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

interference of powerful nations in to the matters of inferior nations

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
hades.hell 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: 4/13/2017 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 360 times Debate No: 101934
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)




hello friends is anyone interested in the topic then join.


The interference in the business of other nations is something which is widely agreed upon but also widely debated. Whilst many take the examples of Afghanistan and Syria as key examples that this interference does not work, there is a large collection of unrecognised evidence in this argument which shows that larger state interference can and will result in a growth of democracy, individualism, and human development. Looking throughout history, we can see that the presence of larger empires and nations has had difficult beginnings, usually winding up in some form of conflict or war. In this circumstance, especially in a modern age, it has been keen for many people to point to these situations and say that the interference does not work. However, throughout historical examples, the interference of larger nations has increased development. The Roman occupation of Britain is a key example of this. During the early 1st Century AD, the Roman empire sailed to Britain and sought to romanise its citizens. Whilst there were conflicts that arose from this, the Romans brought with them education, agricultural knowledge, economy and culture. This occupation allowed for British citizens to begin to flourish which would lead to some future conflicts, e.g the Normans and the Vikings, but it allowed for the British people to become their own rather than a collection of mixed tribes that only sought to fight one another. The same can be said for the British empire's occupation of India. Whilst the Indians eventually sought independence from their occupiers, the British provided them with the foundations to build a better nation which seeks to better helps its people. All development starts rough and takes some time to grow, but to assume that all larger nation interference is bad for smaller nations is similar to saying that parent interference in the growing of a child is completely wrong. It takes the guidance of those older and more wise than children to guide them to the path which will allow for them to develop into the best they possibly can be. To allow the child to grow completely by itself leads to many more issues. Larger nation interference is vital in creating nations that advocate future development for its people.
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
No comments have been posted on this debate.
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.

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