Instigator / Pro
28
1487
rating
31
debates
35.48%
won
Topic
#3723
THBT: America, on balance, ought to remain interventionist in foreign affairs.
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
After 4 votes and with 22 points ahead, the winner is...
Ehyeh
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 3
- Time for argument
- Two weeks
- Max argument characters
- 14,000
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Con
6
1484
rating
1
debates
0.0%
won
Description
isolationism and/or non-interventionism definition: Isolationism is a political philosophy advocating a national foreign policy that opposes involvement in the political affairs, and especially the wars, of other countries. Thus, isolationism fundamentally advocates neutrality and opposes entanglement in military alliances and mutual defense pacts. In its purest form, isolationism opposes all commitments to foreign countries including treaties and trade agreements.[1] This distinguishes isolationism from non-interventionism, which also advocates military neutrality but does not necessarily oppose international commitments and treaties in general.
Interventionism definition: the theory or practice of intervening
specifically : governmental interference in economic affairs at home or in political affairs of another country
PRO: America ought to continue to intervene both militarily, economically and socially with other nations
CON: CON can either argue for complete isolationism or simply non-interventionism.
Round 1
Introduction
Hello, Greenknoblin. Within this debate, I choose to willingly offer myself a rather heavy burden of proof. That burden of criteria will be to show that: (1) interventionism is within America's self-interest; (2) American interventionism has caused more overall good than harm; (3) American interventionism ought to continue. I wish you the best of luck in our discussion.
First they came ...
To take a rather unconventional start to the debate, I would like readers in attendance to draw their attention to my favourite poem, by the name of First They Came.
First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a socialist.
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.
about the author
Martin Niemöller was a German Lutheran pastor and theologian born in Lipsstadt, Germany, in 1892. Niemöller was an anti- communist and supported Adolf Hitler's rise to power. But when, after he came to power, Hitler insisted on the supremacy of the state over religion, Niemöller became disillusioned. He became the leader of a group of German clergymen opposed to Hitler. In 1937 he was arrested and eventually confined in Sachsenhausen and Dachau. He was released in 1945 by the Allies. He continued his career in Germany as a clergyman and as a leading voice of penance and reconciliation for the German people after World war II.
The poem illustrates a man's regrets for not sticking up for others when he did not necessarily need to. As for not sticking up for them, there comes a time when there is no one left to stick up for him and have his back through him not having theirs.
American interventionalism has caused more harm than good within the middle east
I imagine this will be CONS's primary argument, that America has made mistakes through its international conduct and interventionism. Even if I agree that America's being in the Middle East has been a disaster, that does not mean American internationalism all together ought to stop. As con may be persuaded by the mistakes of America's military internationalism, it ought to get rid of interventionism. I would argue it simply has to change how it does military interventionism and not cease military interventionism altogether.
The korean war and American interventionism
Through American interventionism, America saved 52 million people (and more, including those who have died) from being subservient to a dictatorial state. Not only would South Korea be deeply impoverished if not for American interventionism, but North Korea is ranked as one of the poorest nations on the planet compared to South Korea, which is a top 10 economic power. From this information, from a strictly utilitarian perspective, American internationalism has caused more good than harm from just the Korean war alone. Therefore, I have sufficiently fulfilled one of my three burdens of proof.
American corporate funding of Nazi germany
Some 150 American corporations took part in German re-armament,[31] supplying German companies with everything from raw materials to technology and patent knowledge. This took place through a complex network of business interests, joint ventures, cooperation agreements, and cross-ownership between American and German corporations and their subsidiaries. The American government was not selling weapons to Nazi Germany. Yet through American isolationism, America allowed their citizens and private corporations to do so, which lead to the Nazis causing mass genocide within Europe. If the American government took a harder stance against such actions and intervened, such a thing may never of occurred, at least the blood then wouldn't partly of been on the hands of American citizens.
American Isolationism and WWII
There has long been speculation about what the world would have been like if the United States had not intervened in World War II. Within scenario (1) of America not intervening, the Soviet Union, along with Britain, would still eventually beat the Nazis. Although the difference is that the Soviet Union would now have had much more control and dominion over Europe, not just taking East Germany under its wing but far more than that too. As a result, the Soviet Union would be far more powerful than our current world soviet union. This would have been a direct domestic security threat to the United States (through communism's ultimate goal of getting rid of capitalism). It then follows that, through American isolationism, America would just make things much harder for their descendants in the future.
In alternative (2), if the Nazis somehow win the war and then have complete dominion over all of Europe (with the likely exception of Britain), this would evidently be an even bigger threat to America than what a super-Soviet union would be.
NATO is in Americas best interests
If it were not for NATO (an attempt to contain the Soviet Union), the Soviet Union would most likely have run through Europe as the Nazis had done. This is why NATO was necessary. If this did come to pass through American isolationism and the Soviet Union took over most of Europe, America would no longer be the clear superpower but would have an even bigger rivalry with the USSR. In the end, Americans would have to either go to war with the Soviet Union (now alone) or live in complete isolation, preventing their citizens from using the internet as Europeans do .Evidently, this alternative reality sounds like a hellscape.
If America doesn't do it, someone else will
If America does not involve itself in foreign affairs, some other nation will. Whether this be China or some other nation, Sometimes these foreign minglings will work out, and sometimes not so much. However, in the long run, nations that engage with others will have stronger ties and influence with them, expanding their influence and values beyond their own borders.
If America does not wish to spread its free speech beliefs to other nations or their legal values, don't worry. China will be there to do it instead. Instead of having American free speech rights, they will now possess Chinese speech laws and values. If America does not want to be the first to colonise Mars, someone else will eventually do it for them and take these risks for self preservation.
America and Japan
As we all know, Japan in WWII was as bad as Nazi Germany was. They had an emperor who they worshipped as an embodiment of God. They mass murdered, raped, experimented upon and pillaged Chinese citizens by the millions. If it were not for America going to war and offering aid to China, Japan would more than likely not possess a monopoly over the entire Pacific Ocean. Massively debilitating American trade opportunities. American citizens will likely be noticeably poorer. America, through conquering Japan, has also economically uplifted the Japanese citizens in ways 90% of the world's population could only dream of living.
Conclusion
- From a utilitarian perspective, American internationalism has been a net positive both for itself and for others. From a deontological perspective, American interventionialism is not always good or worthwhile, yet someone else will inevitably fill in the gap who may have worse deontological values. Therefore, these attempts are arguably necessary for a lesser evil to occur.
- American interventionalism has saved more lives than killed.
- Although American inteverventionalism does not always work, this is not an argument to stop it, but rather to change the method of intervening in foreign affairs, both militarily and economically.
- NATO is within America's best interests. It is therefore within America's best interests to protect its allies from would-be aggressors.
- Through its interventionism, America has uplifted the lives of at least over 100 million South Koreans and another 100 million Japanese.
- Americans are lax and isolationism is one of the main catalysts for German rearmament by domestic corporations and citizens alike.
- If America does not be the world police, someone else will, and they will likely be even worse.
Forfeited
Round 2
ಠ╭╮ಠ
Forfeited
Round 3
¯\_( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)_/¯
Forfeited
My age is irrelevant, if you think I'm an old man, I'll take it as a compliment. I am not 19 or below, I'll give that info. Ik you are 19 you said elsewhere.
You can argue against America not having boots on the ground if china invaded Taiwan. I would adamantly disagree, although that is not the premise of this debate. In the end, i would consider it either ignorance or cowardice to not to wish to defend Taiwan from china with boots on the ground in the event of an invasion. People will make up excuses to let other die in an attempt for self preservation such as "they're not even Americans, why should i care?".
From what i know about you, you appear to be a man much older than I. I would be put into such a war far before you would, i would be more than willing to die for my values. The only reason why you have the freedoms you do now is because of people who weren't cowards and were willing to risk it all for more rights both for themselves and others. People will take your rights if they can, and if you don't defend others rights one day no one will be there to defend yours either.
so by non-interventionalism you mean as an extreme?
Why can't I argue against not making war with China over fucking Taiwan?
Name me one place in North Africa or the Middle East that the US didn't absolutely leave just as bad or worse after it's shit stained massacres and involvement. I can't name a single one.
That is correct within common vernacular, yes. If you accepted the debate you can always argue for why this shouldn't be the case. America does not need to have its military alliances. It would be fine if the USSR or the Nazis won. At least for a good 20 years they can pretend nothing has changed.
so defensive acts for allies is interventionalist?
Yeah, I sensed something was off here.
You are aware you ought to pick up arms under the NATO articles if one of the NATO nations are invaded, correct? how is that not a form of interventionalism? if America was isolationist, that means they wouldn't have military alliances. That also involves and is true under non- interventionailism, so would you like to explain what is "bs"?
Wow, you say you can't be noninterventionist while being pqrt of NATO... wow... glad I didnt accept this bs.
Also recommeded to read:
"Socialism is a science" by Kim Jong Il
You can quickly find it on google
Related articles:
https://koryogroup.com/blog/songun-songun-north-korea
http://www.ryongnamsan.edu.kp/univ/en/research/articles/8ed36a8485e30937b99c0d247e9c3832
This explains why Songun Juche military Socialism is the best.
Juche idea is based upon that every country has a right to independence, that Socialism where masses are the masters cannot fail.
https://archive.org/details/jucheidea/page/n1/mode/2up
On the Juche idea
Read this, quickly, before its too late.
Idk how familiar you are with a game type known as clan-war gaming or real-time strategy (RTS) games.
Don't get into them properly, you need to pay actual money to cope and it is not remotely easy to last, it becomes a part time job, literally, if you take it serious at all.
The point is that there's no other gaming type which actually properly maps out how clans (equivalent of nations) interact in each server and later on a huge scale how the servers interact (but that's not that important, clans within a server that's growing and protected from invasions from older servers for some months are the key to my point).
You will consistently find that while obviously the 'richest' clans dominate the server, the apex clan is (after a couple months in and onwards) always the one who stuck by unwritten rules the most and did not piss off rogues to avenge them later. The servers rarely have any physical/game-encoded 'rules of conduct' they just have events that are more conducive to warfare and events that are more conducive to building, doing team missions etc. During the warfare events, everybody is obviously at war but even then tight alliances between 2 clans are important to maintain, the real focus is in the non-warfare periods the clans who stick to the 'don't bully the weaker clanned people'. You will find CONSISTENTLY that clans who minded their own business while growing end up the apex clans even if they started off fairly consistently only number 3 or 4. The reason is that they know how to play ball.
An exception to this is where a huge amount of people jump server with their alts who are rich and dedicated with alts/farm-accounts. This is allowed (number of legal alts per player is limited though depending on game) but unless there was massive jumping/hopping going on, the apex is the one who plays ball and doesn't overly bully to begin with. This seems irrational, you genuinely get huge bonuses for being the biggest bully clan early on. What ends up happening is that weaker clans don't 'die', their best members come crawling and begging other clans to let them join even paying irl money to catch up and qualify (once you're in a huge clan you have a huge growth spurt due to bonuses of being in the clan itself, this requires no further money to maintain on your individual part but harsher clans kick if you stagnate).
Then over time whispers of revenge and what assholes that other clan is spread. Eventually there comes a time when that alpha clan gets pounced on by an agreed coup or simply alternatively over time they lose members to other big clans, despite being the best statistically, because of the attitude leadership are taking, forcing their members to engage with and turn a blind eye to breaking the server's 'street rules' of how to operate in non-warfare times and who is ok vs not ok to pick on, how to farm fairly etc.
I either want it to be America or the world.
Its allies can be included in either scenario, that's to be based around the real focus.
Okay then I want you to reword the title and description to make that clear.
I also want it made clear if 'America' is its economy, the wish of its people, the safety of its people, its international 'standing' as in semi-subjective power ranking' in influence or what it is.
I am not nitpicking, I've tried debates like this before, most recently this: https://www.debateart.com/debates/3419-us-military-response-to-chinese-invasion-of-taiwan
After that the voters being terrible (in my eyes) taught me that they value very blatantly pro-western rhetoric and that they do not care if America is completely hypocritical or pissing people off in the activities. Based on that alone, I already know you have the upper hand here.
Therefore, I want very clear topic and description, to me competitive debating isn't what it is for you. I can believe something and not debate it but I get the whole bravado thing 'if you really believe it stand by it in the arena' the problem is the arena isn't entirely fair or logical.
If I don't see crystal clear in the description and title what is bring prioritised then I don't care to debate it. I am also not massively about patriotism or jingoism of any sort. That is the biggest reason other than privacy why I avoid mentioning where I live and why I try to write things as international seeming as possible when I can. Obviously, I write primarily in 'British English' but the whole world other than US and some of South America and Canada (not even all of South/Latin America nor all of Canadians use American English) uses 'British English' with Australia being an outlier as it formed its own mix. I like to carry myself in a way that reminds me to be humble and not only value any one nation too highly, it's an OCD-like thing even that I developed as a young teen once I realised what bias was and how it affects your brain's ability to focus on truth in a scenario. I, of course, was still a massive victim to confirmation bias and have tried to slowly reduce it.
I will also argue that American interventionalism is a net good for the entire world too, not just america and its allies. Evidently i will offer myself a large burden of proof in this discussion.
I assure you, i will be arguing it is in Americas best interests to be interventionist. It is also in the best interest of its allies and their values too.
I truly dislike debates like this, which is why I have consistently lost geopolitical debates, even forfeiting one vs blamonkey as I knew he'd murk me (it was forced sides in an earlier tournament). The biggest problem is 'ought' (or 'should') is never ever framed to a certain nation's interests. In fact, it is also not made clear if we are to argue from a net-good of the world perspective either. Absolutely nothing is clear and I am a weak debater when goalposts move everywhere as I focus severely on the goalposts and tether my opponent to their BoP.
i believe we ought not to completely exclude the possibility that being a "social pariah" internationally isn't optimal without a fleshed out discussion on the topic beforehand.
Your description distinguishes it completely from isolationism, making me think you support literally being a social pariah internationally which isn't optimal.
I hope you accept the debate then, if that's what you really think.
I support what you describe as 'non-interventionism' as a pragmatic reality.
Neither isolationism nor brute force bullying are optimal even if you believe in the cause.
If you are saying isolationism is beyond that, then we disagree.
I believe you may disagree with this sentiment. Are you interested?