Instigator / Con
0
1480
rating
24
debates
56.25%
won
Topic
#4814

America Does not stand for Democracy or Freedom

Status
Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
0
0
Better sources
0
0
Better legibility
0
0
Better conduct
0
0

After not so many votes...

It's a tie!
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
4
Time for argument
One week
Max argument characters
30,000
Voting period
Two weeks
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Pro
0
1500
rating
3
debates
66.67%
won
Description

No information

Round 1
Con
#1
Greetings. I would like to start Pro for accepting the debate.

Opening statement: The United States gained independence from Great Britain, which was ruled by a monarch at the time. In 1783. Since then, the United States has been widely regarded as a republic and a beacon of liberty and democracy. Even the French Revolution was inspired by it. But some individuals like my opponent do not think so. The reasons why America is a democracy and stands for freedom can be found here.

Argument 1:  The definition of a Democracy is defined as 
"a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections." https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/democracy
America fits this definition to a T since it not only holds elections for all representative branches. And it is also, according to the levels of government that we are discussing, both directly and indirectly democratic. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_the_United_States. A French author named Alexis de Tocqueville has even written a book about democracy in America. Who explains why democracy has succeeded where others have failed in America's representative republic.  https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_in_America Although there are no systems without problems. It is indisputable that America is a democracy and cannot be denied.

Argument 2: Touching on the subject of Freedom. I'll admit that the US has a history of interference in other countries. I will also admit that the foreign policy has not been at the best interest for people not fortunate enough to be Americans. However, that fact does not prevent America from being a free nation. Americans have a long list of fundamental rights that America's society upholds. These principles of freedom include freedom of speech, rights to bear arms, right to remain silent, and many other rights that other society's that claim to be free will not give. All of that will be found in the United States Constitution. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights

It is easy to look at America, see them not helping foreign people and claim that it's not holding up to its principles of freedom. But that's a misunderstanding. America does not claim to uphold freedom and Democratic ideals for everyone on the planet. Like most nations, it uses such concepts exclusively for its own citizens. And since American society stays true to itself in this regard. It maintains itself as a nation of freedom even if that is not true for foreigners.

Conclusion: The United States, despite interference in other countries and the questionable foreign policy that it has instituted, is a democracy and a freedom society because of its adherence to these ideals with its peoples and style of government. Disapproving of its actions abroad does not make it any less democratic or free.
Pro
#2
Firstly thank you to Con for accepting this debate and for their first argument, and good luck to them for the rest of this debate.

America does not for freedom and democracy. This cannot be conflated with America being a ‘democracy’ or ‘free nation’ itself. To stand for something means   
to support a particular set of ideas, values, or principles
this means that the USA standing for freedom and democracy isn’t just itself practicing, a very much flawed form of democracy and having certain freedoms, but it must also support these same beliefs in multiple areas, which, as my opponent has already acknowledged, the USA most definitely doesn’t do in its foreign policy. 

The USA supports 73% of the worlds dictatorships like Saudi Arabia, Brunei and Qatar https://truthout.org/articles/us-provides-military-assistance-to-73-percent-of-world-s-dictatorships/. This is obviously not standing for the principle of democracy in the world. This blatant hypocrisy from the USA means that it cannot be taken seriously that they’re the beacon of freedom and democracy. US intervention in removal of foreign governments that are democratically elected, like Allende in Chile https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1973_Chilean_coup_d%27état#:~:text=On%20September%2011%2C%201973%2C%20a,a%20coup%2C%20ending%20civilian%20rule.&text=Armed%20forces%20put%20the%20country,Little%20and%20unorganised%20civil%20resistance. or Mossadegh in Iran, in favour of imposing a right-wing despot like Pinochet and a Monarchy under the Shah. Yet again showing that US foreign policy is in favour of supporting undemocratic values, as long as it’s in the US self interest, which in turn was a lack of support of freedom, for example the freedom of thought and speech was massively prohibited in Pinochet’s Chile, seen by 3,200 left wing people being murdered just for their beliefs https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_abuses_in_Chile_under_Augusto_Pinochet
the USA orchestrated Pinochet coming to power then supported the regime throughout its breach of human rights and freedoms that are apparently so important to America. As we can see the US is not supporting democracy or freedom in these cases, thus they don’t stand for democracy and freedom.

Now for some rebuttals:
America fits this definition to a T since it not only holds elections for all representative branches
But what about the other third of the US government? The Supreme Court is unelected and has power to strike down an elected branches bill and thus their mandate, seen by the recent striking down of debt relief to students. This is 9 unelected (by the people) justices making decisions against the will of the elected representative of the people, which seems i democratic to me.
These principles of freedom include freedom of speech, rights to bear arms, right to remain silent, and many other rights that other society's that claim to be free will not give
Society’s that we would acknowledge as free and developed like Denmark, Canada or Australia have higher freedom rankings than the USAhttps://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/freedom-index-by-country and this score is measured by using factors such as free speech, freedom of religion, safety from authorities overreach, and legal safety and freedom. These developed countries like Latvia or Luxembourg have all the freedoms the USA has, bar the right to bear arms, which is not an fundamental right according to anyone but the US and actual harms freedoms e.g a right to life as gun deaths in America massively out score the other developed and free countries I’ve mentioned and the others I haven’t.https://wisevoter.com/country-rankings/gun-deaths-by-country/#gun-violence-by-country
Now what differentiates the nations like Latvia and Estonia from the US is that they stand for freedom, which they have more of, as they don’t forcefully take freedom from other people and nations for their own benefit.
But that's a misunderstanding. America does not claim to uphold freedom and Democratic ideals for everyone on the planet
it’s not a misunderstanding at all, America does claim to stand for democracy on the world stage and has formally passed bills acknowledging so. Most American Cold War policies, like the Eisenhower doctrine, gave the US government ‘legitimacy’ to interfere in other countries on the grounds of upholding political independence and freedom in these countries. The real translation of these Cold War policies are that the USA should be allowed to overthrow left leaning democracies like Iran, Guatemala and Chile and impose pro-US dictators. This is not standing for freedom, despite the rhetoric and speeches of Reagan, Clinton, Biden and all US presidents post WW2 who claim that their interference or cold warrior stance is pro-democracy and that the US is helping the citizens of a country who’s elected leader was being removed. You may not believe that the US doesn’t claim to uphold democracy and freedom in other areas, but presidents, CIA directors do, Cabinet members do, they claim to be freeing the people from terrible things like in Vietnam or Iraq. George Bush said that the goal was to save the Iraqi people and create a free country https://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/infocus/iraq/news/20030319-17.html did this happen? Did the US uphold freedom and democracy in this war? It didn’t. It didn’t respect the Iraqis freedom of religion, right to life or right to a fair trial in many cases.

Conclusion:
When Con says that USA is a democracy and a free nation, they are mostly correct in saying this. Of course the USA is no leader in democracy, being ranked 30th by the Economist Democratic Index behind nations like Canada and Mauritius and described as a ‘flawed democracy’ https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Economist_Democracy_Index, or freedom as I’ve mentioned before. If the title of this debate was ‘the USA is a democracy and free country’ then Con would be correct, as many problems the USA has in these areas, it can be described as these things in a general definition. But that’s not the debate. The debate is ‘America Does not stand for Democracy or Freedom’ this, as explained earlier is different. Being something is different from standing for it, this is true in an individual sense and in the realms of this debate. If the USA was to stand for democracy it would support the values of democracy and condemn anti-democratic regimes in its actions, with the same being true in terms  of freedom. The USA, in its actions, rhetoric and policy does not support the values of democracy and freedom on a world stage and there are mountains of examples and evidence to show this, with William Blums ‘Killing Hope’ and Murphys ‘The triumph of evil’ outlining this well. Thus, the USA does not stand for democracy or freedom.

Further source of US intervention in overthrowing regimes :https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in_regime_change

Round 2
Con
#3
this means that the USA standing for freedom and democracy isn’t just itself practicing, a very much flawed form of democracy and having certain freedoms, but it must also support these same beliefs in multiple areas, which, as my opponent has already acknowledged, the USA most definitely doesn’t do in its foreign policy. 
Pro contradicts their own argument since they acknowledge that America is a form of Democracy and has freedoms even if they claim that they are flawed. It's a good idea for pro to remember the law of contradiction. We're not arguing whether such principles are perfect, but we know that the United States has them. Which is admitted by the Pro that America does have.

The USA supports 73% of the worlds dictatorships like Saudi Arabia, Brunei and Qatar https://truthout.org/articles/us-provides-military-assistance-to-73-percent-of-world-s-dictatorships/. This is obviously not standing for the principle of democracy in the world. This blatant hypocrisy from the USA means that it cannot be taken seriously that they’re the beacon of freedom and democracy. US intervention in removal of foreign governments that are democratically elected, like Allende in Chile https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1973_Chilean_coup_d%27état#:~:text=On%20September%2011%2C%201973%2C%20a,a%20coup%2C%20ending%20civilian%20rule.&text=Armed%20forces%20put%20the%20country,Little%20and%20unorganised%20civil%20resistance. or Mossadegh in Iran, in favour of imposing a right-wing despot like Pinochet and a Monarchy under the Shah. Yet again showing that US foreign policy is in favour of supporting undemocratic values, as long as it’s in the US self interest, which in turn was a lack of support of freedom, for example the freedom of thought and speech was massively prohibited in Pinochet’s Chile, seen by 3,200 left wing people being murdered just for their beliefs https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_abuses_in_Chile_under_Augusto_Pinochetthe USA orchestrated Pinochet coming to power then supported the regime throughout its breach of human rights and freedoms that are apparently so important to America. As we can see the US is not supporting democracy or freedom in these cases, thus they don’t stand for democracy and freedom.
Pro's evidence shows that America has supported undemocratic countries in the past. That might seem hypocritical from a fanatical point of view. However, the fact that America's willing to work with other people who aren't aligned with its values shows what a freethinking society it is. Which can only be done if America has freedom as a principal.

The US, having joined NATO, has a history of supporting democratic countries as well. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO America has also opposed Dictator regimes like Saddam Hussain. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War   And more recently, Putin's regime and its illegal war in Ukraine. //en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russo-Ukrainian_War   As well as protecting Taiwan a small democratic Island nation from the CCP of China.  https://www.state.gov/u-s-relations-with-taiwan/   Saying America does not stand up for freedom and democracy simply because of its absence of fanaticism and willingness to cooperate with others is therefore false.
But what about the other third of the US government? The Supreme Court is unelected and has power to strike down an elected branches bill and thus their mandate, seen by the recent striking down of debt relief to students. This is 9 unelected (by the people) justices making decisions against the will of the elected representative of the people, which seems i democratic to me.
Pro misunderstands the role of the Supreme Court. It is true that the judiciary is not elected. That's because it's not representative of its nature. The Supreme Court's mandate is to enforce and defend the law. Only bills and laws which can be regarded as injurious may be struck down. Said Strike downs are not absolute and can be reversed on appeal. The Court also relies on the cooperation of society to have any effect since they have no power to force people to obey them. They are therfore not undemocratic in nature even if they are not elected.


Society’s that we would acknowledge as free and developed like Denmark, Canada or Australia have higher freedom rankings than the USAhttps://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/freedom-index-by-country and this score is measured by using factors such as free speech, freedom of religion, safety from authorities overreach, and legal safety and freedom. These developed countries like Latvia or Luxembourg have all the freedoms the USA has, bar the right to bear arms, which is not an fundamental right according to anyone but the US and actual harms freedoms e.g a right to life as gun deaths in America massively out score the other developed and free countries I’ve mentioned and the others I haven’t.https://wisevoter.com/country-rankings/gun-deaths-by-country/#gun-violence-by-country
Now what differentiates the nations like Latvia and Estonia from the US is that they stand for freedom, which they have more of, as they don’t forcefully take freedom from other people and nations for their own benefit.
The evidence put forward by the pro is based on statistical data. Not factual evidence for that matter. For instance, Pro contends that both Lativa and Luxemburg have the same freedoms as America. But it is not the case when comparing their laws to that of the U.S. In Luxembourg law While Article 24 does state that Freedom of speech in all matters is granted. It also states that the exercise of that freedom is subject to the suppression of the offence committee. This means that despite claiming to have free speech. The government determines the citizens' capacity for expressing themselves.. Luxembourg Constitution (constitutionnet.org) America's First Amendment guarantees freedom of speech and press, but also ensures that there can be no limit to free speech. That's the opposite of Luxembourg law. First Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia   In Lativa law. It does not mention the right to bear arms or the right to defend oneself. Which is again opposite to American law.  Latvijas Republikas Satversme (likumi.lv)   If pro's Data was well researched as they claim, America based on actual law would on the top ten if not the very top for all the freedom the American legal system provides that the other nations will not.

Pro contradicts themselves again by admitting gun rights do not exist in many of the listed countries. They try to argue that this is not a fundamental right and that the deaths related to guns in America "Out score." the other developed countries. This is a contradiction for two reasons. 
  1.  The topic is about America being a Democracy and stands for freedom. it is not based about Whether other countries are better at these principles are not. So, I fail to see how a "score," is supposed to prove America is not democratic or free. If anything, putting on a score is an admission that America is democratic and free. Just not the level that Pro wants or respects. 
  2.  No matter what your personal feelings on guns might be. The fact that the USA will say that you have a right to one is a freedom by definition. So, when Pro argues that it's not since it goes against a right to life (not a Universal right by the way) They are being disingenuous since it does not matter what your view on the second Amendment is. The fact its present in America and is noticeable absent elsewhere. Makes it evidence for American freedom. Not against it.



t’s not a misunderstanding at all, America does claim to stand for democracy on the world stage and has formally passed bills acknowledging so. Most American Cold War policies, like the Eisenhower doctrine, gave the US government ‘legitimacy’ to interfere in other countries on the grounds of upholding political independence and freedom in these countries. The real translation of these Cold War policies are that the USA should be allowed to overthrow left leaning democracies like Iran, Guatemala and Chile and impose pro-US dictators. This is not standing for freedom, despite the rhetoric and speeches of Reagan, Clinton, Biden and all US presidents post WW2 who claim that their interference or cold warrior stance is pro-democracy and that the US is helping the citizens of a country who’s elected leader was being removed. You may not believe that the US doesn’t claim to uphold democracy and freedom in other areas, but presidents, CIA directors do, Cabinet members do, they claim to be freeing the people from terrible things like in Vietnam or Iraq. George Bush said that the goal was to save the Iraqi people and create a free country https://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/infocus/iraq/news/20030319-17.html did this happen? Did the US uphold freedom and democracy in this war? It didn’t. It didn’t respect the Iraqis freedom of religion, right to life or right to a fair trial in many cases.
Pro's assertion about the cold war is based largely on sentiment and unsourced information. I've already admitted that America has played a role in helping no democratic governments. But I demonstrated, too, that the US has a long history of providing aid to democratic countries. Pro seems to have misunderstood my point in round 1. I'm not saying that America does not claim to uphold democracy anywhere in the world. I said it was still a Democracy and free because it holds these principles within itself regardless of how it handled its foreign policy's.

When Con says that USA is a democracy and a free nation, they are mostly correct in saying this. Of course the USA is no leader in democracy, being ranked 30th by the Economist Democratic Index behind nations like Canada and Mauritius and described as a ‘flawed democracy’ https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Economist_Democracy_Index, or freedom as I’ve mentioned before. If the title of this debate was ‘the USA is a democracy and free country’ then Con would be correct, as many problems the USA has in these areas, it can be described as these things in a general definition. But that’s not the debate. The debate is ‘America Does not stand for Democracy or Freedom’ this, as explained earlier is different. Being something is different from standing for it, this is true in an individual sense and in the realms of this debate. If the USA was to stand for democracy it would support the values of democracy and condemn anti-democratic regimes in its actions, with the same being true in terms  of freedom. The USA, in its actions, rhetoric and policy does not support the values of democracy and freedom on a world stage and there are mountains of examples and evidence to show this, with William Blums ‘Killing Hope’ and Murphys ‘The triumph of evil’ outlining this well. Thus, the USA does not stand for democracy or freedom.
According to the pro, I'm mostly right when I say America is a free and democratic country. But the point of the debate is for pro to say that America does not stand for Democracy or Freedom. The Pro is attempting to establish a fallacy in which they admit America is a democracy and free but also claim that it's not due to bad foreign policies and opinionated Data claiming it to be flawed. The law of contradiction could be learned well by a pro. You can't be for something and not stand for it at the same time. That is equivalent to claiming that John Adams was for a democratic government but did not stand for it just because his later actions were flawed. If you say that America is democratic and free you cannot deny it having those principles. You do not need to be fantastic or on the world stage to uphold principles such as Democracy and freedom.

Conclusion: Pro admits that America holds democratic and free principles despite claiming that The US does not stand for these very principles which is a contradiction and a logical fallacy. By pointing out that America has worked with nondemocratic countries in the past, they are also using sophistry. The United States' contribution to democratic countries and its alliances with them is also completely ignored. Such as participating in NATO and supporting other countries, like Ukraine and Taiwan. The fact that America gives its peoples more freedom, is elected, and been a champion of helping Fellow democratic nations. It makes it clear that America stands for democracy and freedom. It practices it with its citizens. It's doing everything it can to support democratic countries. And in the last 200 years of its history, it has not ceased to be a democracy. Do not ignore America's history of upholding Democratic and Freedom values due to a dislike of its foreign policy's today.
Pro
#4
Con says I contradict myself by admitting that the USA domestically is a relatively democratic and free nation. This either a misunderstanding of my initial argument or deliberate bending of it. The debate says ‘America does not stand for freedom or democracy’, con didn’t define what ‘stand for’ was, and I did, under the definition I provided for the USA to stand for democracy it needs to support the ideals of freedom and democracy, which as I proved in my last argument the USA most certainly hasn’t. Con keeps saying that the USA is free and democratic, that is different to standing for democracy and freedom.
Pro's evidence shows that America has supported undemocratic countries in the past. That might seem hypocritical from a fanatical point of view. However, the fact that America's willing to work with other people who aren't aligned with its values shows what a freethinking society it is. Which can only be done if America has freedom as a principal. 
It’s not from a fanatical point of view at all, it’s 73% a clear majority of dictatorships receiving funding from America. When you say America is willing to work with other nations, this is a huge misrepresentation. America gives funding and military support to these dictatorships, with which these countries like Saudi Arabia (around $9.5bn in sales and support) and the UAE (around $1.5bn in sales and support according to the previous source) and what are these regimes doing? They’re committing genocide in Yemenhttps://www.genocidewatch.com/single-post/genocide-emergency-saudi-arabia-and-the-war-in-yemen if you consider this to be American upholding freedom and a show of America being a ‘freethinking society’ because they literally support and aid a genocidal regime, then clearly freedom isn’t America’s principle. America isn’t working with these dictatorships for any reason other than self interest, mostly oil of the Middle Eastern regimes. This isn’t America being ‘freethinking’ it’s just America willing to do anything for its own self interest, whether it be by supporting a genocidal regime and oppressing freedoms of citizens.
America has also opposed Dictator regimes like Saddam Hussain
I already explained how the Iraq war stripped many citizens and US soldiers of their right to life, freedom of religion etc. the murder of nearly 500,000 Iraqis https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-24547256.amp shows that freedom was not at the forefront of the US minds, getting rid of an anti-American leader was.
Saying America does not stand up for freedom and democracy simply because of its absence of fanaticism and willingness to cooperate with others is therefore false.
It’s not a willingness to be fanatic in its support for democracy and freedom, it’s the fact that it supports the majority of regimes that curb freedom and are undemocratic, it’s not a fanatical belief that to stand for democracy, you should be required to not support the majority of dictatorships in order to stand for democracy. It really is that simple. In terms of a willingness to co-operate, we’ve seen throughout history and to the present day that the USA would rather ally with a right-wing, capitalist dictatorship like Mobutu in Zaire (whom Reagan praised as a man of good will) rather than a democratically elected left-leaning government, this clearly isn’t the US standing up for democracy and freedom, it’s the USA standing up for its own interests with disregard for foreign people’s freedoms, like in Zaire there was huge curbs on free speech, such as 290 students being killed for protesting the regimehttps://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobutu_Sese_Seko 
America doesn’t have to be fanatical about democracy and freedom to stand for it, but the simple facts are that it’s continued support for a majority of regimes that are undemocratic and oppressors of freedom means that the US can’t stand for democracy or freedom.
America's First Amendment guarantees freedom of speech and press, but also ensures that there can be no limit to free speech
There are limits to free speech in the United States, there are liable laws, defamation and inciting violence are restricted https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exceptions#:~:text=Categories%20of%20speech%20that%20are,law%2C%20true%20threats%2C%20and%20commercial and as the data shows, it’s not just freedom of speech that is a factor, it is a number of factors. You can cherry pick specific freedoms, but that doesn’t take away from the general point and results of the data.
Lativa law. It does not mention the right to bear arms or the right to defend oneself. Which is again opposite to American law.
It doesn’t have the right to bear arms, like many countries with lower gun death rates. As I have already explained ‘the right to bear arms’ isn’t a fundamental human right, just an American one which as a non-American it’s the one right that we criticise and ridicule America for. Conflating American created rights with fundamental human rights and claiming that because Latvia doesn’t have the right to bear arms, it lacks freedom is an example of American exceptionalism and ignorance. Secondly, https://www.warnathgroup.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Latvia-Criminal-Code.pdf this explains the Latvian self defence laws and it’s workings.
rights.
No matter what your personal feelings on guns might be. The fact that the USA will say that you have a right to one is a freedom by definition. So, when Pro argues that it's not since it goes against a right to life (not a Universal right by the way) They are being disingenuous since it does not matter what your view on the second Amendment is. The fact its present in America and is noticeable absent elsewhere. Makes it evidence for American freedom. Not against it
This is one of the UN human rights ‘it prohibits arbitrary deprivation of life; torture, cruel or degrading treatment or punishment.’ Personally, the murdering of school children on a regular basis, and doing nothing to prevent or reduce this, would constitute a violation of this UN human right. To say that America’s own decisions and ‘freedoms’ like the right to bear arms, which in itself is contested in its meaning, means that it stands for freedom isn’t correct, America’s own freedoms aren’t a satisfactory measure. For example in India’s constitution there is nothing against marital rape by a man https://www.theindiaforum.in/amp/law/criminalising-marital-rape-india but would you say that Indian men have more freedom than British or American men, because they have this constitutional freedom of sex? Of course not, under the same premise the unique 2nd Amendment of the US constitution cannot be used as an example of freedom, as it is not common or widely acknowledged by the UN and other organisations as fundamental freedom. It is disingenuous on your part to say that the absence of similar ‘rights’ are proof of American freedom. Furthermore this doesn’t prove anything in terms of this debate, because even if America has this supposed unique freedom, it clearly doesn’t stand up for this or any other freedoms in the previously mentioned instances. Thus showing the US to not stand for freedom.
The topic is about America being a Democracy and stands for freedom. it is not based about Whether other countries are better at these principles are not. So, I fail to see how a "score," is supposed to prove America is not democratic or free. If anything, putting on a score is an admission that America is democratic and free. Just not the level that Pro wants or respects.
I have routinely said that standing for something and being something is different.
Pro's assertion about the cold war is based largely on sentiment and unsourced information. I've already admitted that America has played a role in helping no democratic governments. But I demonstrated, too, that the US has a long history of providing aid to democratic countries. Pro seems to have misunderstood my point in round 1. I'm not saying that America does not claim to uphold democracy anywhere in the world. I said it was still a Democracy and free because it holds these principles within itself regardless of how it handled its foreign policy's.

I provided a source at the bottom of my argument that shows American Cold War interventions, perhaps you missed that. The USA has aided democratic governments of course, but equally it has tried to and often successfully removed democratic governments, add in support of history’s dictators and the support for current dictators and it’s clear that America doesn’t stand for democracy and freedom. Again you keep saying that the US is a democracy and free country, but you miss the point, this isn’t the same as standing for democracy. Even when the US stands for democracy, it likes to stand for the democracies that are curbing freedom. Take US support for Israel, the US gave £2.7bn to Israel in 2020 https://www.bbc.com/news/57170576.amp
and recently voted unconditional support for Israel not being racist or an apartheid state in congress. Israel, according to Amnesty https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/campaigns/2022/02/israels-system-of-apartheid/ is an apartheid state. Even when supporting democracy, the US negates this by supporting the oppression of human rights and freedoms.
Pro admits that America holds democratic and free principles despite claiming that The US does not stand for these very principles which is a contradiction and a logical fallacy
It really isn’t. I provided a definition of to stand for, and the US, as you have admitted, doesn’t support democratic ideas in the world. When I say you can be something, but not stand for it, I’m not making a fallacy at all, I provided a definition, which you did not, in how being something and then standing for it are different, as the US needs to support democracy and freedom on a wider scale to prove and show that it’s stands for these things. 
It's doing everything it can to support democratic countries
Me when I just simply lie and ignore all evidence. I’m sorry but having shown you examples of this simply not being the case, the mountains of historical and current data and evidence that proves this statement to be factually incorrect, this is simply either ignorance or plain lying.

Conclusion:
Con yet again conflated being something as being the same as standing for something, without evidence. I provided a definition of ‘to stand for’ and have shown that the US categorically doesn’t fall under this definition, due to its lack of support for these ideals in the world and for foreign citizens. There’s enough evidence of current and historical actions of the US not supporting democratic governments and forcefully replacing them with dictators and the US not supporting freedoms, whether it be the freedoms of the Palestinians or the inmates at Guantanamo Bay freedoms aren’t stood for by America. As seen, American congress had a chance to stand for freedom, by condemning Israeli apartheid, but it didn’t instead it stood for evil and apartheid. The crux of this debate is pretty much what does ‘to stand for’ mean, I’ve defined this and given supporting evidence to show when it comes to the ideas and principles of democracy and freedom, the US supports the opposite of this on a consistent and regular basis. Thus, America, as much as Con keeps irrelevantly asserting that America is a democracy and free country, doesn’t stand for democracy or freedom.
Thank you for reading.

I also had trouble seeing some of Cons sources in the last 2 arguments, I’m not sure if for some reason they were censored where I am right now or it was just poor connection. I may be able to refute these sources when I’m home, sorry for any inconveniences or seeming ignorance Con, it’s not in purpose.


Round 3
Con
#5
Con says I contradict myself by admitting that the USA domestically is a relatively democratic and free nation. This either a misunderstanding of my initial argument or deliberate bending of it. The debate says ‘America does not stand for freedom or democracy’, con didn’t define what ‘stand for’ was, and I did, under the definition I provided for the USA to stand for democracy it needs to support the ideals of freedom and democracy, which as I proved in my last argument the USA most certainly hasn’t. Con keeps saying that the USA is free and democratic, that is different to standing for democracy and freedom.
Even if we're going to agree with Pro, and then obey his definition. The only way the United States would stand by Pro's understanding is for it to practice what Ideals said and help other democratic countries. This is what I've proved that the U.S. really does. Since it forms Alliances with Democratic nations, practices Democracy, and gives many civil liberties that make it a free society. You cannot claim that a nation that is itself a free and democratic society. Doesn't support the principles of democracy or freedom at all. If this were true, it would not be democratic or free. Pro is trying to establish a difference between being free and standing by freedom. But not only is that a fallacy. It lacks logic.

It’s not from a fanatical point of view at all, it’s 73% a clear majority of dictatorships receiving funding from America. When you say America is willing to work with other nations, this is a huge misrepresentation. America gives funding and military support to these dictatorships, with which these countries like Saudi Arabia (around $9.5bn in sales and support) and the UAE (around $1.5bn in sales and support according to the previous source) and what are these regimes doing? They’re committing genocide in Yemenhttps://www.genocidewatch.com/single-post/genocide-emergency-saudi-arabia-and-the-war-in-yemen if you consider this to be American upholding freedom and a show of America being a ‘freethinking society’ because they literally support and aid a genocidal regime, then clearly freedom isn’t America’s principle. America isn’t working with these dictatorships for any reason other than self interest, mostly oil of the Middle Eastern regimes. This isn’t America being ‘freethinking’ it’s just America willing to do anything for its own self interest, whether it be by supporting a genocidal regime and oppressing freedoms of citizens.
In this case, Pro is attempting to argue on a static basis. Their reasoning is that since America deals with undemocratic countries. It doesn't uphold freedom or democracy. It's not true, because America is also dealing with democratic countries. Pro does not respond to this fact and instead lays the blame for the actions of fully independent nations actions on America just because they do business dealings with them. Thie's not just a Sophistry. But there is also no common sense in it. If the owner of the gun sells the gun to the customer and the customer goes out and commits a crime. Are you blaming the owner of the store? The pro also claims that the United States infringes on the rights of citizens. But America is only responsible for the wellbeing of its own people who are not oppressed. Because Pro has not proved this to be the case. It is hearsay and nothing more.

I already explained how the Iraq war stripped many citizens and US soldiers of their right to life, freedom of religion etc. the murder of nearly 500,000 Iraqis https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-24547256.amp shows that freedom was not at the forefront of the US minds, getting rid of an anti-American leader was.
There's no right of life in America. Even if other countries claim it in their legal system. It doesn't apply to America as a country, since it's foreign law. By nature, war is also not undemocratic. You claim that 500,000 were murdered. But deaths in war are casualties, not murder. It's another attempt at sophistry, not a genuine argument.

It’s not a willingness to be fanatic in its support for democracy and freedom, it’s the fact that it supports the majority of regimes that curb freedom and are undemocratic, it’s not a fanatical belief that to stand for democracy, you should be required to not support the majority of dictatorships in order to stand for democracy.
And yet. for all your quickness to point out that we have helped and worked with undemocratic nations. You're not responding to the fact that we are NATO members and have been an ally of democracies around the world. You're only showing the times when America has been working with people who don't share its ideals. Which is biased.

It really is that simple. In terms of a willingness to co-operate, we’ve seen throughout history and to the present day that the USA would rather ally with a right-wing, capitalist dictatorship like Mobutu in Zaire (whom Reagan praised as a man of good will) rather than a democratically elected left-leaning government, this clearly isn’t the US standing up for democracy and freedom, it’s the USA standing up for its own interests with disregard for foreign people’s freedoms, like in Zaire there was huge curbs on free speech, such as 290 students being killed for protesting the regimehttps://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobutu_Sese_Seko 
In your own words, by your own admission. America did not commit any of these crimes that these dictators did. Your argument is one of guilty by the association. If a man named Mike offered, you a business deal on Tuesday and killed 400 people on Thursday. Since you've been a known associate, should we be arresting you? You're going to argue that you had nothing to do with it. Why should your defense be any better than the United States?

America doesn’t have to be fanatical about democracy and freedom to stand for it, but the simple facts are that it’s continued support for a majority of regimes that are undemocratic and oppressors of freedom means that the US can’t stand for democracy or freedom.
You keep claiming "America support undemocratic countries" and "these dictatorships committed crimes" But have you proven any direct connection between the two? No. You only keep insisting that because America has done business with these nations that we don't uphold freedom and Democracy. You're also saying we don't need to be fanatical in our commitment to democracy and freedom. The pro has no idea what fanaticism is. To be a fantastic or its simpler term, fundamentalist would mean that under no circumstances can we make deals with undemocratic nations. Whatever their situation, they'd have to be the enemy. You're saying we do not need to be this but at the same time you say that because we make deals with them. We don't adhere to the ideals of democracy. 

I ask Pro to make up their mind. Either Pro says America is not standing up for freedom because we compromise with dictatorships. That means that we're supposed to be fanatical about these ideals. Or Pro says we do not need to be fanatical about our ideals, at which point it is obvious that making a deal with an undemocratic country does not betray democracy and freedom as he has claimed so far.

There are limits to free speech in the United States, there are liable laws, defamation and inciting violence are restricted https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exceptions#:~:text=Categories%20of%20speech%20that%20are,law%2C%20true%20threats%2C%20and%20commercial and as the data shows, it’s not just freedom of speech that is a factor, it is a number of factors. You can cherry pick specific freedoms, but that doesn’t take away from the general point and results of the data.
 The first problem with the argument is that It states that the first Amendment protects free speech. only certain categories of speech are excepted from the first Amendment. It's not the freedom of speech itself. The second issue is that earlier the pro stated, "developed countries like Latvia or Luxembourg have all the freedoms the USA has, bar the right to bear arms." So, ignoring the fact that it's not only a contradictory statement. Since the Pro claims these nations have the same rights only to admit, they don't immediately. The pro is ignoring their earlier claim. If their supposed Data says they have the same freedoms as America. Then why don't they? To truly verify this claim, you have to compare their legal framework with that of the United States. That's what the pro failed to do. That's why I used to say it was a statistical statement. It's not legal or factual.

This is one of the UN human rights ‘it prohibits arbitrary deprivation of life; torture, cruel or degrading treatment or punishment.’ Personally, the murdering of school children on a regular basis, and doing nothing to prevent or reduce this, would constitute a violation of this UN human right.
I'm very pleased to hear that the Pro spoke of the UN. Since America was the founder of the UN and is thus heavily influenced by American ideals.  The same ideals that the Pro claims America does not uphold. Furthermore, the UN's a multinational committee. It's not a world government, and it doesn't have the legal power to dictate to governments that belong to it. This means that the governments of the United Nations have their own rights in relation to their people. That is to say, the United States does not recognize a right to life and therefore any claim to a violation of that right is one sided.



To say that America’s own decisions and ‘freedoms’ like the right to bear arms, which in itself is contested in its meaning, means that it stands for freedom isn’t correct, America’s own freedoms aren’t a satisfactory measure. For example in India’s constitution there is nothing against marital rape by a man https://www.theindiaforum.in/amp/law/criminalising-marital-rape-india but would you say that Indian men have more freedom than British or American men, because they have this constitutional freedom of sex? Of course not, under the same premise the unique 2nd Amendment of the US constitution cannot be used as an example of freedom, as it is not common or widely acknowledged by the UN and other organisations as fundamental freedom.
I don't know where your understanding of freedom comes from. According to law, if I'm capable of doing something like owning a gun as a civil right, then freedom by law can be regarded as the ability or capacity for exercising choice and free will. But other people can't do it. By definition, I've got more freedom then everyone else. Whether that freedom is recognized or not, it doesn't matter. Freedom Law and Legal Definition | USLegal, Inc.
It is disingenuous on your part to say that the absence of similar ‘rights’ are proof of American freedom.
No, it isn't. If a society offers you do something. Regardless of what. And others cannot do so. That means I have more freedom because I lack restraint that you have. Thats the definition of freedom not disingenuous.

Furthermore this doesn’t prove anything in terms of this debate, because even if America has this supposed unique freedom, it clearly doesn’t stand up for this or any other freedoms in the previously mentioned instances. Thus showing the US to not stand for freedom.
Now you are being disingenuous. You claimed that your Data showed that other nations have the same freedoms of the United States. Not only did you fail to legally prove this to be true. Now, you're saying it doesn't prove anything. You can't bring up points in the debate, have those points countered. and then say "It does not prove anything." That would mean that your original statement didn't prove anything at all.

It really isn’t. I provided a definition of to stand for, and the US, as you have admitted, doesn’t support democratic ideas in the world. When I say you can be something, but not stand for it, I’m not making a fallacy at all, I provided a definition, which you did not, in how being something and then standing for it are
different, as the US needs to support democracy and freedom on a wider scale to prove and show that it’s stands for these things. 
Just as I've said before. Even you're taking your definition into account. Through its NATO membership and support of democratic countries such as Taiwan and Ukraine, America has stood up for democracy and freedom. And I did not say that America didn't support Democratic ideas in the world. I said the opposite. I only pointed out we are not fanatical about it.

Conclusion: Only a partial response to my argument was given by the pro. They have no response for Americas membership in NATO and the US's support for Taiwan and Ukraine. They also made false claims, such as saying that I said the US does not promote democratic ideas. Pro gave his own definition for upholding and upstanding freedom and democracy. Despite the fact that America is still within his definition. Pro still refuses to acknowledge America supporting Democracy and freedom. Their response to evidence that counters what they say, if they respond at all is "it does not prove anything." The failure to understand freedom of expression from the legal point of view has also been demonstrated. You can't have your cake and eat it too. If Pro believes that it is necessary to show or promote Democracy at a global level in order to define standing for democracy and freedom. That's what America demonstrated by aligning itself with Democratic countries. Creating democratic international communities like the UN and supporting weaker Democratic nations like Taiwan and Ukraine. If these actions are not enough by Pro or anyone else. It won't matter what America does, you will never be convinced.

Vote Con.
Pro
#6
Pro is trying to establish a difference between being free and standing by freedom. But not only is that a fallacy. It lacks logic.
Baseless statement with nothing other than your feelings backing it up. I provided a definition and evidence, you’re just talking with emotions. You bring up an analogy later on, which I’ll come to, so I’ll give you a comparison. Ted Bundy once saved a boy from drowning, in this sense Ted Bundy is a life saver. But we know that Bundy, a serial killer, obviously doesn’t stand for the principles of saving lives and letting people to live. Therefore making him a life saver in one sense, but not standing for saving lives.
Pro does not respond to this fact and instead lays the blame for the actions of fully independent nations actions on America just because they do business dealings with them. Thie's not just a Sophistry. But there is also no common sense in it. If the owner of the gun sells the gun to the customer and the customer goes out and commits a crime. Are you blaming the owner of the store?
This is a completely moronic and disingenuous comparison. America is giving aid and weapons to countries like Saudi Arabia, knowing that they are committing the previously mentioned genocide in Yemen. A more fair comparison to draw up would be that, a customer draped in Nazi symbols and heiling walks into a store tells the owner of the store that he’s going to the local synagogue to shoot the place up and the gun store owner gives him a gun. Your comparison is painting America as a poor, little naive country that is just doing business, and you can’t blame America for selling weapons to a country committing genocide? What a completely preposterous statement for you to make, ignoring any context, evidence I’ve given or critical thinking. The US is most certainly complicit in the acts of countries like Israel, by continuing to fund their regimes whilst knowing what they’re doing. America knows what these dictators are doing, yet still supports them, thus part of the blame must lie on the USA for not standing for the freedoms of the oppressed people or democratic principles Con likes to describe, but instead they do the opposite.
The pro also claims that the United States infringes on the rights of citizens. But America is only responsible for the wellbeing of its own people who are not oppressed. Because Pro has not proved this to be the case. It is hearsay and nothing more.
My apologies I must’ve just dreamt of CIA black sites and Guantanamo bay. And by constantly interfering and invading other sovereign nations, in which the USA has significantly played a role in curbing democracy and freedom, then it must take responsibility for the misery it’s caused, not just ignore it and claim it to be not their problem, like Con seems to think is the case.
You claim that 500,000 were murdered. But deaths in war are casualties, not murder. It's another attempt at sophistry, not a genuine argument.
War crimes are murder, the killing of civilians is a war crimehttps://www.hrw.org/reports/2002/isrl-pa/ISRAELPA1002-04.htm#:~:text=Willful%20killing%2C%20that%20is%2C%20intentionally,wounding%20victims%2C%20are%20war%20crimes.&text=Persons%20who%20commit%2C%20order%2C%20or,humanitarian%20law%20for%20their%20crimes. unless con believes that the killing of civilians isn’t murder, which leaves Con of the position that the deaths in Nanjing were just a result of war and not murder for example. How very freedom loving of you.
And yet. for all your quickness to point out that we have helped and worked with undemocratic nations. You're not responding to the fact that we are NATO members and have been an ally of democracies around the world. You're only showing the times when America has been working with people who don't share its ideals. Which is biased.
The US has worked with democratic nations of course, but as I have pointed out with Israel even when the US supports a democracy, it unconditionally is supporting the oppression of basic human rights of Palestinians as I previously cited. You mention NATO, yet NATO has committed numerous war crimeshttps://www.betterworld.info/conflict-regions/kosovo/nato-war-crimes the murder of civilians, such as 30k in Libya, is by nature anti-freedom, constant bombing meant people’s freedom of taking part in public affairs or the freedom to not experience arbitrary deprivation of lifehttps://www.un.org/en/global-issues/human-rights here the US is actively doing the curbing of freedom, not only supporting it. Furthermore NATO members that the US supports, as you said they do, aren’t freedom loving countries. Turkey has long curbed freedom of speechhttps://www.brookings.edu/articles/turkeys-new-media-law-is-bad-news-but-dont-report-it/ and continues to do so. This is one of the freedoms you cherry picked in your previous argument, so why does the USA stand up for this right in Turkey? Even when the US supports democracies, which as the largest economy and military of course it does at points, it is still supporting suppression of freedoms in many of these democracies. The debate is both democracy and freedom, not just one. The US does support some democracies, obviously when it suits them of course best example of this is Costa Rica who helped the US topple the democratically elected Dom. Rep government, but when they went less pro-US the US tried to topple the CRC government. When you say I’m only showing when the US doesn’t support democracies, which is hundreds of times, this is either you not reading my argument or lying. I’ve mentioned US support for Israel, which is a flawed democracy, and is committing apartheid and oppressing freedom. So please read all of what I say or don’t make false claims.
In your own words, by your own admission. America did not commit any of these crimes that these dictators did. Your argument is one of guilty by the association. If a man named Mike offered, you a business deal on Tuesday and killed 400 people on Thursday. Since you've been a known associate, should we be arresting you? You're going to argue that you had nothing to do with it. Why should your defense be any better than the United States?
It’s not guilty by association, it’s guilty by putting the person who they know is an evil dictator in power (whether it be Pinochet, Mobutu or the Shah) then the person who they knew was going to do all these terrible things, does the terrible things and then after they do them the US goes “well done for being anti-communist etc, here’s some money and weapons” then the US is obviously going to hold some of the blame. The comparison you make of making a business deal is hugely simplified and disingenuous, just like your previous one. It is completely incorrect, as it acts like the dictators are coming to the US, when it’s the other way round. You’re comparison would be more accurate if it was, a man named Mike gave you (a psychopathic serial killer) a ton of C4 and the address of the nearest children’s hospital, then when you blow the hospital up, Mike goes “all those children were evil anyway, here’s some money” then repeats this. Making terrible comparison does nothing to help your argument.
You keep claiming "America support undemocratic countries" and "these dictatorships committed crimes" But have you proven any direct connection between the two? No. You only keep insisting that because America has done business with these nations that we don't uphold freedom and Democracy
I’ve provided data of money and military training sent to these countries and dictatorships that are committing crimes, I’m not responsible for you not reading the sources I provide. Moreover, I provided sources proving Americas prominent and leading role in toppling democratically elected governments and replacing them with dictators, which is a pretty solid link between America not only supporting undemocratic actions and oppressions of freedom, but actively facilitating it. Again I provided sources to this, if Con doesn’t wish to read the sources I provide, then make claims like this which my sources in previous arguments disprove, then I just end up repeating myself.
fundamentalist would mean that under no circumstances can we make deals with undemocratic nations. Whatever their situation, they'd have to be the enemy. You're saying we do not need to be this but at the same time you say that because we make deals with them. We don't adhere to the ideals of democracy. 
America isn’t ‘making deals’, that implies trade, tariffs or some sort of concession. Giving billions to dicatatorships committing genocide, or to democracies committing apartheid is not standing for democracy, you misinterpret or bend what I’ve said and shown about US foreign policy. The US does not need to cut ties with all dictatorships to prove itself to stand up for democracy and freedom, but it makes no effort to attempt to push these countries to respect basic human freedoms or towards democracy, as long as they’re pro-US of course, which most of them are. If the US was attempting to facilitate freedom and democracy in a responsible and adequate manner then I’d have no problem, but the fact is that it doesn’t.
No, it isn't. If a society offers you do something. Regardless of what. And others cannot do so. That means I have more freedom because I lack restraint that you have. Thats the definition of freedom not disingenuous.
Then you agree that Indian men who are able to legally rape their wives have more freedom than you. You look at freedom from a negative perspective, that your freedom comes from a less restraints on you to do something, which taking this position to its logical conclusion, is a less laws=more freedom. Now if you were dropped in a vast desert with nothing but yourself, with no laws stopping you from doing anything, are you more free than the average person on Earth as of right now? Of course not. 

I’m going to stop this quote battle now because reading the rest of your argument it’s the same old stuff from the past arguments that I’ve already responded to and you ignored, along with necessary evidence. I never said that US doesn’t aid some democracies, but even when it does it truly is damaging people’s freedom. But of course this point was ignored by Con. When I mentioned countries that are free and democratic, these are countries that stand for the principles of the debate, because they haven’t committed the acts that I’ve shown the US to commit. When con said I refuse to acknowledge the US supporting freedom of democracy, did you just want me to concede or something? You’ve mentioned Ukraine and Taiwan a lot, are those your examples? I’ve provided comprehensive sources and evidence to numerous of cases to prove the opposite. You claim I ignore US support for democracies etc, but I don’t I just add necessary context, like with NATO and Israel that disproves what you claim, that the US supporting democracies is enough, because even when doing this it facilitates freedoms being oppressed. Most of what I’ve said in this argument has already been said, alongside sources, yet it seems that this hasn’t been acknowledged or Con is ignoring this purposefully. 

If me showing evidence of hundreds of instances of the US supporting, facilitating and aiding brutal, freedom destroying dictatorships, as well as supporting democratic governments, like Israel, Turkey and Britain in its colonial era, as they commit huge freedom suppressions is not enough to show Con and others that America is not standing for Democracy and Freedom, then it seems like the evils that America have historically committed and continue to facilitate and act upon, that go against these fundamental principles of the debate will never be challenged or stopped. I urge voters, and con, to read my sources and the mountains of evidence they provide in support of my claim. The US doesn’t stand for freedom and democracy. 
Thank you for thoroughly reading my argument and sources (I hope!) and thank you to my opponent for his argument and input. I hope readers will vote Pro.
Round 4
Con
#7
Baseless statement with nothing other than your feelings backing it up. I provided a definition and evidence, you’re just talking with emotions. You bring up an analogy later on, which I’ll come to, so I’ll give you a comparison. Ted Bundy once saved a boy from drowning, in this sense Ted Bundy is a life saver. But we know that Bundy, a serial killer, obviously doesn’t stand for the principles of saving lives and letting people to live. Therefore making him a life saver in one sense, but not standing for saving lives.
You are of course free to cherry pick my statements. I pointed out, however, that the reason Your argument was a false one was because it infringed the law of contradiction. This is not baseless and it's not emotionally motivated. And you have not denied that the law of contradiction was broken during all this time. You're also making a mistake with your comparison. Whether Ted's a serial killer or not doesn't matter. That he saved a life means he will save someone else on principle since that is what he does in your scenario. Pointing out he's a murderer as well does not diminish the fact that he has saved lives.

The reasons for the lack of logic in that framework are also highlighted by your last statement. "Therefore, making him a life saver in one sense, but not standing for saving lives." Because Ted does not save lives in ALL instances, he does not stand for saving lives despite doing so. No principle can be upheld by this logic.  Because if you have ever done anything before, such as curse at someone, for instance. Then you can't have a principal for being polite since, according to you, the fact that I have been polite doesn't matter simply because I did not hold my principle to an absolutist degree. This highlights once again that unless I am a fanatic. For you, my principles are not true. Which is in fact baseless and emotionally driven.

This is a completely moronic and disingenuous comparison. America is giving aid and weapons to countries like Saudi Arabia, knowing that they are committing the previously mentioned genocide in Yemen.

Hearsay at its finest. Pro has no evidence to prove America knew what Saudi Arabia is using the weapons for any more than a gun store owner does at his shop. We may sell the weapons, but we are not the ones who pull the trigger. That makes your accusation baseless and just another example of sophistry.

A more fair comparison to draw up would be that, a customer draped in Nazi symbols and heiling walks into a store tells the owner of the store that he’s going to the local synagogue to shoot the place up and the gun store owner gives him a gun.
No. That is a biased comparison because you both frame it in an unrealistic scenario and ignore the fact that you are erroneously setting it up to make it seem America has knowledge, but the fact is you have not proven that which makes it hearsay.

Your comparison is painting America as a poor, little naive country that is just doing business, and you can’t blame America for selling weapons to a country committing genocide? What a completely preposterous statement for you to make, ignoring any context, evidence I’ve given or critical thinking.
Mostly because you did not give evidence, you frame America as this evil country responsible for (other countries) genocides simply because we sold guns to them for a profit, which is slander since you back none of this up save for the fact that we made money which is never a crime.

The US is most certainly complicit in the acts of countries like Israel, by continuing to fund their regimes whilst knowing what they’re doing. America knows what these dictators are doing, yet still supports them, thus part of the blame must lie on the USA for not standing for the freedoms of the oppressed people or
democratic principles Con likes to describe, but instead they do the opposite.
So, America is not standing up for Ukraine by sending them supplies, and Taiwan is not maintaining its independence due to America vowing to protect them from China? If these actions don't represent standing up for freedom and oppressed people, then nothing is.

War crimes are murder, the killing of civilians is a war crimehttps://www.hrw.org/reports/2002/isrl-pa/ISRAELPA1002-04.htm#:~:text=Willful%20killing%2C%20that%20is%2C%20intentionally,wounding%20victims%2C%20are%20war%20crimes.&text=Persons%20who%20commit%2C%20order%2C%20or,humanitarian%20law%20for%20their%20crimes. unless con believes that the killing of civilians isn’t murder, which leaves Con of the position that the deaths in Nanjing were just a result of war and not murder for example. How very freedom loving of you.
War crimes can be murder only if they specifically involve murdering surrendering combatants and civilians intentionally. In no international court has America ever been formally accused of such a crime, much less convicted. The Pro's still trying to fool people by using popular opinion and emotional rhetoric in Lew of actual evidence. If Pro can't prove to us objectively that the United States is guilty. It's nothing more than an insult. 

The US has worked with democratic nations of course, but as I have pointed out with Israel even when the US supports a democracy, it unconditionally is supporting the oppression of basic human rights of Palestinians as I previously cited. You mention NATO, yet NATO has committed numerous war crimeshttps://www.betterworld.info/conflict-regions/kosovo/nato-war-crimes the murder of civilians, such as 30k in Libya, is by nature anti-freedom, constant bombing meant people’s freedom of taking part in public affairs or the freedom to not experience arbitrary deprivation of lifehttps://www.un.org/en/global-issues/human-rights here the US is actively doing the curbing of freedom, not only supporting it.
The pros' arguments have become more and more absurd. They have not been talking about America's alliance with NATO throughout the debate. An alliance of Democratic countries. Now that they do they argue that they committed war crimes. I want to remind Pro that this debate is not focused on weather democratic nations have committed war crimes or not. That's whether or not the US stands for freedom and democracy. Pro is contradicting themselves since they say, "Even when the US supports a democracy, it unconditionally is supporting the oppression of basic human rights of Palestinians as I previously cited." Yet earlier, Pro said, " US needs to support democracy and freedom on a wider scale to prove and show that it stands for these things." So, which is it, does America not support democracy or does America support democracy while violating human rights?




Furthermore NATO members that the US supports, as you said they do, aren’t freedom loving countries. Turkey has long curbed freedom of speechhttps://www.brookings.edu/articles/turkeys-new-media-law-is-bad-news-but-dont-report-it/ and continues to do so. This is one of the freedoms you cherry picked in your previous argument, so why does the USA stand up for this right in Turkey? Even when the US supports democracies, which as the largest economy and military of course it does at points, it is still supporting suppression of freedoms in many of these democracies. The debate is both democracy and freedom, not just one. The US does support some democracies, obviously when it suits them of course best example of this is Costa Rica who helped the US topple the democratically elected Dom. Rep government, but when they went less pro-US the US tried to topple the CRC government. When you say I’m only showing when the US doesn’t support democracies, which is hundreds of times, this is either you not reading my argument or lying. I’ve mentioned US support for Israel,
which is a flawed democracy, and is committing apartheid and oppressing freedom. So please read all of what I say or don’t make false claims.
"NATO members that the US supports, as you said they do, aren’t freedom loving countries."  So, all 31 members aren't freedom loving nations? This is funny because nations such as Latvia and Luxembourg. who you previously said had the same freedoms of the United States. Are members of NATO.  Member states of NATO - Wikipedia You said, "What distinguishes Latvia and Estonia from the U.S. is that they stand for freedom, which they have more of than the U.S., because they don't force others to give up their freedom for their own benefit." Now you're going against your own evidence. Additionally, your freedom index in round 1 lists Estonia, Finland, and Luxembourg has one of the highest in its freedom index. All of these nations are NATO members, which, according to you, are not freedom-loving countries. So, either Pro has not read their own sources or has not bothered to study NATO before entering this debate. Either way. In this debate, it is safe to say that Pro has not been honest.

 You claim I ignore US support for democracies etc, but I don’t I just add necessary context, like with NATO and Israel that disproves what you claim, that the US supporting democracies is enough, because even when doing this it facilitates freedoms being oppressed. Most of what I’ve said in this argument has already been said, alongside sources, yet it seems that this hasn’t been acknowledged or Con is ignoring this purposefully. 
My claim was that NATO is an alliance of democracies, and the fact that America's participation and support in this organization proves our commitment to freedom and democracy. By not responding to this, you have neglected it for most of the debate. Now that you have. Your only attempt to "disprove" me was to claim that NATO members are not freedom-loving counties. It's a contradiction, because countries you have previously mentioned as standing up for freedom belong to NATO. You have not disproven me. You've disproven yourself.

Conclusion:  I have proven that America does stand for Democracy and freedom with the following points. 


  • By being a member of the NATO alliance, America has become part of an Alliance of Democratic and Free States. By listing NATO members as defenders of freedom and democracy, even Pro hasalbeit unknowingly strengthened that point. Supporting and defending democracy and freedom is what America stands for in its partnership with these countries.
  • The USA continues to support weaker democratic nations like Ukraine and Taiwan. Of course, America has also assisted in other Asian countries such as South Korea, but Pro largely overlooked these two examples, so I continued to raise them.
  • In several respects, including their legal definition of freedom and slanderous claims against the United States and NATO, Pro has been disproven.
  • I have also illustrated that Pro's argument relies on Sophistry and unproven hearsay such as war crimes. Which have no basis for the debate and are used to sway people to their side all the while showing no evidence for it but popular opinion.
  • I've also been highlighting numerous instances in which Pro continued to violate the law of contradiction on several occasions. They're accusing the United States of not standing up for democracy or freedom, despite the fact that it's been practicing those principles. Pro has also denied saying that America needs to be fanatical in its ideals of freedom and democracy only to argue over and over again that dealing with none-democratic nations means that the USA does not follow democratic and freedom ideal's. Which is a contradiction.
  • Finally, since the first round, Pro has shown itself to be uninformed, claiming that Luxemburg, Estonia, and Latvia are more democratic than the United States. Only to deny this later by saying that Nations in the NATO Alliance are not free nations Which all the mentioned countries are members of.
The United States is a nation of great admiration for democracy and freedom. The United States has not only been the first Western nation to embrace it, but it has also been the first to help and support it, and even Allie with nations that stand for and respect it. You can say that is not perfect and it may not always be right. But there can be no denying the commitment and help that America, a nation whose culture is shaped by freedom, has given to democracy not only at home but all over the world.

Thank you for voting and I thank Pro for this great Debate. 


Pro
#8
Hearsay at its finest. Pro has no evidence to prove America knew what Saudi Arabia is using the weapons for any more than a gun store owner does at his shop. We may sell the weapons, but we are not the ones who pull the trigger. That makes your accusation baseless and just another example of sophistry.
I have already given evidence of the genocide in Yemen and the USA support militarily of this. This isn’t hearsay or sophistry, it’s a lack of effort to read my sources. https://foreignpolicy.com/2018/08/15/america-is-committing-awful-war-crimes-and-it-doesnt-even-know-why/ Here’s another source backing me up. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/16/us/arms-deals-raytheon-yemen.html And another. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/bidens-broken-promise-on-yemen/ And another. You accuse me of sophistry, but I’ve got evidence to back my claims up here, you’ve got a terrible analogy that I’ve already disproved. 
Then you can't have a principal for being polite since, according to you, the fact that I have been polite doesn't matter simply because I did not hold my principle to an absolutist degree. This highlights once again that unless I am a fanatic. For you, my principles are not true. Which is in fact baseless and emotionally driven.
Again, you’ve misconstrued my argument. I already said it doesn’t have to be fanatical. But the fact the majority of evil dictatorships are given US money and military support, to carry out their crimes is the reason for the US not standing for democracy of freedom. I’ve explained this. Using your polite comparison, it’s not America being polite to everyone except a couple, it’s America being not just impolite but devious and bullying lots of people and backing up others who do the same. Thus you wouldn’t say that’s a polite thing to do and that they stand for politeness, only politeness if it suits.
No. That is a biased comparison because you both frame it in an unrealistic scenario and ignore the fact that you are erroneously setting it up to make it seem America has knowledge, but the fact is you have not proven that which makes it hearsay.
not biased, just accurate. Already proved that it isn’t hearsay in previous arguments and this one. No one can believe that America is naive and innocent enough, to not know the crimes of the world, as I’ve proved.
So, America is not standing up for Ukraine by sending them supplies, and Taiwan is not maintaining its independence due to America vowing to protect them from China? If these actions don't represent standing up for freedom and oppressed people, then nothing is.
Firstly you look at the creation of Taiwan, very anti-freedom https://worldwithoutgenocide.org/genocides-and-conflicts/taiwan-chiang-kai-shek-the-white-terror-transitional-justice-and-transnational-repression and you have 2 examples. I have many more where the USA actively supports the opposites to democracy.
War crimes can be murder only if they specifically involve murdering surrendering combatants and civilians intentionally. In no international court has America ever been formally accused of such a crime, much less convicted. The Pro's still trying to fool people by using popular opinion and emotional rhetoric in Lew of actual evidence. If Pro can't prove to us objectively that the United States is guilty. It's nothing more than an insult.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Service-Members%27_Protection_Act#:~:text=This%20authorization%20led%20to%20the,or%20rescue%20them%20from%20custody. The main reason why the US isn’t accused or tried for war crimes, because they literally said they will Invade The Hague if an American is tried for war crimes, so much for freedom of a fair trial. Again, I’ve proved it with Saudi Arabia, I’ve proved it with Israel and US NATO lead crimes. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Lai_massacre#:~:text=The%20Mỹ%20Lai%20massacre%20(%2Fˌ,Vietnam%2C%20during%20the%20Vietnam%20War. An example of just one of the many US war crimes in Vietnam. https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2023/03/iraq-20-years-since-the-us-led-coalition-invaded-iraq-impunity-reigns-supreme/#:~:text=Between%202003%20and%202011%2C%20Amnesty,cruel%2C%20inhuman%20or%20degrading%20treatment. US war crimes in Iraq. Con can ignore evidence and accuse me of hearsay all he wants, but it means nothing when it’s a baseless claim on their part. As seen with previous freedoms laid out and explained, these war crimes are an active and obvious suppression of freedoms that America has long been facilitating and itself participating in, showing the US not to stand for freedom.
So, which is it, does America not support democracy or does America support democracy while violating human rights?
America doesn’t support democracy historically or currently, and it violates freedoms as I’ve just proven. But Con can take his pick with those analysis, either supports my position- this debate is about freedom and democracy, as Con you needed to show it does both, and you haven’t.
So, either Pro has not read their own sources or has not bothered to study NATO before entering this debate. Either way. In this debate, it is safe to say that Pro has not been honest.
Interesting to call me not honest, obviously I’m not lying which is why I provided sources to my claims. If you look at the history of NATO Latvia joined in 2004, so they’re not complicit in the Yugoslav NATO crimes. If you want to argue all NATO countries aren’t standing for freedom, I’m fine with that- that includes America, the highest spending country, largest military and de facto leader of the organisation.
It's a contradiction, because countries you have previously mentioned as standing up for freedom belong to NATO. You have not disproven me. You've disproven yourself.
Even if that was true, which lots of NATO members like the UK https://www.ecchr.eu/en/case/war-crimes-by-uk-forces-in-iraq/ and france have long been committing anti-freedom acts, then okay? NATO nations can be anti-freedom I don’t really care, because that includes America. You haven’t disproven me either, you still haven’t shown how that supports your point.

Conclusion:
  1. America NATO membership changes nothing, as I’ve proven NATO has routinely been in the side of anti-freedom committing atrocities. If you look beyond the message that NATO says, I’ve proven how NATO inherently takes away freedoms from thousands of people. This is a fact that hasn’t been refuted.
  2. I provided a definition for standing up for freedom and democracy, and proved with evidence how the US does not fall under this category. The US facilitation of genocide, apartheid and participation in war crimes is clear indicator for the USA not standing for freedom, instead choosing to suppress the freedoms (which have been outlined) instead of standing for them. No amount of my opponents baseless claims and flimsy analogies, that were shown to be naive, too simple and inaccurate, take away from the fact that under my definition, which wasn’t refuted or had any suggestions to be replaced, I proved my stance. Any problems with this definition, which I expanded on, should’ve been countered with a different definition, but it wasn’t. Instead objections to the fact that the US didn’t fall under the definition, were baseless, disproved and unsubstantial.
  3. The US has actively destroyed democracies in many parts of the world, to which I have provided numerous sources to prove. No nation that has so routinely, actively and obviously taken down democracies, in place with dictatorships that have committed massive freedom violation, can legitimately and sensibly claim to be standing for the principles of democracy and freedom.
  4. Despite unfounded and ignorant accusations of hearsay, I’ve provided numerous sources, reports and evidence to back up my claims. My opponent has provided scarce evidence or sources, and when refuting my points has chosen to ignore my sources and claim that it’s hearsay, which if you look at my sources you’ll see is itself misleading people from the facts, despite my opponents arguments being based on barely any facts or sources, instead only on emotions, ignoring my points and evidence and accusations. When it comes to my opponent calling my untruthful, just saying hearsay and disingenuous, the phrase ‘every accusation is a confession’ comes to mind.
America, through its actions of participating in war crimes, overthrow of democratic governments, meddling in elections to make them not free and fair, support for genocide and apartheid committing countries and facilitation of multiple freedom abuses by dictators implemented by America to support American interests, shows that the the USA does not stand for democracy and freedom.
 I would like to thank Con for participating in this fun and interesting debate with me and for instigating it after my last debate on the topic. I’d also like to thank anyone who has read our arguments and voted, no matter which way any vote is appreciated, but hopefully you choose to Vote Pro.