CreateDebate


Debate Info

15
14
True False
Debate Score:29
Arguments:23
Total Votes:33
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 True (12)
 
 False (11)

Debate Creator

TERMINATOR(6778) pic



America has a moral duty to stop genocide, even if it means going to war.

True

Side Score: 15
VS.

False

Side Score: 14
2 points

America should have stepped in to help during Rwanda. Millions were killed just like the Jews during WWII.

Side: True
2 points

As the world's strongest country, the United States has an obligation to help as many people as it can. Regardless of what we think our role should be, the world will hate us for not helping those of who are in danger. The gain of being the most powerful country in the world is protection, the cost is having a moral duty to protect more than just its own citizens.

Side: True
brycer2012(1002) Disputed
2 points

Okay. We have the strongest military in the world. Why do we still have to go and help everyone else in the world before we can help our own people? We have homeless people. We have natural disasters. Why can the other countries call us wusses and everything, but every time something goes wrong we have to be the ones to fix it. If all you other countries are so big and bad why can't you help them?

Side: False
sirius(367) Disputed
2 points

"Why do we still have to go and help everyone else in the world before we can help our own people?"- because our people are not being killed in packs by men with machine guns.

"We have homeless people."- they arent being killed.

"We have natural disasters."- those dont happen that often.

"Why can the other countries call us wusses and everything"- they can call us whatever they want, the validity of the statement is all that matters.

"If all you other countries are so big and bad why can't you help them?"- the United States is the most powerful and the one which can expend more of its power than any other country.

Side: True
abc123(10) Disputed
2 points

well ya but we are not going to be able to stop every genocide in the future and when we cant then the rest of the world will hate us anyway. So i believe that we should intervene only when it involves the United States so that way we can put our time, energy, and resources for helping our economy and our needs.

Side: False
1 point

As such a powerful country, America has the moral duty to save millions of people being killed and restore peace in a country, such as Rwanda and Libya.

Side: True
1 point

we shouldn't be so selfish. we should step in and help. we all have a responsibility to do so.

Side: True

The United States shouldn't be responsible for everyone else's problems when we can't even fix are own.

Side: False
TERMINATOR(6778) Disputed
1 point

But America gets itself involved in all different types of disputes. It has happened for over a century - Cuba, Vietnam, Korea, etc. You just keep on fighting for political reasons. At least if you stop a genocide, you are saving millions of innocents, rather than killing millions.

Side: True
DontBeRacist(19) Disputed
2 points

America isn't killing millions though. Innocent blood isn't on America's hands for disregarding genocide. And if America has a moral duty to be the savior to all persecuted peoples, then the rest of the world should be shamed for looking away and assigning America as the world's deliverer.

>>We didn't start it, why should we finish it??<<

Side: True
1 point

Alone? No. The U.S. should work multilaterally, within the context of the UN, to stop genocide. Even we don't have the capability to unilaterally police the world.

Side: False
1 point

We are not the world police.

Now, maybe the UN as a whole should have an obligation to stop genocide, but not America alone.

Edit:

As in, the nations can probably talk all of the issues out and decide some action that will leave less toes stepped on.

Side: False
fatdude4954 Disputed
1 point

just one country can already make the difference in saving thousands of thousands of people. YOU ARE WRONG!

Side: True
TERMINATOR(6778) Disputed
0 points

I do not believe it as whole-heartedly as you people seem to think. Vietnam War was done to 'rescue' the people from Communist control. America had no business in Vietnam - they came in and started killing villagers and anybody of Viet Cong blood. They cared not who they killed, simply about the numbers that were killed. They lost the war, and as a result, it is no longer officially considered a 'war,' rather a 'police operation,' or something to that effect.

Now, I ask you, why didn't they help when millions of Rwandans were being slaughtered? They will help protect people from communism - but they will not help protect people from genocide?

Side: True
Warlin(1212) Disputed
1 point

I never said they had an obligation to stop communism. Are you putting words in my mouth? America shouldn't be obliged to stop anything, in my opinion.

Side: False
0 points

I think that genocide is bad, but I don't think that we should go to war over it unless it started happening in our country. The U.S has a pretty low bank account right now, partially because of one war, so I don't think that we should start another one.

Side: False