It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
A good leader is admired, respected, trusted and adored. A weak leader is feared.
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.
The heart of this debate is about foreign policy, and the fine balance of power that exists in the world.
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?
Hitler was feared. Was he a weak leader?
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
A2: I believe the world leader to be the example of what other countries should strive to become.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
Natural rights (also called moral rights or inalienable rights) are rights which are not contingent upon the laws, customs, or beliefs of a particular society or polity.
In 2000, human rights Ombudsman Oleg Mironov estimated that 50% of prisoners with whom he spoke claimed to have been tortured. Amnesty International reported that Russian military forces in Chechnya rape and torture local women with electric shocks.
Russia is a country of origin for persons, primarily women and children, trafficked for the purpose of sexual exploitation.
The United Nations (UN) is an international organization whose stated aims are to facilitate cooperation in international law, international security, economic development, social progress, human rights and achieving world peace. The UN was founded in 1945 after World War II to replace the League of Nations, to stop wars between countries and to provide a platform for dialogue. 1
While millions are unemployed, homeless and hungry, the United States is still burning billions in futile war efforts and a space program that has failed to turn in results in decades. While tomorrow is something we do need to consider, it should not be at the expense of today.
More than half of the world's food assistance comes from America. The United States' humanitarian food aid totaled more than $1.7 billion in FY 2007, and our emergency food aid reached about 23 million people in 30 countries.
North Korea refuses US food aid
1. Do you think that there were human rights violations in Iraq under Saddam Hussein?
If we lived under a law of morality, the United States would not be our leader.
We point the fingers at other nations and call them terrorists for imposing their will onto other nations without the approval of the governing body of international law. Yet the United States is guilty of the same. Only these actions are defended and justified through a biased media and propaganda.
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)
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)
44soulslayer WINS!! Congrats 44soulslayer!!
A heart congratulations to both debaters!
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 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 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 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:
What a provactive read. This was a pleasure to read and judge. Total point scoring comes out to:
My judgment is in favor of 44SS although both debaters deserve a job well done for their incredible efforts and debate talent.