The topic for this debate is: "The United States Has Run It's Course. It Is Time For Another Country To Step Up And Be The World Leader"

chissler will be arguing the pro position and will open the debate.
44souldslayer 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.

"The United States Has Run It's Course. It Is Time For Another Country To Step Up And Be The World Leader"

Have truer words ever been spoken?

Let us share a few words to begin.

Kyoto

Global Warming

Health Care

Accountability

Economic Climate

Marriage

The topic that my opponent and I have been offered is quite subjective, which I think will make for a great debate. So while both of us will be able to freely offer tangible facts that reinforce our position, I feel that a few key points that I am about to make are the driving force behind why the time has come for another country to step up as the new world leader.

Any team, group, organization, etc. needs a leader. America is that leader. Attitude reflects leadership. Any member of any team anywhere will tell you that. And while America is strong with their military, I would like to think that we should be asking for more than fear. Our leaders should not be feared, they should be respected. The United States and respect are not exactly synonymous terms. I'll expand on this later.

With some of the terms I've listed above, they hilight some of the points I'll address through this debate. On health care for citizens, the right for all citizens to wed, controlling emissions to off-set global warming, accountability within the basic fundamental make up of the country... all of it is sorely lacking behind other countries that are now lapping the United States. Our current economic climate is not completely attributable to the human error of those with their finger on the button, but some of it is. We, the citizens, stretched ourselves too far and are responsible as well. But those entrusted to lead and make sure our current hardships do not occur were asleep at the wheel. And yet nothing comes of that. No accountability.

Countries all over the world, some of whom are much more poverty stricken than the western world, emphasize on providing health care to it's people. The United States is all about business. Well, as much of the world has come to realize, health care is not a business.

Marriage! Not that long ago we said that women were not permitted to vote. We also said that black people couldn't vote. Today we hang our heads in shame at our utter stupidity and ignorance. But yet we say that same-sex marriage is wrong? I'm almost waiting for the punch line in all of this. Divorce rates are through the roof and then some, yet we say that the sanctity of marriage needs to be salvaged and it is purely a bond between man and woman. Man oh man! While other countries around the world have seen the light and adjusted to off-set such blatant ignorance, the United States is still sorely lacking. While some states are fighting, it is a battle they are currently losing.

As mentioned, attitude reflects leadership.

A good leader is admired, respected, trusted and adored. A weak leader is feared. In order to lead, one must first institute control over the situation. Control does not imply passivity of the people, but it does imply that the masses must acknowledge the person as the leader, otherwise they are incapable of leading. A good leader earns this through the admiration, respect, trust and adornment that I mentioned above. A weak leader uses scare tactics and threats of violence to scare people into believing that they need to admire, respect, trust and adorn them. With the United States of America, fear is used far too often over any of the aforementioned. Only recently these torture documents are being released. Where is the moral compass for these leaders? Which also only reinforces the lack of accountability.

However, we have an ace in the hole here. The elephant in the room whom I've yet to acknowledge. Barack Obama. If I were to attempt to debate that he is a poor leader and short of any of the qualifications I previously mentioned, well I'd look like a few of the guys who came before him. However, he is only one man. A man who is inheriting a broken system built by idealistic men many, many years ago and now reinforced by the corrupt. We're dealing with a team game and while the United States may have one of the more talented athletes at the helm, he's out there alone. If this were a football game, it's great that he can throw the ball 100 yards. But if he has nobody to catch it, it isn't worth anything. So while Obama inspires, he lacks the surrounding units to truly make a difference and through this administration the United States of America will remain lagging behind other countries in so many areas.

Obama implemented his executive orders rather quickly which he is able to do inside of the law. But outside of that he needs support from the team. And his team is running in the other direction.

Countries who put their people first and are concerned with the quality of life are in a position to step up and be that leader. Those who promote health care for their sick, those who keep their civil servants accountable for their actions, those who do not prejudge their citizens on sexual orientation and impugn their rights... that is who should be at the helm.

Sticking with the sports analogy, Obama is without a doubt a first overall pick which means he is the best available player. But as is true in all sporting leagues, the best available player at the time goes to the weakest team. And as is the case, Obama is playing for a team that just doesn't make the grade when it comes to what our civilization needs.

An end to the scare tactics, an end to the fear and allow us to promote the respect and adornment that our world leaders should have.

As I progress through this debate, we'll delve much deeper into this topic and focus on specifics that reinforce my position. We'll examine statistics as well that indicate the direction our leader is trying to take us is not the direction we intend to head.

Socratic Questions...

SQ1: Is the United States doing enough to off-set global warming?
SQ2: Should the United States permit same-sex marriage?
SQ3: Do you agree with the US' approach to health care as a profitable business?
SQ4: While millions starve and die of preventable diseases around the world every single day, do you find it objectable that the United States wastes so much money on bail-outs to undeserving executives?
SQ5: In your opinion, how culpable is the United States for the current economic climate? If you can, offer a number on a 1-10 scale. (10 being the highest or most culpable.)

Many thanks to the mods, judges, readers and my opponent for their participation in this debate.

I will address my opponent’s opening statement later on, but I would like to begin, as usual, with a dissection of the debate title followed by my debate scheme.

Soulslayer’s Opening Statement

"The United States Has Run It's Course. It Is Time For Another Country To Step Up And Be The World Leader"

The important underlying assumption in the title is that the US is undeniably the strongest country in the world, and is therefore the de facto leader of the world. I don’t dispute this contention at all- the US is clearly the leader of the world, and this can be proven through even a cursory look at the statistics- GDP, HDI etc.

The first statement made by the question is that the US has run it’s course. I aim to show you throughout this debate that this statement is simply incorrect. The leadership of the USA is still firm, and still active. You needn’t stand on your desks and say “Oh captain, my captain”, yet surely you must acknowledge that the USA remains the dominant superpower of this century. At this moment in time, the USA remains one out of many: E Pluribus Unum.

The second statement made by the question is that another country ought to step in and fill the supposedly vacant spot of world leader. Which country could this possibly be? All the evidence shows that no other country even approaches the broad reach of the US in the economic, military or social spheres of influence. I will show you that it is not time for another country to take over as world leader, simply because no other country is ready for the task. I’m sure it would be great if Switzerland could take over as world leader so that there would be no more wars- but that is merely a pipe dream. We have to acknowledge that the position of world leader is attained through joint dominance in the commercial and martial fields, and as such the USA remains top dog.

Through this debate, I will show you that the USA is still a force to be reckoned with. I will show you that the USA still has the economic strength, the political strength, the military strength, the moral fortitude and philosophical stature to continue to be the leader of the world. I will also show you that no country can even dream of replacing the USA at this juncture.

_______________________________________________________
Rebuttal Section

The heart of this debate is about foreign policy, and the fine balance of power that exists in the world. This debate is about how different countries may interact with each other, under the oversight of a leader. It is not, in my opinion, about domestic US policy. A man can be a brilliant CEO for a company and a terrible father for his own children at the same time. To question his ability to lead his company based on his manner of treating his children is understandable, but logically irrelevant.

My opponent mentions Kyoto, and the US’ lack of engagement with the global warming issue. Kyoto only serves to prove the strength of the US’ influence upon the world stage. Without the US, global warming was not addressed. Admittedly, the US has been lacklustre in addressing climate change up to this point- however the issue is contentious. Can anyone conclusively state that climate change is occurring as a result of man made actions? I’m sure if the US had been more proactive, there would have been further criticisms that the US was allowed to “grow dirty” in the 19-20th centuries, while they then put pressure on the emerging economies of China and India to limit their pollution.

My opponent also brings up gay marriage. I fail to see how that is relevant to inter-country diplomacy and discussion. The US is perfectly capable of being a world leader while preventing gay marriage. Indeed, how would the US be able to lead a world largely intolerant of gay marriage while themselves supporting it?

My opponent questions the nature of healthcare in the US. Again, this is a separate issue and has no bearing upon the capability of the US to lead the world.

Overall, I would have to state that the factors mentioned are largely irrelevant. There is a clear division between the remit of domestic and foreign policy. Each country determines their own position regarding gay marriage, environmental protection, healthcare etc. The job of “world leader” is one of encouraging stability, driving economic prosperity and conflict resolution through power projection.

The crux of my opponent’s argument is that he thinks the USA is morally incapable of being the leader of the world because it does not adhere to his system of beliefs. What of the beliefs of the rest of the world? What of the Nordic countries who would welcome global warming, or the 1.2 billion Muslims of the world who do not accept the idea of homosexuality being moral, or the capitalists who think that socialised healthcare is a morally bankrupt concept? Why must we be moral absolutists in the modern age, rather than accepting a morally relativist position (which states that each country can determine its own policy).

The USA does not need to be a compassionate leader, conforming to liberal morals. Providing healthcare to low income families will not resolve the Israel-Palestine conflict. Allowing homosexuals to marry will not solve the problem of Somali pirates hijacking ships in high-seas. The leader of the world must be strong and capable. The leader of the world must be the rock of stability which the rest of the countries can depend upon. The USA has, for the past century, been that country and it will continue to be so for at least another half century.

My opponent states

A good leader is admired, respected, trusted and adored. A weak leader is feared.

I’m afraid I don’t agree with that statement. There are many styles of leadership, where each unique type best suits each situation that may arise.

Chamberlain was trusted and adored. Was he a good leader?

Hitler was feared. Was he a weak leader?

A cursory look at Sun Tzu’s seminal tome “The Art of War” will show you that a General must be at once respected and feared. The master must possess both carrot and stick. A leader is not merely to be loved and adored- that’s what mothers are for.

I finish my rebuttal with answers to the Socratic questions:

SQ1: Is the United States doing enough to off-set global warming?
SA1: No, but who says the US should be doing anything about global warming.

SQ2: Should the United States permit same-sex marriage?
SA2: My view is irrelevant (though for the record, I think gay marriage should be permitted). The decision should be left entirely up to the US electorate. Prop 28 comes to mind…

SQ3: Do you agree with the US' approach to health care as a profitable business?
SA3: Yes I do. How does this have any bearing on inter-country diplomacy?

SQ4: While millions starve and die of preventable diseases around the world every single day, do you find it objectable that the United States wastes so much money on bail-outs to undeserving executives?
SA4: In the short run, the actions of the US government may appear contemptible. In the long run, it is vital that the engine of capitalism is fixed so that it may work again. Capitalism has lifted more out of poverty in the emerging markets than any charity, or cash handouts to the poor. Wall Street is the engine of capitalism, and if it requires all our fuel at the moment, it will be sure to repay it in full soon (eg Goldman Sachs recently repaid their entire bailout amount).

SQ5: In your opinion, how culpable is the United States for the current economic climate? If you can, offer a number on a 1-10 scale. (10 being the highest or most culpable.)
SA5: Highly culpable- 8. However the US is also responsible for leading the recovery. When the world was in crisis, the world turned to the USA- and the USA delivered (stocks rose 6 weeks in a row recently).
_________________________________________________________

I finish with a few Socratic questions of my own:

1. Which other country is capable of taking over as world leader?

2. What is the role of "world leader"?

3. Do you think the US should be exporting and enforcing liberal morals (gay marriage) on other countries?

4. Where do you draw the line between domestic policy and foreign policy?


Thank you, back to you sir.

First Rebuttal

I'll begin this reply with a response to my opponent's opening statement, some question and answers in the Socratic form and then conclude my post with a further illustration of why the time has come for the United States of America to move aside as our world leader.

I will show you that the USA still has the economic strength, the political strength, the military strength, the moral fortitude and philosophical stature to continue to be the leader of the world.

I'll agree to one and split on another. The current economic situation in the United States is not an enviable one in any sense. Moral fortitude? If anything, the United States is an absolute blemish on this planet when it comes to the moral fortitude of our nations. Philosophical stature? This the civilized nation that openly supports imprisoning men and women without offering a day in court and even torturing. So while they do carry the military strength that the position may entail, it is desperately lacking everywhere else. And it is in our current climate that we must put down our guns and extend our hands in friendship. While the "world leader" is the renowned military power of the world, wars will continue to be fought and innocent lives lost. The world leader should be the arbitrator in a conflict not the fuel.

The heart of this debate is about foreign policy, and the fine balance of power that exists in the world.

I agree. And is it my opponent's belief that the United States is an example of how to approach foreign policy? If the crux of the debate is foreign policy and we're currently at a juncture where the United States' foreign policies are at some of it's all-time lows, then isn't that a prime example that the time has come for another country to step in?

I believe it is.

The second statement made by the question is that another country ought to step in and fill the supposedly vacant spot of world leader. Which country could this possibly be?

As I read it, it is a debate on whether or not the United States has failed in it's role as "world leader". If they were to step aside, obviously a replacement would be necessary. However, our debate is based on whether or not they have failed in this role, not who should replace them. Whether there is a formidable replacement or not, it carries no weight on how good of a job they've done thus far. With that said, I do see some countries that are worth consideration and could step into the role.

In my previous reply I discussed the characteristics of a good leader. My opponent disagreed.

Hitler was feared. Was he a weak leader?

This is precisely my point. While my opponent stands for a strong leader and supports such fear tactics, the outcome of lives lost will be the same. During the Holocaust, millions of lives were lost because there was a leader at the helm who people feared and nobody questioned. I would ask for more from our "world leader". I do not want to see fear. With trust and respect we enforce accountability and operate under a true democracy. The United States has had their time and they have failed.

Our people are divided more than ever and only pushing further apart.

---

My opponent in his previously post has quoted my words but has unfortunately missed the purpose. He labels some of what I've said and then represents it as irrelevant. As he takes one breath and sees the little relevance in what I'm saying, he in the second breath tells us how the United States has the "moral fortitude" to remain in the position. Or the philosophical stature.

If the United States is not willing to stand up for the rights of its own people, how can we ever expect them to stand up for the rights of others? The point of what I had to say in my opening post was that same-sex marriage is banned in the United States. Health care is not something that everyone is offered, as it is a business where money not well-being is the primary goal. So in a country where they look at man or woman and say, "No, you're different. You're not allowed to get married!".. I oppose this individual as the leader of a diverse planet of ethnicity and cultures.

For the purpose of our debate, I believe that a government's position on same-sex marriage or health care is just as relevant as it's military. I fail to see how we could differentiate the two. It is all a reflection of their leadership.

I believe the United States is lacking in almost all aspects.

I'll now take a moment to review the Socratic questions.

SQ1: Is the United States doing enough to off-set global warming?
SA1: No, but who says the US should be doing anything about global warming.

So our leader is asleep at the helm of an issue that could prove to be the end of our way of life. And by your own words, our leader is not doing enough.

SQ5: In your opinion, how culpable is the United States for the current economic climate? If you can, offer a number on a 1-10 scale. (10 being the highest or most culpable.)
SA5: Highly culpable- 8. However the US is also responsible for leading the recovery. When the world was in crisis, the world turned to the USA- and the USA delivered (stocks rose 6 weeks in a row recently).

While it is admirable that an effort is being made to restore this financial disaster, it doesn't change the fact that countless are homeless, jobless and now without a pension. Had our leader actually been awake, this could have been prevented.

Both of these points illustrate that the United States is not doing enough to ensure the well-being of it's people. While they are off fighting "terrorism" thousands of miles away, the people at home are long forgotten. We take pride in the fact that we've avoided another 9/11 since that tragic day, but we've also allowed such debacles as the Hurricane Katrina response and now the financial crisis. If the United States was the leader they proclaim to be, we wouldn't be talking about any of this.

A world leader should prevent, not try to fix when it is too late.

Let me now address some of the questions posed by my opponent.

1. Which other country is capable of taking over as world leader?
A1: This is hardly a basic answer but I believe there to be only a few logical candidates that would even be capable. But even these candidates have areas of improvement before being fully considered. The People's Republic of China seems to be what most people look to. While it is not a lone country, I do believe the European Union could pose to become a formidable leader.

2. What is the role of "world leader"?
A2: I believe the world leader to be the example of what other countries should strive to become.

3. Do you think the US should be exporting and enforcing liberal morals (gay marriage) on other countries?
A3: No.

4. Where do you draw the line between domestic policy and foreign policy?
A4: I believe in the sovereignty of a nation. A country's foreign policy should not infringe on the right of a country's domestic policy, unless that domestic policy denies the basic human right of it's citizens.

---

---

Socratic Questions...

1. Do you believe the United States is setting an example for other countries to follow when it comes out that they are guilty of torturing prisoners?
2. Should our "world leader" be more than a strong military presence?
3. How do you define the role of our "world leader"?
4. Throughout history, we've seen many "world leaders". Do you believe that the United States has been the strong in the role? If so, why?

I'm going to use my extension.

Second Rebuttal

It appears my opponent and I have a fundamental disagreement on the scope of our debate topic. Our topic reads, "The United States Has Run It's Course. It Is Time For Another Country To Step Up And Be The World Leader". If this was a few months ago and the statement read "George Bush has run his course..." we wouldn't be debating on the merit of other candidates. We would simply debate the successes and shortfalls of his administration and whether or not he has ran his course. As is the case with our topic before us, the topic is whether or not America has ran it's course as the leader of our planet. The merit of other countries being in a position to step in as leader is certainly an in-depth debate that could easily leave two debaters going back and forth with much to offer. So as stated, it is my belief that the topic is to deal with the shortfalls of America as leader.

With my opponent's second reply, while I admit he does a good job in doing so, he continues to misrepresent my words. As I've echo'd more than once now, I'm not proposing that the US government force any agenda or policy onto another sovereign nation. My opponent asked this question in Socratic form, I answered directly and he has chosen to continue on as if I did not answer the question. My position that the US government is not standing up for the rights of all its citizens is to illustrate their lacking in social and moral standards, not what they should be forcing onto the rest of the world. We look down upon the Iranians for their hangings of homosexuals, which is an atrocious act. While the US government does not hang them, they still do not view them as anyone else. They have still been prejudged and informed that they can not be offered the same rights and privileges as another man or woman who happens to prefer the opposite sex. And a government that prejudges citizens in such a manner is not one that I would support as leader. A big burly military force to lead us all to believe in this mythological safety may be enough for some, but those who take the time to look realize that waving a big stick in the air will only do so much. We're looking for a world leader, not a world bully.

Q2 : Should our "world leader" be more than a strong military presence?

A2 : Yes. The art of foreign policy is rooted upon diplomacy. The first resort is always diplomacy, and the US has always stuck to that position. Militarism is merely the expansion of diplomacy by other means. The world leader should not however, be a moral police. Each country must decide upon their own culture, morals and beliefs.

The first resort is always diplomacy. Such a great statement. Unfortunately, America our leader, is hardly much of an example when it comes to diplomacy. And it's not just across the ocean or with suspected terrorists. As a Canadian citizen, the treatment of our country and our people of the US government is not something we smile about. The US government in all of their glory view the Canadian people as, at best, their little brother and treat us as so. Bending and manipulating rules to their own benefit, when courts intervene on issues the US ignores the decisions and continues to do as they please. After 9/11 the Canadian government stepped in to assist in providing a safe haven for countless citizens and when the US government issued a release to thank everyone, it came as no surprise that Canada was left out. It is my opponents belief that diplomacy is crucial to the role of leader, yet the US government sorely lacks in this area. And through action and inaction, history dictates that our leader has had a chance and it has failed. The time has come to move on into a new era with a new leader.

I'll now move onto my opponent's Socratic questions.

1. How can we reconcile differences in moral opinions between different countries?
A1: I believe if the basic human rights of all citizens are maintained at all times, individual countries are permitted to operate within their own borders as they wish. However, if the basic human right of a citizen has been violated, they shall be subject to an investigation and possible consequences. If their is a fundamental disagreement with regards to morals, I believe it is the position of specific organizations to intervene, educate and maintain the rights of all.

2. Do you honestly think China would make a more moral leader than the USA?
A2: Until they were afforded the chance to fulfill the role and allow their actions to dictate their own moral compass, I would not be comfortable in passing judgment. However, as it is my pet peave when debaters duck questions in the Socratic form, I will offer the honest answer of No I currently don't believe the moral compass of China exceeds that of the United States.

3. Do you think the USA has been a good leader, in historical terms?
A3: To be absolutely honest, I really don't. And my beliefs here stem further than this debate. I really don't. I acknowledge the successes of the US as a world leader, but their successes are primarily arms related. Their failures are arms related but also much, much more. World War II is a shining beacon in the promotion of the US as a world leader. While they were terribly late in attending the show, once they did they saved our society from the brink. But their unwillingness to engage in the first place is yet another example of their lack of morals. "Not their problem!" As a military force, the US is one of the elite. As a world leader, the US government has a long way to go.

4. Do you think that the USA was right or wrong to intervene in Iraq to protect the human rights of Iraqis?
A4: To "protect the human rights of Iraqis"? Please. The blatant ulterior motifs in this invasion is enough to gag someone. From oil to finishing Daddy's business, the US government starts using the fear tactics of WMD's in order to invade. Once Hussein was overthrown, anarchy was permitted to commence as the US did not even attempt to police the streets. Why? Because they didn't care. They weren't their to protect the citizens. Remember the Mission Accomplished banner? Bush's intentions were very transparent. In the aftermath and to restrict any further embarrassment, the rights of the citizens began to show as a blip on the radar. The US government was wrong to invade Iraq in many, many ways.

5. Who decides the remit of the world leader? Who decides the “job description” of world leader?
5A: United Nations seems to make sense as it is an organization already in place. Or a "board of Governors" type of committee could be assembled if we were truly looking to formalize the role which our current position and history dictates that it is not a formal role.

---

---

I can not attempt to go head to head with my opponent on the specifics of the United States of America. It is a powerful nation with great influence over much of the world. It is and has done many great things. But it is also guilty of much that they should not be proud of and they have abused the role that they have maintained for many years.

Our current leader is a bully. A bully that, for many years, at a leader at the helm that felt he was above the law and could do as he seen fit. While that man is no longer in place, the people and system that enabled him are and will forever be in place. This indicates a flawed system on behalf of our leader that enables corruption.

As this debate makes the turn at the half-mile and begins to conclude, I'll offer a further illustration of some key points that I've loosely touched on thus far and also look to some other directions we can go with this position. A direction or directions that I view as far superior to our current position.

Thank you.

Soulslayer's closing statements

1. The USA is still the strongest nation in the world in terms of its military power, economic power and charitable status. No other country comes close to matching this power, and thus no other country could possibly take over in the near future.

2. The USA still has the moral standing to be the world leader. Although its recent actions (10-20 years) have been contentious, the entire country cannot be judged by its leader's actions. The USA still has a superior record of protecting human and natural rights, as compared to its closest rivals.

3. The USA is a good leader, and cares for the welfare of its "subordinate" countries. It's just that these good acts are brushed aside and ignored in favour of blowing up the mistakes that the USA may have made.

The issue stood before us:

"The United States Has Run It's Course. It Is Time For Another Country To Step Up And Be The World Leader"

I believe I have shown you that the USA has not run its course, because it is still the top dog. Additionally I believe I have shown you that no other country is capable of standing up to be the world leader.

Many thanks to my opponent, Semper, MS, judges and readers.
______________________________________________

We have a Winner!!!!

chissler:

Opening: Excellent opening! You established your argument with finality, while offering enough of your own opinion to make it clear about what it is that you’re trying to accomplish. (+1)

Reply 1: Your use of the Socratic Questions is illustrated well here. This good use of SQ continues to help you to steer the conversation into your favor. (+1)

Reply 2: Interesting approach with regards to attacking the debate topic. You aimed to redefine it in such a way as to set a standard for the rest if the debate to rest upon. Nice job!

However, you mention that 44soulslayer didn’t answer some SQ’s adequately. Which ones? More specifics would have helped. (0)

Reply 3: You take an interesting turn with your argument in this post. Instead of illustrating how the US is no longer fit to be the leader, you attempt to show how the US is an international bully. While this can be viewed as a bad trait of a world leader, it still doesn’t take away from the very real fact that the US is in the lead. You freely admit that your opponent has more evidence to suggest that the US has all of the traits to be a quality world leader. I must confess that I’m a trifle confused here. (0)

Closing: NO closing??? (0)

Total: 2



44soulslayer:

Opening: Strong response! You quickly open and establish a juxtaposed position to your opponent, and begin to make your case. Your rebuttals to the SQ’s were top notch as well! (+1)

Reply 1: I must admit that your answers to the SQ’s presented to you were some of the best that I have seen thus far. Your argument is starting to take shape now.

The only problem that I have is with your take on the angle of the topic. You state that you feel as though the topic is about whether the US has “lost it’s ability” to lead us, vs the angle that they have “failed” as a country in the role of world leader. How is one any different from the other? If the US has failed in its place as world leader, haven’t they also “lost their ability to lead”? (0)

Reply 2: In the following statement:

My opponent scorns my statement that the USA was responsible for intervening against human rights violations in Iraq. Of course the premises given for entering the country were vastly different to the real reasons, yet the fact remains that if my opponent supported human rights, he wouldn’t complain about the intervention.


You make a case for the old adage, “The ends justify the means.” This hurts your argument, as it makes the US look like a careless entity, since they wouldn’t care what they have to do to accomplish the tasks at hand; they WILL accomplish it. This is the beginnings of a slippery slope. Did we have valid reasons for going into Iraq? Perhaps, but it doesn’t change the fact that they weren’t used in the buildup to war. (0)


Reply 3: You make valid points to support the status of the US’ place as world leader. Again though, the only issue is the one that you feel that the US has a blanket ticket to make up reasons to do things, even though there’s no evidence to support the accusations being made. If the humanitarian need was as pronounced as you make it sound, why wasn’t that the reason given for the invasion?

In any case, you made a convincing addition to your argument. (+1)

Closing: While there were a few things that I found to be lacking in your argument, you seemed to have a firm grasp of your topic. You executed it well. (+1)

Total: 3

44soulslayer WINS!! Congrats 44soulslayer!!

A heart congratulations to both debaters!

INTRODUCTIONS.

Chissler makes a great point about the strength of the US military but points out the fact fear does not equate to respect, or leadership qualities. (+1) He continues by showing how the US, though superior in military is lagging far behind other countries in other important aspects like health care and various social issues. (+1). Chissler returns to the point how weak leaders are feared while strong leaders are respected. This leads one to ponder exactly how strong is the US if its main strength if brute force and fear. (+1).

44soulslayer (44SS) poses a question that strongly compliments his case- who else would take the place of the US? His point being that even if the US is not ideal, there is not other country prepared to take its place as the position of world leader (+1). He makes a great rebuttal to Chissler's argument regarding social issues in that the opinion of other countries in some cases is far worse or similar to that of the US. (+1) Excellent point how espousing liberal idealogies does not make a country strong and does not solve the issues relating to various current events that require military strength. (+1).

Billiant opening statements by both debaters.

Total points for Introductions:
Chissler: 3
44SS: 3

FIRST ROUND.

Chissler makes a good observation when he states, 'The world leader should be the arbitrator in a conflict not the fuel.' Very true. It is beneficial to be above the fray and not an antagonist. (+1). He then uses SS44's Hitler example against him by showing how feared leaders lead to tragedy, the inability to be questioned, and eventual collapse. (+1). Great job on pointing out the economic turmoil and making the connection how this would not have happened if our leaders had been awake and then discussing how they are not watching out for their own people, nevertheless other people, as a world leader should do. (+1).

44SS reiterates his point about there being no appropriate replacement. Although it had already been stated, I am still awarding him an additional point for this argument because it is a strong one. (+1). SS disagree with Chissler and points out his opinion on social issues as being just that- his opinion that will differ from country to country and should not be considered a factor. (+1). Great point contrasting the blunders of US action with pointing out the good contributions the US is responsible for, which happen to be so many that the generosity has come to be expected. (+1).

Total points for round 1:
Chissler: 3
44SS: 3

SECOND ROUND.

Chissler points out the fact the US has been known to take advantage of its status by doing as it pleases without accountability. This eventual power trip leads to corruption which results in a fall. (+1).

SS44 makes a rebuttal to the 'bully' perception of the US by pointing out its restraint on various conflicts and how the US is not so quick to jump into conflict as his opponent makes it appear (+1). Nice rebuttal concerning the human rights violations in Iraq and how that is definitive of a good leader, as mentioned previously in this debate. (+1). Fascinating point by showing how the inalienable rights do not include health care, gay marriage, etc. (+1).

Total points for round 2:
Chissler: 1
44SS: 3

THIRD ROUND.

Chissler begins his point by showing how the national debt is indicative of a nation stretching itslef too thin and summarizes this point by stating, ' In attempting to accomplish everything, they wind up accomplishing very little.' (+1). He then returns to his 'bully point' by explaining how the US pushed forward with Iraq in spite of UN disapproval. He explains this example was given to show how the US has a lack of accountability and an inflated ego and how in an ideal world the bully would be a part of the team, not the head. (+1) Another great point how the US criticizes other countries for doing what it has done itself. (+1).

Great rebuttal for SS44 when he asks how many 'bullies' feed their victims and proceeds to provide examples of US donations and aid. (+1). He also shows how the deficit is paritially caused by feeding the third world and how much of the third world would be hungry right now if weren't for the US going into debt to feed them. (+1). Great rebuttal to the Iraq argument in the fact that a lack of a rubber stamp by a watch dog does not mean it was still an uneccesary conflict. (+1). Excellent statistics to show how much the US has contributed to education, AIDS treatment, and disease in less fortunate countries. (+1).

Total points for round 3:
Chissler: 3
44SS: 4

GENERAL ASSESMENT.

What a provactive read. This was a pleasure to read and judge. Total point scoring comes out to:
Chissler: 10
44SS: 13

My judgment is in favor of 44SS although both debaters deserve a job well done for their incredible efforts and debate talent.

44soulslayer wins and will advance!!!

Semper

I generally believed I would be cringing after reading the results of this one. I've been abused by judges in the past and I was not looking forward to the thoughts from this one. To see the score cards... I thought this was a much more lopsided victory for my opponent. I just did not have the time to commit to it and even when I did manage to make an effort, I was really getting pushed around by a superior debater.

In each loss I try to learn a thing or two and watching my opponent at work, I can only hope to apply some of those strategies in future debates. In the tournament format, this has been my best showing thus far and I enjoy them more and more each go-round.

So thank you one and all for your contributions to this forum.

Best o' luck to my opponent in the finals.

Many thanks to chissler, he really provided an interesting debate. I thought we were both arguing points we believed in, which is always good!

Glad to see both chissler and the judges picked up on a couple of my mistakes re: Hitler and militarism being indifferent to a leadership position. I'll have to tighten up my act for the next round!