Should the USA be the policemen of the world?

[Lord Chair]

Source is really unimpressive, it doesn't even define 'harmful'.

 

[eschemat]

Bad source, it doesn't only measure on individual harm. It's individual harm is significantly lower than heroin, crack or methamphetamine but it's societal harm is higher. But regardless, speed, crack and heroin are still the three most dangerous drugs. Alcohol is more harmful than all others though.

 

[#HBC | Mac]

Obviously not for multiple reasons.

1. Whose to say that any one entity in the world is so far morally superior than everyone else that they would be able to police the entire world fairly. Especially considering how the whole concept of right and wrong is subjective, whose to say that the US idea of right is any more proper than someone elses.

2. In the specific case of the US, it seems as if they use the excuse of 'policing the world' in order to meddle in other countries' affairs. This is worse when you consider that the US may at times have ulterior motives for interfering.

3. The US doesn't have their **** together.

pretty much I agree with Nich in that no one country should be allowed to police the world.

sidenote: as long as battlecow isn't breaking any rules he shouldn't be banned from the PG no matter how abrasive he might be.

 

[Battlecow]

1. Whose to say that any one entity in the world is so far morally superior than everyone else that they would be able to police the entire world fairly. Especially considering how the whole concept of right and wrong is subjective, whose to say that the US idea of right is any more proper than someone elses.

Wut.

if right and wrong is so subjective, and no idea of right is any more proper than someone else's, why can't I go out and slaughter some Mormons right now? If it fit my idea of right, who's gonna stop me?

The world needs law. It needs policing. THIS is what's obvious.

2. In the specific case of the US, it seems as if they use the excuse of 'policing the world' in order to meddle in other countries' affairs. This is worse when you consider that the US may at times have ulterior motives for interfering.

We've made mistakes in the past. But someone has to do it, and no one else has the power. We're Peter Parker'ing this ****.

3. The US doesn't have their **** together.

We have more **** together than most of the world. Compared to us, for example, Libya has some really bad ****ing diarrhea.

 

[Lord Chair]

Why compare your poo to the pooest poohole in the world.

 

[#HBC | Mac]

Wut.

if right and wrong is so subjective, and no idea of right is any more proper than someone else's, why can't I go out and slaughter some Mormons right now? If it fit my idea of right, who's gonna stop me?

The law will stop you. Because you live in the US/wherever you live, you are bound by their laws. Murder is illegal so that's whats gonna stop you. Because you live here, you must abide by the general consensus of what right and wrong is. It's still an opinion and it's still subjective.

The world needs law. It needs policing. THIS is what's obvious.

Why? Back up your statements.

We've made mistakes in the past. But someone has to do it, and no one else has the power. We're Peter Parker'ing this ****.

This doesn't address my argument. How do we know that the US is being completely moral in policing the world, and not just using it as an excuse to meddle in other countries' affairs for US gain?

We've made mistakes? How do you know we're not still gonna make the same 'mistakes'? How do you know they were mistakes and that the US government wasn't purposely doing wrong things in order to promote their own agenda?

We have more **** together than most of the world. Compared to us, for example, Libya has some really bad ****ing diarrhea.

That's debatable bro.

Meddling in international affairs is has been a key component in contributing to our national debt. It'll be interesting to hear you try to argue that we have our **** together when we default on our debt and the US dollar collapses.

All in all, the world != the US. So we have no right in trying to police it. That's like saying that the admins of the shoryuken forum should be allowed to come here and tell us what to do or even ban/infract our members.

 

[Battlecow]

The law will stop you. Because you live in the US/wherever you live, you are bound by their laws. Murder is illegal so that's whats gonna stop you. Because you live here, you must abide by the general consensus of what right and wrong is. It's still an opinion and it's still subjective.

So... the law stops me from doing things that are "wrong" in its eyes, and the US stops other people from doing what's "wrong" in its eyes. What's the difference? If you're gonna go might-makes-right, we've got the might. If you're gonna go abide-by-consensus on right and wrong, we have more or less the same moral system as the rest of the civilized world, and we try to enforce it.

Why? Back up your statements.

Without law, anyone could do what they wanted. People would do bad things. The world would be a less happy place. It's what I pointed out in my previous paragraph; if you don't support my being able to murder whoever I want, you have to distinguish between the policing that goes on in the US and the policing that's done outside of the US- or else you have to make a case for why the policing inside the US shouldn't be going on either.

This doesn't address my argument. How do we know that the US is being completely moral in policing the world, and not just using it as an excuse to meddle in other countries' affairs for US gain?

Actually, it does address your argument. We don't know that the US will be completely moral. But I'm positing that the alternative to US policing is no policing at all, and that someone has to police in order to stop genocides or whatever. I assume you disagree; therefore, you should argue against that, and not waste your time quibbling over whether we'll be "completely" moral (of course we won't, lol).

We've made mistakes? How do you know we're not still gonna make the same 'mistakes'? How do you know they were mistakes and that the US government wasn't purposely doing wrong things in order to promote their own agenda?

We're not going to make the same mistakes because Americans are much more leery of foreign wars than they were in Vietnam, and because any sort of torture/questionable involvement in foreign affairs is going to lead to tremendous public backlash. Look at what happened in Libya- the government is walking on eggshells.

What, specifically, do you think the government ever did wrong in order to promote its own agenda? I'll grant you that the CIA has indulged in skulduggery for questionable causes, and that several wars have been started without what most would term sufficient cause, but the culprits were always weeded out- it's a "few bad apples" thing.

Anyways, are you gonna go the "Right and wrong are subjective" route or the "US is wrong" route? They seem to be mutually exclusive arguments.



That's debatable bro.

Meddling in international affairs is has been a key component in contributing to our national debt. It'll be interesting to hear you try to argue that we have our **** together when we default on our debt and the US dollar collapses.

All in all, the world != the US. So we have no right in trying to police it. That's like saying that the admins of the shoryuken forum should be allowed to come here and tell us what to do or even ban/infract our members.[/QUOTE]

 

[eschemat]

The US always has to make sacrifices to create some order for the rest of the war... I'm from Canada, so my opinion isn't bias in any sort of way. Funding from NATO can always go towards the US but the US is the only country that can start some change because the UN doesn't do anything. The UN is scared of action, and the US is the only country that can be the catalyst for change.

The choice for you is lawless world or world policed by US. Tell me what's better.

 

[#HBC | Mac]

So... the law stops me from doing things that are "wrong" in its eyes, and the US stops other people from doing what's "wrong" in its eyes. What's the difference? If you're gonna go might-makes-right, we've got the might. If you're gonna go abide-by-consensus on right and wrong, we have more or less the same moral system as the rest of the civilized world, and we try to enforce it.

The difference is that we adhere to the law of the US because we live here and we are forced to be abide by the US's rules. We have to adopt the US's perspective about right and wrong if we want to be a resident of the US. The world is different because the World doesn't have a set consensus on what is right or wrong. There is no global rulebook. There is no world government. Like I said before, the US trying to police other nations is like admins from other forums coming here to try and police us.

Without law, anyone could do what they wanted. People would do bad things. The world would be a less happy place. It's what I pointed out in my previous paragraph; if you don't support my being able to murder whoever I want, you have to distinguish between the policing that goes on in the US and the policing that's done outside of the US- or else you have to make a case for why the policing inside the US shouldn't be going on either.

I already explained why policing with the US makes sense. Because it is the US governing itself.

Just because me and you may share the same viewpoint on what is right or wrong doesn't mean that I have to agree that the same policing done within the US should be done outside of it. People around the world may not share our viewpoints, they may have different views on right/wrong. Why should we impose our viewpoint on what is right on them?

Actually, it does address your argument. We don't know that the US will be completely moral. But I'm positing that the alternative to US policing is no policing at all, and that someone has to police in order to stop genocides or whatever. I assume you disagree; therefore, you should argue against that, and not waste your time quibbling over whether we'll be "completely" moral (of course we won't, lol).

I can argue both stances since they both support my point. Why are you trying to get me to focus on only one aspect of my argument? Too afraid to battle me on multiple fronts? =P

We're not going to make the same mistakes because Americans are much more leery of foreign wars than they were in Vietnam, and because any sort of torture/questionable involvement in foreign affairs is going to lead to tremendous public backlash. Look at what happened in Libya- the government is walking on eggshells.

What, specifically, do you think the government ever did wrong in order to promote its own agenda? I'll grant you that the CIA has indulged in skulduggery for questionable causes, and that several wars have been started without what most would term sufficient cause, but the culprits were always weeded out- it's a "few bad apples" thing.

Ever read confessions of an economic hitman?

Also you speak as if the public knows of all the bad things the US government has done. Whose to say there aren't a ton of things that's happened behind the scenes that our government has gotten away with? You're saying noone will try any ****ed up **** because theyll suffer immense public backlash. That's only if they get caught. And if they haven't gotten caught why would they stop?

You also speak as though you know exactly how the US/individuals within the US government will act. You don't.

You're operating under the pretense that you know exactly what's happened within the government and all of the actions they've comitted overseas. You don't so you shouldn't make arguments assuming you'll know how they'll act. This is exactly why we can't trust the US (or any other country for that matter) to police the rest of the world because we don't know how they'll use that power. The very possibility that they could use the power for wrong or for personal game should be reason enough to know that it would not be a good idea.

Anyways, are you gonna go the "Right and wrong are subjective" route or the "US is wrong" route? They seem to be mutually exclusive arguments.

Like I said before, both points further my argument so there is nothing wrong with arguing both points especially since you have failed to refute either of em. I
And it's not as if they clash with each other.

 

[Battlecow]

The difference is that we adhere to the law of the US because we live here and we are forced to be abide by the US's rules. We have to adopt the US's perspective about right and wrong if we want to be a resident of the US. The world is different because the World doesn't have a set consensus on what is right or wrong. There is no global rulebook. There is no world government. Like I said before, the US trying to police other nations is like admins from other forums coming here to try and police us.






I already explained why policing with the US makes sense. Because it is the US governing itself.

Just because me and you may share the same viewpoint on what is right or wrong doesn't mean that I have to agree that the same policing done within the US should be done outside of it. People around the world may not share our viewpoints, they may have different views on right/wrong. Why should we impose our viewpoint on what is right on them?




I can argue both stances since they both support my point. Why are you trying to get me to focus on only one aspect of my argument? Too afraid to battle me on multiple fronts? =P



Ever read confessions of an economic hitman?

Also you speak as if the public knows of all the bad things the US government has done. Whose to say there aren't a ton of things that's happened behind the scenes that our government has gotten away with? You're saying noone will try any ****ed up **** because theyll suffer immense public backlash. That's only if they get caught. And if they haven't gotten caught why would they stop?

You also speak as though you know exactly how the US/individuals within the US government will act. You don't.

You're operating under the pretense that you know exactly what's happened within the government and all of the actions they've comitted overseas. You don't so you shouldn't make arguments assuming you'll know how they'll act. This is exactly why we can't trust the US (or any other country for that matter) to police the rest of the world because we don't know how they'll use that power. The very possibility that they could use the power for wrong or for personal game should be reason enough to know that it would not be a good idea.


Like I said before, both points further my argument so there is nothing wrong with arguing both points especially since you have failed to refute either of em. I
And it's not as if they clash with each other.

1. You've yet to make a convincing argument as to why the US has moral say-so over the actions of its civilians but not over other countries.

2. Lol @

People around the world may not share our viewpoints, they may have different views on right/wrong. Why should we impose our viewpoint on what is right on them?

"Hitler may have different views on right/wrong than us. Why should we impose our viewpoint on what is right on them?"

Insert your own horrible dictator there if Godwin's law bothers you.

3. Your two arguments ("US will do bad things" and "Why should we stop people from doing bad things if 'bad' doesn't exist?") are mutually exclusive. Explain why they're not or else abandon one of them, because you can't be right on both of them at once the way things are now.

Spoiler

Yeah, I had a really long post that got deleted, but this one's more clear anyways.

 

[#HBC | Mac]

It's ridiculous to think that the government that uses over 25% of the worlds energy, who wastes tons of corn and wheat on producing ethanol when the rest of the world is going through a food crisis, who corrupts the governments of third world countries, and who bails out the companies that created the current global economic crisis should be the policeman of the world.

It's this kind of ****ing elitist thinking that is so pervasive in our society that is allowing the US to go ahead and do whatever they want while not giving a **** about the world.

 

[Terywj [태리]]

It's ridiculous to think that the government that uses over 25% of the worlds energy, who wastes tons of corn and wheat on producing ethanol when the rest of the world is going through a food crisis, who corrupts the governments of third world countries, and who bails out the companies that created the current global economic crisis should be the policeman of the world.

It's this kind of ****ing elitist thinking that is so pervasive in our society that is allowing the US to go ahead and do whatever they want while not giving a **** about the world.

That's the kinda way people think in the United States, I guess. On the bright side, I don't think it's possible for policemen to be in debt billions and billions of dollars.

 

[Evil Eye]

That doesn't make any sense, at all. Please don't post spam in the DH forums.

 

[Crooked Crow]

I believe, as do many other US citizens, that the US, as the most prosperous and powerful nation in history, has a responsibility to the rest of the world. America's supposed to be a city on a hill; it's part of who we are. A

Sorry to burst your bubble, but the United States, despite having one of the highest GDP's, is a third-world country.

 

[blazedaces]

Sorry to burst your bubble, but the United States, despite having one of the highest GDP's, is a third-world country.

While I could imagine an argument and evidence to support such an assertion... I don't see any. Please back up your claim.

-blazed

 

[Crooked Crow]

While I could imagine an argument and evidence to support such an assertion... I don't see any. Please back up your claim.

-blazed

Because his assertions weren't biased at all, right?

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/14/us/14census.html?pagewanted=all

15.1% live in poverty. Doesn't sound like the most prosperous economy to me. The poor sink more and more into debt, and the rich keep on gaining money.

"Last year, about 48 million people ages 18 to 64 did not work even one week out of the year, up from 45 million in 2009, said Trudi Renwick, a Census official."

Hmm.

 

[blazedaces]

Because his assertions weren't biased at all, right?

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/14/us/14census.html?pagewanted=all

15.1% live in poverty. Doesn't sound like the most prosperous economy to me. The poor sink more and more into debt, and the rich keep on gaining money.

"Last year, about 48 million people ages 18 to 64 did not work even one week out of the year, up from 45 million in 2009, said Trudi Renwick, a Census official."

Hmm.

Battlecow's horrible arguments speak for themselves. You don't need to stoop to that level.

Right now the US is in a recession, or at least close to it, and a 15.1% population living in poverty does not equate to being a third world country.

The above image from wikipedia shows that there are plenty of countries in much worse conditions.

This being said I was only playing a little devil's advocate.

-blazed

 

[Sucumbio]

*notices the Aussies have no data*

hmmmmmm I wonder why this is.

 

[Crooked Crow]

You're not seeing my initial argument.

15.1% is not good. And statistically, you have to remember the United States is a densely populated country, we're talking about 48 million capable adults that cannot find work because of the recession; there simply is not enough jobs to go around in a hurt economy. (Children and elderly adults were already excluded- and I would imagine those on welfare are too. These numbers are therefore staggering.)

I don't care about African countries. At least they don't try to control half of the world, especially in unprovoked, unwarranted conditions, and the United States has a much higher GDP, so this extreme poverty should not even be an issue.

Don't you think, that the United States being unable to adequately provide for their own population through a broken capitalistic system, gives them a right to tell other countries what to do? These countries also do not want their foreign presence.

The United States government is greedy, malicious, and stupid. This is not directed at you, just back to the main argument of this thread.

 

[Battlecow]

It's ridiculous to think that the government that uses over 25% of the worlds energy, who wastes tons of corn and wheat on producing ethanol when the rest of the world is going through a food crisis, who corrupts the governments of third world countries, and who bails out the companies that created the current global economic crisis should be the policeman of the world.

It's this kind of ****ing elitist thinking that is so pervasive in our society that is allowing the US to go ahead and do whatever they want while not giving a **** about the world.

You don't seem to understand how debate works. I made some points in my last post. If you want to continue debating, you have to address them. Talking loudly to yourself about how evil America is isn't debate.

Because his assertions weren't biased at all, right?

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/14/us/14census.html?pagewanted=all

15.1% live in poverty. Doesn't sound like the most prosperous economy to me. The poor sink more and more into debt, and the rich keep on gaining money.

"Last year, about 48 million people ages 18 to 64 did not work even one week out of the year, up from 45 million in 2009, said Trudi Renwick, a Census official."

Hmm.

This is foolish. We have to have a concrete definition of what makes a third-world country. "Things are bad" is not enough- "bad" is a really slippery term, because relative to the rest of the world, we're actually (and I think you know this) quite wealthy. Blazed's chart shouldn't even be necessary, although it makes the point clear.

You're not seeing my initial argument.

15.1% is not good. And statistically, you have to remember the United States is a densely populated country, we're talking about 48 million capable adults that cannot find work because of the recession; there simply is not enough jobs to go around in a hurt economy. (Children and elderly adults were already excluded- and I would imagine those on welfare are too. These numbers are therefore staggering.)

I don't care about African countries. At least they don't try to control half of the world, especially in unprovoked, unwarranted conditions, and the United States has a much higher GDP, so this extreme poverty should not even be an issue.

Don't you think, that the United States being unable to adequately provide for their own population through a broken capitalistic system, gives them a right to tell other countries what to do? These countries also do not want their foreign presence.

The United States government is greedy, malicious, and stupid. This is not directed at you, just back to the main argument of this thread.

OK, so you're letting go of the argument that we're somehow third world? I assume so, because you offer no evidence to support that claim. Not gonna lie, I really do need to thank you for posting that- I showed a couple of friends and we busted guts all over the place for like 5 solid minutes.

Now, to business- Lots of people are out of work. This is the case the world over. Things have been this bad before, and hopefully they'll get better soon. I don't see how our own poverty (relative to, say, mid-2000s USA or whatever) obviates our duty to protect the rest of the world. We still have the most powerful military on the planet (as I'm sure you'll acknowledge). As for the countries not wanting our presence- Libya sure seemed to want it.

Don't you think, that the United States being unable to adequately provide for their own population through a broken capitalistic system, gives them a right to tell other countries what to do?

That sentence makes no sense, but you're a moron, so I'll let it slide. Now, assuming that you mean that the US's unemployment rate means that it has no right to interfere- see above. We still have the power to fix things, and therefore should do so when it's appropriate.

The United States government is greedy, malicious, and stupid

See, I don't know about Canadian customs, but here in America we generally try to provide reasonable arguments to back up any inflammatory and ignorant claims we might make.

 

[Crooked Crow]

And Battlecow, resorting to ad hominum, shows his superior debating skills.

No, you're the moron. And your friends are just as thick as you are.

Yes, you're a wealthy nation. But all your national funds are misplaced and spent on completely ridiculous areas, such as military affairs. You also previously admitted this. Just because you lack the mental capacity to grasp why you live in a horrendous country, doesn't make you correct.

Notice how you're the minority here? You think you're smarter then everyone else?

Also, where are your sources? "My friends died from laughter, I'm so clever" doesn't count. It's the American dollar that is ranked low, other countries are doing perfectly fine. Nice try though.

 

[Battlecow]

And Battlecow, resorting to ad hominum, shows his superior debating skills.

No, you're the moron. And your friends are just as thick as you are.

Yes, you're a wealthy nation. But all your national funds are misplaced and spent on completely ridiculous areas, such as military affairs. You also previously admitted this. Just because you lack the mental capacity to grasp why you live in a horrendous country, doesn't make you correct.

Notice how you're the minority here? You think you're smarter then everyone else?

Also, where are your sources? "My friends died from laughter, I'm so clever" doesn't count. It's the American dollar that is ranked low, other countries are doing perfectly fine. Nice try though.

Oh, feel free to ignore my insults. They were observations, not arguments; they really aren't meant to pertain to the discussion at hand. Now, your arguments, on the other hand, seem remarkably threadbare when we remove the ad hominem- I "admitted" that national funds were misplaced? Did I? I thought I said they were spent on a military which we use to defend the world. That's kind of the point of the thread.

My sources? My god, is this blazedaces 2 or something? What the hell do I need sources for? Point out which fact you disagree with and I'll find a source for it. Do I have to find a wikipedia page on how people are out of work the world over? I could do that, but I assumed that I was stating uncontested facts. Throwing in unnecessary sources does not make a good argument.

It's the American dollar that is ranked low, other countries are doing perfectly fine. Nice try though.

Understanding of the economic complexities of rates of exchange: None.

Confidence that the dollar's value relative to the Euro is a good indication of how the US is not fiscally ready to police the world: all of it.

But leaving aside the tricky questions of how "weak" and "strong" currencies even work- assuming (wrongly) that you're right and the fact that an Australian dollar is worth 1% more than a US dollar is an ironclad proof of the US's financial state- ignoring the fact that all of these "better off" countries have vaults of greenbacks as reserve currency- Why does it matter how valuable our dollar is? Do you contest that our military is by far the most powerful in the world? No? OK. That's the only economic variable that matters here. We have military power, and therefore a responsibility to police the world.

 

[Crooked Crow]

Oh, feel free to ignore my insults. They were observations, not arguments; they really aren't meant to pertain to the discussion at hand. Now, your arguments, on the other hand, seem remarkably threadbare when we remove the ad hominem- I "admitted" that national funds were misplaced? Did I?

You're unbelievable. Your economy is in trillions of dollars of debt. Why should you govern other countries? You can barely manage your own.

I thought I said they were spent on a military which we use to defend the world. That's kind of the point of the thread.

You failed to address any of my points. You do not have enough money to support this military, not to mention the activities of said military are laughably unethical. The entire reason for invading Iraq was to obtain oil. Don't deny this.

If it's not for raw minerals, it is to extrapolate political monopolies.

My sources? My god, is this blazedaces 2 or something? What the hell do I need sources for? Point out which fact you disagree with and I'll find a source for it. Do I have to find a wikipedia page on how people are out of work the world over? I could do that, but I assumed that I was stating uncontested facts. Throwing in unnecessary sources does not make a good argument.

Oh, so I need sources, but you don't? Typical American.

, so you're letting go of the argument that we're somehow third world? I assume so, because you offer no evidence to support that claim.

And you use that basis to somehow debunk my claims- don't contradict yourself.

Confidence that the dollar's value relative to the Euro is a good indication of how the US is not fiscally ready to police the world: all of it.

See, my point is, the United States own economy is collapsing. There are no shortages of jobs in any other developed country to the extent the United States is suffering, and you're really going to tell me, and somehow convince yourself, that the economy is not doing poorly?

Enjoy losing your prized AAA rating.

But leaving aside the tricky questions of how "weak" and "strong" currencies even work- assuming (wrongly) that you're right and the fact that an Australian dollar is worth 1% more than a US dollar is an ironclad proof of the US's financial state- ignoring the fact...

I think your dollar is not doing so well, no. What here is so hard to understand? Even other Americans are telling you you're stupid.

that all of these "better off" countries have vaults of greenbacks as reserve currency- Why does it matter how valuable our dollar is? Do you contest that our military is by far the most powerful in the world? No? OK. That's the only economic variable that matters here. We have military power, and therefore a responsibility to police the world.

Your military is definitely strong- and excessively over-funded, to the point other areas of interest are neglected.

That's the point. Fix your own country before you meddle with lesser developed countries which somehow, your arrogance and self-entitlement deem appropriate.

 

[Ocean]

yhii, you completely changed your argument.

you went, somehow, from "the US is a third world country" (which you apparently don't know the meaning of) to "the US is fiscally irresponsible". it's okay to switch your argument over to something else, but you can't do it while pretending that haven't switch topics.

also, don't get on battlecow's case about ad hominems when you are doing the exact same thing.

 

[Crooked Crow]

yhii, you completely changed your argument.

you went, somehow, from "the US is a third world country" (which you apparently don't know the meaning of) to "the US is fiscally irresponsible". it's okay to switch your argument over to something else, but you can't do it while pretending that haven't switch topics.

also, don't get on battlecow's case about ad hominems when you are doing the exact same thing.

I understand the definition of "third world country."

The economic crisis, which in turn creates poverty, can be exaggerated through a hyperbole to stress a point, no? I've talked to several Americans who don't find anything ludicrous with my statement- because of course I stressed that the United States is still an extremely rich country, in terms of GDP. But when you weigh in how the average person is affected, it becomes a lot more concrete. (Or rather, how the 48 million people without jobs might feel, or maybe thousands of individuals who cannot afford health care because of a privatized health care system might feel, or how about those who are sinking into debt, while the rich get richer, might feel.)

GDP does not determine everything- especially when that wealth is distributed unevenly.

I'm not sure what your second point is supposed to insinuate- if someone flies off the handle and completely attacks you personally, and also doing it first, am I not allowed to express that? His arguments are full of bias.

 

[Terywj [태리]]

Oh, so I need sources, but you don't? Typical American.

Pardon, but I highly disbelieve your statements have not contained bias or prejudice either.

 

[Crooked Crow]

Pardon, but I highly disbelieve your statements have not contained bias or prejudice either.

Eh. I wasn't entirely serious when I added that tidbit.

Also, the ad hominum attacks back- just me mirroring his initial techniques. I've observed Battlecow for a while now, he repeats the same patterns.

 

[Ocean]

Also, the ad hominum attacks back- just me mirroring his initial techniques. I've observed Battlecow for a while now, he repeats the same patterns.

because stooping to your opponents level will definitely make you look better than him.

 

[blazedaces]

You're not seeing my initial argument.

15.1% is not good. And statistically, you have to remember the United States is a densely populated country, we're talking about 48 million capable adults that cannot find work because of the recession; there simply is not enough jobs to go around in a hurt economy. (Children and elderly adults were already excluded- and I would imagine those on welfare are too. These numbers are therefore staggering.)

Good point.

I don't care about African countries.

Racist!
Don't you love quoting out of context?

At least they don't try to control half of the world, especially in unprovoked, unwarranted conditions, and the United States has a much higher GDP, so this extreme poverty should not even be an issue.

You're sort of stretching things a little here... control half the world? I know I haven't read every page of this thread, but "policemen" != control. The U.S. told Egypt it must rescue Israeli embassy workers or suffer the 'consequences,'. Do you believe this action was wrong? Do you think those 6 israeli guards who are now still alive unharmed would have preferred the US not to interfere in these affairs? "Policing" doesn't necessarily mean going to war with every country and taking it over... (Again let me point out I'm playing devil's advocate and do not actually believe the US should police the world)

Don't you think, that the United States being unable to adequately provide for their own population through a broken capitalistic system, gives them a right to tell other countries what to do? These countries also do not want their foreign presence.

Can you specify who are "these countries"? Are we specifically talking about countries that do not want US aid? I don't know if Libya is the greatest example for you man. If you want to specifically talk about the war in Iraq or Afghanistan, then yes, I agree we should not have gone to war... But this thread doesn't ask whether or not we were justified in one or two wars. If you can point out to me a single powerful country that has not had some contested war efforts I would be very interested to know more about it.

The United States government is greedy, malicious, and stupid. This is not directed at you, just back to the main argument of this thread.

Ad hominem attacks, even not directed at me, don't really help your argument.

OK, so you're letting go of the argument that we're somehow third world? I assume so, because you offer no evidence to support that claim. Not gonna lie, I really do need to thank you for posting that- I showed a couple of friends and we busted guts all over the place for like 5 solid minutes.

That sentence makes no sense, but you're a moron, so I'll let it slide.

The insults you throw at others only make your arguments look worse. If you have a good argument, you don't need to compensate for it.

Now, assuming that you mean that the US's unemployment rate means that it has no right to interfere- see above. We still have the power to fix things, and therefore should do so when it's appropriate.

"When it's appropriate" != Policing the world. If your argument is "if one has the power to help, one should help when appropriate then I agree with you. When you push that to the extreme of the US should attack every country in sight that could possibly pose a threat to us mainly but really to anyone in the whole world ... also when we don't even have evidence for this ... I no longer agree with you (not saying you made that claim, just that is what the extreme of this thread is implying).

And Battlecow, resorting to ad hominum, shows his superior debating skills.

No, you're the moron. And your friends are just as thick as you are.

Again, I think you are better than him. Two wrongs do not make a right. You don't need to stoop to this level.

Yes, you're a wealthy nation. But all your national funds are misplaced and spent on completely ridiculous areas, such as military affairs.

While I do agree with your point, that we spend too much on our military, I don't agree that this implies ALL of our funds are spent on "ridiculous areas". Would you care to elaborate on what makes you think this is the case?

You also previously admitted this. Just because you lack the mental capacity to grasp why you live in a horrendous country, doesn't make you correct.

Again, you're stretching things a lot. What makes the United States a "horrendous" country? Is that the scientific terminology? Why not an "egregious" country" Is that higher or lower on your scale? If you want to talk about specifics, talk about them, don't just jab insults at the whole country, it doesn't help your case, and isn't a valid argument. It's kind of like saying that guy shouldn't help at the soup kitchen, he's ugly... what?

Notice how you're the minority here? You think you're smarter then everyone else?

See Argumentum ad populum.

My sources? My god, is this blazedaces 2 or something? What the hell do I need sources for? Point out which fact you disagree with and I'll find a source for it. Do I have to find a wikipedia page on how people are out of work the world over? I could do that, but I assumed that I was stating uncontested facts. Throwing in unnecessary sources does not make a good argument.

Battlecow, you really are going to have to get used to the fact that there does exist a burden of proof when you make a contested claim.

Currently, the United States ranks 108th in unemployment rate at 9.6% (Courtesy of the CIA World Factbook. In case you're confused, that means that 107 countries have better employment rates than we do! Contrary to popular belief the United States is not the entire earth, and what is wrong with the United States is not always also going wrong in the rest of the world.

But leaving aside the tricky questions of how "weak" and "strong" currencies even work- assuming (wrongly) that you're right and the fact that an Australian dollar is worth 1% more than a US dollar is an ironclad proof of the US's financial state- ignoring the fact that all of these "better off" countries have vaults of greenbacks as reserve currency- Why does it matter how valuable our dollar is? Do you contest that our military is by far the most powerful in the world? No? OK. That's the only economic variable that matters here. We have military power, and therefore a responsibility to police the world.

Can you specify what you mean? What responsibilties do we have? Do you not believe we ever went too far with our power?

You failed to address any of my points. You do not have enough money to support this military, not to mention the activities of said military are laughably unethical.

I'll agree on some of this, minus the laughably part because I don't think it's funny that my country did this...

The entire reason for invading Iraq was to obtain oil. Don't deny this.
If it's not for raw minerals, it is to extrapolate political monopolies.

Can you prove this? I've heard this before and tried to find evidence of it, but came up short.

Oh, so I need sources, but you don't? Typical American.

Uncalled for...

Enjoy losing your prized AAA rating.

I don't know if this really makes a point. Is this just another insult?

Your military is definitely strong- and excessively over-funded, to the point other areas of interest are neglected.

I agree.

That's the point. Fix your own country before you meddle with lesser developed countries which somehow, your arrogance and self-entitlement deem appropriate.

Your initial argument again sounds somewhat good, but the second half using more insults doesn't help.

-blazed

 

[Crooked Crow]

because stooping to your opponents level will definitely make you look better than him.

Fair enough. Also keep in mind, I do not necessarily care about my image over his. That was not the objective I had in mind.

Racist!
Don't you love quoting out of context?

D:

You're sort of stretching things a little here... control half the world? I know I haven't read every page of this thread, but "policemen" != control. The U.S. told Egypt it must rescue Israeli embassy workers or suffer the 'consequences,'.

I actually did not have Libya in mind at all- more like Afghanistan, Iraq, and I'm positive the United States backs Israel against Palestine. Yes, a stretch. Entirely hysterical of me to think this? Not really.

Also, don't forgot Vietnam- the only reason why the United States could not control these people, was because they were unbelievably fierce and tough- thousands of years of political oppression can produce formidable armies, Vietnam is an actual third world country, yet the American troops were driven back.

Remember the USSR invasion of Afghanistan? How do you think Osama bin Laden got initially involved? He supplied weapons, for assistance. While these last examples might be more politically correct, it goes to show Americans always had a penchant for sticking their nose where it doesn't belong.

Do you believe this action was wrong? Do you think those 6 israeli guards who are now still alive unharmed would have preferred the US not to interfere in these affairs? "Policing" doesn't necessarily mean going to war with every country and taking it over... (Again let me point out I'm playing devil's advocate and do not actually believe the US should police the world)

How many times has this been beneficial, rather then detrimental, though?

Can you specify who are "these countries"? Are we specifically talking about countries that do not want US aid? I don't know if Libya is the greatest example for you man. If you want to specifically talk about the war in Iraq or Afghanistan, then yes, I agree we should not have gone to war...

Not Libya. Sorry if I never clarified.

But this thread doesn't ask whether or not we were justified in one or two wars. If you can point out to me a single powerful country that has not had some contested war efforts I would be very interested to know more about it.

You got me there.

Ad hominem attacks, even not directed at me, don't really help your argument.

The insults you throw at others only make your arguments look worse. If you have a good argument, you don't need to compensate for it.

You're awfully collected about these matters, heh.

"When it's appropriate" != Policing the world. If your argument is "if one has the power to help, one should help when appropriate then I agree with you.

Again, this is true in principal. However, governments usually aid other countries- in return for a profit, for their own self-gain. I can't believe that the United States government are doing business in foreign affairs, with military matters being the point at hand, purely out of the goodness of their hearts.

When you push that to the extreme of the US should attack every country in sight that could possibly pose a threat to us mainly but really to anyone in the whole world ... also when we don't even have evidence for this ... I no longer agree with you (not saying you made that claim, just that is what the extreme of this thread is implying).

But then again, the United States isn't North Korea- nor are they fascist, so no, I hope I didn't come across as implying this.

Again, I think you are better than him. Two wrongs do not make a right. You don't need to stoop to this level.

To be fair, I do consider me and him equal.

While I do agree with your point, that we spend too much on our military, I don't agree that this implies ALL of our funds are spent on "ridiculous areas". Would you care to elaborate on what makes you think this is the case?

http://www.visualeconomics.com/how-countries-spend-their-money/

The United States spends 19.3% of their budget on military affairs- for conflicts not even based in their home country!

The medical system is clearly not working out- seeing as it is privatized, and many individuals, who are hit by the dire state of their economy, cannot afford insurance.

What about education? I'm not too sure about this one- so I'll leave it. But aren't citizens with large amounts of cash to dispose at the hands of universities, preferred and get special treatment?

Again, you're stretching things a lot. What makes the United States a "horrendous" country? Is that the scientific terminology? Why not an "egregious" country" Is that higher or lower on your scale?

I will compromise. Egregious sounds more appropriate.

If you want to talk about specifics, talk about them, don't just jab insults at the whole country, it doesn't help your case, and isn't a valid argument. It's kind of like saying that guy shouldn't help at the soup kitchen, he's ugly... what?

So.. I'll elaborate if someone wishes to discuss a particular area further with me?

I'll agree on some of this, minus the laughably part because I don't think it's funny that my country did this...

"Laughably" meaning in a black humour-esque context.

Can you prove this? I've heard this before and tried to find evidence of it, but came up short.

I'll just get put on blast for sounding like a conspiracy nutcase, and it's just bound to throw this entire discussion off in tangents. Can I PM you? I'm also interested in discussing this.

I don't know if this really makes a point. Is this just another insult?

Definitely not. The credit rating dropped- which I figured would help prove my point.

Your initial argument again sounds somewhat good, but the second half using more insults doesn't help.

-blazed

Thanks for the feedback.

Also, to stress this a final time, there is a clear correlation between the massive amounts of spending on the United States military, and a trillion dollar deficit.

 

[Omnicron's Baklava Enterprises]

The whole idea of America is that of a City on a Hill- a shining example to the rest of the world.

Firstly, good job comparing what America is now to a bunch of Christian fanatics that hung people because of their own insecurities.
Secondly, unless you want every other country to go into a 14 trillion dollar debt, then be my guest.

My sources? My god, is this blazedaces 2 or something? What the hell do I need sources for?

Oh god I lol'd but I also raged pretty hard.

That's one of the most basic principles of formal debate: sources for your arguments.

That sentence makes no sense, but you're a moron, so I'll let it slide.

No.

here in America we generally try to provide reasonable arguments to back up any inflammatory and ignorant claims we might make.

No.

But someone has to do it, and no one else has the power. We're Peter Parker'ing this ****.
We have more **** together than most of the world. Compared to us, for example, Libya has some really bad ****ing diarrhea.

Swearing doesn't make you a cool kid or a good debator.



All I really see in your posts is large servings of arrogance/ignorance with a side of no sources. I can't dip your argument into the source,
because then your argument doesn't taste very good.

I really hate to say this but this is very common of what I see in America. Not among everybody for sure, but damn there are so many people here that think like you do.

 

[Ocean]

Fair enough. Also keep in mind, I do not necessarily care about my image over his. That was not the objective I had in mind.

that's the wrong mindset.

you are not in the debate hall to say "look, I have opinions!". you are in the debate hall to debate. in debate competitions you need to prepare both a affirmative and a negative case. your ability to put together a firm argument vs your opponent is what matters, and that is your image.

 

[Crooked Crow]

that's the wrong mindset.

you are not in the debate hall to say "look, I have opinions!". you are in the debate hall to debate. in debate competitions you need to prepare both a affirmative and a negative case. your ability to put together a firm argument vs your opponent is what matters, and that is your image.

No, I meant that I don't care about my reputation on an internet forum- I just want to debate issues.

This isn't a popularity contest.

 

[#HBC | Mac]

You don't seem to understand how debate works. I made some points in my last post. If you want to continue debating, you have to address them. Talking loudly to yourself about how evil America is isn't debate.

I think the point I was making was pretty obvious. How do you allow a country that is providing so much negative value for the world with the power it has now, to function as a global police officer.

You hadn't made any good points. You talked about how I needed to drop one of my arguments simply because i have 2 different arguments which is ridiculous.

But here you go:

1. You've yet to make a convincing argument as to why the US has moral say-so over the actions of its civilians but not over other countries.

You didn't even say what about my previous response to this question was wrong. You said I don't understand debate because I didn't address the points of your previous post. But thats exactly what you did right here. You completely ignored this response:

The difference is that we adhere to the law of the US because we live here and we are forced to be abide by the US's rules. We have to adopt the US's perspective about right and wrong if we want to be a resident of the US. The world is different because the World doesn't have a set consensus on what is right or wrong. There is no global rulebook. There is no world government. Like I said before, the US trying to police other nations is like admins from other forums coming here to try and police us.

I already talked about how being a citizen of a country means that you have to follow it's own rules, since in order for a government to function properly the citizens within need to function in accordance with the government's rules. The world has no global government, so this does not apply.

2. Lol @



"Hitler may have different views on right/wrong than us. Why should we impose our viewpoint on what is right on them?"

Insert your own horrible dictator there if Godwin's law bothers you.

There is a difference between acting as global officers and trying to rescue people from what they perceive to be wrongdoing. I'm not saying the US shouldn't be able to go and help people when they feel a great evil is being done. I'm saying they shouldn't be an entity that is given the jurisdiction to go and do whatever they want other the pretense of policing. If they are going to be active in international affairs, they need to be held accountable for their reasoning.

3. Your two arguments ("US will do bad things" and "Why should we stop people from doing bad things if 'bad' doesn't exist?") are mutually exclusive. Explain why they're not or else abandon one of them, because you can't be right on both of them at once the way things are now.

No they aren't. One is saying that the US will do things that will only affect them positively in the short term, but could easily harm other countries. Like things I talk about in my previous post. In addition to this sentiment, USA's perception of evil is different from the rest of the worlds. How can you just expect the world to adopt the US's viewpoint on what is evil or not? How do you prove that the US's way is the correct way?

 

[#HBC | Mac]

On a different note: I don't see how the question of whether or not the US is a developing country pertains to this debate.

edit: Also there is a difference between the questions, Should the USA be the global policemen and Should the USA intervene in international affairs. The latter is a question that needs to be asked on a case to case basis.

 

[#HBC | Mac]

that's the wrong mindset.

you are not in the debate hall to say "look, I have opinions!". you are in the debate hall to debate. in debate competitions you need to prepare both a affirmative and a negative case. your ability to put together a firm argument vs your opponent is what matters, and that is your image.

I don't think the debate hall should be strictly to facilitate that act of debating. Isn't it just a forum in which people can attempt to have intellectual conversations about various aspects of the world? So I feel that there is nothing wrong with showing that you have an opinion and trying to back that opinion up.

I'm not necessarily arguing with you. It's just that the metaphor you gave of a debate competition makes it seem as though we're in the debate hall to see how good people are at debating and not because we're trying to figure out the answer to some of life's more subjective questions.

edit: also I don't know what the rule about double posting in the debate hall is. My posts are separate because I feel they address significantly different points.

 

[ciaza]

I think having a social thread is enough if anyone ever wants to discuss something intelligently rather than debate it.

I personally would prefer if you just kept everything you wanted to say in the one post. Most people should be able to see at what point you stopped addressing them anyway and started replying to another person. I think large images that stretch my page are more of a nuance than multiple posting, but I'm not pointing fingers (BLAZED) =P

 

[#HBC | Mac]

But pretty much all these topics are intellectual discussions. The goal I'd assume is to try to figure out the answer to all of these difficult questions right? What value is there if the goal was simply to debate and noone learned anything?

I don't particularly care for the act of debating but I'm here in order to share my perspective on things and mostly to see everyone else's perspective. I feel like these debates are more of a collaborative search for the 'correct'a answer to a question.

(this thread of conversation is probably off topic)

 

[ciaza]

Funsies? I feel like gaining knowledge and the 'quest for truth' is amazing, but should be secondary to the art of debate. This is of course my opinion and I'm not sure how other people feel, but if every topic was a discussion topic there'd be less of a distinction between this and some User Blogs topics, especially if we are just sharing perspectives on matters. It doesn't really matter, most topics turn into discussion rather than debate anyway lol.

 

[Theftz22]

One can have a legitimate debate defending your own views, there's no dichotomy here.