JT Round 2. Death_Kron v jennybee35: America's deeds, page

The topic for this debate is "Overall, America does more good than evil.”

Death_Kron will be arguing the "Pro" position and begin the debate.
jennybee35 will be arguing the "Con" position.

The Debate Forum Bill of Rights shall govern any objection to the assigned topic. If such objection exists, please U2U the moderator who posted this thread. Time limits shall be suspended pending a ruling on any such objection.

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 per post- this includes all characters including punctuation and spaces, as counted when copied from their display in the thread (where BB code is hidden and thus does not count).

Any character count in excess of 10,000 will be deleted prior to the judging process.

Editing of posts is strictly forbidden. For reasons of time, mod edits should not be expected except in critical situations. Requests for critical edits (affecting visibility of post or function of links for example) should be U2U'd to the moderator who posted this debate thread.

Opening and closing statements must not contain any images and must have no more than 3 references. Video and audio files are NOT allowed.

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. Be cognizant of what you quote as excess sentences will be removed prior to judging.

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.

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:
Opening statements shall not be forfeit as a result of time limits. If an opening statement is not posted within 24 hours, a minimum of 24 additional hours will be allowed and a reasonable effort will be made to contact the late poster and make arrangements before any substitution of competitors is undertaken.

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 for a 24 hour extension 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.

If a participant misses 2 posts in a debate, it will be then declared a forfeiture. In the event where the debate continues, once a debate forum staff member is able to respond, the debate will be closed and awarded to the winning participant.

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.

In the Tournament, winners will be awarded 2 points for each debate they win.

All AboveTopSecret.com Terms and Conditions Apply at all times in all debate formats.

As usual I'd like to thank The Vagabond for organising this tournament and I'd also like to thank my opponent, jennybee35, for taking part and would like to wish her the best of luck in what should be an interesting debate.

The topic of this particular debate is "Overall, America does more good than evil.” and I shall be arguing the pro position.

Whilst the scope of this subject is pretty broad in the sense that no avenue is specified as to argue where America does more good than evil, I'll attempt to address the question in a more general manner.

Firstly I'd like to make a quick reference to capabilities, it's often said that there is a "fine line between genius and insanity"

People also generally accept that there is a direct positive correlation between how powerful or strong an entity becomes and the potential for said entity to misuse it's power i.e. knowledge is power, or in a more realistic sense: the greater amount of people we have, the greater amount of bad people we have

In the words of Samuel P. Huntington, "The United States, of course, is the sole state with preeminence in every domain of power — economic, military, diplomatic, ideological, technological, and cultural — with the reach and capabilities to promote its interests in virtually every part of the world."[45]

Link: en.wikipedia.org... .80.93present.29

With that in mind, I'd like to point out that it's can be very easy for people to proclaim that America doe's more evil than good simply because the country has the capacity to do so; in times of crisis people look for someone to blame and in my opinion this can easily become a case of "whoever is the biggest is responsible"

The United States of America has done many, many great things as a country and the concept of evil is down to subjective interpretation.

Socratic Questions

1.) What in your opinion would you class as an evil act that the USA is responsible for?

2.) Would you not agree that the USA has in fact provided a plethora of contributions to the world in general and many of the things that we today take for granted originated from America?

reply to post by jennybee35

---

Believe it or not, I think Jenny actually makes several good points in her post and I'll even go as far as agreeing with her on some of them; to an extent.

The first issue I'd address is regarding my opponents beliefs on the US public education system, I can't fault Jenny when she states:

"It is much harder to convince an adult with fully-formed ideas and beliefs that what they know to be true is false. Start the young ones out believing that their government never lies and that they can trust TPTB to always do what is best for everyone and the job is much easier."

The fact of the matter is that the above point, how unfortunate, is true and I believe Jenny is refering to Classical Conditioning.

If you take small child and teach him that the colour Red is in fact the colour Blue, then as the youngster knows no difference he will believe what he has been taught.

At this point, I'd like the readers to consider the analogy that colour as an individual entity does not actually exist, colour is the broad spectrum of different light wavelengths, a particular colour in itself doesn't exist.

Why is this relevant? Well, as I have previously mentioned, the concept of evil is a subjective interpretation although I'll commend my opponent as she has already ackknowledged this fact.

What appears to be the colour Red to me could in fact look like my interpretation of the colour Blue, the concept of what is or isn't evil becomes particulary hard to define when you factor in an individuals personal moral and ethical code.

Putting aside the exact definitions of right or wrong for one second, I'd also like to speculate that from reading my opponents reply it would seem that she believes in telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?

Let me remind you that the topic of this debate is “Overall, America does more good than evil”

Now by no means am I proclaiming that the USA is perfect as a country, I think the majority of people will readily admit that there is no such thing as perfect and thus that means that from time to time everyone (be that individual, company or country) gets it wrong now and then.

While my opponents idea of total honesty is admirable in it's intention, from a realistic point of view is it really the best idea to implement when educating school children?

Of course, the United States has got it wrong in the past, just like every other country of the map, but should we really inform the children of future generations the previous mistakes and short comings of the country they live in when in all likelihood they are too young to comprehend these facts and thus potentially risk tainting their opinions?

As one gets older and matures, they realise that all they have been taught at school and in their younger years isn't necessarily the truth, for example: Alexander Graham Bell didn't invent the Telephone and the common atomic model taught in high schools isn't anywhere near the truth in reality?

It's my opinion that at times the truth maybe bent during the process of educating young children but this is done in a positive manner, not a negative one...

Apart from a few specific examples, I'd question where exactly the United States does more evil than good, in terms of Space Exploration, the participation and involvement with the creation of the Internet, a large majority of popular brands enjoyed the world over and the support for the British during WW2 to name but a few examples are all scenarios where the US has proven they aren't the "evil" country theyre made out to be.

Answers to my opponents Socratic Questions

#1 Do you believe that the American government always takes a population and it's best interest into account when implementing their ideas for "advancement of the U.S."?

Honestly, no I do not. But with that in mind, I don't think it's possible for any country to take it's populations best interest to heart or account when implementing new ideas. The definition of "best interests" is shaky at the least, with every individual having a different idea of what "best interests"

You can't make an omelette without cracking eggs and inevitably some people will always be offended or will not agree regardless of the course of action taken.

#2 Do you agree with our government in their quest to gain control and submission of other nations using the "They need our help" or "They are harboring terrorists" technique?

I think your implying that the United States has an ulterior motive, one they wish to accomplish behind pretending to "want to help".

With regards to harboring terrorists, I'd say that any attempt at reducing the terror threat is one worthwhile.

I must give props to my opponent. He is able to effectively argue an untenable position using the governments own line of rationale. I mean, his point here is that "they" really know what's best for us, right? We can't be allowed to decide what is best for us, because we are not capable of taking in all the facts and making reasonable choices. The truth has to be "bent" a little so that we are steered to make decisions that TPTB consider best for all of us. I don't think I have to argue that as a really skewed line of reasoning. It's what we have been led to believe all of our lives.

It's my opinion that at times the truth maybe bent during the process of educating young children but this is done in a positive manner, not a negative one...

So, following this line of thought, those in power are the ones to decide what truth gets bent and what doesn't, right? How is this a “good” thing for America? Are we to assume that our government is right and that we are too dumb to understand the truth? It's bad enough that they hide or “bend” the truth for our young children: what about the fact that they continuously hide the truth from us all? I guess that's acceptable also, since we can't handle the truth, apparently.

As far as space exploration and the internet are concerned: our government continually censors the photos of deep space for a reason. What is that reason? I think it's because they have seen things out there that they believe we are too stupid to handle. They believe that we would be a panicked, looting riotous mass if they revealed what they have really seen. Need I even mention that they are now going to censor the internet? That's how they operate. Give us the freedom to travel the world on the web until it becomes clear that we may be getting a little too much truth, then slap their limits on it when they become uncomfortable with our awakening.

All those things aside, America was founded because we were looking to be free of tyranny. The founding principles were set into place to assure that the people were able to have a say in what happened to their rights and property. Today we are no more than serfs paying taxes and tenants on our own land. At some point, the evil moved in and became dominant. It overtook the good intentions that were in place in the beginning of our government. Instead of government for the people, by the people, we now have government for the elite, by the elite. How could that ever be a good thing in anyone's estimation?

Here you say

You can't make an omelette without cracking some eggs

You do realize that these eggs are usually people, huh? This sounds very reminiscent of our governments own reasoning. A little collateral damage is not to be counted when it comes to their agenda, aye? A few eggs, a few people, what the hey: as long as the plans are accomplished it's all good?! This is exactly the problem I have with our government. We are not counted as anything but pawns in their game of world domination.

And I am not implying that our government has ulterior motives behind giving their “help”: I am saying it outright! Every other nation that has been in the position of having to accept the help of America has been permanently occupied by us since the time that they accepted the help! Look around the world and tell me how many sovereign nations are free of our military at this point. I can show you, and it is a staggering thing to behold:
U.S. military deployments around the world

All of these nations needed our help at one time but were forced to accept military occupation permanently as the price. Can you imagine if the roles were reversed? Do you really think that the good ol' U.S. of A. would ever agree to foreign military bases on our soil? Of course not, but we have made sure that it's a condition of every bit of help we've ever given any other nation. Doesn't sound altruistic to me.

Our government has a nasty habit of feeding us false information about other nations so that we can invade their lands and gain control of their resources. Afghanistan and Iraq are just two of the latest.

SQ #1: Do you agree with our government's policy of invading other nations and taking our people to war using false information?

SQ #2: Is the governements policy of hiding the truth from it's people using the "we know what's best for you" line always acceptable in your eyes?

reply to post by jennybee35

---

In my response to my worthwhile opponents comments, here she states:

I must give props to my opponent. He is able to effectively argue an untenable position using the governments own line of rationale. I mean, his point here is that "they" really know what's best for us, right? We can't be allowed to decide what is best for us, because we are not capable of taking in all the facts and making reasonable choices. The truth has to be "bent" a little so that we are steered to make decisions that TPTB consider best for all of us. I don't think I have to argue that as a really skewed line of reasoning. It's what we have been led to believe all of our lives.

I don't believe that even once I actually stated people are incapable of making their own decisions; more so I pointed to the fact that the younger members of our generation, in particular those of a primary school age, are unable to comprehend the complexities of the world we live in and in sticking to a "total honesty" approach we could potentially affect these individuals in a negative manner.

However, I do understand my opponents intentions; from a personal point of view I'd love a world of total honesty however from a realistic perspective I think the majority will agree that total honesty, whilst not only being counter productive, would also be dangerous, uncaring and down right cruel in it's application.

It's my belief that in general, most people accept the fact that at times we may tell a White Lie in order to spare someone the harsh realities of the truth and in my opinion this concept is particulary relevant when speaking too or educating a younger member of society.

For example, as we have recently got Christmas out the way, taking into account my opponents belief, would it be right to tell the truth and inform all school children that in actual fact "Father Christmas" doesn't exist? Or is it generally accepted that we can bend the truth to protect their innocence?

My opponent also goes on to say:

So, following this line of thought, those in power are the ones to decide what truth gets bent and what doesn't, right? How is this a “good” thing for America? Are we to assume that our government is right and that we are too dumb to understand the truth? It's bad enough that they hide or “bend” the truth for our young children: what about the fact that they continuously hide the truth from us all? I guess that's acceptable also, since we can't handle the truth, apparently.

Once again, I'm pretty sure I haven't mentioned the idea that the majority of us are too dumb to handle the truth, however speaking from a relative position how do I know this isn't the case? I'm pretty sure there are things out there that the majority of us couldn't even begin to imagine, let alone actually deal with the facts on a continual 24/7 basis.

There is a reason why the people in power are there, I'm not saying this means that it's a fail proof method but once again the subject of the debate is that America doe's more good than Evil overall.

As far as space exploration and the internet are concerned: our government continually censors the photos of deep space for a reason. What is that reason? I think it's because they have seen things out there that they believe we are too stupid to handle. They believe that we would be a panicked, looting riotous mass if they revealed what they have really seen. Need I even mention that they are now going to censor the internet? That's how they operate. Give us the freedom to travel the world on the web until it becomes clear that we may be getting a little too much truth, then slap their limits on it when they become uncomfortable with our awakening.

Ties in pretty nicely with regards to my above point, if you haven't seen the things you believe have been censored from your view, then how can you comment on your reaction to said stimuli? The answer is you cannot and in reality you could only truthfully recount your reaction when faced with something similiar; and even this isn't a given.

In response to your comments regarding the Internet, firstly let it be known that I work in the IT/Telecommunications trade and I can personally guarantee that the WWW as we know it will never be completely censored.

I'm not arguing that people will try, for a variety of different reasons, but ask anyone with knowledge of how the system works; they will all say the same.

Governments can try to restrict or censor Internet access, but from a realistic perspective it's never going to happen, at least not to the extent that it will be a problem to those with a little more technical and creative endurance.

All those things aside, America was founded because we were looking to be free of tyranny. The founding principles were set into place to assure that the people were able to have a say in what happened to their rights and property. Today we are no more than serfs paying taxes and tenants on our own land. At some point, the evil moved in and became dominant. It overtook the good intentions that were in place in the beginning of our government. Instead of government for the people, by the people, we now have government for the elite, by the elite. How could that ever be a good thing in anyone's estimation?

You come out with this statement but at the same time you are alive and well, capable of typing out that reply. Surely, given the convincing backing by your statements aka that America doe's more good than Evil, you wouldn't even be hear to participate in this debate?

With your description of America's evil doings and your account of America's prolific Internet Censoring campaign, doesn't it seem to be kind of contradictionary you even have the ability to argue the subject with me online?

You do realize that these eggs are usually people, huh? This sounds very reminiscent of our governments own reasoning. A little collateral damage is not to be counted when it comes to their agenda, aye? A few eggs, a few people, what the hey: as long as the plans are accomplished it's all good?! This is exactly the problem I have with our government. We are not counted as anything but pawns in their game of world domination.

Without wanting to sound like a broken record, but I'll have to bring Polycontexturality back into the equation here. I have already stated my personal opinion that it's impossible to please everyone, I'd argue that yes you can't make an omlette without breaking eggs.

With that in mind, someone people are always going to lose out but unfortunately that's one of the negative aspects of life. Any type of major system based policy will always have a few minor subsribers who aren't happy with it, however as long as the Happy to Unhappy balance is postive then I'd be happy.

And I am not implying that our government has ulterior motives behind giving their “help”: I am saying it outright! Every other nation that has been in the position of having to accept the help of America has been permanently occupied by us since the time that they accepted the help! Look around the world and tell me how many sovereign nations are free of our military at this point. I can show you, and it is a staggering thing to behold:

Well I applaud your honesty at least.

What you fail to mention is that the majority of these countries has requested the help of the US!

All of these nations needed our help at one time but were forced to accept military occupation permanently as the price. Can you imagine if the roles were reversed? Do you really think that the good ol' U.S. of A. would ever agree to foreign military bases on our soil? Of course not, but we have made sure that it's a condition of every bit of help we've ever given any other nation. Doesn't sound altruistic to me.

But surely this is a negative opinion of your own, as afterall, if I was a country and owned a smaller country who needed protection I'd be quiet happy to locate my allies and give them a place of stay. It's a small price to pay for a distinguished level of safety...

SQ #1: Do you agree with our government's policy of invading other nations and taking our people to war using false information?

You use the words "taking our people to war"

I'd highlight the fact that no US serviceman or women, to my knowledge, was forced to participate in any war. The whole concept behind an army, ultimately, revolves around people prepared and willing to fight for their country.

So therefore, in your eyes, your fellow countrymen are as guility as you perceive your Government to be? Seems a little bit of strange logic to me...

SQ #2: Is the governements policy of hiding the truth from it's people using the "we know what's best for you" line always acceptable in your eyes?

Is it always acceptable? I'll relent, and say no it probably isn't.

Is it a perfect strategy? Once again, no not perfect.

Is it the most realistic strategy to implement given peoples differing opinions of right and wrong? Absolutely!

As I have already mentioned, unless you have experienced something it's not possible to give a concrete description of your reaction. I'm fairly certain, actually more than fairly certain, that the majority of individuals in any country (not just the USA) would react in a negative manner if they knew the truth regarding the world around them.

The term false information implies a deliberate lie told in a negative manner. Bending the rules is a concept universally accepted and when it's done with the right intentions, I honestly see no issue...

Socratic Questions

1.) Given your approach to total honesty, would you for example believe it to be right that any single person suffering a terminal illness should be told of their exact predicted time of death? Or would you agree with "bending the rules" to make that person as happy and care free as possible?

2.) Do you honestly believe that the majority of individuals who live in the USA would have the emotional/intellectuall ability to comprehend the "truth"?

3.) Do you believe that school aged children should be taught the "truth" about the USA as a country and if so what do you believe the implications would be?

4.) Considering you believe the USA to do more Evil than Good, why are you still living in the US if your feelings are that strong?

reply to post by Death_Kron

---

Now, now, Death_Kron, I never actually said you stated that we weren't capable of making our own decisions: I just said that your argument sounded suspiciously like our governments own justifications for hiding the truth. I guess that is the tough part of having to argue the pro position!

Of course I'm aware that white lies are necessary. I can't imagine my husband actually telling me that yes, the jeans DO make my butt look big! There are acceptable times and places for white lies. I am afraid, though, that when it comes to our nation and the way that the decisions that affect every single one of us are made, white lies are the least of the problem. I don't believe that the lie about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq is considered a white lie. It was a calculated whopper used to take this nation into a war of aggression against another nation in order to gain access to their natural resources. I think I would call that evil.

As far as “Father Christmas” goes, I have never been able to bring myself to outright lie to my children about that. At most, I simply deflected the questions they asked with “Well, what do you think is true?” I cannot look into my children's eyes and try to pretend that there is some fat red fairy that's gonna float down our chimney and leave them their heart's desires! I have never purposely tried to destroy the magic of Christmas for them, either. I have left it up to them to decide, much the same way we MUST be presented with all the facts and be left to decide what is best for ourselves. Works the same way as far as I am concerned.

Once again, I'm pretty sure I haven't mentioned the idea that the majority of us are too dumb to handle the truth, however speaking from a relative position how do I know this isn't the case? I'm pretty sure there are things out there that the majority of us couldn't even begin to imagine, let alone actually deal with the facts on a continual 24/7 basis.

You say that you don't mean to imply that we are too dumb to handle the truth 24/7, then go on to say that the majority of us can't handle the truth. Really? So you are okay with leaving all the decision making in the hands of those idiots that have destroyed all that America has stood for for so long? You somehow think that they are better equipped to make the decisions that affect every single one of us and our descendants for generations? I have to vehemently disagree with you.

In response to your comments regarding the Internet, firstly let it be known that I work in the IT/Telecommunications trade and I can personally guarantee that the WWW as we know it will never be completely censored
Governments can try to restrict or censor Internet access, but from a realistic perspective it's never going to happen, at least not to the extent that it will be a problem to those with a little more technical and creative endurance

All this talk of tech savvy and capability are great for you and others who are capable. But what about Joe Blow and Sally Sundance that only know how to turn on the pc and hit the IE icon? Where do you think they will get the truth? All that will be available to them is government approved media, much like China and every other dictator-run backcountry in the world. What good will it do them for you to be able to see what our government is hiding?

you are alive and well, capable of typing out that reply. Surely, given the convincing backing by your statements aka that America doe's more good than Evil, you wouldn't even be hear to participate in this debate

Of course I am sitting here on my computer typing this right now. As it stands at this moment, I am still free enough to do so. Unfortunately, we can see the writing on the wall. TPTB are working tirelessly every day to curtail those freedoms because they are afraid that the masses will all wake up and realize what is being done to them on a daily basis. The only reason we still have this freedom now is because people like you and me will fight to the last breath to preserve our freedom of speech. However, that freedom is in the most dire danger it has ever been in. If we meekly resign ourselves to censorship of the truth, we have no hope left. There will come a time when that freedom is a memory, IF we decide to accept that “they” know what is best for us and follow along like good sheeple.

You say that soldiers voluntarily sign up to serve their country and so should accept the consequences of their actions. But what about the fact that their plan of action is based on lies? We know our service men and women are loyal, and follow orders that they are given. Those soldiers take it for granted that their commanders are being truthful when sending them into foreign lands. What happens to their free will to serve when they haven't been given the truth of the situation? At least they should be given the facts of the situation, able to make informed decisions, considering it is their LIFE they are giving.

I absolutely agree that everyone won't be pleased all the time. But I don't believe that lies and cover-ups are necessary to achieve results. That is why there are voting booths. Give us the truth and let the majority rule. That's the way it was supposed to work, remember?

What you fail to mention is that the majority of these countries has requested the help of the US

I didn't fail to mention it: I said they neede our help. It follows that they asked for help. I stated that in order to receive our help, the conditions placed on that help would be unacceptable to the U.S. What is that makes it okay for us to help another nation only if we can establish a permanent state of occupation there? Is it because we are using supposed altruism as the wedge to establish ourselves all over the world?

1.) Given your approach to total honesty, would you for example believe it to be right that any single person suffering a terminal illness should be told of their exact predicted time of death? Or would you agree with "bending the rules" to make that person as happy and care free as possible?

As I've already stated, I never said "total honesty" was the way to go. In this situation, I would take into account the mental status of the person in question. If they were of normal mental status, i.e., not mentally challenged, yes, I would certainly agree that they should know that they only had X amount of time left. It would only be fair to give them time to come to grips with their situation and make the most of what they have left! You would deny them time to mend their bridges and make their peace? I hope not!

2.) Do you honestly believe that the majority of individuals who live in the USA would have the emotional/intellectuall ability to comprehend the "truth"?

I certainly do! I don't personally know anyone that is so backwards that they are unable to make informed decisions regarding their own well-being. I honestly believe that the "majority" of citizens are perfectly capable of handling anything.

3.) Do you believe that school aged children should be taught the "truth" about the USA as a country and if so what do you believe the implications would be?

Since I am not real clear what "truth" you are speaking of here, I will just say that I was speaking of the history of our nation as it is currently taught is full of lies and half-truths, all with the intention of making sure that our children are taught that the U.S.A is to be worshipped as the savior of all the world. They are indoctrinated early to believe that our nation has only ever done what's best for everyone, and therefore are shocked and disillusioned as they grow a little older and realize the lies. I didn't say that they should be taught the blood and guts, just that they should be given opposing views of our past. Present them with all the facts and letthem make the judgement. Makes sense to me.

4.) Considering you believe the USA to do more Evil than Good, why are you still living in the US if your feelings are that strong?

You are kidding, right? I will fight to the last to defend the country that I was born in. This is a war of truth, and I believe that we can still win it. I will not surrender the land that I love to a bunch of mealy-mouthed politicians and their agenda of world domination. Just because I despise the current paradigm does not meant that I will abandon all that it is supposed to stand for.

SQ#1
Do you believe that the lies about WMD's told to take us into Iraq were "white lies"?

SQ#2
Do you believe that our soldiers should continue to fight wars in foreign countries if it proven that the government lied about the reasons for invasion?

reply to post by jennybee35

---

I just said that your argument sounded suspiciously like our governments own justifications for hiding the truth. I guess that is the tough part of having to argue the pro position!

And that sounds suspiciously like a veiled ad hominem attack for those unaware, please see the following description:

An ad hominem (Latin: "to the man"), also known as argumentum ad hominem, is an attempt to link the validity of a premise to a characteristic or belief of the person advocating the premise.[1

Ad Hominem

There are acceptable times and places for white lies.

I'm glad we agree on that fact.

As far as “Father Christmas” goes, I have never been able to bring myself to outright lie to my children about that. At most, I simply deflected the questions they asked with “Well, what do you think is true?” I cannot look into my children's eyes and try to pretend that there is some fat red fairy that's gonna float down our chimney and leave them their heart's desires! I have never purposely tried to destroy the magic of Christmas for them, either. I have left it up to them to decide, much the same way we MUST be presented with all the facts and be left to decide what is best for ourselves. Works the same way as far as I am concerned.

Again, I think that's admirable but it still doesn't really address my point that children and other members of the younger generation for example are unable to comprehend the true inner workings of the world. Not informing your children of the validity of Father Christmas is one thing, attempting to convince them of the "true" nature of the intentions of the United States is another...

Surely in this respect, it would be a more sensible notion to set down a foundations of good and evil and then allow your children (or anyones children for that matter) to develop their own ideas and formulate their own opinions as they get older and mature?

You yourself actually alluded to the principles and dangers behind classical conditioning, at this moment in time all I've seen from your argument is your personal belief that the USA is inherently evil. I've pointed out that in my personal opinion, the USA or any other country for that matter, is less than perfect but overall I believe America does more good than evil.

You say that you don't mean to imply that we are too dumb to handle the truth 24/7, then go on to say that the majority of us can't handle the truth. Really?

Well I didn't actually say or imply that, although at this point we could rapidly descend into an argument regarding semantics and I want to avoid that at all costs.

However, for the sake of the argument, I asked the question how do you know you could handle the truth?

Just like you would find it difficult in attempting to understand a foreign subject, would you not also have this difficulty in trying to comprehend matters that would in all fairness, be beyond your comprehension?

All this talk of tech savvy and capability are great for you and others who are capable. But what about Joe Blow and Sally Sundance that only know how to turn on the pc and hit the IE icon? Where do you think they will get the truth? All that will be available to them is government approved media, much like China and every other dictator-run backcountry in the world. What good will it do them for you to be able to see what our government is hiding?

Well then surely, if America does in fact do more evil than good overall, wouldn't it become a top priority for Mr and Mrs Joe Public to learn as much as they could so they would have the ability to find this "truth"?

IF we decide to accept that “they” know what is best for us and follow along like good sheeple.

But how do you that "they" do not? Of course, you are entitled to your opinon and I'd respect that as being yours to the end but you seem to imply that the majority of Americans are actually dumb individuals who could possibly "wake up" and realise what the Government is apparently doing to them.

Personally, I think your making a common stereotypical assumption here; believe it or not but there are many intelligent and "on the ball" Americans who do not share the same views as you - they appreciate that in life and in nature there is a system of hierarchy and whilst this may not be perfect, it's a lot more effective than letting the idiots run the asylum.

You say that soldiers voluntarily sign up to serve their country and so should accept the consequences of their actions. But what about the fact that their plan of action is based on lies? We know our service men and women are loyal, and follow orders that they are given. Those soldiers take it for granted that their commanders are being truthful when sending them into foreign lands. What happens to their free will to serve when they haven't been given the truth of the situation? At least they should be given the facts of the situation, able to make informed decisions, considering it is their LIFE they are giving.

Okay, you have confused me here a little. Although you accept the fact that American service men and women are loyal you then go on to say that they are being lied to and as such that absolves them of any hurt or pain that results from their actions.

Why am I confused? Well, it goes back to my previous statement about the intelligence of the majority of American people; I could understand if you believed that most Americans are a little on the lower side of an 100 IQ but surely this can't be a hard and fast rule?

Therefore anyone with a more than average IQ would have the ability to realise they weren't being told the facts regarding a conflict/situation and thus question their orders?

Loyalty and Intelligence are two different things...

I absolutely agree that everyone won't be pleased all the time. But I don't believe that lies and cover-ups are necessary to achieve results. That is why there are voting booths. Give us the truth and let the majority rule. That's the way it was supposed to work, remember?

I presume that if that was the case and you didn't agree with the majority you would have something to say about it, see what I mean about you can't please everyone? I'm fairly confident, almost sure actually, that if the majority decided on something you didn't agree with you would personally complain and argue the other side of the coin.

This principle makes your idea an unreasonable one to say the least, a terrible one to say the most.

I didn't fail to mention it: I said they neede our help. It follows that they asked for help. I stated that in order to receive our help, the conditions placed on that help would be unacceptable to the U.S. What is that makes it okay for us to help another nation only if we can establish a permanent state of occupation there? Is it because we are using supposed altruism as the wedge to establish ourselves all over the world?

Put simply; There ain't no such thing as a free lunch.

As I've already stated, I never said "total honesty" was the way to go. In this situation, I would take into account the mental status of the person in question. If they were of normal mental status, i.e., not mentally challenged, yes, I would certainly agree that they should know that they only had X amount of time left. It would only be fair to give them time to come to grips with their situation and make the most of what they have left! You would deny them time to mend their bridges and make their peace? I hope not!

Really? So you would honestly deny that person the right to happiness by informing them of impending demise? Because personally, I'd let them live in blissful ignorance.

I certainly do! I don't personally know anyone that is so backwards that they are unable to make informed decisions regarding their own well-being. I honestly believe that the "majority" of citizens are perfectly capable of handling anything.

Take into account that I have mentioned that the USA does more good overall than evil, in an isolated act of evilness the majority of citizens were not capable of handling anything, especially when it came to their own well being:

1992 LA Riots

Since I am not real clear what "truth" you are speaking of here, I will just say that I was speaking of the history of our nation as it is currently taught is full of lies and half-truths, all with the intention of making sure that our children are taught that the U.S.A is to be worshipped as the savior of all the world. They are indoctrinated early to believe that our nation has only ever done what's best for everyone, and therefore are shocked and disillusioned as they grow a little older and realize the lies. I didn't say that they should be taught the blood and guts, just that they should be given opposing views of our past. Present them with all the facts and letthem make the judgement. Makes sense to me.

We seem to agree partly.

But maybe we should also emphasize a larger amount of good things the USA as a country has achieved rather than focussing on the negatives? It's a given that the USA has done more good than evil when you sit back and compare notes.

SQ#1 Do you believe that the lies about WMD's told to take us into Iraq were "white lies"?

No, I actually wouldn't describe them as white lies, however, I certainly wouldn't be speaking to children about the issue.

SQ#2 Do you believe that our soldiers should continue to fight wars in foreign countries if it proven that the government lied about the reasons for invasion?

That's a tricky question in all fairness, I think it goes back to talking the intelligence of the soldiers in question and whether they believe in what they are fighting for or not. But at the end of the day, no one is making them fight, I honestly doubt that the majority of American soldiers are that gullible to be used as pawns; the guys on the ground know whats going on and I'd find it very difficult to imagine they could be tricked as easily as you make out.

reply to post by Death_Kron

---

quote]
Again, I think that's admirable but it still doesn't really address my point that children and other members of the younger generation for example are unable to comprehend the true inner workings of the world. Not informing your children of the validity of Father Christmas is one thing, attempting to convince them of the "true" nature of the intentions of the United States is another...


Well, I'll tackle your spin on my words about what our children should and shouldn't be taught about reality. I would never agree that 5 yr olds should be shown video on youtube about the wars in the middle east we are waging. I also wouldn't show a 5 yr old an open-heart surgery video. But I can and do tell my children that just because it's on the news or in a book doesn't automatically make it true. The same way I would explain about trips to the doctor. You make sure the info is age appropriate. It cannot be hard to understand. And it's not hard to do.

Surely in this respect, it would be a more sensible notion to set down a foundations of good and evil and then allow your children (or anyones children for that matter) to develop their own ideas and formulate their own opinions as they get older and mature?

Of course children have to have a good foundation . How is that possible when “bent” information is fed to them? Wouldn't that leave them with a “bent” foundation? Illogical.

QUOTE
Here you call it my “only my personal belief”. Of course it's my personal belief that the U.S. does evil.Kinda hard to escape the truth of that, unless you decide to “bend” the truth. But I never stated that America was inherently evil. That is not even the subject. It's about whether or not America has good or evil intent in it's actions. Hence the name of the debate “America has DONE more good than evil”. Done is an action, which implies that there was intent to act on something and completing the action.

I believe that there is never one thing that America has done that wasn't for some ulterior motive, and I don't mean the normal “what am I getting out of this” motive. I think that at times there have been really evil intentions surrounding some of our governments actions. If you subscribe to some theories even assassination and outright genocide have been perpetrated by some. I do feel that there are plenty of men in power whose every intention is evil. They just don't have complete control to accomplish their dirty work
QUOTE
Are you trying to say that you believe that TPTB have some form of superior knowledge to you and me? Really? I cannot absorb the fact that there is anyone that believes that there is such thing as knowledge so awesome that only a select few could handle it. I can't really say much about that but: Really?
QUOTE
So you're gonna personally get all of those sheeple on high alert and get 'em to learning real quick-like? Because in case you've failed to notice, the god 'ol government has control of what the media releases to the public. All the numbers they release to the MSM are skewed. Just look at what they claim are jobless numbers versus what the real number is:

Those folks we're talking about only ever watch the idiot box or youtube for their information. And if there are a whole lot of QUOTE

then I hope they are prepared to help the rest.

QUOTE
I'm sorry, I'm having trouble finding those words in my quote. Maybe you can hi-lite them for me.
QUOTE
Of course I would speak up, just the way I am now! There are lots of laws I don't agree with and I argue my case every chance I get. Just exactly what I'm doing now. The majority voted a whole new leadership that I disagree with. What idea was so terrible here? I've missed the point?
QUOTE

My gosh, that is pretty harsh, to say the least. I hope you don't have to render aid to anyone expecting a little compassion. So it is wanting a free lunch if you ask for help but don't want to be permanently occupied by a foreign nation? If every nation feels that way, I wonder what sovereign rights we had to surrender when so many different nations helped us in the gulf recently?
QUOTE
I can't imagine denying someone the truth about their own life! You would not even give them the chance to build a few last precious memories for the ones they are leaving behind? Not very nice. I'd like to see them live out their last days in a headlong rush of joy, trying to grasp the last bit of good in life. It could make a huge difference in the memories of loved ones forever.

The L.A. Riots as an example? It doesn't even come close to what I was talking about, and points out that it was the way the government prosecuted the case that caused the whole nightmare. Not the best case to cite, IMO.
QUOTE
But it's my JOB to point out the evil, ain't it?
QUOTE
I never said they were easily tricked. I said that they were presented with false information. They are fed propaganda on a daily basis by Uncle Sam. Kinda hard to override soldier's natural inclination to believe their bosses over what little they get to see on the internet on the other side of the world.

SQ#1
Do you believe that there are some men in power that are auperior to you and your ability to ahndle knowledge, good or bad?

SQ#2
Do you think that the people who only watch mainstream media ever get enough real truth to judge reality?

reply to post by jennybee35

---

Closing Statement

I'd like to address my opponents previous points and hope that the best man wins

Well, I'll tackle your spin on my words about what our children should and shouldn't be taught about reality. I would never agree that 5 yr olds should be shown video on youtube about the wars in the middle east we are waging. I also wouldn't show a 5 yr old an open-heart surgery video. But I can and do tell my children that just because it's on the news or in a book doesn't automatically make it true. The same way I would explain about trips to the doctor. You make sure the info is age appropriate. It cannot be hard to understand. And it's not hard to do.

Well I'm glad you recognise the fact that a delicate approach should be undertaken when educating the younger members of our generation but once again you still haven't really addressed the point I was making. I fully agree that just because something is on the news or in a book doesn't make it fact but on the converse that principle also applies i.e. just because something IS on the news or in a book doesn't make it false.

At this stage, without even addressing why I believe America has done more good than evil overall, I'll stand to my point that in terms of educating children it's more beneficial to focus on the positive things the US of A has done rather than the negatives.

Of course children have to have a good foundation . How is that possible when “bent” information is fed to them? Wouldn't that leave them with a “bent” foundation? Illogical

No, it isn't illogical in the slightest, actually it's quite simple; sometimes you tell a lie to protect an individual and it's my personal opinion that the innocence of children should be protected and maintained for as long as realistically possible. If this revolves around emphasizing the positive actions of America or is simply implemented by overlooking the negatives then so be it!

Here you call it my “only my personal belief”. Of course it's my personal belief that the U.S. does evil.Kinda hard to escape the truth of that, unless you decide to “bend” the truth. But I never stated that America was inherently evil. That is not even the subject. It's about whether or not America has good or evil intent in it's actions. Hence the name of the debate “America has DONE more good than evil”. Done is an action, which implies that there was intent to act on something and completing the action

Here, I refer back to my previous question which I believe you haven't answered: if you truly believe that America does more good than evil, why do you continue to live there? You seem to have become confused with the semantics of our conversation here; you believe that the USA does more good than evil - which would make America inherently evil i.e. naturally evil or essentially evil

I believe that there is never one thing that America has done that wasn't for some ulterior motive, and I don't mean the normal “what am I getting out of this” motive. I think that at times there have been really evil intentions surrounding some of our governments actions. If you subscribe to some theories even assassination and outright genocide have been perpetrated by some. I do feel that there are plenty of men in power whose every intention is evil. They just don't have complete control to accomplish their dirty work

A few things to point out with that statement; first you say you believe there is never one thing that America hasn't done for some ulterior motive (presumably implying an evil or negative intention) and then you say that at times there have been really evil intentions; which one is it?

Secondly, as you mentioned if you subscribe to some theories; I've already brought subjectivity into the debate so I won't repeat myself but I think the majority will understand what I'm getting at here.

Are you trying to say that you believe that TPTB have some form of superior knowledge to you and me? Really? I cannot absorb the fact that there is anyone that believes that there is such thing as knowledge so awesome that only a select few could handle it. I can't really say much about that but: Really?

Okay, do you believe that you personally could understand, comprehend or handle the knowledge of someone like Stephen Hawkings for example?

Let's be more specific here and ponder whether you could handle the number of threats to the people of your country on an almost daily basis?

Do you really think the vast majority of the population would be capable of dealing with that kind of pressure?

Of course I would speak up, just the way I am now! There are lots of laws I don't agree with and I argue my case every chance I get. Just exactly what I'm doing now. The majority voted a whole new leadership that I disagree with. What idea was so terrible here? I've missed the point?

My point was in reference to your statement that you "don't believe that lies and cover-ups are necessary to achieve results." Sometimes lies and cover-ups can be used in a positive manner; to protect the innocent and I consider that an act of kindness, definitely not an act of evil...

The L.A. Riots as an example? It doesn't even come close to what I was talking about, and points out that it was the way the government prosecuted the case that caused the whole nightmare. Not the best case to cite, IMO.

Okay, maybe it wasn't the best example I could of used however it was in answer to your statment "I honestly believe that the "majority" of citizens are perfectly capable of handling anything." In this example, the majority couldn't handle anything as evident by the chaos that ensued, without meaning to be disrespectful for those involved in the tragedy but can you really sit there and tell me the majority could handle something a little more important than an act of police brutality?

SQ#1 Do you believe that there are some men in power that are auperior to you and your ability to ahndle knowledge, good or bad?

Absolutely.

SQ#2 Do you think that the people who only watch mainstream media ever get enough real truth to judge reality?

No, I do not. But I also don't believe that those who are "informed" via other methods have enough real truth to judge reality.

In conclusion I'd like to think that I've pointed out more than a few holes in my opponents logic as to why she believes the USA does more evil than good. Subjectivity, comprehension of running a country and the realities of the real world all play a part in defining evil and it's my opinion that while no entity is perfect, the United States overal does more good than evil.

Thank You

reply to post by Death_Kron

---

I must say that it has been interesting to debate an issue that I have not really ever reasoned out previously. In the research for this debate, I have been forced to really look at several incidents in America's past and how we were taught a history that was really very far from the truth. When my opponent makes statements such as:

sometimes you tell a lie to protect an individual and it's my personal opinion that the innocence of children should be protected and maintained for as long as realistically possible. If this revolves around emphasizing the positive actions of America or is simply implemented by overlooking the negatives then so be it!

I really despair for our future.

The statement: "Those who forget the past are destined to repeat it" doesn't ring ANY alarm bells for ya? It certainly does for me, and should for every American citizen capable of understanding our REAL history. The history that we weren't taught in school. The history that can be found in books written by men and women who were astute enough to realize that if the truth about America and it's motives wasn't put on record it would never be seen by the next generation. They understood that if the future leaders and lawmakers of our land were never made aware of the evil parts of government, and the evil deeds done in the name of America, then there would be no hope that real improvement could come about.If those children that are destined to lead our land are never told that the motives of their current government are unacceptable for the majority of it's citizens, they will have no basis on which to judge how their citizens should be taken care of. They will believe that anything that advances the super powers of the U.S.A is right and justified no matter the cost.

The idea of bending the truth or overlooking the negative is the very thing we should strive mightily against. Government propoganda and lying about the history of a country skews a whole new generation and their ability to judge the difference between what is right and what is wrong. Aren't those the tactics used by every dictator on the planet, including North Korea, China, and even Nazi Germany? There were and are whole generations of children the world over that have never heard of the negative things about their leadership, and look at the effects of that: continual dictatorships and terrible human rights abuses. If we don't begin teaching our children truth, that is what we are headed for. Another whole government that believes that anything goes to implement the advancement of their agendas. After all, it has never seriously harmed innocent people before. That's what they are taught, and it's what they will believe. It is what they will base their decisions for our future on, and it is scary.

I'm sorry, I could swear that I answered this previously:

Here, I refer back to my previous question which I believe you haven't answered: if you truly believe that America does more good than evil, why do you continue to live there?

Here, let me refresh your memory:

I will fight to the last to defend the country that I was born in. This is a war of truth, and I believe that we can still win it. I will not surrender the land that I love to a bunch of mealy-mouthed politicians and their agenda of world domination. Just because I despise the current paradigm does not meant that I will abandon all that it is supposed to stand for.

That is my final answer on that subject.

Secondly, as you mentioned if you subscribe to some theories; I've already brought subjectivity into the debate so I won't repeat myself but I think the majority will understand what I'm getting at here.

I hope someone understands, because I must admit I don't understand what the point is here. I didn't say I subscribed to those theories, just that such theories exist. So, I guess I just don't see the point of this.

As far as you believing that there is some super-group of powerful men that are so much more capable of handling the truth than yourself: I think that has got to be the one of the more scary statements I have ever heard another human being say. I refuse to believe that you are being truthful here. I believe that statement was made for the sake of the debate. I don't believe that any mentally healthy, reasoning adult on the planet could believe this. The idea that someone really believes this:

Sometimes lies and cover-ups can be used in a positive manner; to protect the innocent and I consider that an act of kindness, definitely not an act of evil...

is repulsive to me. Maybe I'm in the minority here, but judging from what I read on the internet daily, I think the majority supports my view of these beliefs. The thought that there are people in power that decide what "truth" I am to be spoon-fed to keep me compliant REALLY grinds my gears! I am not a mental midget, nor are the masses of citizens out there.

As far as the L.A. riots are concerned: yes, the people did react violently and were justified in their outrage, but were very wrong in their rioting and looting. This is an example of a very mis-handled case that spent much of it's time being tried in the media. Media that realeased just what they were told by TPTB. The citizens of L.A. were fed inflammatory material and their real concerns were ignored until the verdict became the straw that broke the camel's back. If the citizens had been kept better informed and the prosecution had been better handled, this would never have happened. It is also got nothing to do with the generations of slow, merciless repression of truth of our history. It can be no comparison to information that has been systematically hidden or misrepresented by the government. Apples to oranges, as it were.

In conclusion I'd like to think that I've pointed out more than a few holes in my opponents logic as to why she believes the USA does more evil than good. Subjectivity, comprehension of running a country and the realities of the real world all play a part in defining evil and it's my opinion that while no entity is perfect, the United States overal does more good than evil.

I can see no holes in my argument, of course. The U.S.A has proven itself no different from any other world power, only it has learned to cloak it's true intentions when "aiding" third-world nations, or "promoting democracy". Our government is a powerful machine that runs on the well-greased cogs of subterfuge. It has always been able to sway it's citizens with words of freedom and patriotism, whilst accomplishing it's true agenda with no heed to the consequences to the human component involved. They have proven that if the propoganda begins at the cradle and doesn't end til the grave, the people will always be amenable to their machinations.

Collateral Damage. Acceptable Loss. Whatever it takes to advance the agenda they have in view. This is exactly the mind-set of every government that we revile, and it is the mind-set of our own leaders. I find that inherently evil.