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

Should the United States be the policemen of the world ?

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  
Debate Round Forfeited
joshuar1996 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: 12/8/2016 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 479 times Debate No: 97786
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (3)
Votes (0)




I'm terribly sorry that I couldn't respond on my other debate with the user that accepts my challenge . It's almost finals week and I had a lot of assignments. Should've been 2 days instead of 1 day.

Well to anyone accepting! Let's keep it clean ! Let's have fun!

Evidence is optional but make your stance clear enough to know what you're talking about . Not a huge grammar nazi but like I said make it clear

First round is for acceptance and throughout you can say your stance and add new evidence except on the last round . Alright then let's do it!


I shall argue that yes, the United States should act as the policemen of the world. It benefits both the world and the US. Look forward to debate.
Debate Round No. 1


After world war 2 we entered a time where the world was scared because of atomic war. Also the united states decided to set military bases around Europe, pacific, and middle east to combat the U.S.S.R. I understand at that time it was right to be the policeman of the world because it was the cold war

but after the cold war. What more militaristic presence do we need in the world? The reason why terrorist attacks happen because we haven't left countries that now have their own army and independence. We want to rule the world in forms of corporations, natural resources, and military bases. It's not an act of peace or unity but because we want the world to be americanized and have our morals no matter what.

Everything happening in Europe could've been avoided but no! We want the middle east to be americanized and destroy their belief systems because we have an urge, an unquenchable thirst for "freedom" and "liberty"but under american terms.


Sources in Comments

So I must divide this into two parts:
First, how does the US "policemen" of the world benefit the world
Second, how does it benefit the US

I will also be using the world hegemony instead of policemen.


Since the end of the Second World War there has been, as you say, a great deal of fear about the threat of atomic war. However, the Two World Wars provided the world with not one but three kinds of dangerous new weapons. Nuclear weapons are an obvious one. The First World War saw the beginning of chemical warfare en masse. [1] The Second World War saw not only the development of nuclear arms, but also of far more devestating biological weapons,[2] particularly from the Imperial Japanese Army's Unit 731. [3]

Since the instability in the Eastern part of the world, stemming not only from the Maoist revolutions following the conclusion of the Chinese Civil War and the many regime changes in the Muslim World, but also from the downfall of the Soviet Union. It has been estimated that a great deal of nuclear material has fallen into the Black Market and is currently being trafficked, often to terrorist organizations. [4] The United States is a power well equipped with handling such threats. Using both intelligence and military, as well as necessary aide from allied nations, the US can prevent these things from being used by terrorists, dictators, or other kinds of extremists, even if they do not intend to target the US itself.

The US also helps to prevent major wars. In Operation Desert Storm, the United States intervened to aide a defending country (Kuwait) against an invader (Iraq). [5] This is the occasion when the US must stand on the side of the defender. In the case of a Civil War, such as what happened in Kosovo in the mid-1990's, [6] the United States can choose a side to take, whether to support the government in power or the rebel forces.

In addition, if another country was to assume the role of global hegemony, they would not be as altruistic as the US is. The US tends to operate on a set of intangible values, often to its own detriment.[7] A country like China or Russia would be able to impose far more rigorous conditions upon the provision of aide. The US gives out Aid without concern for its own good.


The United States benefits from being the hegemony of the world not only because it can set up puppet states like Japan or Germany, but it also benefits from trade agreements with allies it has aided. For example, many US goods (particularly touchscreen notebooks) are created in South Korea and this allows for them to be much cheaper on the market. They are willing to engage in these trade agreements because of US involvement in the Korean War.

It also allows for American culture to be dominant, making it more beneficial for American companies to do business overseas.
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
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by LuciferWept 2 years ago
Don't have on in China. Don't have one in Russia. Not one in Iran or Pakistan.
Posted by DrKaboom44 2 years ago
Aren't we already? I mean the only place we don't have a military base in is North Korea and even then were surrounding them.
This debate has 2 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.