the U.S's. I think you need to refer BBC before say that. It's clear that China has the biggest army in the world. Russia is the country which spend second most expenses to their army. North Korea firing nuclear missile tests every month. When US ask explanation, NK clearly showed their arbitrary nature. They simply don't care about other countries. What will happen if they put their hands on our allies? USA has a duty to protect it's allies which leads to my second argument.

All those countries like NK is a threat to national security for USA. We need to cut it's wings in the beginning , not after they destroy every single country which they don't like. So sometimes we need to attack and save our allies. If NK attacks to Israel , neutralizing weapons won't do any good. We need to protect Israel. Otherwise NK will attack to USA in future. You can argue that NK won't attack as UN security council exist. But NK is ignoring Security council and rest of the world now. They don't care about anything and if they want to attack , they will definitely will attack.

To control the arbitrary nature and because of security concerns , i believe USA should not neutralized it's weapons in this point.

Also about terrorist groups which got the power in middle East countries. In Palestine Hamas is very powerful and even they have government there. Al-Qaida is destroying Iraq and other countries. So USA has the power to destroy those terrorist groups as Middle East countries don't have that power to fight with rebels. That's why Russia support to Arshad's regime in Syria. So why USA won't do that. USA need to attack and destroy terrorist groups otherwise it will be a threat not only to USA's national security but also every countries national security. USA might have side purposes. I admit it. But mainly important thing is to eradicate terrorism. That ability is clearly with USA. So neutralizing will strengthened the terrorism.

So USA's responsibility as the global leader and national security concerns : I oppose this.

Collective responsibility and treaties which USA has signed will deal in the next round
Debate Round No. 3


The U.S doesn't have a responsibility to protect civilians on other countries. Their responsibility is to protect their own civilians, they cant be the worlds policeman. Just because something cruel and dangerous happens in the middle east doesn't mean the U.S needs to get involved. In fact, while people are getting gassed in Syria, people that aren't Islamic in Saudi Arabia, a U.S ally, are being killed too, but the U.S doesn't do anything to save those civilians. Also, the U.S has been criticized by its OWN allies for getting involved into everything. So, does it sound like it's a good thing, when its own allies don't like it?

Also to say the U.K, France, Germany and Israel are fighting for humanity, when A). Israel has been at war against the Middle East since it became a country, so it's really just fighting to protect themselves. B). The only reason the U.K, France and Germany are fighting is because of Article 5 of the NATO treaty was invoked after 9/11, and even THEN! terrorism has still been on the rise and is in fact even worse since ISIS has been attacking certain countries because of invading the M.E. So, even if these countries were following the U.S's lead, they got it worst, since Europe is connected to the M.E. And the Invasion of Iraq in 2003? The cause was nuclear weapons, which were never found. The U.S isn't trying to solve issues in the M.E, but is using as an excuse to get all that oil by force! That doesn't sound like making peace and helping people being killed, when they're the ones killing innocent people!

Do you have a link to that? Because while China has a huge army, it's not pumping in nearly 500million+ that is larger than the next 9 nations combined! That's smokes what China and Russia armies.

Also, first off, I'm not saying the U.S should sit back even if their allies get attacked, that's when they get involved, but N.K is really launching missile to put fear into their enemies, because they know if the nuke S.K or Japan, China will just allow the U.S to invade. Also, N.K missiles cant reach Israel. That's just over exaggerated by the media to make us want to invade N.K

But let's say the U.S is responsible to keep the world under control, then why did everyone, inside and outside of the U.S protest the Vietnam War? Oh yeah, that's because it was an unnecessary war that the U.S got involved and even former Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara agreed it was a big mistake to get involved.


Throughout the debate pro try to say something to my arguments but he didn't have any main argument. Since the pro doesn't have main arguments , his rebuttals also involve full of assertions which really make no sense.

Pro clearly said "because something cruel and dangerous happens in the middle east doesn't mean the U.S needs to get involved". It is forgetting the humanity. We all are humans. If some governments treat their people very unfair way, definitely other countries have a responsibility to protect them. That's why the law called international law is there.

Here pro compare Saudi with Syria which never can be compared. Saudi government has it's internal conflict for some extent but those were never serious like Syria. Syrian government even used chemical weapons against their own people. It was a illegal thing according to the chemical weapon convention. There are issues which are not serious and not a threat to the world should solve by it's governments. But if the matter is worst and if it is a threat to the whole world, you have to interfere and solve it. Here my point is you can never compare Syrian situation to Saudi. Thousands of innocent children were killed by the Syrian government by using chemical weapons. Pro saying here simply that wait and watch until all the innocent people get killed.

Also pro said "U.S has been criticized by its OWN allies for getting involved into everything". It was called as an "Adhominem fallacy". It was an assertion which never proved by the pro. I am asking the question who criticized USA like that? The answer is no one. That rebuttal was true only for the pro not others as no USA ally criticized USA regarding attacks like Syrian Invade.

Also he spoke about article 5 of NATO. So what? I am leading to my 3rd argument with this.Article 5 speaks about the collective responsibility. What is NATO? NATO formed by gathering countries including USA, France and UK. So what will happen if only the USA neutralize their weapons? It was contrary and hard to achieve the aims of the NATO if USA neutralize it's weapons. Other countries will leave USA. Then US has to withdraw from NATO as their weapons are neutral which will harmful for the US economy as well as US national security. So here my point is that there are several treaties for USA which collective responsibility and defense playing a major part. So if you try to neutralize weapons, US has to go out from these agreements and treaties as well as organizations which will lead to many disadvantages.

Pro accepted the fact that terrorism was increased. So the best thing to do is USA involve and eradicate terrorism. He spoke about ISIS. ISIS is a threat to the whole world. ISIS said that they will destroy US. So don't you accept it as a threat to USA? So are you saying to sit and watch until ISIS come and destroy USA? Clearly through my second point I proved that Middle east countries do not have the ability to destroy the terrorism. That's why HAMAS are still there. That's why ISIS are still there. Only way to defeat terrorism is to get the USA support on that.

Pro talked about Vietnam war as an unnecessary war. i accept it. So what? Just because Vietnam war became unnecessary, does not mean that USA should sit and watch every single immoral thing which do by other countries. There might be wrong decisions in the past. But just because you made wrong decisions in the past does not mean you should not make any decision regarding that in the future. Accept the fact that you made wrong and move forward.

If you neutralize your weapons, it will be a motivation for the terrorism as they know that USA is now out of game. So they will grow more. So will you help terrorism to grow?

Pro simply talk about North Korea. But believe me. North Korea is a country which not give 90% of their info to rest of the world. It is too dangerous than you think.

Pro said " Also, first off, I'm not saying the U.S should sit back even if their allies get attacked, that's when they get involved, " According to me this is the turning point. Even pro agree that if it became a threat to USA's allies, USA should involve. So how can US involve if their weapons neutralize? Here pro contradicting with himself. Syrian situation is a threat to all the world ( chemical weapons ). North Korea is a threat to South Korea and Japan which are allies of USA. Hamas and the palatine is a threat to Israel which also an ally of USA So then according to above statement of pro , USA should not sit back and watch. USA should involved at that times according to pro him self. So he was accepting it. Simple fact is if US neutralize weapons, it cant involve any of those matters which Pro said US should involve.

So I ask about the increasing terrorism. But still Pro didn't give an answer. I proved about NATO and other agreements which are not allow US to neutralize. But i did not get an answer.

I asked about humanity issues . Only answer which pro gave me is you don't need to worry about others if they are not members of your country by rejecting the fact we all are humans.

Don't you feel the pain of Syrian children? Cant you see the tears of Syrian children who affected from governments brutal chemical attack? If we should worry about others by considering whether he or she is a member of our country / If you don't feel the pain of others , How can you call us as humans?

Very very proud to oppose !
Debate Round No. 4
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by M-Y 3 years ago
Never have I ever seen anywhere that the Iraqi or Afghani or Vietnamese or Syrian (I could go on and on and on) people call the US for help.
US' military expeditions are not done out of humanism but out of imperialism.
I mean, that's fair in a way, if you can dominate, you should. But the thing is you're failing at it. Historically the US was its best when it was an isolationist country. Your military expeditions are INCREDIBLY costly and many thinkers in the US in great universities have argued that your foreign policy is catastrophic.
You have made, in the last 20 years, catastrophic strategic mistakes. Countries all around the world are tired of the US' behavior. What the US government is doing is not benefiting the world and much less its own people.
And the worst is yet to come, as the US' power will decrease (which means, its influence will diminish) many "allies" will turn their back on them...
No votes have been placed for this debate.

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