Instigator
Points: 8

The US should invade Africa

Finished

The voting period has ended

After 2 votes the winner is ...
Virtuoso
Debate details
Publication date
Last update
Category
Politics
Time for argument
Three days
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
One week
Point system
Four points
Rating mode
Unrated
Characters per argument
10,000
Required rating
1501
Contender
Points: 14
Description
Rules of the debate:
1: The BoP is shared
2: I waive the 1st round and my opponent waives the last round. Violation is a loss of conduct point.
Round 1
Published:
Round waived.
Published:
I want to thank Alec for instigating this debate. Before I begin, I would like to define a few key terms of the resolution and make some observations.
 
I. Key Definitions
 
  • The US: The United States of America
  • Should: used to indicate obligation, duty, or correctness, typically when criticizing someone's actions.
  • Invade: (of an armed force or its commander) enter (a country or region) so as to subjugate or occupy it.
  • Africa: the world's second largest and second most-populous continent
II. Observations
 
Africa is an enormous continent with 54 countries, 2 disputed territories, and over 1,000 different languages.[1] The resolution does not make it clear which country we should invade, thus based on the wording of the resolution, it would appear that Pro is advocating for invading the entire continent of Africa. With that, let’s begin.
 
III. Practicality
 
Invading an entire continent is not practical. As I already mentioned, the United States would need to defeat and overthrow 54 sovereign nations. As of now, we are currently engaged at war with at least 7 countries.[2]Adding an additional 50+ countries would overburden the military and overburden our defense.
 
IV. Cost
 
The cost of a continent-wide conflict would be enormous. According to Neta C. Crawford, the United States spent at least $5 trillion in the war on terror.[3]Invading an entire continent would be far more costly and lengthy.
 
V. Invasion is Unjust
 
Crawford notes that there have been more than 400,000 deaths in the post-9/11 world.[4]War is, by definition, a deadly endeavor, thus we should follow theJus ad bellum doctrine that gives us a set of criteria to determine whether or not to go to war. Among this is that war must be only as a last resort. Africa has not done any significant harm to the United States that would require a military intervention, thus we ought to leave it alone.
 
VI. International Relationships would deteriorate
 
Imagine if Trump comes on TV tomorrow and declares that we will invade Africa with absolutely no provocation or reason. The United Nations, NATO, EU, and key US allies would strongly oppose such an invasion and would refuse to partake. The evidence for this is the response to the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Key US allies staunchly opposed this invasion,[5]and numerous UN officials declared that this invasion was illegal.[6]There is no doubt that invading an entire continent would be illegal as well. 
 
VII. Conclusion
 
The decision to go to war is not a decision to take lightly. Invading Africa would take up an enormous amount of resources and cost. The global image of the United States would be shattered, and the entire world would essentially be against the United States. The invasion would be unwinnable and put the United States in a really bad spot.
 
The resolution is negated.

Round 2
Published:
=Arguments=

1) An invasion would increase the GDP per capita of the African population.  History has shown that as long as colonies don't get oppressed, they prosper relative to their neighbors.  Puerto Rico is an American territory, and they have the highest GDP per capita in Latin America. French Guyana has the highest GDP per capita out of themselves and their neighbors(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Guiana)(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_South_American_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita).  

2) An invasion would benefit the US economy as well.  Africa has a lot of natural resources that can be used.  The trade deal that I propose with Africa is we invade them, pay them $500 Billion in territory subsidies, and in exchange, the US gets $800 billion in natural resources, which the US sells to whoever wants it, whether it's American or foreign companies(preferably American) for a total of $800 billion.  We get $300 Billion in profit. Africa gets $500 Billion in profit. It's a win win situation.

3) Human rights.  In Africa, most countries don't recognize homosexuality and some countries punish it with jail time or even the death penalty.  No offence, but since your openly gay (and I'm openly bi), we ought to advocate for human rights around the world in places where it is most needed, and not in places like the west, where it is largely established.  Where it is needed are in theocratic places that have religious law instead of constitutional law.   It gives feminists an actual battle that's worth fighting for instead of fighting for instead of the battle of micro aggressions.  A constitutional Republic government can spread to these places with elections to protect minority rights, and women who are oppressed, such as those who have had acid attacks or have been raped and forced to marry their rapist under religious law, no longer have to endure this and can marry whoever they want for the most part(as long as the other partner is also okay with it).

==Rebuttals==

The resolution does not make it clear which country we should invade
I propose invading the entire continent.

Invading an entire continent is not practical.
Western Europe did it, and they did it while divided.  A untied force with about double the power of Modern Europe can succeed in an invasion.  I think military spending is a pretty accurate single indicator in how powerful a military is.  Africa spends $50 billion on it's collective military, the US spends close to $700 billion.  An invasion would be easy to win.  I explained in my argument section how it would be practical.

As of now, we are currently engaged at war with at least 7 countries.
We are currently at war with these countries in an effort to defeat not their sovereignty, but to stop militant Islam from existing.  If we wanted to defeat their sovereignty, we would have done it already.  We haven't yet because we don't want to.  Much of the radical Islam is in Africa and a US invasion would help quell it, along with the other terrorism that happens in Africa that would cease to exist under American rule.

Adding an additional 50+ countries would overburden the military and overburden our defense.
Our massive military can handle the invasion if we were to cease to provide military aid in other places and focus on providing human rights and boosting the economy in Africa.  Given that we're sacrificing the human rights of about 100 million people in other countries in exchange for liberating about 1.4 billion Africans instead, sounds like a fair deal to me.

According to Neta C. Crawford, the United States spent at least $5 trillion in the war on terror.[3]Invading an entire continent would be far more costly and lengthy.
It's much harder and much more expensive to eliminate a continent then it is to eliminate an idea.  We beat the Nazis because they were a country, even though the Nazis with Nazi occupied France was much tougher to beat then a country like Iraq.  The difference is Iraq has an idea we're trying to remove whereas the Nazis had a much more obvious state.  States are easier to destroy then ideas.

Crawford notes that there have been more than 400,000 deaths in the post-9/11 world.[4]War is, by definition, a deadly endeavor, thus we should follow theJus ad bellum doctrine that gives us a set of criteria to determine whether or not to go to war.
People will die in the invasion.  However, in the long term, more people get saved.  Lets say about 4 million die in the invasion, mostly African soldiers since America has better technology.  If America's policies can save more then 4 million innocent Africans from their policies, it is a good plan that ought to be established.  For example, assuming 2% of the population is homosexual, millions of gays would have their lives saved by America abolishing the death penalty for homosexuality.  Tens of millions of women get saved from acid attacks and rape since the US would abolish religious law.  In the form of territory subsidies in exchange for natural resources, the locals get better jobs and poverty is drastically reduced, saving tens of millions of people from a slow; painful death; death of hunger.  All this good stuff for the entire continent and only 4 million soldiers die in the process of the invasion, sounds like a net positive to me.

Among this is that war must be only as a last resort.
I would prefer it if Africa voluntarily became a sum of US colonies.  But they probably would resist, so war is necessary.

Africa has not done any significant harm to the United States that would require a military intervention, thus we ought to leave it alone.
They have committed human rights abuses in their own country and the US should liberate those unjustly oppressed in Africa.

The United Nations, NATO, EU, and key US allies would strongly oppose such an invasion and would refuse to partake.
NATO and the EU are always trying to expand, so if they oppose the invasion, they are kindof hypocrites.  As for the UN, The UN's goals for the world are below and  a US invasion of Africa would meet these goals as shown below(sorry the goals are in caps, I can't change it easily):

MAINTAIN INTERNATIONAL PEACE AND SECURITY.  An invasion would help keep the African nations at relative peace with another, similar to how the British kept peace when they controlled India.
PROTECT HUMAN RIGHTS.  As an example, in Africa, many people get killed for being homosexual and real non consensual sexism is prevalent there.  People are also prohibited by their families to go to school, thereby keeping them in poverty even more.  An invasion would cause human rights to flourish.  It would get more people educated.  It would deliver human rights to the homosexuals and females, something that the left and increasingly the right wants.  
DELIVER HUMANITARIAN AID: I would want $500 billion delivered in humanitarian aid to all US colonies on the basis of population annually.  This would go towards developing Africa instead of providing things like food, which the locals have been doing well enough for the time being.  The African colonies in return, would have to collectively supply the US with $800 billion in natural resources that the US sells to other places for the $800 billion.  THe US gets $300 Billion.  Africa gets $500 Billion.  Sounds like a win win.
PROMOTE SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT Once enough good roads are built in Africa and other developments, like clean energy for the Africans, this would create jobs from which people can afford to buy better food.  They don't have to grow it on their own, but they are nonetheless, developing.  This also provides incentive for American companies to go out and get cheap land to start their businesses.  It would be great for the American stock market.
UPHOLD INTERNATIONAL LAW.  Here, they basically want to limit aggression between states.  In the short term, this will not be the case.  However, as I had mentioned above, in the long term, not only would there be more peace in Africa as history has confirmed with the U.K. and India, but there will also be in the long term, more peace between Africa and the US if the Africans are treated well enough under US rule.  No slavery is necessary for the invasion.  This way, Africans feel more American and as a result, they would want to stay in the nation that offers them citizenship.  In other words, they ideally consent to being a colony because they don't want to lose their newly acquired American citizenship.

The global image of the United States would be shattered, and the entire world would essentially be against the United States.
If we convince the UN to allow it (which is easier then you think since it meets the UN's principles), then the world would probably reluctantly agree to it.
==Conclusion==

An invasion would increase the GDP per capita significantly of both Africa and the US, and it would promote decent human rights worldwide.  It saves millions of human lives in the long term in the form of human rights expansion and reducing poverty.  It meets UN standard's as long as we don't treat the locals like slaves or second class citizens, and it ought to be done to help end poverty while enhancing the US economy as well.

The resolution is affirmed.

Your floor Virt


Published:
Thank you for your response.
 
== Pro’s Case ==
 
I. GDP Increase/Economic Benefits
 
I’ll address these two points here. There are far better ways to increase the GDP besides waging a bloody war against Africa. Africa’s GDP has slowly increased over the past few years[1]without a bloody and expensive war.
 
The US economy is at an all-time high. We are currently in the longest economic recovery in US history.[2]Ironically, the US war with Iraq significantly damaged our economy. The Iraq war added over $1 trillion to the US debt[3]and caused thousands of needless deaths.
 
II. Human Rights
 
So what? This is none of our business. Almost every single nation violates human rights in at least someway. Indeed, the Human Rights Watch notes that the United States continues to move backwards on human rights with harsh criminal sentences, disenfranchising voters, unjust use of the death penalty, racial profiling, among many other things.[4]Should the US invade America? Oh wait…
 
The US should not be the police of the world. The US primary goal is to protect its own citizens and not policing the world.
 
== My Case ==
 
III. Practicality
 
Pro is extremely naïve in how difficult this invasion would actually be. Not only would the entire continent of Africa be united against us, but many nations would, without a doubt go, to Africa’s aid. How exactly will you convince the rest of the world to go along with it? Moreover, there will be huge protests from the anti-war movement. The 2003 Iraq war saw the biggest anti-war protest in history.[5]Finally, Proconcedes that it would be much harder to eliminate an entire continent! Please extend this argument across the board.  
IV. Cost
 
Pro concedes that it would be far more expensive to invade an entire continent. It took us 3 years to defeat the Nazis and it took us
 
V. Unjust
 
Pro concedes that many thousands of people will die in the invasion. My opponent cited ZERO evidence that more lives will be saved. In fact, I would wager that more people would be killed.
 
VI. International Relations
 
Pro is woefully ignorant of what NATO actually is. Directly from the NATO website[6]:
 
NATO’s essential and enduring purpose is to safeguard the freedom and security of all its members by political and military means. Collective defence is at the heart of the Alliance and creates a spirit of solidarity and cohesion among its members.
NATO is primarily concerned about it’s own member states, not other states. Indeed, if Pro thinks NATO is hypocritical about invading an entire continent, then it should invade the US, South America, most of Asia as well.
 
The resolution is negated.

Round 3
Published:
Thank you for your response.

There are far better ways to increase the GDP besides waging a bloody war against Africa.

Like what?  The UN has tried foreign aid for a pretty long time and that hasn't worked in eliminating extreme poverty on the continent, otherwise after the 35 years or so they have been doing it, it would be eliminated.  Instead, Africa still remains a terrible place to live for the average person. Rich nations just aren’t willing to fund Africa for free and who could blame them; they earned their money. Africa ought to do the same.  Invasion and Trade would be better for the continent then what the UN has done.(1)  The UN has had their way for 35 years.  The US ought to be given the same amount of time to deal with poverty in the region, and we should be allowed to invade the continent if beneficial to the locals.

Africa’s GDP has slowly increased over the past few years[1]without a bloody and expensive war.

It’s increased, but it’s nowhere near the economic capability per person of the west.  Under US rule, both the US and Africa would get richer with trading under the colonial exchange(the US gives Africa $500 Billion in subsidies and gets $800 Billion in natural resources.)  We benefit. Africa benefits.

The US economy is at an all-time high. We are currently in the longest economic recovery in US history.[2]Ironically, the US war with Iraq significantly damaged our economy. The Iraq war added over $1 trillion to the US debt[3]and caused thousands of needless deaths.

The Iraq war was a war to reduce the influence of terrorists(2).  It’s much harder to eliminate an idea then it is to eliminate a country.  The US was able to defeat Nazi ruled Germany because all they had to do was invade the country.  Once it happened, the US occupied the region and rebuilt Germany in their image. When that was done, Germany became one of the most prosperous regions in Europe, maybe even the most prosperous.  If we do the same to Africa, Africa becomes less of a dictatorship and more American, more western. Fighting an idea, like militant Islam is different and harder then fighting a nation because you can’t destroy an idea militantly.  You destroy the corruption and tyranny in Africa by invading and staying in the continent and promoting your values over the traditional values.

So what? This is none of our business.

It infringes on the rights of others by unjustly taking their lives for petty crimes.  The US is about individual freedom.  We haven’t been able to maintain it entirely in our own country, but at least the US doesn’t execute people for any crime except for murder and maybe serial rape.  I don’t know if you believe this, but if a westerner says a homophobic slur, they can get kicked off of DART(3).  But Africa is just allowed to imprison, torture, and execute homosexuals and allowed to oppress women.  This is a double standard and such a culture does not deserve to exist on this planet.

Almost every single nation violates human rights in at least someway. Indeed, the Human Rights Watch notes that the United States continues to move backwards on human rights with harsh criminal sentences, disenfranchising voters, unjust use of the death penalty, racial profiling, among many other things.[4]

Define harsh criminal sentences?  I don’t think your cite said anything about, “disenfranchising voters” although I might be wrong.  I found this out by CTRL+Find, “disenfranchising voters”. The death penalty is justifiably used in the US.  The only people who get it are those who have a cornucopia of evidence against them for murder or a serious felony.  Africa on the other hand, often unjustly jails or kills homosexuals and women are often raped for being alone without a husband in public.  It’s also legal in many African nations to rape alone women in public. This is what African culture is; religious law.

The US should be the police of the world.  America must lead. This is necessary to prevent rouge states from enforcing religious law and to maintain basic human rights, such as bodily autonomy(not including abortion, that’s a different issue), freedom of association, freedom of speech, right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, capitalism, the right to bear arms and more.

The US primary goal is to protect its own citizens and not policing the world.
Given that Americans enjoy one of the highest GDP per capitas in the world and way more people enter the country then leave(even with immigration restrictions and the wall) I would say that American citizens live pretty good lives, so good that people risk their lives to come here.

Pro is extremely naïve in how difficult this invasion would actually be. Not only would the entire continent of Africa be united against us, but many nations would, without a doubt go, to Africa’s aid.

China would, Russia would.  But the US military’s budget is much higher than China’s, Russia’s, And Africa's combined.  We also have NATO to help us out. China and Russia won’t be able to train a sufficient amount of troops to defend Africa from the US.  By the time they do, Africa gets treated so well that they would be fine with being a colony of the US.

How exactly will you convince the rest of the world to go along with it?

Similar to how I’m trying to convince you and the voters.  Stating that it would improve both economies, would expand human rights, and would save more people in the long term from the pros.  Less people die for homosexuality and adultury. Millions of people get freed for trivial crimes.

Moreover, there will be huge protests from the anti-war movement.

The anti-war movement isin’t that big.  People obviously would be against it at first, but once they see Africa being helped out, they would support it like they supported fighting the soviets in the cold war.  The Africa War would be viewed more like the Korean War and less like the Vietnam War. We invade then rebuild. Under this method, Africa becomes more like South Korea and less like Iraq, both areas where the US was involved.  We stayed in Korea. We left in Iraq.

The 2003 Iraq war saw the biggest anti-war protest in history.[5]

The Iraq war didn’t benefit the locals economically much.  It was designed to fight terrorism. and created more terrorism when the US left.  When Obama pulled troops out, it left a power vacuum that ISIS filled.(2)

Since Africa’s GDP is comparable to Germany’s, it would be about as hard.  Europe did it no problem. If only western Europe can do it (mostly done by Britain and France), America can do it since the US is stronger than Britain and France combined.  Many of the countries that had a stake in Africa could have invaded the whole continent if there were no other European powers, since they were stronger. The UK was stronger then Africa.  So was France. Portugal might have been too. Their only constraints were each other. If France could beat and overtake all of Africa, so can America especially if we don’t oppress the locals to the extent where they would want to be independent.

Pro concedes that it would be far more expensive to invade an entire continent. It took us 3 years to defeat the Nazis and it took us

You did not finish you claim in this section.

“Pro concedes that many thousands of people will die in the invasion. My opponent cited ZERO evidence that more lives will be saved. In fact, I would wager that more people would be killed.”  You fail to provide evidence that more would be killed then saved.  

Human rights increasing and poverty decreasing would save more lives then the 3 million soldiers that would die in the invasion.  About 2.3% of the population is homosexual or bisexual (4).  Africa’s population is around 1.4 billion.  This means 30 million people, saved from death because of American influence from this alone.  Factoring in the millions that get saved from poverty because of American efforts to buy stuff from Africa (like natural resources)

Pro is woefully ignorant of what NATO actually is. Directly from the NATO website[6]:

NATO’s essential and enduring purpose is to safeguard the freedom and security of all its members by political and military means. Collective defence is at the heart of the Alliance and creates a spirit of solidarity and cohesion among its members.


NATO is primarily concerned about it’s own member states, not other states. Indeed, if Pro thinks NATO is hypocritical about invading an entire continent, then it should invade the US, South America, most of Asia as well.

If The US annexed Africa, any attack on it would be met with the full force of NATO.  Once the US invades, if we treat the locals well, they won’t want to break away to form their own country.

The resolution is affirmed.

Sources

  1. http://www.globalissues.org/article/35/foreign-aid-development-assistance
  2. https://www.studymode.com/essays/Why-Did-United-States-Go-War-Iraq-65093830.html
  3. https://www.debateart.com/rules
  4. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality#Africa

Published:
Thank you, Alec! I have thoroughly enjoyed this debate and I hope the readers have as well. Per the rules, this is my last round and I will waive the next. As such, I will now give a brief summary of my arguments and why you should vote Con.

 I. Observations

Pro has an immense burden of proof in this debate. War is something to never take lightly. Consequently, we ought to seriously consider the pros and cons before going to war -- especially when the goal is an invasion and occupying the land. That being said, we also must look at the practicality and end game goals. We must weigh cost vs. benefit 

II. Voting Issues

With all that said, I'll now conclude with some voting issues. 

My main arguments in this debate are: (1) That invading Africa is not practical; (2) That invading Africa would be too costly; (3) That such an invasion is unjust; and (4) Our international relationships will deteriorate. 

Pro says winning an invasion would be easy, but never says how it will be easy. Since Pro is arguing for an invasion of Africa, he needs to have a plan of attack in order for his arguments to hold weight. Moreover, Pro fails to respond to the fact that (1) the entire African continent will be united against the American invaders; and (2) That countries outside Africa will join them against the United States. My opponent actually admits that China and Russia would join against us. Moreover, noting that we have a higher amount of spending does not mean that it will be easy for us to win. Again, how will we win the invasion and what is Pro's strategy? Where will Pro attack first? What country will he attempt to take over first? These are vital questions that Pro leaves unanswered. 

Next, such an invasion would be unjust because of the number of casualties -- both civilian and military -- along with the fact that this invasion would violate the just war doctrine. In response to this, Pro once again concedes that there will be a high number of casualties. In response to this, Pro suggests that more lives will be saved. However, he never actually proves this point. The 30 million people "saved" from death is simply unsourced and is not rooted in any facts. Furthermore, we simply do not know the number of casualties in the war to compare it to. 

Lastly, I contend that an invasion would deteriorate relationships from around the world. Pro keeps saying that it would be easy to convince the rest of the world to go along with this. I have provided strong examples of why that would be impossible by showing recent reluctance to go along with the Iraq invasion

III. Concluding remarks

Thank you for a fun debate! I hope the readers enjoyed this as well. If I would like to offer a few tips to pro: (1) In the future, the affirmative side should speak first, especially with a resolution like this; (2) I would urge you to use a better format next time. It was difficult following your rebuttals and defense. Quoting every single paragraph is not needed. 

Thank you. Please vote con!
Round 4
Published:
Pro has an immense burden of proof in this debate. War is something to never take lightly. Consequently, we ought to seriously consider the pros and cons before going to war -- especially when the goal is an invasion and occupying the land. That being said, we also must look at the practicality and end game goals. We must weigh cost vs. benefit 
I provided by BoP.  You have yet to suggest an alternative way to help the Africans out.  My way is mutually beneficial to America.  

That invading Africa is not practical
It's mutually beneficial.  An invasion is practical.

Pro says winning an invasion would be easy, but never says how it will be easy.
Africa spends $50 billion on it's military per year.  The US spends close to $700 billion.  Even with China and Russia helping out, the US would easily win.

That invading Africa would be too costly
We profit in the long term.  Under the post-colonial set up, we get $800 Billion in natural resources in exchange for $500 billion in subsidies.  If it costs $600 Billion to invade, we'll break even in 2 years.

That such an invasion is unjust
Why?

Our international relationships will deteriorate. 
If we fix the continent, I imagine nations worldwide would see this and rather then hate the US, they would think that the invasion was justified in the long term.

Since Pro is arguing for an invasion of Africa, he needs to have a plan of attack in order for his arguments to hold weight.
The plan is to attack the capitols of the nations, getting them to surrender, and once that happens, their sovereignty becomes ours, even with some bloodshed.  Our military can fly to the capitols to invade the place.  Rebuilding happens once we invade what we invade the continent.

Where will Pro attack first? What country will he attempt to take over first? 
I want to attack them all at the same time.  However, if I had to pick one country to invade first, I would select Liberia because it is the most American place on the continent.  We improve Liberia a lot from a reduced form of the deal that I presented($500 Billion in subsidies in exchange for $800 billion in natural recouces) to help the Liberians get out of poverty.

Next, such an invasion would be unjust because of the number of casualties -- both civilian and military -- along with the fact that this invasion would violate the just war doctrine
It does not violate the Just War doctrine because more life, liberty, prosperity, and the pursuit of happiness comes from the invasion.  The doctrine states, ""Force may be used only to correct a grave, public evil, i.e., aggression or massive violation of the basic human rights of whole populations.""(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just_war_theory#Criteria)  Violation of basic human rights are in Africa right now.  They have theocracy and many countries don't allow their citizens to vote for officers.  Illegal conventional slavery, sex slavery, and human trafficking is widespread in Africa.  

 In response to this, Pro once again concedes that there will be a high number of casualties. In response to this, Pro suggests that more lives will be saved. However, he never actually proves this point.
https://www.thelifeyoucansave.org/learn-more/what-is-extreme-poverty states that 7500 people die from extreme poverty related causes.  If the US invades, this can be eliminated or largely reduced in the form of subsidies for natural resources.  If 3 million die from the invasion, and 3000 can be saved from poverty related deaths, which tend to be more painful since starvation is more painful then getting shot in the back, then in about 3 years, more people get saved from death.


Furthermore, we simply do not know the number of casualties in the war to compare it to. 
It's safe to say that the number is in the millions.

Pro keeps saying that it would be easy to convince the rest of the world to go along with this. I have provided strong examples of why that would be impossible by showing recent reluctance to go along with the Iraq invasion
We didn't invade Iraq, even if people like to call it that.  We occupied them.  If we invaded them, then Iraq would be part of the United States.  If we did invade them, their standard of living would skyrocket.  It's bad to occupy a place without just cause.  It's justified to invade a place because you rebuild it once it's yours.  When Germany was invaded and rebuilt, their economy and standard of living skyrocketed.  When the Southern USA was rebuilt by the North after the civil war, they had a better society, free of legal slavery.

Concluding remarks:
Thank you for a fun debate!
Fun for me too.

 In the future, the affirmative side should speak first, especially with a resolution like this
I can present arguments, but much of my arguing is rebuttals.  This way, my opponent has nothing once I'm done rebutting.  If you don't like my format, I apologize, but it's how I debate best.

I would urge you to use a better format next time.
Any ideas?  You can state in the comment section.

Quoting every single paragraph is not needed. 
I'm worried if I don't then it's dropping points.

Thank you Virt for this fun debate.  Voters please vote Pro.
Published:
This space intentionally left blank. 
Added:
--> @Ramshutu
double oopsie
#60
Added:
--> @WaterPhoenix
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: WalterPhoenix // Mod action: [Removed]
>Points Awarded: 3 points to con for arguments.
>Reason for Decision: Con really did a nice job convincing me that THESE ARE BASIC HUMAN RIGHTS.
>Reason for Mod Action: Reason for Mod Action: This vote is not eligible to vote. In order to vote, an account must: (1) Read the site’s COC AND have completed 2 non-troll/non-FF debate OR have 100 forum posts.
Saying that, the voter does not sufficiently assess arguments.
To award arguments, the voter must (1) survey the main arguments and counterarguments in the debate, (2) weigh those arguments and counterarguments against each other, and (3) explain, based on the weighing process, how they reached their decision.
*******************************************************************
#59
Added:
--> @Ragnar
I've debated him on another topic and it was a massacre, which is why he trolls me in the comments section.
I was docked for points during the voting session because a random person made a silly comment, which award Alec points. I was already warned that people will do things like that just to get a win.
#58
Added:
--> @Alec, @mairj23
You two should debate this topic as a debate, rather than as comments here... Or heck, maybe a changed topic to Africa should invade the USA?
#57
Added:
--> @Alec
It's fairly clear that you don't know anything about this topic, especially by bringing up MOT Liberians.
It's kind of hard to take you serious.
#56
Added:
--> @mairj23
Mot Liberians aren't former slave descendants.
Instigator
#55
Added:
--> @Alec
Liberia was founded, established, colonized & controlled by US citizens.
Yes, you are 100% wrong yet again.
#54
Added:
--> @mairj23
AHAHAHAHHAHAh brain cell lost from your response
#53
Added:
--> @mairj23
They are the most similar to America, but I don't think we invaded Liberia. It would be like saying that Canada is similar to America, so we have invaded modern Canada. I'm not a history expert, so I might be wrong on this.
Instigator
#52
Added:
--> @Alec
You were the one who said that America never invaded Africa and I easily proved you wrong by mentioning Liberia in which you later said that I was correct.
#51
Added:
--> @Dr.Franklin
What you're saying & how you're acting is the epitome of madness.
#50
Added:
--> @mairj23
??. Explain
#49
Added:
--> @mairj23
What madness?
Instigator
#48
Added:
--> @Dr.Franklin
Stop da Madness.
#47
Added:
--> @mairj23
why did you bring it up in the first place
#46
#2
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
Overall, Con far and away had superior arguments compared to Pro

1 - GDP - Pro argues that two former colonies have high GDP's, but Con points out that not only is Africa improving on its own, but a continent-wide war would damage America's GDP since Iraq managed to do that on its own. The 'trade deal' Pro pulls out of nowhere to try to justify the benefits is a complete fiction and would never in reality come to fruition.
2 - Human Rights - This is Pro's strongest argument he makes in the whole debate, but even then, Con points out that the US is hardly the beacon of supporting Human Rights. From then on the argument devolves into whether or not the US should be the world police, and how many would die in the initial invasion so the argument is effectively abandoned.
3 - Impractical - Con is correct that the US invading all of Africa is entirely impractical, and Pro's assertion that an invasion would be 'easy to win' is hilariously short-sighted given recent US performance in Afghanistan, Iraq, Vietnam, etc.... Con also points out how other nations outside of Africa would oppose our actions, making an invasion even more impractical, which ties into the foreign relations argument made later on.
4 - Cost - This is far and away the worst argument that Pro makes, where he claims the cost of invading a continent would be cheap because 'its easier to defeat a state than an idea.' This does not defeat the fact that the war would be incredibly costly regardless of whether its against states or widespread beliefs, and Pro points out that the US's high military spending does not equate to wars being easy to win.
Pro's more outlandish claims which desperately needed to be sourced to hold any weight were instead just left as unsubstantiated claims. Con used a wealth of examples and solid reasoning across the board to show why the US should not invade the entire African continent, and easily clinched arguments in the debate.
#1
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
Nice to see more satire debates here (even as I suspect this debate was intended a certain different contender)... Bit of a weird setup, as normally pro would be the one to start things for an affirmative claim. I am not dismissing BoP rules, but negatives are a lot harder to prove, and ultimately don’t need to be proven until the positive is shown.
Gist:
A quote from each debater sums up a lot of it: “The invasion would be unwinnable and put the United States in a really bad spot.” Which is well exemplified by the example of Iraq “The Iraq war didn’t benefit the locals economically much. It was designed to fight terrorism. and created more terrorism when the US left.”
1. African Economy (pro, low significance)
Pro showed this was likely, and con showed that it is improving anyway. There are many horrors of warfare to be addressed, but this one benefit seems likely. So goes to pro, but isn’t a debate winning contention.
2. USA Economy and Cost (con, medium significance)
Con pre-refuted this area, but even if that were dismissed... Pro asserted in raw numbers what the result could be but did not verify why it would go exactly like this. Con countered with the damage it would do, using Iraq (rich with natural resources) as an example of how badly it could hurt us financially (further bolstered by the war on terror having cost us so much, for a much smaller and less diverse area than the proposed invasion).
3. Human Rights and Unjust (con)
Gay rights and such are apparently bad in Africa, but the proposal falls flat here as it can’t really be proven that we would be able to fix it even if we went in and killed untold millions of people. Con showed simple reason against declaring war on a people who have not wronged us; massive death toll (hundreds of thousands confirmed for smaller wars), for no guaranteed benefit to anyone (magically fixing everything was asserted, but not proven). Before con’s point about the logic of the rhetorical question “Should the US invade America?” pro had this about tied, but this set of replies showed the illogic of the attempted solution.
4. Practicality (con)
This ties in with other points, to show the massive cost. Pro tries to win this with “can handle the invasion if we were to cease to provide military aid in other places and focus on providing human rights and boosting the economy in Africa.” Which is a prime example of wishful thinking, as invading Africa would not guarantee these resources are suddenly free for such use. Plus pro outright admits that China and Russia would oppose us, and the wishful thinking that NATO would join us in World War 3 did not line up.
In the final round pro suggested some battle plans, but these were late, and still failed to prove that it’d be easy... Real war is not RTS games, having an expensive military, doesn’t mean the other side doesn’t have anyone who fights back (as suggested by their population, not to mention those who would oppose us).
5. International Relations (con, low significance)
That our allies did not stand with us for smaller invasions, implies we would have little support (this goes toward the practicality angle as well), and that the damage this would do us for any future endeavors (the impacts here were unclear, thus low significance... a case could have been made for bigger problems, but it wasn't really needed with all the other points).
That NATO and the UN are “Hypocrites,” doesn’t mean they would join us, even if their own mission statements would mean they should; it rather shows they are unlikely to as they are “Hypocrites.”
6. Alternative Plan (con)
“You have yet to suggest an alternative way to help the Africans out.” Not everything needs to be explicitly spelled out. Do Nothing is always the implied default, sure it does not result in the potential benefits but it avoids the guaranteed harms. Plus I am unclear where the obligation to sacrifice for the gain of others is stemming from. This connects to the moving goalpost of trying to redefine our invasion of Iraq, even when the agreed definitions made occupations and invasions synonymous.
---
Arguments: con
See above review of key points. The only benefit which held up was the economy in Africa, but this was outweighed by the harm to the US economy; and then the rest of the key points favored con as well, leaving little doubt.
Spelling and Grammar: tied, but leaning con
A couple of things here (in general, use my guide: https://tiny.cc/DebateArt).
1. Not everything needs to be quoted; ideally just enough to remind people what section you’re referring to.
2. Pro gained an intrinsic advantage here by controlling the narrative with his headings, but even copy/pasting his headings with their formatting would have improved things. When I wanted to review part of con's case, I could find it right away, but it was needlessly hard for lining up pro's case to the areas of argument.