Total posts: 2,472
Posted in:
-->
@DebateArt.com
What if you used your DDO account to get people from DDO to this site? Then the site would grow.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
I was wrong about specialization taking pace at 3 weeks. https://medlineplus.gov/ency/article/002398.htm states that it takes place at 5 weeks. The left claims that they are willing to compromise more often then the right(http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2010/09/29/no-compromise/). I suggest that they prove this with reducing their abortion position from legal before 20 weeks to legal before 5 weeks.
Created:
Posted in:
I used to be pro choice, but science confirms that a fetus is a human being and not some cancer past 3 weeks after conception.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mharman
1st contention: America benefits from invading Africa by getting more natural resources and more territory. The mining of these resources can pay fro Africa's funding from the US and these natural resources can benefit America. Although Africa does not mine a lot now due to government regulation, under American rule, we would sell the mines to private enterprise and this would create jobs and the mining would skyrocket, helping the local and national economy.
2nd contention: It often isn't the rights of Africans, but instead it is often the decisions of their leaders. https://cdn.static-economist.com/sites/default/files/images/print-edition/20160820_MAM944.png states that most of Africa is not free to a western extent. Their leaders aren't willing to give up sovereignty for a better life since they often have a relatively good life, but I imagine a plethora of Africans would vote in favor of US annexation if it meant a higher GDP per capita on their part. I think it would be a good idea for the US to invade Africa, control it for 10 years or so, and then see what the locals think of the US annexing their land and making their lives better while at the same time benefiting the US economy. Tibet's economy got better due to Chinese influence, and now, not even the Dalai Lama wants to secede(https://tibet.net/2016/06/not-seeking-independence-for-tibet-from-china-when-dalai-lama-met-barack-obama/). When your lives are made better under the influence of another country, then more often then not, you don't want succession. It's why a majority of PR people haven't voted pro independence for example, even though if they had a higher GDP per capita, they would want independence for reasons that would be a tangent to the topic at hand. The only reason why Africa wanted Independence in the first place was because the locals were being oppressed. If they are not oppressed, most of the locals won't want independence.
3rd contention: "Third, it would be stupid to invade an entire continent when there are a few good nations that do care for their people (ex: South Africa). Individual nations are to blame, not an entire continent." What about the other nations where human rights abuses are prevalent? Should we invade these nations and make them American? As for South Africa, this will sound startling, but every single african country(including South Africa(SA)) has a low GDP per capita compared to the US and an American annexation would help boost the GDP per capita of every country on the continent(https://orientalreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/Africa-Per-Capita-GDP-map-1024x925.png). The site states that SA has a GDP per capita high for Africa, but still low when compared to a country like the US, where the GDP per capita is around $60000, or about 10x as high as wealthy for Africa SA.
Created:
Posted in:
Africa has way more resources then Mexico and the governments there are worse then Mexico. The "place and take" strategy can be used on Mexico in order to get more land from the country. Annexing all of Latin America with mutually open borders will cause so many immigrants to come here that the US will have to become a bilingual country, which is dangerous for it's unity and sovereignty as history has confirmed. If Latin America is to be invaded and made part of the US, then Americans should be allowed to immigrate there with open borders but not the other way around unless they get assimilated like any other immigrant.
Created:
Posted in:
We should not invade China, Russia or NK because they are too powerful. In the case of China or Russia, it's obvious. In the case of NK, it's because of their alliances with China and to a lesser extent Russia. In the case of Latin America, it is because if we invade them all at once, then the number of unassiliminated immigrants would skyrocket, making it harder to defend American sovereignty.
We installed bad people to run the country. However, the African territories that would be run would be ran under the President of the United States and the African territories would gradually turn into states once they became American enough so they can elect the POTUS just like the current 50 states.
Created:
Posted in:
"We need a better reason to invade other than human rights abuses, whether real or made up" If they commit human rights abuses in Africa, then these countries should be reformed. There also is an economic argument, which turns into more lives being saved and life expectancy increasing. An invasion would help the GDP per capita of the Africans and it would benefit America by giving us a bunch of natural resources.
"The rest of world wouldn't stand by while the U.S. claimed and took over Africa." China and Russia would be hypocritical if they objected to the US invading Africa because both of these countries have invaded land (Crimea and Xinjaing/Tibet respectively). It's not the same as invading a continent, but it's nonetheless, still hypocrisy.
I also want the UN to consent to the invasion. The UN wishes to eliminate poverty and an African invasion would help do that. Their goals are in the below link:
They are to:
MAINTAIN INTERNATIONAL PEACE AND SECURITY. An invasion would help keep the African nations at relative peace with another, similar to how the British kept peace when they controlled India.PROTECT HUMAN RIGHTS. As an example, in Africa, many people get killed for being homosexual and real non consensual sexism is prevalent there. People are also prohibited by their families to go to school, thereby keeping them in poverty even more. An invasion would cause human rights to flourish. It would get more people educated. It would deliver human rights to the homosexuals and females, something that the left and increasingly the right wants.
DELIVER HUMANITARIAN AID: I would want $527 billion delivered in humanitarian aid to all US colonies on the basis of population annually. This would go towards developing Africa instead of providing things like food, which the locals have been doing well enough for the time being.
PROMOTE SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT Once Enough good roads are built in Africa and other developments, like alternative energy for the Africans, this would create jobs from which people can afford to buy better food. They don't have to grow it on their own, but they are nonetheless, developing. This also provides incentive for American companies to go out and get cheap land to start their businesses. It would be great for the American stock market.
UPHOLD INTERNATIONAL LAW. Here, they basically want to limit aggression between states. In the short term, this will not be the case. However, as I had mentioned above, in the long term, not only would there be more peace in Africa as history has confirmed with the U.K. and India, but there will also be in the long term, more peace between Africa and the US if the Africans are treated well enough under US rule. No slavery is necessary for the invasion. This way, Africans feel more American and as a result, they would want to stay in the nation that offers them citizenship. In other words, they ideally consent to being a colony because they don't want to lose their newly acquired American citizenship.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
@TheDredPriateRoberts
@TheDredPriateRoberts
Why can't Africa become a US interest? Africa commits many human rights abuses. The US should do something about it and the US should liberate Africa like it did with Iraq. Once we put military in Iraq, Alquida didn't exist there as badly as it before US interference. When we pulled out our military, ISIS came and committed terrorism against the people there. Africa is similar to the US. If we conditionally annex the region, then 1 billion Africans would be liberated and economic freedom would be expanded.
@Greyparrot
Isn't dying from obesity different then dying from starvation/disease? One you just don't eat as much food and you excersize more. The other can only be treated with an increase in food and a higher GDP per capita. Also, some people try to fight obesity in the US.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
The soldiers protect the US and it's interests by invading Africa because the US gets to expand it's interests into the continent.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
11% of people not know English is not a majority. This minority should be assimilated for 2 reasons:
1: To prevent them from being on welfare.
2: To prevent separatist movements in the future.
Open borders are a bad idea for the sovereignty of the US. All immigrants should be assimilated and most legal ones are, but this is a tangent. Dying from obesity is different from dying from malnutrition/disease partly due to the pain difference. Dying from obesity is nowhere nearly as painful as dying from starvation or disease.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
The soldiers agree to the risk of their lives being taken. They have too in order to join the army. They are fine with risking their life to save other peoples lives. That's what it means to be a solider. As for the economy portion, I was wanting the US government to hire people to improve the conditions in Africa so the economy gets better there. Health conditions improve as Africans inevitably would use this money to upgrade their lives. They would buy better food, a pump, some medicine and other necessities. I'm willing to sacrifice consenting soldiers to save more people in the long term.
Created:
Posted in:
@Greyperrot
"If we can't assimilate the people we already have in this country, what makes you think we can do it in Africa?" Most people in the US as of right now are assimilated. If we invaded Africa, already due to the British that in Africa, a majority of Africans live in a country where English is the sole or one of the official languages, so assimilation shouldn't be that hard. Also, there are other ways of forced assimilation other then genocide, such as nation mixing, where.
And only about 30,000 people annually die from car crashes in the US (https://www.driverknowledge.com/car-accident-statistics/). Also, car deaths as of right now are inevitable. If the US invades Africa, there would be relative peace and the death rate would plummet. Same if we adopted self driving cars, which are inevitable, but that's a tangent.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
I think that an invasion of Africa can save more African lives in the long term then the small amount that died from the invasion.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
"Sure it does, fascist. Sick racists." Fascism is one party rule and I am not advocating for one party rule. The SJWs are the fascists since they want to censor all whom disagree with them. Your trolling at this point and that is poor conduct.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
"Why pay to take over a place with no natural resources?" Africa is filled with various natural resources.
"Why get Americans killed?" To save more Africans long term because under American rule, Africa gets more human rights and the infant mortality rate would plummet. Life expectancy in general increases under American rule.
"I can only figure you hate native Africans." I don't and this policy would help Africa and America out a lot.
"Seems racists as hell." It has nothing to do with racism whatsoever and more to do with helping out Africa and the US.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
The USA gets:
1: More land
2: A chance to make a better reputation.
3: More natural resources, which Africa has a lot of.
4: 1 billion people to assimilate to make Americans.
5: Curbing Chinese influence in the region, which has been developing a lot recently.
A few American soldiers would die obviously. However, I would rather see 10,000 soldiers die then to allow millions of African children to die from Africa's high infant morality rate, something that would get fixed under American rule.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Some pros to the US invading the whole continent:
- More minerals being mined with American Technology. This benefits the USA.
- The UN should be okay with it. They wish to eliminate poverty, and an African invasion would help do that.
- More human rights on the continent. This benefits Africans.
- Can make Africa part of a 1st world country and could even make Africa 1st world itself. Similar to #2. This benefits Africa.
- Can make Africa less prone to HIV/AIDS. This benefits Africa.
- It can allow the USA to give Africa a better reputation of the west. This benefits USA
- Can allow Africans to immigrate to the US and vice versa, therefore increasing globalization. This benefits both, primarily Africans
- Less refugees to Europe. This benefits Europe.
- An Actual good use for an increase in military spending. This benefits USA
- Better education opportunities. This benefits Africans.
- More land. This benefits USA.
- Lots of jobs implementing solar panels in the desert and in the SW USA. This benefits both, primarily Africa.
Created:
Posted in:
Why does Africa hate freedom?
Created:
Posted in:
I want to see how popular this idea is. I had a discussion with someone about it and I couldn't continue the discussion due to lack of time on my part.
Created:
Posted in:
What if you had a section solely for rap debates? There are a lot of those.
Created:
-->
@ResurgetExFavilla
Most people don't want the world to end by nukes. It's about whether or not you think it will happen.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DebateArt.com
A good idea would be to have Platinum medals as well as Gold, Silver, and Bronze.
Created:
I don't think the world is going to get nuked. Mutually Assured Destruction seems like it's too big of a fear for any country to nuke another. We made it this far. I think all of the world's nukes will get destroyed before the world it's self does.
Created:
Posted in:
I'm neutral on this. Sometimes I support Trump, sometimes I think he is a RINO.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@KingLaddy01
"Invading those territories is nothing compared to a continent anyway." It's still an invasion of a foreign place. If Russia and China took their influence out of these area, it makes our enemies weaker. If they decided to declare conventional warfare on us, they would lose because they need time to train their troops. By the time China and Russia train their troops well enough to reconquer Africa, Africa probably would be okay with being a US territory just like PR since the US would make Africa much better then it currently is and this would satisfy the locals to the extent where they don't want independence.
"Tribes =/= today's military" Can you explain what this means?
"America < Russia, China, India, and Africa" Currently, the US has a stronger military then all of those regions combined if your unit is military spending. By the time Russia and China militarize themselves, it still would be America, Africa > Russia and China since the US would treat Africa better then Europe and Africa therefore would be an ally.
Created:
Posted in:
"America doesn't have enough soldiers to do so." The US has about 2 million soldiers and our soldiers are better trained and equipped then African soldiers.
"Other powers like China, India, and Russia will not let them do it." China and Russia would be hypocritical if they cared since they invaded Tibet and Crimea respectively. India is our ally and they invaded Kashmir so if they accuse the US of annexing land, all of those countries are hypocrites. I think the US military is stronger then all 3 of their militaries put together, so an invasion would be successful, even with their resistance. We could use the justification that we had helped Europe out with defending freedom from Russia and an African invasion would be a good way of repayment.
"When the European countries took over, there were only 2 countries in Africa. Egypt and Ethiopia." Then what was all the other land for? I think there were other tribes on the continent before Europe came along. I just don't know the names.
"Africa has about a billion people. Too many for any current military to capture and hold." If the locals are okay with it, which they probably would be if the US increases the standard of living for them and doesn't treat them badly, then the military will only have to defend the area from outsiders. Keep in mind that the African military, once the consent of the people is obtained, probably would help the US military in defending the area.
"Today African countries have things they didn't have during colonial times, like bombs, fighter jets, tanks, and a lot more soldiers with fully automatic weapons." Africa has $50 billion in military spending annually and about 5 million troops as a whole continent. This is about $10,000 per solider for everything the soldier needs, per year. They aren't well equipped compared to American soldiers, who get on average $664,000 worth of supplies at their disposal per year. Africa may have some bombs and fighter jets, but the US has much more of them and the US can make more on demand. If Africa loses a tank, it would take a long time to make a new one. If America loses a tank, they could make 5 more.
Created:
Posted in:
"Look at the size comparisons in the 1st link. It is crazy to think that the US could gain, much less hold, territory that size." Why not? Europe held almost all of it and that was when they were divided and conquered more. If a divided Europe, not even all of Europe, but 5 European nations can control almost all of Africa, why can't a united America hold the whole continent, especially if we treat the natives better then the Europeans did?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
Your active though. You comment on other people's debates and you vote. You have as of right now more silver badges then I do and almost as many bronze. Also, do you have a computer? If you do, you can use that to debate.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DebateArt.com
Debates are a narrow topic? I thought that this site would be good for anyone arguing public policy and political issues.
Created:
Posted in:
Do you know why DA, DDO, and DI combined have very few people? Compared to everyone in the entire country, I would expect millions of people to be on the site.
Created:
Posted in:
I don't like the format of debate island. I prefer this one because it is like DDO, but without the glitches.
Created:
Posted in:
Most people don't participate in anything on this site. They don't engage in forms. They don't engage in debates. They don't don't comment or vote. They are in the site in nothing but an account.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DebateArt.com
But https://www.debateart.com/leaderboard/debates?page=2 states that most people who are on the site did nothing on the site.
Created:
Posted in:
Do you know why most people on this site don't participate in debates?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@dylancatlow
90% of black homicides are from other blacks(https://www.factcheck.org/2015/11/trump-retweets-bogus-crime-graphic/). If blacks want to save themselves, they should start by not killing themselves.
Created:
Posted in:
"The idea is stupid." Why?
"And if my opponent is racist, I will call him that."
https://www.debateart.com/debates/383?open_tab=comments ought to confirm that I'm not racist. My opponent in the debate isn't one either, but I digress.
"Right now, the US can't even win or hold Afghanistan or Iraq."
The US didn't try. The US got involved to eliminate the influence of the Taliban and Saddam Hussein respectively.(https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/u-s-led-attack-on-afghanistan-begins)(https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/war-in-iraq-begins). If the US wanted to incorporate these regions as US territories, they could have.
"America's military budget dwarfed Vietnam, yet they lost." This was because of the influence of China and the USSR and the US's laziness on the war.
"If it took an average of a week to invade and subdue each African country, controlling the continent would take more than a year, and a week is being ridiculously optimistic. Nigeria has more than 100 million, how big a force do you think that would need to keep the territory?" If it takes a year, then so be it. I think an increase in military spending and more troops can help maintain control until ever single African gets Americanized enough to the point that they don't want to secede. They probably won't want to secede from the country that gives them education from built schools, electricity from the solar panels placed in the Sahara, lowered the infant morality rate and turned Africa into a 1st world place. If these things are done, I imagine most African cultures would want statehood before independence. As an example, more people want statehood in PR then in Africa, and PR is culturally different from the US. The reason why they want this statehood is to improve their economy. Africa is bound to want the same eventually.
They got independence from Europe because the Africans got oppressed. If the Africans don't get oppressed, then they would want to stay within the US.
Created: