Instigator / Pro
Points: 1

The United States should stay out of foreign entanglments

Finished

The voting period has ended

After 1 vote the winner is ...
billbatard
Debate details
Publication date
Last update
Category
Philosophy
Time for argument
One day
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
One week
Point system
Winner selection
Rating mode
Rated
Characters per argument
1,000
Required rating
1
Contender / Con
Points: 0
Description
The constitutional Founders of this Nation warned of foreign entanglements to avoid empire, and its harms, and yet here we are all over the chessboard we've been in afghanistan like what 20 years? does sit ever get better? unless a nation directly threatens us or our interests we should stay out of the global soap opera we never sem to make things any better
Round 1
Published:
the founders expressed the desire that we lead by example, if you study history this is how empires fall they over extend their reach
Forfeited
Round 2
Published:
Many of the same people who babble on about the original intent of the founders for issues like the first and second amendment , suddenly want to change the bar when it come s to empire, all of a sudden their is no universal value involved with the creation of the Republic and we must flow with the times, I find that incredibly hypocritical and expedient, and conduct wise my opponent forfeited
Published:
The United States should be in foreign affairs, for one big reason (I only have 1000 character's). This would cause the downfall of most nation's.

  • First, Had we not "entangled" ourselves in foreign affairs, we wouldn't be a nation, as the Dutch and French had agreed to help us for the reason we would help them. May that be influence, or money.
  • Second, Our humanitarian/military aid to other nation's is essential not only to influence worldwide, but also be essential to protect other's. Ex. being Bahrain's military fleet, Israel, Humanitarian efforts during natural disaster's. Without these, many countries would be left starving, or dying from invasion.
  • Finally, without this, many countries would fall for a different reason from the one stated above. If this policy was applied worldwide, many countries that rely on each other, like the Europe, would no longer have needed supplies from other countries.
For these reasons, I prove that the U.S. should be involved in foreign entanglements.
Round 3
Published:
The founders of this nation has set values, they felt were timeless and applied into the future.. one of the values was that a Republic was not an empire and should stick to home, set a good example, and remain neutral in all things like Switzerland, everyone love Switzerland and now? everyone hates our guts, looks like the founders were right on at least this issue if not others too .. Washington dedicates a large part of his farewell address to discussing foreign relations and the dangers of permanent alliances between the United States and foreign nations, which he views as foreign entanglements.[9] . Washington had avoided American involvement in the conflict by issuing the Proclamation of Neutrality, which in turn led to the Neutrality Act of 1794. He tries to further explain his approach to foreign policy and alliances in this portion of the address.
Forfeited
Round 4
Published:
i must point out bad conduct as in forfeit stuff, and again this nation prides itself on sticking to the values of the founders almost as if it wee biblical okay then the founders were dead set against the united states getting involved in world affairs other than trade diplomacy and national interest "In that Farewell Address, Washington warned against the peril of foreign entanglements. He understood the necessity of certain alliances in dire emergencies, but his general view of foreign policy encapsulates a wisdom that has been forgotten by today's generation of political leaders. As we near"President's Day," I thought I'd post an excerpt from Washington's famous address: The nation which indulges toward another an habitual hatred or an habitual fondness is in some degree a slave. "https://historynewsnetwork.org/blog/3572
Forfeited
Round 5
Published:
My opponent continues to forfiet maybe hes out with a hangover a date or meybe just maybe he realizes that the founders were totally against our getting mixed up in foregin matters the way we have, they warned us over and over
Forfeited
Added:
--> @DroneYoinker
"In summary, the original intent of the Second Amendment was to protect the right of the states to form and maintain state militias, free of the potential federal incursion created by Article I, section 8, clause 16 of the Constitution. Hopefully, we will one day get an intellectually honest majority on the Supreme Court that will reverse the judicial activism that the five right wing ideologues on SCOTUS forced on the American people in Heller, Citizens United, and the majority's dangerous restriction on the interstate commerce clause in National Federation of Independent Business et al. v. Sibelius (otherwise known as the "Obamacare" decision). " https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2012/12/25/1171716/-The-Second-Amendment-Has-Nothing-to-Do-with-Gun-Ownership
Instigator
#16
Added:
--> @DroneYoinker
The Gun Lobby's interpretation of the Second Amendment is one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word fraud, on the American People by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime. The real purpose of the Second Amendment was to ensure that state armies - the militia - would be maintained for the defense of the state. The very language of the Second Amendment refutes any argument that it was intended to guarantee every citizen an unfettered right to any kind of weapon he or she desires.
Retired Chief Justice Warren Burger, "The Right to Bear Arms," Parade Magazine, January 14, 1990.
Instigator
#15
Added:
--> @DroneYoinker
there is no right to own a gun, states has permission to form militias ans since the advent of national guards and standing armies? the second amendement is completely obsolete in realiy despite what any gun nut say there is absolutely no right to own a gun none at best it is a priviledge, the right to bear arms is a fiction
Instigator
#14
Added:
Ok, you know what. I'm not cut out for this. I'm going to stick to one thing at a time. I have absolutely no time to get on this site.
Contender
#13
Added:
--> @billbatard
The reason I asked the question was due to the fact that you referenced the 2nd Amendment and conflated that with the foreign affairs statement. One is a right, one is a suggestion. You determine which is which.
#12
Added:
OMG I'm so sorry I forfeited. I keep forgetting this place exists because of DDO. I'll make it up, I promise.
Contender
#11
Added:
--> @billbatard
Wait a minute, bro. You are for gun control, but now you're citing the Founders. Doesn't that also make you a hypocrite?
#10
Added:
--> @DroneYoinker
thats because it was a stupid question
Instigator
#9
Added:
--> @DroneYoinker
why does it have to, whats so important about the constitution there is nothing in the constitution that prevents us from avioding foreign entanglements either where in the constittuion does it say we have to stick our nose into everyones business? see what i did there? ther eis nothing in the contittution saying we have to go around the world playing police man either
Instigator
#8
Added:
--> @billbatard
I don't think you answered my question though. Where on the BILL OF RIGHTS or CONSTITUTION does it say that?
#7
Added:
--> @DroneYoinker
Washington dedicates a large part of his farewell address to discussing foreign relations and the dangers of permanent alliances between the United States and foreign nations, which he views as foreign entanglements.[9] This issue dominated national politics during the French Revolutionary Wars between France and Britain. Federalists favored Britain and the Jeffersonian Republicans favored France. The Republicans wanted the U.S. to honor the 1778 Treaty of Alliance and to aid France, while the Federalists favored an alliance with Britain. Washington had avoided American involvement in the conflict by issuing the Proclamation of Neutrality, which in turn led to the Neutrality Act of 1794. He tries to further explain his approach to foreign policy and alliances in this portion of the address.
Washington advocates a policy of good faith and justice towards all nations, again making reference to proper behavior based upon religious doctrine and morality. He urges the American people to avoid long-term friendly relations or rivalries with any nation, arguing that attachments with or animosity toward other nations will only cloud the government's judgment in its foreign policy. He argues that longstanding poor relations will only lead to unnecessary wars due to a tendency to blow minor offenses out of proportion when committed by nations viewed as enemies of the United States. He continues this argument by claiming that alliances are likely to draw the United States into wars which have no justification and no benefit to the country beyond simply defending the favored nation. Alliances, he warns, often lead to poor relations with nations who feel that they are not being treated as well as America's allies, and threaten to influence the American government into making decisions based upon the will of their allies instead of the will of the American people.
Instigator
#6
Added:
--> @DroneYoinker
George Washington's farewell address is a letter written by President George Washington as a valedictory to "friends and fellow-citizens" after 20 years of public service to the United States.[1] He wrote it near the end of his second term of presidency before retiring to his home at Mount Vernon in Virginia.
The letter was first published as The Address of Gen. Washington to the People of America on His Declining the Presidency of the United States in the American Daily Advertiser on September 19, 1796, about ten weeks before the presidential electors cast their votes in the 1796 election. It is a classic statement of republicanism,[2] warning Americans of the political dangers which they must avoid if they are to remain true to their values. It was almost immediately reprinted in newspapers throughout the country, and later in pamphlet form.[3]
The first draft was originally prepared by James Madison in June 1792, as Washington contemplated retiring at the end of his first term in office.[4] However, he set it aside and ran for a second term because of heated disputes between Secretary of the Treasury Alexander Hamilton and Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson which convinced Washington that the growing tensions would rip apart the country without his leadership. This included the state of foreign affairs, and divisions between the newly formed Federalist and Democratic-Republican parties.[5]
As his second term came to a close four years later, Washington prepared a revision of the original letter with the help of Hamilton to announce his intention to decline a third term in office. He reflects on the emerging issues of the American political landscape in 1796, expresses his support for the government eight years after the adoption of the Constitution, defends his administration's record, and gives valedictory advice to the American people.[6] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Washington%27s_Farewell_Address
Instigator
#5
Added:
--> @billbatard
Where on the constitution or bill of rights is it written that the US needs to stay out of foreign affairs?
#4
Added:
Could you add more to a case? I have nothing to refute!
Contender
#3
Added:
so all of a sudden the priciples of the founders are NOT universal? so then can we finally get rid of th second amndment by the same reasoing?
Instigator
#2
#1
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Winner 1 point
Reason:
80% forfeiture, con had three rounds to defend their case or assault pro's, this is a pretty overwhelming problem.
Pro's appeal to tradition, and pointing out how well it works for the Swiss, win pro the debate (again, in large part to it being unchallenged for so long). I also don't buy cons argument when it comes to trade, as this debate was clearly intended to be about wars (as the description showed with Afghanistan).