America Does not stand for Democracy or Freedom

"a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections." https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/democracy

to support a particular set of ideas, values, or principles

America fits this definition to a T since it not only holds elections for all representative branches

These principles of freedom include freedom of speech, rights to bear arms, right to remain silent, and many other rights that other society's that claim to be free will not give

But that's a misunderstanding. America does not claim to uphold freedom and Democratic ideals for everyone on the planet

this means that the USA standing for freedom and democracy isn’t just itself practicing, a very much flawed form of democracy and having certain freedoms, but it must also support these same beliefs in multiple areas, which, as my opponent has already acknowledged, the USA most definitely doesn’t do in its foreign policy. 

The USA supports 73% of the worlds dictatorships like Saudi Arabia, Brunei and Qatar https://truthout.org/articles/us-provides-military-assistance-to-73-percent-of-world-s-dictatorships/. This is obviously not standing for the principle of democracy in the world. This blatant hypocrisy from the USA means that it cannot be taken seriously that they’re the beacon of freedom and democracy. US intervention in removal of foreign governments that are democratically elected, like Allende in Chile https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1973_Chilean_coup_d%27état#:~:text=On%20September%2011%2C%201973%2C%20a,a%20coup%2C%20ending%20civilian%20rule.&text=Armed%20forces%20put%20the%20country,Little%20and%20unorganised%20civil%20resistance. or Mossadegh in Iran, in favour of imposing a right-wing despot like Pinochet and a Monarchy under the Shah. Yet again showing that US foreign policy is in favour of supporting undemocratic values, as long as it’s in the US self interest, which in turn was a lack of support of freedom, for example the freedom of thought and speech was massively prohibited in Pinochet’s Chile, seen by 3,200 left wing people being murdered just for their beliefs https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_abuses_in_Chile_under_Augusto_Pinochetthe USA orchestrated Pinochet coming to power then supported the regime throughout its breach of human rights and freedoms that are apparently so important to America. As we can see the US is not supporting democracy or freedom in these cases, thus they don’t stand for democracy and freedom.

But what about the other third of the US government? The Supreme Court is unelected and has power to strike down an elected branches bill and thus their mandate, seen by the recent striking down of debt relief to students. This is 9 unelected (by the people) justices making decisions against the will of the elected representative of the people, which seems i democratic to me.

Society’s that we would acknowledge as free and developed like Denmark, Canada or Australia have higher freedom rankings than the USAhttps://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/freedom-index-by-country and this score is measured by using factors such as free speech, freedom of religion, safety from authorities overreach, and legal safety and freedom. These developed countries like Latvia or Luxembourg have all the freedoms the USA has, bar the right to bear arms, which is not an fundamental right according to anyone but the US and actual harms freedoms e.g a right to life as gun deaths in America massively out score the other developed and free countries I’ve mentioned and the others I haven’t.https://wisevoter.com/country-rankings/gun-deaths-by-country/#gun-violence-by-country

Now what differentiates the nations like Latvia and Estonia from the US is that they stand for freedom, which they have more of, as they don’t forcefully take freedom from other people and nations for their own benefit.

1.  The topic is about America being a Democracy and stands for freedom. it is not based about Whether other countries are better at these principles are not. So, I fail to see how a "score," is supposed to prove America is not democratic or free. If anything, putting on a score is an admission that America is democratic and free. Just not the level that Pro wants or respects. 
   
2.  No matter what your personal feelings on guns might be. The fact that the USA will say that you have a right to one is a freedom by definition. So, when Pro argues that it's not since it goes against a right to life (not a Universal right by the way) They are being disingenuous since it does not matter what your view on the second Amendment is. The fact its present in America and is noticeable absent elsewhere. Makes it evidence for American freedom. Not against it.

t’s not a misunderstanding at all, America does claim to stand for democracy on the world stage and has formally passed bills acknowledging so. Most American Cold War policies, like the Eisenhower doctrine, gave the US government ‘legitimacy’ to interfere in other countries on the grounds of upholding political independence and freedom in these countries. The real translation of these Cold War policies are that the USA should be allowed to overthrow left leaning democracies like Iran, Guatemala and Chile and impose pro-US dictators. This is not standing for freedom, despite the rhetoric and speeches of Reagan, Clinton, Biden and all US presidents post WW2 who claim that their interference or cold warrior stance is pro-democracy and that the US is helping the citizens of a country who’s elected leader was being removed. You may not believe that the US doesn’t claim to uphold democracy and freedom in other areas, but presidents, CIA directors do, Cabinet members do, they claim to be freeing the people from terrible things like in Vietnam or Iraq. George Bush said that the goal was to save the Iraqi people and create a free country https://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/infocus/iraq/news/20030319-17.html did this happen? Did the US uphold freedom and democracy in this war? It didn’t. It didn’t respect the Iraqis freedom of religion, right to life or right to a fair trial in many cases.

When Con says that USA is a democracy and a free nation, they are mostly correct in saying this. Of course the USA is no leader in democracy, being ranked 30th by the Economist Democratic Index behind nations like Canada and Mauritius and described as a ‘flawed democracy’ https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Economist_Democracy_Index, or freedom as I’ve mentioned before. If the title of this debate was ‘the USA is a democracy and free country’ then Con would be correct, as many problems the USA has in these areas, it can be described as these things in a general definition. But that’s not the debate. The debate is ‘America Does not stand for Democracy or Freedom’ this, as explained earlier is different. Being something is different from standing for it, this is true in an individual sense and in the realms of this debate. If the USA was to stand for democracy it would support the values of democracy and condemn anti-democratic regimes in its actions, with the same being true in terms  of freedom. The USA, in its actions, rhetoric and policy does not support the values of democracy and freedom on a world stage and there are mountains of examples and evidence to show this, with William Blums ‘Killing Hope’ and Murphys ‘The triumph of evil’ outlining this well. Thus, the USA does not stand for democracy or freedom.

Pro's evidence shows that America has supported undemocratic countries in the past. That might seem hypocritical from a fanatical point of view. However, the fact that America's willing to work with other people who aren't aligned with its values shows what a freethinking society it is. Which can only be done if America has freedom as a principal. 

America has also opposed Dictator regimes like Saddam Hussain

Saying America does not stand up for freedom and democracy simply because of its absence of fanaticism and willingness to cooperate with others is therefore false.

America's First Amendment guarantees freedom of speech and press, but also ensures that there can be no limit to free speech

Lativa law. It does not mention the right to bear arms or the right to defend oneself. Which is again opposite to American law.

No matter what your personal feelings on guns might be. The fact that the USA will say that you have a right to one is a freedom by definition. So, when Pro argues that it's not since it goes against a right to life (not a Universal right by the way) They are being disingenuous since it does not matter what your view on the second Amendment is. The fact its present in America and is noticeable absent elsewhere. Makes it evidence for American freedom. Not against it

The topic is about America being a Democracy and stands for freedom. it is not based about Whether other countries are better at these principles are not. So, I fail to see how a "score," is supposed to prove America is not democratic or free. If anything, putting on a score is an admission that America is democratic and free. Just not the level that Pro wants or respects.

Pro's assertion about the cold war is based largely on sentiment and unsourced information. I've already admitted that America has played a role in helping no democratic governments. But I demonstrated, too, that the US has a long history of providing aid to democratic countries. Pro seems to have misunderstood my point in round 1. I'm not saying that America does not claim to uphold democracy anywhere in the world. I said it was still a Democracy and free because it holds these principles within itself regardless of how it handled its foreign policy's.

Pro admits that America holds democratic and free principles despite claiming that The US does not stand for these very principles which is a contradiction and a logical fallacy

It's doing everything it can to support democratic countries

Con says I contradict myself by admitting that the USA domestically is a relatively democratic and free nation. This either a misunderstanding of my initial argument or deliberate bending of it. The debate says ‘America does not stand for freedom or democracy’, con didn’t define what ‘stand for’ was, and I did, under the definition I provided for the USA to stand for democracy it needs to support the ideals of freedom and democracy, which as I proved in my last argument the USA most certainly hasn’t. Con keeps saying that the USA is free and democratic, that is different to standing for democracy and freedom.

It’s not from a fanatical point of view at all, it’s 73% a clear majority of dictatorships receiving funding from America. When you say America is willing to work with other nations, this is a huge misrepresentation. America gives funding and military support to these dictatorships, with which these countries like Saudi Arabia (around $9.5bn in sales and support) and the UAE (around $1.5bn in sales and support according to the previous source) and what are these regimes doing? They’re committing genocide in Yemenhttps://www.genocidewatch.com/single-post/genocide-emergency-saudi-arabia-and-the-war-in-yemen if you consider this to be American upholding freedom and a show of America being a ‘freethinking society’ because they literally support and aid a genocidal regime, then clearly freedom isn’t America’s principle. America isn’t working with these dictatorships for any reason other than self interest, mostly oil of the Middle Eastern regimes. This isn’t America being ‘freethinking’ it’s just America willing to do anything for its own self interest, whether it be by supporting a genocidal regime and oppressing freedoms of citizens.

I already explained how the Iraq war stripped many citizens and US soldiers of their right to life, freedom of religion etc. the murder of nearly 500,000 Iraqis https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-24547256.amp shows that freedom was not at the forefront of the US minds, getting rid of an anti-American leader was.

It’s not a willingness to be fanatic in its support for democracy and freedom, it’s the fact that it supports the majority of regimes that curb freedom and are undemocratic, it’s not a fanatical belief that to stand for democracy, you should be required to not support the majority of dictatorships in order to stand for democracy.

It really is that simple. In terms of a willingness to co-operate, we’ve seen throughout history and to the present day that the USA would rather ally with a right-wing, capitalist dictatorship like Mobutu in Zaire (whom Reagan praised as a man of good will) rather than a democratically elected left-leaning government, this clearly isn’t the US standing up for democracy and freedom, it’s the USA standing up for its own interests with disregard for foreign people’s freedoms, like in Zaire there was huge curbs on free speech, such as 290 students being killed for protesting the regimehttps://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobutu_Sese_Seko 

America doesn’t have to be fanatical about democracy and freedom to stand for it, but the simple facts are that it’s continued support for a majority of regimes that are undemocratic and oppressors of freedom means that the US can’t stand for democracy or freedom.

There are limits to free speech in the United States, there are liable laws, defamation and inciting violence are restricted https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exceptions#:~:text=Categories%20of%20speech%20that%20are,law%2C%20true%20threats%2C%20and%20commercial and as the data shows, it’s not just freedom of speech that is a factor, it is a number of factors. You can cherry pick specific freedoms, but that doesn’t take away from the general point and results of the data.

This is one of the UN human rights ‘it prohibits arbitrary deprivation of life; torture, cruel or degrading treatment or punishment.’ Personally, the murdering of school children on a regular basis, and doing nothing to prevent or reduce this, would constitute a violation of this UN human right.

To say that America’s own decisions and ‘freedoms’ like the right to bear arms, which in itself is contested in its meaning, means that it stands for freedom isn’t correct, America’s own freedoms aren’t a satisfactory measure. For example in India’s constitution there is nothing against marital rape by a man https://www.theindiaforum.in/amp/law/criminalising-marital-rape-india but would you say that Indian men have more freedom than British or American men, because they have this constitutional freedom of sex? Of course not, under the same premise the unique 2nd Amendment of the US constitution cannot be used as an example of freedom, as it is not common or widely acknowledged by the UN and other organisations as fundamental freedom.

It is disingenuous on your part to say that the absence of similar ‘rights’ are proof of American freedom.

Furthermore this doesn’t prove anything in terms of this debate, because even if America has this supposed unique freedom, it clearly doesn’t stand up for this or any other freedoms in the previously mentioned instances. Thus showing the US to not stand for freedom.

It really isn’t. I provided a definition of to stand for, and the US, as you have admitted, doesn’t support democratic ideas in the world. When I say you can be something, but not stand for it, I’m not making a fallacy at all, I provided a definition, which you did not, in how being something and then standing for it are

different, as the US needs to support democracy and freedom on a wider scale to prove and show that it’s stands for these things. 

Pro is trying to establish a difference between being free and standing by freedom. But not only is that a fallacy. It lacks logic.

Pro does not respond to this fact and instead lays the blame for the actions of fully independent nations actions on America just because they do business dealings with them. Thie's not just a Sophistry. But there is also no common sense in it. If the owner of the gun sells the gun to the customer and the customer goes out and commits a crime. Are you blaming the owner of the store?

The pro also claims that the United States infringes on the rights of citizens. But America is only responsible for the wellbeing of its own people who are not oppressed. Because Pro has not proved this to be the case. It is hearsay and nothing more.

You claim that 500,000 were murdered. But deaths in war are casualties, not murder. It's another attempt at sophistry, not a genuine argument.

And yet. for all your quickness to point out that we have helped and worked with undemocratic nations. You're not responding to the fact that we are NATO members and have been an ally of democracies around the world. You're only showing the times when America has been working with people who don't share its ideals. Which is biased.

In your own words, by your own admission. America did not commit any of these crimes that these dictators did. Your argument is one of guilty by the association. If a man named Mike offered, you a business deal on Tuesday and killed 400 people on Thursday. Since you've been a known associate, should we be arresting you? You're going to argue that you had nothing to do with it. Why should your defense be any better than the United States?

You keep claiming "America support undemocratic countries" and "these dictatorships committed crimes" But have you proven any direct connection between the two? No. You only keep insisting that because America has done business with these nations that we don't uphold freedom and Democracy

fundamentalist would mean that under no circumstances can we make deals with undemocratic nations. Whatever their situation, they'd have to be the enemy. You're saying we do not need to be this but at the same time you say that because we make deals with them. We don't adhere to the ideals of democracy. 

No, it isn't. If a society offers you do something. Regardless of what. And others cannot do so. That means I have more freedom because I lack restraint that you have. Thats the definition of freedom not disingenuous.

Baseless statement with nothing other than your feelings backing it up. I provided a definition and evidence, you’re just talking with emotions. You bring up an analogy later on, which I’ll come to, so I’ll give you a comparison. Ted Bundy once saved a boy from drowning, in this sense Ted Bundy is a life saver. But we know that Bundy, a serial killer, obviously doesn’t stand for the principles of saving lives and letting people to live. Therefore making him a life saver in one sense, but not standing for saving lives.

This is a completely moronic and disingenuous comparison. America is giving aid and weapons to countries like Saudi Arabia, knowing that they are committing the previously mentioned genocide in Yemen.

A more fair comparison to draw up would be that, a customer draped in Nazi symbols and heiling walks into a store tells the owner of the store that he’s going to the local synagogue to shoot the place up and the gun store owner gives him a gun.

Your comparison is painting America as a poor, little naive country that is just doing business, and you can’t blame America for selling weapons to a country committing genocide? What a completely preposterous statement for you to make, ignoring any context, evidence I’ve given or critical thinking.

The US is most certainly complicit in the acts of countries like Israel, by continuing to fund their regimes whilst knowing what they’re doing. America knows what these dictators are doing, yet still supports them, thus part of the blame must lie on the USA for not standing for the freedoms of the oppressed people or

democratic principles Con likes to describe, but instead they do the opposite.

War crimes are murder, the killing of civilians is a war crimehttps://www.hrw.org/reports/2002/isrl-pa/ISRAELPA1002-04.htm#:~:text=Willful%20killing%2C%20that%20is%2C%20intentionally,wounding%20victims%2C%20are%20war%20crimes.&text=Persons%20who%20commit%2C%20order%2C%20or,humanitarian%20law%20for%20their%20crimes. unless con believes that the killing of civilians isn’t murder, which leaves Con of the position that the deaths in Nanjing were just a result of war and not murder for example. How very freedom loving of you.

The US has worked with democratic nations of course, but as I have pointed out with Israel even when the US supports a democracy, it unconditionally is supporting the oppression of basic human rights of Palestinians as I previously cited. You mention NATO, yet NATO has committed numerous war crimeshttps://www.betterworld.info/conflict-regions/kosovo/nato-war-crimes the murder of civilians, such as 30k in Libya, is by nature anti-freedom, constant bombing meant people’s freedom of taking part in public affairs or the freedom to not experience arbitrary deprivation of lifehttps://www.un.org/en/global-issues/human-rights here the US is actively doing the curbing of freedom, not only supporting it.

Furthermore NATO members that the US supports, as you said they do, aren’t freedom loving countries. Turkey has long curbed freedom of speechhttps://www.brookings.edu/articles/turkeys-new-media-law-is-bad-news-but-dont-report-it/ and continues to do so. This is one of the freedoms you cherry picked in your previous argument, so why does the USA stand up for this right in Turkey? Even when the US supports democracies, which as the largest economy and military of course it does at points, it is still supporting suppression of freedoms in many of these democracies. The debate is both democracy and freedom, not just one. The US does support some democracies, obviously when it suits them of course best example of this is Costa Rica who helped the US topple the democratically elected Dom. Rep government, but when they went less pro-US the US tried to topple the CRC government. When you say I’m only showing when the US doesn’t support democracies, which is hundreds of times, this is either you not reading my argument or lying. I’ve mentioned US support for Israel,

which is a flawed democracy, and is committing apartheid and oppressing freedom. So please read all of what I say or don’t make false claims.

 You claim I ignore US support for democracies etc, but I don’t I just add necessary context, like with NATO and Israel that disproves what you claim, that the US supporting democracies is enough, because even when doing this it facilitates freedoms being oppressed. Most of what I’ve said in this argument has already been said, alongside sources, yet it seems that this hasn’t been acknowledged or Con is ignoring this purposefully. 

• By being a member of the NATO alliance, America has become part of an Alliance of Democratic and Free States. By listing NATO members as defenders of freedom and democracy, even Pro hasalbeit unknowingly strengthened that point. Supporting and defending democracy and freedom is what America stands for in its partnership with these countries.
  
• The USA continues to support weaker democratic nations like Ukraine and Taiwan. Of course, America has also assisted in other Asian countries such as South Korea, but Pro largely overlooked these two examples, so I continued to raise them.
  
• In several respects, including their legal definition of freedom and slanderous claims against the United States and NATO, Pro has been disproven.
  
• I have also illustrated that Pro's argument relies on Sophistry and unproven hearsay such as war crimes. Which have no basis for the debate and are used to sway people to their side all the while showing no evidence for it but popular opinion.
  
• I've also been highlighting numerous instances in which Pro continued to violate the law of contradiction on several occasions. They're accusing the United States of not standing up for democracy or freedom, despite the fact that it's been practicing those principles. Pro has also denied saying that America needs to be fanatical in its ideals of freedom and democracy only to argue over and over again that dealing with none-democratic nations means that the USA does not follow democratic and freedom ideal's. Which is a contradiction.
  
• Finally, since the first round, Pro has shown itself to be uninformed, claiming that Luxemburg, Estonia, and Latvia are more democratic than the United States. Only to deny this later by saying that Nations in the NATO Alliance are not free nations Which all the mentioned countries are members of.
  

Hearsay at its finest. Pro has no evidence to prove America knew what Saudi Arabia is using the weapons for any more than a gun store owner does at his shop. We may sell the weapons, but we are not the ones who pull the trigger. That makes your accusation baseless and just another example of sophistry.

Then you can't have a principal for being polite since, according to you, the fact that I have been polite doesn't matter simply because I did not hold my principle to an absolutist degree. This highlights once again that unless I am a fanatic. For you, my principles are not true. Which is in fact baseless and emotionally driven.

No. That is a biased comparison because you both frame it in an unrealistic scenario and ignore the fact that you are erroneously setting it up to make it seem America has knowledge, but the fact is you have not proven that which makes it hearsay.

So, America is not standing up for Ukraine by sending them supplies, and Taiwan is not maintaining its independence due to America vowing to protect them from China? If these actions don't represent standing up for freedom and oppressed people, then nothing is.

War crimes can be murder only if they specifically involve murdering surrendering combatants and civilians intentionally. In no international court has America ever been formally accused of such a crime, much less convicted. The Pro's still trying to fool people by using popular opinion and emotional rhetoric in Lew of actual evidence. If Pro can't prove to us objectively that the United States is guilty. It's nothing more than an insult.

So, which is it, does America not support democracy or does America support democracy while violating human rights?

So, either Pro has not read their own sources or has not bothered to study NATO before entering this debate. Either way. In this debate, it is safe to say that Pro has not been honest.

It's a contradiction, because countries you have previously mentioned as standing up for freedom belong to NATO. You have not disproven me. You've disproven yourself.

1. America NATO membership changes nothing, as I’ve proven NATO has routinely been in the side of anti-freedom committing atrocities. If you look beyond the message that NATO says, I’ve proven how NATO inherently takes away freedoms from thousands of people. This is a fact that hasn’t been refuted.
   
2. I provided a definition for standing up for freedom and democracy, and proved with evidence how the US does not fall under this category. The US facilitation of genocide, apartheid and participation in war crimes is clear indicator for the USA not standing for freedom, instead choosing to suppress the freedoms (which have been outlined) instead of standing for them. No amount of my opponents baseless claims and flimsy analogies, that were shown to be naive, too simple and inaccurate, take away from the fact that under my definition, which wasn’t refuted or had any suggestions to be replaced, I proved my stance. Any problems with this definition, which I expanded on, should’ve been countered with a different definition, but it wasn’t. Instead objections to the fact that the US didn’t fall under the definition, were baseless, disproved and unsubstantial.
   
3. The US has actively destroyed democracies in many parts of the world, to which I have provided numerous sources to prove. No nation that has so routinely, actively and obviously taken down democracies, in place with dictatorships that have committed massive freedom violation, can legitimately and sensibly claim to be standing for the principles of democracy and freedom.
   
4. Despite unfounded and ignorant accusations of hearsay, I’ve provided numerous sources, reports and evidence to back up my claims. My opponent has provided scarce evidence or sources, and when refuting my points has chosen to ignore my sources and claim that it’s hearsay, which if you look at my sources you’ll see is itself misleading people from the facts, despite my opponents arguments being based on barely any facts or sources, instead only on emotions, ignoring my points and evidence and accusations. When it comes to my opponent calling my untruthful, just saying hearsay and disingenuous, the phrase ‘every accusation is a confession’ comes to mind.