Instigator / Pro
1
1500
rating
1
debates
0.0%
won
Topic
#6347
America is evil
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
Winner
1
7
After 7 votes and with 6 points ahead, the winner is...
Pat_Johnson
Tags
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 3
- Time for argument
- One day
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Winner selection
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Con
7
1541
rating
4
debates
100.0%
won
Description
No information
Round 1
Pro
#1
Thank you to my opponent for accepting this debate. Let's get right to it.
When I speak of America in this debate, I am referring to its political institutions, foreign policy, and historical conduct — not the everyday people who may disagree with or even resist those actions.
The United States is the most powerful and influential country in the world. But with great power comes great responsibility — and great danger when that power is used without moral restraint.
From its inception, America has pursued its interests through greed, violence, and exploitation. A nation that prioritizes oil, money, gold, and dominance over justice or humanity is bound to cause harm. This pattern of behavior is not new — it was born with the nation itself.
The very foundation of the United States is built on crimes committed against the Indigenous peoples of North America. Before European colonization, it is estimated that 5 to 15 million Indigenous people lived in North America. By the late 19th century, that number had fallen to under 250,000 in what became the United States — a result of:
- Violent wars and massacres
- Biological warfare (such as the deliberate spread of smallpox)
- Forced displacement and labor
- Cultural genocide through boarding schools and forced assimilation
As Capt. Richard Pratt, founder of the Carlisle Indian Industrial School, notoriously said:
"Kill the Indian in him, and save the man."
This legacy of destruction, theft, and moral emptiness was not an accident — it was a blueprint.
The next chapter in America's moral failure is its role in the transatlantic slave trade and the institution of slavery itself. Between the 17th and 19th centuries, over 12 million Africans were forcibly taken from their homelands, and around 400,000 were brought directly to what is now the United States. These men, women, and children were stripped of their freedom, identity, and dignity — forced to work under brutal conditions to fuel the American economy.
Even after slavery was formally abolished in 1865, systemic racism continued through Black Codes, Jim Crow laws, segregation, and mass incarceration, all of which targeted the descendants of slaves and maintained a racial hierarchy for generations.
A nation that builds its wealth on stolen labor while denying humanity to millions cannot claim moral superiority. The legacy of slavery is not just a scar — it is a foundational part of what made America powerful.
Once the United States had built its foundations on the suffering of Indigenous peoples and African slaves, it began expanding that same logic of domination to the rest of the world.
In the early 20th century, the U.S. brutally colonized the Philippines, killing an estimated 200,000 civilians during its military campaign to suppress Filipino independence. Later, in Vietnam, America waged a war that resulted in the deaths of over 3 million Vietnamese civilians and soldiers, the displacement of millions more, and the use of chemical weapons like Agent Orange, which caused birth defects and environmental devastation that persist to this day.
More recently, in 2003, the United States invaded Iraq under false pretenses, claiming the presence of weapons of mass destruction. No such weapons were ever found — but hundreds of thousands of Iraqis were killed, a country was destroyed, and the region plunged into chaos.
Beyond military invasions, the U.S. has long used the CIA to overthrow democratically elected governments that didn’t align with its interests. It orchestrated the 1953 coup in Iran, removing Prime Minister Mossadegh; backed a military dictatorship in Chile in 1973, overthrowing President Allende; and carried out similar interventions in Guatemala, Congo, Indonesia, and beyond.
These actions were not isolated mistakes — they were deliberate strategies to expand American power at the cost of democracy, sovereignty, and countless lives.
More recently, in 2003, the United States invaded Iraq under false pretenses, claiming the presence of weapons of mass destruction. No such weapons were ever found — but hundreds of thousands of Iraqis were killed, a country was destroyed, and the region plunged into chaos.
Beyond military invasions, the U.S. has long used the CIA to overthrow democratically elected governments that didn’t align with its interests. It orchestrated the 1953 coup in Iran, removing Prime Minister Mossadegh; backed a military dictatorship in Chile in 1973, overthrowing President Allende; and carried out similar interventions in Guatemala, Congo, Indonesia, and beyond.
These actions were not isolated mistakes — they were deliberate strategies to expand American power at the cost of democracy, sovereignty, and countless lives.
Con
#2
Hello everyone. I feel privileged to be a lawyer of the country that in my eyes is themost benevolent country in the world and in the history of mankind. I thank the opponent to raise an opportunity to put forth a different perspective. I wish them good luck.
I want to clarify that I may sometimes refer to PRO as "he", "his" and "him" just for practical reasons: I do not know what sex are they. But typing s/he, her/his etc is not practical. Thus, I amjust using male pronoun. If they want, I can amend it in the next round.
IN DEFENSE OF THE USA:
PRO has made his indictment. The very first flaw I see is that PRO acts like his assertions are some sort of granted judgements. He narrates some facts, some of which may not be %100 accurate but still correct e.g. number of native Americans dropping to 250.000 from 5-15 million. Maybe number is a bit higher or maybe even lower, this may not be %100 accurate and does not need to be: That is not what I am going to dispute here. What I say "treated like granted judgement" is that PRO just treats them as if it is %100 warranted that this drop is, or would be, universally considered bad and evil. Let me offer some countering views.
1. the US establishment:
The very first concrete accusation of PRO was that the USA " is built on crimes committed against the Indigenous peoples of North America." This part of the indictment does not serve PRO's case. Those crimes were committed by "political institutions, foreign policy, and historical conduct" of other countries, not the USA. but PRO himself stated that "When I speak of America in this debate, I am referring to its political institutions, foreign policy, and historical conduct". So, these do not count against the USA. E.g. it was first the Spanish that arrived at the land, then the UK (or their predecessor) came, the kingdom of Netherlands came, the French country came and it was the political institutions of these countries that committed those actions we call crimes. Also, PRO's indictment itself states that those actions were committed by Europeans. Do not blame the USA for the actions of some European political entities. Even if we assume that those actions were worse in greater picture, which I dispute, those actions count not against the USA but against the UK and others.
1.1: the US - Native American Wars:
However PRO may rightfully say that those actions were later done by the US political entities as well: PRO accuses the USA of violent wars and massacres, biological warfare, forced labor and cultural genocide.Uses it as evidence for the US being evil: I will defuse this argument in 2 ways:: by showing that what the US did there killed greater evil and was in fact an improvement. 2) the USA did not try to destroy their existence, even tried to maintain it. I will argue that these wars were not evil but even an improvement (e.g. the USA was better guys, good guys). PRO tries to corraborate his case by quoting Capt. Richard Pratt's word:
"Kill the Indian in him and save the man."
This is an excellent quote that can demonstrate the USA was in fact not evil but good guys. Look at the quote, the quote says "kill the Indian in him and save the man." - it shows that their aim was to get rid of some kind of characteristics of a man, make them one of us. The quote shows that the US was aspiringto get rid of some brutal, violent and cruel culture of those we now call Indians or Native Americans and transform them into a state we call civilised. Let us look at some cultural practices of 2 Native American tribes the USA has fought:
COMANCHE TRIBE: Rachel Plummer was a captive of the Comanche. She wrote her memories from her captivity[1]. She recalls the Comanche people throwing infants down the ground, then if the infant survives, "tied the infant to a rope, and dragged him through cactuses until the frail, tiny body was literally torn to pieces." T.R. Fehrenbach also talk of the Comanche people's systematic torture, rape and humiliation of not only European captives, but of other tribes as well[2].
IROQUOIS PEOPLE: Iroquois people for example regularly, constantly and periodically raided other tribes for captives, not for expansion or resources but just to torture for the fallen people of their own. Their systematic torture including pulling out nails etc[3].
I will run out of characters if I list each and every cruelty of each and every Native American tribe. By fighting and neutralizing the powers and influence of these tribes, the USA has at least partially terminated such cruel practices. Then, PRO's another allegation was that the USA aimed cultural genocide. I protest: the USA has given them reservation zones where they can live their culture, the USA only prevented them from further ritual tortures, at least partially even if not entirely. Thus, the USA was a better guy here: they fought greater evil. It is no different than fighting Nazis that regularly tortured their subordinates.
2. MORE RECENT: VIETNAM, CHILE ETC.
PRO's indictment argued that the USA's involvement in the Vietnam war and Chile as some sort of evil. While Chile case is speculative, I oppose it was evil and argue it in fact was a better step: I shall start with Chile.
2.1. Chile:
Contrary to popular myths, I argue that Pinochet actually was not only an improvement by all aspects like economy and human rights but a saviour as well. Let me demonstrate:
Allende government was using illegal militants to usurp people’s homes, factories and other belongings, despite it was unconstitiutional – with Pinochet people had at least security not only to their belongings but for their life as well. There is a whole Word and literature dedicated to Allende’s illegal mafia group that he used to suppress his opposition and to build communism. They are called Group of Personal Friends of Allende.[4] When Chilean women protested with their famous “Cacerolazo” protests, the Allende government again used these illegal militants to suppress the protests. All these are corraborated by the then-parliament of Chile: 22 August 1973 decleration of the lower house of Chilean parliament. In this decleration, almost 2/3rd of Chilean parliament accused Allende government of their illegal and unconstitutional acts, urged military to save the country.[5] Simply put, if it was the USA that brought Pinochet, then the USA saved the country and reduced all sorts of losses: life, economy and rights.
2.2. Vietnam:
In Vietnam, the USA was supporting those who were under attack of the communists: it was the communists that initiated, triggered and sparked the war. The communists invaded. While many have suffered due to the actions of the USA, none of these suggest the USA was evil: the evil was the communists there that started war to usurp people’s belongins and to enslave people. It counts not against the USA but against the Viet Cong.
2.3. Iraq:
Let me start by admitting right of the bat: Iraq case is the best case of PRO. You have decieving action by the USA, mass-sufferings, mass-deaths. You have everything to blame the USA for, to say the US is evil. However, I will argue even here the USA was a better guy. What intention we would designate evil was there? PRO does not elaborate or back it up. The US intervention in Iraq brought down Saddam that has committed numerous massacres like Khalabja massacre and Al-Anfal genocide, as well as things like torturing footballers for losing match as well[6][7]. Even FIFA investigated it[8]. The USA has brought such genocider and mass-murderer regime of Saddam, gave the Iraqis a chance for blank and pure page upon which they can build a new country, which they failed but their failure is their fault, not of the USA.
2.4. Philippines:
PRO raises the casualties of the Philippines war. Again, notfault of the USA as it was the Philippines that started the war: ThePhilippines was for like 300 years under cruelty of the Spanish, the USArescued them by fighting the Spanish. The US did not manifest any kind of intentionswe would call evil, e.g. enslaving Philippines. It was a sad event, a tragicevent but not fault of the USA and did not emerge due to an evil intention bythe USA. Or at least, I shall paraphrase, PRO did not raise anything to suggest the USA had plans and intentions that we would call designate "evil."
3. Conclusion:
PRO’s indictment at best shows the USA has fatal flaws, not evilness. In all the accusation of PRO, we see that the actions of the USA was a better improvement than it was prior to the US actions. I shall summarize as follows: PRO did not raise anything to suggest the USA had plans and intentions that we would call designate "evil." PRO quoted some stats, sad stats but did not even attempt to show that those numbers emerged from evil intentions.
I believe I successfully defended the USA. Awaiting more elaborated indictment. Thank you for listening.
REFERENCES:
Round 2
Con
#4
I am not going to add anything, so that the opponent won't have more burden than it would be.
Round 3
Con
#6
Unfortunately, the opponent has failed to show up.
Now, in my first round, I feel like I neglected to address some of the assertions of PRO. I am going to touch them slightly here.
PRO asserted that the USA was involved in some coups: Guatemala, Congo and Indonesia. He further argued that these were not mistakes but a deliberate steps done to gain power.
This was the closest PRO approached into demonstrating that the US had evil intentions. But here is my response:
Involving in a coup (or even a military intervention) does not necessarily entail evilness: Pol Pot for example has been overthrown via a foreign intervention. We do not classify that intervention as evil. Does PRO?
That said, PRO had to demonstrate that the US involvements in those coups were deliberately ill-intended plans and their results worsened the situation. PRO did not do that. Thus, I argue that PRO failed to back up the claim that the US is evil.
Also, it would have been better if I made this refutation in my first round so that PRO could have opportunity to respond back. Unfortunately, I neglected this part but PRO neglected the entire debate. Also, I am the defendant: I would have the last say anyway.
Thus, I believe I successfully defused the indictment that was brought against the USA.
I thank everyone who read this debate and special thanks to those who spent time to vote.
Good luck. May the Greatest Nation of History flourish even further. We love the USA.
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Winner
1 point(s)
Reason:
https://youtu.be/TmoeZHnOJKA?si=mJATo09yCdFT4NHT
And forfeiture.
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Winner
1 point(s)
Reason:
Full forfeit
USA! USA! USA!
🗣️ 🔥 🗣️🔥🗣️🔥what the fuck is a kilometer ?!!!!!!!
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Winner
1 point(s)
Reason:
Title
Eh, not always the 'best nation in all ways, but I'm not sure I'd define America as evil.
Description
N/A
Pro Round 1
Pro paints a bleak picture of many of the worst actions of America.
. . . I suppose a defense against this can be context, progress, comparison with other countries, what a country was in the past is not necessarily what it is today.
Con Round 1
True, 'some of the decline of Native Americans can be attributed to Europe.
But not 'all of it.
I'm not sure forced Cultural change is a 'great argument, but it is 'an argument.
Con 'does do better with examples of Native American culture, that goes against our and a number of past American values. Though I think it's debatable 'how 'many Native Americans acted in such ways.
I don't think Reservations are a 'great argument, but it 'does argue against Pro claims of 'complete genocide.
. . . Con continues in this vein with other examples in American history. Arguing America has often been a lesser evil, if not a 'good nation. Involved in a number of conflicts out of 'attempts for right.
Con has Sources.
Pro Round 2
Forfeited.
Con Round 2
States self to be present.
Pro Round 3
Forfeited.
Con Round 3
Argues some coups can be for greater good.
RFV
I did not see Con address the slavery argument, but Pro did not further expand upon it.
Con was around for all three rounds of the debate, and addressed the bulk of Pros arguments, while Pro did not address Cons.
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Winner
1 point(s)
Reason:
Pro forfeited most of the debate and did not respond to Con's rebuttals.
I am grateful for the votes. Without you, the debate could have ended undecided and thus a tie
The challenge is accepted. I feel privileged and advantaged to be the attorney of arguably the most benevolent country in the history of the mankind.