Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Round 1: Doomsday2029 vs Maxmars: "The Big Dog Should Make The Rules"

page: 1
12

log in

join

posted on Feb, 15 2009 @ 10:58 PM
link   
The topic for this debate is "The United States is the only Super Power and should be policing the world."

Doomsday2029 will be arguing the pro position and will open the debate.
Maxmars will argue the con position.

Each debater will have one opening statement each. This will be followed by 3 alternating replies each. There will then be one closing statement each and no rebuttal.

There is a 10,000 character limit. Excess characters will be deleted prior to judging.

Editing is strictly forbidden. For reasons of time, mod edits should not be expected except in critical situations.

Opening and closing statements must not contain any images and must have no more than 3 references.

Excluding both the opening and closing statements, only two images and no more than 5 references can be included for each post. Each individual post may contain up to 10 sentences of external source material, totaled from all external sources.

Links to multiple pages within a single domain count as 1 reference but there is a maximum of 3 individual links per reference, then further links from that domain count as a new reference. Excess quotes and excess links will be removed before judging.

Videos are not permitted. This includes all youtube links and other multi-media video sources.

The Socratic Debate Rule is in effect. Each debater may ask up to 5 questions in each post, except for in closing statements- no questions are permitted in closing statements. These questions should be clearly labeled as "Question 1, Question 2, etc.

When asked a question, a debater must give a straight forward answer in his next post. Explanations and qualifications to an answer are acceptable, but must be preceded by a direct answer.

This Is The Time Limit Policy

Each debate must post within 24 hours of the timestamp on the last post. If your opponent is late, you may post immediately without waiting for an announcement of turn forfeiture. If you are late, you may post late, unless your opponent has already posted.

Each debater is entitled to one extension of 24 hours. The request should be posted in this thread and is automatically granted- the 24 hour extension begins at the expiration of the previous deadline, not at the time of the extension request.

In the unlikely event that tardiness results in simultaneous posting by both debaters, the late post will be deleted unless it appears in its proper order in the thread.

Judging will be done by a panel of anonymous judges. After each debate is completed it will be locked and the judges will begin making their decision. One of the debate forum moderators will then make a final post announcing the winner.




posted on Feb, 16 2009 @ 08:13 PM
link   
Opening Statement:

The great super power known as the United States of America in the past few decades has become known as the "World Police", and I will argue why this nickname given to us is for the greater good of man kind. In my opening statement, I will also defend why we must take nessasary precautions to ensure humanity that we never relive the days that got America to this position in the first place. Make no mistake about it, The United States didn't ask for this title of authority, we inherited this power.

Yes, we weren't seeking to be the dominant force on the globe, but because many nations in the past, present, and future decided to divide and conquer, spread facsism and communism, and kill millions upon millions of innocent civilians in the most brutal way possible, We had no choice but to wake up and become the big giant that we were in the 1940's and currently are in this post 9-11 world that we live in today.

I'll say it again, The nations of the world created this Super Power known as the United States, and with great power comes great responsibility. I like to think our power and influence over the world started in 1945 when we were victorious in WWII.

Has anbody took the time to analyse what the world would be like if America didn't make the sacrifices it did during the 1940's? What if Nazi Geramny and Japan took out the allied forces durring WWII... where would you be today? Do I really need to emphasize this point any further? If you asked 100 people on the street this question: "who were the top 5 most evil people in the world?"... I'm willing to guess that Hitler is going to be just about on every one of those lists, and not only that, probably at the very top. The bottom line... We defeated an evil so monstorous that it was trying to create a one world blue-eyed, blond haired race.

Now the ironic thing about this victory in WWII, is that every nationality in the world has migrated to America. Every race, color, religion and creed is united in this great country and we defeated a man that came very close to putting an end to the race mixture.

This was only a mere 60 years ago folks, and people living today can still testify to how horrible those times were. This is not ancient history. So, it is fair to say that America saved the world.


Fast foward to today... After the Korean War, The Cold War, The Vietnam War, The fall of the Berlin Wall, We are now presented with the war on terror and a new Axis of Evil.


States like these constitute an axis of evil, arming to threaten the peace of this world.


George W. Bush was speaking of Iran, Iraq, and North Korea. All of these countries are seeking to gain the power that we unleashed on Japan in order to end the worst war mankind has ever seen. Now, after what we've seen happen on 9-11, after what we've seen cheered in Iran durring president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad speeches (Death to America, Death to Israel), after what we've seen the infamous Saddam Hussein regime do to his own people, and after what we've seen in North Korea under Kin Jung Il... is everybody okay with these countries possesing weapons of Mass destruction?

If this is a threat in your opinion, who's going to stop them if it's not us?

If you don't want us, the United States of America, to police the threats we face today, let's find out what happens. We've already seen what happened 60 years ago, and without our foreign policy... it will happen again. You want Iran and North Korea to get their hands on nukes? Fine, We'll pack our bags, come home, and build the greatest defense system that the world has ever seen... We'll just stay on our side of the globe and protect our own territory, and you can do the same... We'll let you guys deal with WWIII on your side of the globe while we sit back and build a wall around our side.

I don't think so... and since you guys couldn't act civilized in the 40's, and since you guys still insist on attacking us through the means of terror... We will do what we wish. We've saved the world once, and we will do it again no matter how unpopular our decisions may be.

You are either with us, or against us. And if you have a problem with the way we police the world, take your complaints to the United Nations so we can listen, and all work together.

The Police aren't going to be perfect, but it's better than Hitler.



posted on Feb, 17 2009 @ 01:29 PM
link   
I am sincerely overjoyed that I have yet another opportunity to engage with the finest minds on the Internet. Thank you, everyone for making this possible, and a special thank you to my opponent, and the gentle readers to whom I hope to provide some food for thought.

Please excuse this one minor digression: Our debates are constrained to structure and limited in content out of necessity. I would like to encourage you to keep notes, which you may contribute to the debate once it is open for comment. This topic is much more important to me than any ‘normal’ debate; because I think it speaks to our community, and some of the events we see unfolding in the world today – I am hopeful that many will have great comments to make; regardless of our sincere, but strictly transient competition.

Opening Statement:

Prior to directing my attention to any of my opponent’s comments (In fact, prior to even reading my opponent’s opening) I drafted an introduction to the topic which I feel stands well on its own and would like to present here -

Doomsday2029 vs Maxmars: "The Big Dog Should Make The Rules"

The topic for this debate is "The United States is the only Super Power and should be policing the world."


I have great interest in this topic. I feel that my opponent and I, who will be studying the issue cooperatively from opposite perspectives, face a great challenge because of what we must contend with in terms of definitions.
First, and most importantly, we must concur on what the noun form of “The United States” really means. Our nation, customarily considered in the singular, is represented globally by one entity – the Federal government. However, as many here have recently been discussing openly, the Federal government has evolved into a singular entity which does not necessarily conform to the Constitutional Republic as it was intended. Thus, the “United States” really refers to the “Federal Government of the United States”, and not the actual population of the United States or their collective will. This virtual dichotomy becomes a schism for understanding.
Second, the term “Super Power” is (or can be) misleading and somewhat vague. There are too many ways to skew the notion of power to allow for an easily resolution to a definition. Economic, cultural, military, political, and diplomatic powers are all gauged differently, and if we are not talking about the same thing, we will end up in a pointless circular rift.
Third, ”Policing” raises some issues. As many can attest, policing is not a comprehensive union of the acts of law enforcement, peace keeping, or simply ‘cleaning up’. Policing, if taken literally, implies authority to impose and maintain control; such a definition also will color the debate, while simple law enforcement or peace keeping will change the debate direction as well.


With all due respect to those who may disagree, we have to ‘firm up’ the foundation of this debate. In my never-ending quest to avoid excess verbiage (stop laughing), I will try to make this as simple as my own limitations will allow;

Our global population has churned and gyrated extensively over the millennia, crystallizing into theocracies, oligarchies, republics, and loose confederacies. We have adopted totalitarianism, democracy, and anarchy. And time after time, throughout history, one ‘form’ of collective groups of people or another has proved incapable or unwilling to allow another to exist peacefully.

As time passed, several national experiments have proven more effective, and more lasting than others. Ultimately, a large-scale “king of the hill” game has been played by an increasingly smaller body of ‘executive’ representatives of groups of people who have delineated borders and claimed ‘statehood.’ Key to that ‘statehood’ is a notion of ‘sovereignty’; that among themselves, people choose to be answerable only to the state of which they constitute a ‘citizen.’ The choice is one made freely (ostensibly) and their membership in the body of citizens is founded in an acceptance of the form of governance of the land. We are all well aware that such is not always the case, and that entire communities of peoples have been trapped or virtually imprisoned by their self-proclaimed leaders. And we also see that some of these governments are prone to execute all forms of offenses towards neighbors (or even their own people) which defy any definition as ‘benevolence.’

If we refuse to entertain the reasons why governments assault each other, if we surrender to the notion that all nations are like children on a playground, if we believe that we can rightfully adopt a ‘righteous’ superiority to other nations, irrespective of their cultures and political ideologies, then we would have to accept that people, generally speaking, must be “kept in line.” Therefore a global ‘cop’ is required.

That’s a lot of ifs.

But granting that (for the moment,) we have to examine what it means to be the global cop. It means that we must be ‘accepted’ in the role, empowered to impose the will of the ‘lawful’ over those who someone has determined is ‘unlawful.’ Police are not judges, and must be directed to carry out their actions – again, in theory.

That being said, we cannot afford to ignore the global conduct of our sovereign neighbors. Certainly their conduct will eventually impact on our ‘sovereign’ citizens – or their interests.

But I can’t subscribe to the theory that ‘we’ as in the United States of America, are the defacto authority, duly empowered to apply unilateral ‘law enforcement.’

For the sake of the argument, I will concede our power as being equal to some, greater than most. Such a position is filled with treacherous pitfalls, especially once any other nation or group of nations declares that ‘we’ shouldn’t have that authority – at best, or simply ‘seized’ the authority - at worst. Many fascist states and organizations have assumed that authority to their detriment and in many cases, eventual downfall. That could lead to the very conflicts we are trying to police. Such a position could more easily start a war, than end it.

Also, policing is a continuous activity. Can we really consign our future generations to a global role they may not wish to assume? How do we lay down the mantle of police authority, should that time come?

The United States of America is not dedicated to the proposition that the globe is our domain to control and maintain.

Perhaps if the world somehow agreed that they wanted such a service from us, I would be inclined to accept the possibility, but that is clearly not the case, nor do I believe it ever should be.

Perhaps if there were a single global government, each nation, would concede the role to an outside agency. But then, the US would be little more than a branch of that government, beholden to a leadership and direction coming from ‘above’ and ‘beyond’ our cherished concept of sovereignty.

Until such a massive and earth-shattering paradigm shift happens, each nation and her closest neighbors should be responsible for their own conduct, and face consequences locally, without the prospect of another nation, driven by foreign ideals, and foreign ideologies, imposes their concept of ‘order’ on the world.

Denying the role of global police, enforcer of freedom and justice, and keeper of international peace and harmony does not automatically mean we can't help those in need, or defend those principles we hold as central to our national ideals. It just means that we require the extraordinary element of consensus before we apply our might upon others. Which seems only fair, since other citizens of the world should have as much say as any other in deciding whether people need to kill and be killed over matters of state.

This completes my opening statement. Let the fun begin!


[edit on 2/17/2009 by semperfortis]



posted on Feb, 18 2009 @ 01:04 PM
link   
24 Hour extension needed....



posted on Feb, 19 2009 @ 07:15 PM
link   
With all due respect, I will proceed with my argument by revisiting my esteemed opponent’s opening remarks.


The great super power known as the United States of America in the past few decades has become known as the "World Police", and I will argue why this nickname given to us is for the greater good of man kind. ... I will also defend why we must take necessary precautions to ensure humanity that we never relive the days that got America to this position in the first place. ... the United States didn't ask for this title of authority, we inherited this power.


I understand that we are often eager to accept an idea that aggrandizes our patriotic self-esteem. And I won’t go as so far as to say that I completely disagree that over the past few decades we [as in America] have ‘acquired’ an image along the lines of “World Police.” Unfortunately I would have to point out that this reputation is not necessarily appreciated in the positive sense. I maintain that people around the planet would contend that the United States “THINKS of themselves as the World Police;” but they consider the perception neither legitimate nor deserved; and are not inclined to accept the ostensibly ‘benevolent’ intent of the position.

Assuming any organization such as the Federal entity currently exerting executive authority over matters of state is dedicated to maintaining law and order on the planet is a difficult assumption to make, given what we know about history and those influencing global affairs. Nearly every action this nation hails as exemplary of its’ good-hearted intent for all mankind can be realistically questioned. Our efforts to ‘cooperate’ with other nations to secure ‘peace’ in the past have never been accurately reported to us directly. Our good-intent seems to have been taken advantage of, and in some cases, may not have been so good after all.

For example, we went to extraordinary lengths to provoke Japan, and seem to have deliberately allowed the attack on Pear Harbor. We also seem to have fabricated the Gulf of Tonkin incident, as well as several other similarly contrived ‘causes’ for our engagement in mass death and destruction. Why? If we needed to stop the “Hun threat” of Nazi Germany why didn’t we just do it? Why ‘fabricate’ an excuse? Why let good loyal people die for a lie? Not to mention why did we simply ‘allow’ our ‘noble’ leaders profiteer and conspire to change the nature of the world afterward? Certainly THAT was not part of being “World Police,” and even if it were, that wasn’t the reason Americans supported the war, they did it for concepts of loyalty, honor, and patriotic duty, even some wanted to make the world a better place (although once you’ve seen your friends blown to pieces in the cause, it generally changes your perspective.)


Yes, we weren't seeking to be the dominant force on the globe ... We had no choice but to wake up and become the big giant that we were in the 1940's and currently are in this post 9-11 world that we live in today.


If the role of “World Police” is to be thrust upon us because we believe we HAVE to, then I would have to examine the rationale behind such a belief. We are not alone on this planet; it does not belong to us. People of other nations are not asking for this, nor is anyone calling for such an entity as world police, let alone that it should be under the guise of one nation.
After all, there is a lot in the US that is legal and accepted, but not so elsewhere; and vice versa. Should we enforce other people’s laws in other places? Should we enforce ours in OTHER places? I don’t think that can happen. It will only increase the stress and tension between us and the rest of the world.


I'll say it again; the nations of the world created this Super Power known as the United States, ... I like to think our power and influence over the world started in 1945 when we were victorious in WWII.


I have never had the opportunity before to state this, but I think the truth is there are NO winners in world war. We didn’t win World War II, no one did. 70 million people killed; no one should EVER have the vane pride of stating that there can be winners in such slaughter. And I suspect that no nation, including ours, would have intended to create this ‘Super Power’ – perhaps their political leaders, perhaps their elite, perhaps their barons of industry; but certainly not the people – they all, like now, simply want to live peacefully and free from duress.


Has anybody taken the time to analyze what the world would be like if America didn't make the sacrifices it did during the 1940's? What if Nazi Germany and Japan.... If you asked 100 people on the street this question: "who were the top 5 most evil people in the world?"... I'm willing to guess that Hitler is going to be just about on every one of those lists, and not only that, probably at the very top...


I think there are many entertaining books describing the ‘what if’ scenarios you mention. It is very easy to point to a name and a face and say THEY are responsible for the horrors of this or that conflict. What if it isn’t THAT easy after all? What if there were many who took it upon themselves to think THEY were the best thing for the world and THEIR concept of ORDER was demanded by the current state of the world? History has been – and likely always will be – written by the winners, that means they teach us their truth, in a way that is pleasant to accept and easy to propagate…, like all JAPS should be in internment camps…. Does that sound like the “world Police” to you? I’m afraid neither we, nor any other nation can assume “POLICE” duties on a global scale.


Now the ironic thing about this victory in WWII, is that every nationality in the world has migrated to America. Every race, color, religion and creed is united in this great country and we defeated a man that came very close to putting an end to the race mixture.


Race ‘mixture’ is still an issue today – in some of our most intimate allies. I suppose we should review this as an element of evil, and consider it as a function of social-culture. At the risk of being radical I believe Hiltler BELIEVED it was his destiny to do what he did (perhaps he was even – at least to some degree – encouraged to believe that.) The rise of another “Hitler” and other “Hitler-wannabes” is inevitable in a world of self-congratulatory hubris and conceit… and among people there seem always to be dens of such-minded people. But no amount of “policing” can stop that, especially if the “police” ever become those who believe it.


This was only a mere 60 years ago folks, and people living today can still testify to how horrible those times were. This is not ancient history. So, it is fair to say that America saved the world.


It would be a gross disservice to far too many people to not call this statement misguided. My father fought in that war; he was not considered “American” by many – even though he wore the uniform – took the vow – and bled profusely in a jungle hell for her benefit. Along side him were Australians, British, and numerous others fighting Imperialist Japan – as she was reckoned. America did not save the world. She simply did all she could do in a war against people intent on conquering other nations by deadly force. She was not alone.


Fast foward to today...


Zooom! History skipped.


… the Korean War, The Cold War, The Vietnam War, The fall of the Berlin Wall, We are now presented with the war on terror and a new Axis of Evil.


I’m not sure the Berlin Wall belongs on the list, but I get your drift. The Military Industrial Complex, Transnational Financial Cartels, Energy Moguls, and Barons of Industry have been very successful. All achieved at the cost of millions of lives, and trillions of adjusted dollars. And we now have another ‘perpetual’ war against ‘invisible’ villains. The gravy train ride goes on and on.


States like these constitute an axis of evil, arming to threaten the peace of this world.


Actually the threat comes – almost exclusively – as a result of the imposition of values and doctrines they disagree with. Like, “you can’t have your land”, “obey our laws,” and “accept OUR materialism over your own culture.” Stuff like that. That whole – “They hate us for our freedom.” is crap. These people only know we exist because of what we have done to them in the name of those we support. American propaganda doctrine just can’t work in this ‘make-believe’ world the pundits and talking heads weave for us. How we are portrayed around the world is a clear indicator of that failure.


… Now, after what we've seen happen on 9-11, after what we've seen cheered in Iran during president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad speeches (Death to America, Death to Israel), after what we've seen the infamous Saddam Hussein regime do to his own people, and after what we've seen in North Korea under Kin Jung Il... is everybody okay with these countries possessing weapons of Mass destruction?


No, but then I don’t think ANYONE can be trusted with that kind of power – including our government.


If this is a threat in your opinion, who's going to stop them if it's not us?


If it calls for it – THE WORLD must stop it, not just one nation. Otherwise we have a problem that goes far beyond one of needing “World Police.”


You are either with us, or against us.


That always evokes such a visceral response in me. The question is always “Who’s ‘us’?” People who say such things assume they speak for everyone…, but do they?


The Police aren't going to be perfect, but it's better than Hitler.


Sometimes, it’s not better. Sometimes, it is the same thing. Who ‘polices’ the ‘police’”

By the way, who pays for all this policing? US?



posted on Feb, 23 2009 @ 01:56 AM
link   
I'm going to have to forfeit this debate.

Edited Off Topic remarks

[edit on 2/23/2009 by semperfortis]



posted on Feb, 23 2009 @ 01:23 PM
link   
Forfeit Accepted.

Maxmars is the Winner and will advance.

Semper





new topics

top topics



 
12

log in

join