Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons! is the largest online debate website globally where anyone can anonymously and easily debate online, casually or formally, while connecting with their friends and others. Users, regardless of debating skill level, can civilly debate just about anything online in a text-based online debate website that supports five easy-to-use and fun debating formats ranging from Casual, to Formalish, to Lincoln-Douglas Formal. In addition, people can improve their debating skills with the help of revolutionary artificial intelligence-powered technology on our debate website. DebateIsland is totally free and provides the best online debate experience of any debate website.


NATO should seek to expand.

Debate Information

Position: For March 2018 Tournament | Round 1 - Debate 2
Not every quote you read on the internet is true- Abraham Lincoln

Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win

Details +

Debate Type: Traditional Debate

Voting Format: Casual Voting

Opponent: Dee

Rounds: 3

Time Per Round: 24 Hours Per Round

Voting Period: 24 Hours


Post Argument Now Debate Details +


  • Round 1 | Position: Against
    DeeDee 5425 Pts   -  
    Hi , 

    My opponent is Americanfurryboy and I welcome him and look forward to the exchange .

    I like to keep my initial thoughts short and to the point so as to not bore any audience to death , with that in mind here are the mains reasons I believe NATO should not expand .......

    Let’s look at NATO expansion in the past and see how that panned out given that we can look at past expansions and examine how effective / ineffective they were 

    NATO expanded under The Clinton admin in 97 this was done as a “ goodwill gesture “ and heralded in a new relationship between the countries as strategic allies , did the expansion eastward create more security as it promised ? 

    The expansion led by the U S  - led alliance was the largest and fastest in modern times NATO expansion this included two broken promises to Russia that the Kremlin has never forgotten. In 1990, the Bush administration (and the West Germany government) assured Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev that, in return for Russia’s agreeing to a united Germany in NATO, the alliance would “not expand one inch to the east.” 

    Another broken promise was NATO setting up permanent land , sea and air forces near Russian territory after promising “ not one inch to the East “ 

    So has an expanded NATO resulted in better security?

    The Serbian war in 1999 resulted in the NATO occupation and annexation of Kosovo, a precedent cited by subsequent secessionists and occupiers.

    The 2003 Iraq War was a catastrophe for all involved and a powerful factor behind expanding organized terrorism, including the Islamic State, and not only in the Middle East. The same was true of the war against Libya in 2011, no lessons having been learned.

    We had the Russian /Georgian war 

    The NATO led war in Afghanistan was an absolute disaster which caused yet more destabilization  and security issues along with countless side issues for the parties involved 

    The vast resources devoted to NATO expansion have scarcely contributed anything to real international peace ; NATO will possibly be responsible for the forming of an anti NATO alliance in the future between countries annoyed at the continual  broken promises of NATO 

    NATO’s only exists to project U.S. military power on the other side of the globe.

    Noam Chomsky said , 

    "The official purpose of NATO was to defend Europe from the Russian hordes," Chomsky told Big Think. "With the Russian hordes gone, it should therefore have disbanded. Interestingly, that was not even seriously proposed.  Rather, NATO at once expanded to the East, in violation of pledges to Mikhail Gorbachev. ...  And since then its mission has expanded worldwide, serving as a U.S. intervention force, and to secure the global energy system on which the West relies."

    I agree and to sum up we can look back and see how effective /ineffective NATO has been and if anything they have only made the world a more unstable place 

  • Round 1 | Position: For
    AmericanFurryBoyAmericanFurryBoy 528 Pts   -  
    Though NATO has caused some problems, I would like to argue in favor of NATOs original purpose, and a new threat. 
    It was originally created to keep an eye on Russia. Russia is again amassing power. If we fought a war with Russia on our own, it could be devastating. And then we have North Korea. As of right now, only two other countries want to do something about Little Rocket Man. One, Japan, doesnt even have a military. And under the same treaty that took away their military, we are forced to protect them. So yes, an expansion of NATO would be favorable.
    Not every quote you read on the internet is true- Abraham Lincoln
  • Round 2 | Position: Against
    DeeDee 5425 Pts   -  

    Here are my counters to AmericanFurryBoys arguments 

    Though NATO has caused some problems

    Yes , let’s examine a few of the problems , 

    1: On March 24, 1999, NATO began a 78-day deadly and devastating U.S.-backed intervention of Yugoslavia. It was the first time in history that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization decided they would attack a country without the approval of the U.N. Security Council.

    The illegal bombing killed at least 5,000 people (some sources claim it was closer to 18,000), injured 12,500 and left the area contaminated with depleted uranium, a chemical element banned under international law that is still causing childhood cancer 

    The NATO bombing of Yugoslavia was the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation's military operation against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia during the Kosovo War. The air strikes lasted from March 24, 1999 to June 10, 1999. Wikipedia

    2: The barbarity inflicted on Libya 

    A U.S.-U.K.-French joint military force began bombing Libya in March 2011. As many as 25,000 people were killed that year alone while an additional 400,000 Libyans were displaced. The nation is now mired in violence, with rival militias and two separate governments fighting for power amid the rise of the Islamic State group.

    3: Afghanistan 

    NATO forces led the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) which ran Afghanistan from late 2001 until 2014. The Project on Defense Alternatives estimated that in a three-month period between Oct. 7, 2001 and Jan. 1, 2002, at least 1,300 civilians were directly killed by the United States-led aerial bombing campaign under NATO’s watch.

    In 2002, The Guardian reported that as many as 20,000 Afghans died in 2001 as an indirect result of the initial U.S. and NATO airstrikes and ground invasion.

    More than 200,000 people have been killed in Afghanistan since 2001 as a result of the U.S. invasion that was overseen by NATO forces for 14 years, according to a 2015 report called “Body Count," written by 1985 Nobel Peace Prize winners "Physicians for Social Responsibility" and "Physicians for Global Survival and International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War."

    , I would like to argue in favor of NATOs original purpose, and a new threat. 

    It was originally created to keep an eye on Russia. Russia is again amassing power. 

    America is also amassing power that’s what superpowers do expanding  only increases tensions while diplomacy eases them , NATO has less experience than the U N the OSCE and many NGOs 

    NATO is a thing of the past and the mentality is still post-cold war 

    If we fought a war with Russia on our own, it could be devastating

    For all parties involved isn’t that the case in all conflicts ?

    And then we have North Korea. As of right now, only two other countries want to do something about Little Rocket Man. 

    I think it’s mainly all bluster and in actual fact I can see a peace deal being put on the table in the not to distant future , as regards the Leaders capabilities for an attack on the U S again mainly bluster 

    From the BBC .....

    Pyongyang's ability to carry out a nuclear strike on the US is even less certain, as analysts say it is difficult to assess the North's claims to have managed to create a small enough nuclear device to be mounted on a warhead.

    December 2012's missile launch, the International Institute for Strategic Studies said, proved that North Korea has something that can hit American shores but it said that any "functioning nuclear-tipped intercontinental ballistic missile is still at least several years away".

    But the first indication of a more concerning assessment came in a US intelligence report leaked in April 2013 which said the North may now be capable of firing a nuclear-armed missile, though with "low reliability".

    The Pentagon later denied the report, stating it would be "inaccurate to suggest that the North Korean regime has fully tested, developed or demonstrated those kinds of nuclear capabilities".

    Nevertheless North Korea has shown it is determined to pursue this technology. Its February 2013 underground nuclear test was double the size of the previous one in 2009.

    One, Japan, doesnt even have a military

    Where you get that from is beyond me they are rated 7th in military strength North Korea is 23rd

    . And under the same treaty that took away their military, we are forced to protect them

    You’re actually not Japan’s military is far superior so is South Korea’s

    . So yes, an expansion of NATO would be favorable.

    As I outlined above an expansion is totally unfavorable as demonstrated by how previous interactions have fared out 

Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
© 2023, all rights reserved. | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us
Terms of Service

Get In Touch