Return to CreateDebate.commrarmy • Join this debate community

mrarmy


Debate Info

Debate Score:1450
Arguments:1429
Total Votes:1454
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 US History Final Discussion (1429)

Debate Creator

mrarmyphs(92) pic



US History Final Discussion

This final discussion is on topics that are created,  researched, and defended by students from the first semester of us history at phs. An outline of the final discussion can be found on mrarmy.pbworks.com.

 

Add New Argument
2 points

America was very Imperialistic during the Spanish-American War.

2 points

The Spanish American War let other countries know that they weren’t afraid and would not back down.

http://www.sparknotes.com/history/american/spanishamerican/context.html

jfaust(25) Disputed
1 point

We overstepped boundaries in the Spanish-American war. We had no reason to show other countries the we wouldn't back down. As a country, we would have had no problems if we didn't get involved. The war just brought fighting and poor rapport with other countries.

http://www.smplanet.com/imperialism/toc.html

1 point

I agree, we needed that so our country would not be messed with and we can live in peace.

1 point

The Revolutionary War let other countries know that the US wasn't going to back down; the Spanish American war just showed that we were wreckless, ruthless, and a little bit insane

Side: Spanish American
1 point

I agree, we had to show them and let them know that we weren't afraid to keep fighting for what we deserve, and that we wouldn't give up or back down.

Side: Spanish American

And after the Spanish-American War, we are always involved with wars and conflicts. who knows, the U.S. will become a communist country.

Side: Spanish American
1 point

America wanted to show how we were not afraid of any other countries. We wanted to gain power in the world, so we showed that we were strong and united and ready to stand together to defeat other countries to prove oursleves.

Side: Spanish American
zbradley(22) Disputed
1 point

We were not imperialistic, we had to show other countries that we were able to fight against others.

Side: Spanish American
CKlemme(28) Disputed
1 point

I disagree because I believe that the United States was actually very imperialistic during the time of the progressive era.

LInk: http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/modules/progressivism/index.cfm

Side: Spanish American
chenning(28) Disputed
1 point

Exactly... We had to show other countries that we had great power so we started to take control of other contries. This meant that we were very imperialistic.

Side: Imperialism
1 point

i agree with zach. i feel every single problem that other countries have, its emeidialtly the US's problem. maybe if we let countries alone unless they asked for our help, we would be so hated?

Side: Imperialism
tatertot1195(28) Disputed
1 point

I disagree, we felt that we were the superior country and that we needed to get involved with other countries to make them more like us. If we had stayed out of other peoples business we probably could have avoided a few wars.

Side: Spanish American
tmalone(29) Disputed
1 point

I disagree because I think that e were imperialistic because we wanted other countries to be like us.

Side: Migration
1 point

That gave us an ego, thinking we were the best and better than other countries because we could fight them. First of all, that isn't right in any way. We have no right to brag about the way we live.

Side: Imperialism
1 point

i think that this is very true. Our country is always in a war. Somewhere in the world. stopping or trying to stop other countries from fighting.

Side: Imperialism
cdenzin(26) Disputed
1 point

and by showing other countries we were able to fight we were imperialistic

Side: Imperialism
Holentunder(33) Disputed
1 point

We were very imperialistic because we tired to take over areas and show that we had more power

Side: Imperialism
PaniaVang5(31) Disputed
1 point

We are imperialistic. It all started because of the Yellow Journalists. They don't have specific information and all it is, is basically lies. Those lies are to make our country sound better and stronger. It wasn't just imperialistic but nationalism.

Side: WWI
jcravillion(16) Disputed
1 point

Why? why didwe need to prove ourselves? Did it make the world a better place? No, it got us more enemies though. Instead of proving ourselves through war (which we have been doing since our beginning) why don't we try peace for a change

Side: Imperialism
nreil(30) Disputed
1 point

I also dissagree with this America was indeed very imperialistic at this time. They many times became involved in foreign affairs that didn't involve them. They would however push their way in to it to try and better the U.S.

Side: WWI
dermer(22) Disputed
1 point

I disagree because we fought the Spanish for land to show our imperialism we build the Panama canal to charge any country that chooses to ship supplies though.

Side: WWI
1 point

I agree, we had to show them that we weren't afraid to fight against other people, and that we wouldn't back down.

Side: WWI
dayton121394(38) Disputed
1 point

I totally diagree with you. The U.S is imperialistic after the Spanish-American War. http://www.slideshare.net/ljhsblog/america-in-the-age-of-imperialism-263912

Side: WWI
1 point

I agree with Zack, we were not imperialistic we just have to show our power.

Side: WWI
1 point

I agree, we had to show them that we weren't afraid to fight other people and not back down .

Side: WWI
1 point

Us showing that we can fight against other makes us look imperialistic.

Side: WWI
dayton121394(38) Disputed
1 point

WE ARE IMPERIALISTIC, no matter what. It has been in history books and records that have been written about the U.S.

Side: WWI
1 point

The War had now made America transition into a vigorous role in world affairs. The Spanish American War revealed that America had great powers.

Side: WWI
1 point

After the war we became very imperialistic and started taking over land and control of other countries.

Side: WWI
1 point

true but did it show in a good or bad way to the restof the world

Side: WWI
1 point

And that the Spanish is a dieing empire and world power and that a new world powers are needed.

Side: WWI
1 point

Now that America had shown their imperialistic power every other country wanted to challenge them. Becuase they had this huge target on their back the U.S. was forced to continually become involved in other conflicts that were either started by us or other countries.

Side: WWI
breinnecain(10) Disputed
1 point

It showed we were powerful and stupid. We had no reason being involved. It made us look like what we are, imperialistic. By throwing ourselves in the war and trying to be "the big guy" that saves the day. It was ridiculous and made us just look more arrogant.

Side: WWI
1 point

The taking of colonies had a big part on how America was imperialistic. We started to expand overseas and expanding colonies. We took control of the Carribean. Taking colonies meant that America was a great nation.

Side: WWI
1 point

This led to the building of the Panama Canal. Taking over the carribean now thought that we should continue to build the canal. Roosevelt wanted to revitalize the navy.

http://www.smplanet.com/imperialism/joining.html

Side: WWI
jfaust(25) Disputed
1 point

America being founded on colonies shows how we have always been imperialistic but this isn't necessarily a great thing. The reason we rebelled from the British is because they were over controlling and imperialistic. 300 years ago we thought that that was bad, but now we are doing it to other countries.

Side: WWI
1 point

I agree with you because that did have a big impact on how the United States became very imperialistic. We kind of took over and started to control more things and that helped us. THis did make us a bigger and greater nation.

Side: WWI
1 point

Soon as we started taking colonies then we thought that everyone wanted us to go into their country and help them with there problem when they truely didn't.

Side: WWI
tatertot1195(28) Disputed
1 point

Many other countries also had control in the Caribbean at the same time as us. Spain, France, Great Britain and the Netherlands also had claims in the Caribbean.

Side: WWI
jcravillion(16) Disputed
1 point

"Great" Nation? How do wars, colonies and imperialism make a country great?

Side: Spanish American
TommyJay(28) Disputed
1 point

Maybe not a great nation but a greedy nation. What is the point of taking the carribean islands when we have one of the greatest countries in terms of square milage in the world?

Side: Nationalism
1 point

What led to the Spanish American War was the U.S. Maine exploding. Yellow Journalism said that there were mines that blew up the Maine. Yellow Journalism convinced America to go to war with Spain.

http://www.smplanet.com/imperialism/splendid.html

Side: Nationalism
1 point

i agree i think that america just pointed fingers at other countries instead of actually stoppping what they were doing and THINK about all of the posiible mistakes that could have happened.

Side: Nationalism
1 point

I agree with you because america was making people frantic believing wwhatever they read.

Side: Nationalism
1 point

I agree with this because there is no proof that Spain or Cuba had anything to do with the US Maine blowing up. The yellow journalists just wanted attention and caused greater damage than they should have, leading up to the Spanish American war.

Side: Nationalism
1 point

I agree with what has been said. When the U.S. Maine exploded the U.S. just pointed fingers at other countries instead of getting to the bottom of things. They started stuff with other countires and ecused them of damaging their stuff.

Side: Nationalism
1 point

The main purose of this happening was because the U.S. wanted land and the natural resources and even the Yellow Journalists knew. It's pretty obvious enough that they were clearly not fighting for "justice and freedom" but planning on pointing fingers just so they can get what they want.

Side: Spanish American
1 point

I agree this was the final push that led us into war and the yellow journalism really forced the idea that it was all the spanish but i we were most likely going to go to war even without the USS Maine exploding

Side: Spanish American
1 point

If people would just be honest and only let out the truth then there's a good chance we never would have gone to war. Peopl make things up to try and get attention and this causes things to happen for the wrong reasons.

Side: Spanish American
1 point

I agree because we could use our navy and manuever it alot more quickly than before. We could control other countries easier.

Side: Spanish American
1 point

Towards the end of the class I still agree with my exact hypothesis that America was very imperialistic during the Spanish-American War. They set out to take controll of other land. They showed they had great power and other countries would not start stuff. America became very strong in the Spanish- American War.

Side: Spanish American
1 point

I agree. By showing other countires that we had power, and taking over areas we were very imperialistic

Side: Spanish American
1 point

I agree by showing our power, it proved that we are imperialistic

Side: Spanish American
1 point

This is very true, but I almost think we are even more imperialistic now than during the Spanish American war.

Side: Spanish American
1 point

Yes it was,and that led to more problems afterward because of the imperialism

Side: Spanish American
1 point

Exactly... Imperialism lead to lots more Wars and more probelms.

Side: Imperialism
1 point

I agree we were very imperialistic I think we destroyed the USS Maine to start a war with Spain to get their land.

Side: Imperialism

After the Spanish-American War, U.S. has been involed with world conflict throughout history. Even to this every day the U.S. is being inloved with conflicts.

Side: Imperialism
1 point

I agree, I think that they wanted to get as much land as they could so they would fight against anyone and wouldnt stop until they won.

Side: Imperialism
1 point

I totally agree, America was very Imperialistic in the Spanish-American War.

Side: Imperialism
1 point

Yes, your reasoning sounds right, but give examples to prove you are right

Side: Imperialism
1 point

I agree especialy with the events leading up to it such as the USS Maine got blown up because it was trying to help other nations

Side: Imperialism

Let this link show how America was IMPERIALISTIC in Latin-America.

http://www.english.illinois.edu/maps/poets/a_f/espada/imperialism.htm

Side: Imperialism
1 point

thats true we were the best according to us...what do you think happened to the maine???

Side: Spanish American
2 points

I believe the U.S. made the correct decision to enter WW1 when they did. If the U.S. had waited to enter the war later there is a chance that Germany and the Central powers could have won the European front. When the U.S. finally would have entered the war they would have had all of Europe to contend against.

Supporting Evidence: Why the U.S. entered WW1 (www.thenagain.info)
Side: Spanish American
2 points

I also agree with you. It was the perfect time to enter WW1. We helped fight off the Germans and like you said if we wouldnt have entered at a perfect time the Germans could of won the European Front.

Side: Spanish American
PaniaVang5(31) Disputed
2 points

To be honest, I think that it didn't matter whether the U.S. went into war early or not because none of that would have occured "anyway" if it weren't for those cocky nationalists who had like alliances all over the place saying you hurt my friend I hurt yours.

Side: Spanish American
1 point

if the us went to war early we could of prevented alot of deaths.

Side: Spanish American
1 point

I believe that as well, we needed to go in at that time to back up our allies and show that we are strong as a country and can stand up for our selves.

Side: Spanish American
1 point

I agree if we had not went into the war when we did Germany would have taken the European front and the US would have been screwed

Side: Spanish American
lbreitzman(5) Disputed
1 point

on the otherhand, while Germany was building an empire the U.S. would just be there chillin like, hey we're America, we're just chillin here. and we would have been left alone.

Side: Spanish American
1 point

I agree because if Britan lost we would be out money. The Germans also shot one of our boats taking them supplies.

Side: Spanish American
1 point

yes and also they probably would have had mexico enter and attack us as well then we would be screwed

Side: Spanish American
1 point

i dont think if mexico attacked us we be screwed i think it be the other way around

Side: Spanish American
1 point

I agree. I think the United States made a right choice in enetring WWI at that specific time. If they would've waited, the Germans could've won and be more powerful than the other countires. Also, when the United States came in, then other European allies joined in too to help defeat Germany.

Side: Spanish American
1 point

I agree we entered at a good time because the Russians pulled out in 1918 and if we wouldn't have joined then the central powers may have won the war.

Side: WWI
1 point

I agree if we wouldnt have the allies would have surely lost, causing our economy to tank.

Side: WWI
2 points

The Jungle was a 1906 novel written by the muckraking journalist Upton Sinclair, to expose the crimes of the meat packing industry to the general public, who were also considered lower class. The novel discussed that meat packing industries did absolutely disgusting things to the meat to maximize profits, while paying off inspectors to “not notice”. They were pretty much taking advantage of the lower class by having bad working conditions, and then selling them crappy meat. Sinclair’s work influenced President Roosevelt to start the FDA, and was a major milestone in the progressive movement.

Side: WWI
1 point

"The Jungle" was said to "hit Americans in the stomach". Americans couldn't ignore conditions because they were so disgusting and terrible. Teddy could not turn a blind eye. Sinclair forced change to happen.

Side: WWI
1 point

The book The Jungle was good for U.S because like you said, it grabbed the president's attention and got him to do something about it. Without this book, the food today might still be made with things that food should not be made with.

Side: WWI
1 point

If that book was never created, there could be a lot more sick people from eating what the say was food.

Side: WWI
1 point

It would be like eating spam at every meal. have you ever had spam? its canned meat, in case you didnt know.

Side: WWI
1 point

It's sad that it took "The Jungle" to make a change happen. The president should have never letten food sanitation get so terrible. It shouldn't have gone so far that it took a book to make a difference.

Side: WWI
1 point

This is a good post. I also posted about this book, this book really opened up the view of people, and shocked Americans ever where. The government really didn't like this about the writer, but this opened up to muckrakers and showed many people the truth.

Side: WWI
1 point

that book made america open its eyes and wake up it was basicly a slap across the face for some people

Side: WWI
1 point

This book was an example of how the media was such a strong influence on the American public. This one book was able to force changes in government. Today media is still a huge influence in our society and still makes the government see changes that they other wise would try to turn a blind eye to.

Side: WWI
jcravillion(16) Disputed
1 point

The only difference between today's media and the media of the Jungle is that was muckraking, while tday I think we are going back towards yellow journalism and while we may be keeping the gov. "change" it's a biased influence

Side: Muckraker
1 point

The Jungle is a great book that still well known in today. When I heard about this book in my science class I did not know how this book effected meat industy in the U.S. but it is also recognized as a famous and outstanding book from science area.

Side: Muckraker
2 points

Who do you think will be the Republican presidential candidate? I personally believe Ron Paul is the best candidate on several different issues. For example, he is the only one who does not want to send our troops back to Iraq.

Supporting Evidence: Ron Paul's political positions (en.wikipedia.org)
Side: Muckraker
1 point

I agree that Ron Paul should have that nomination, but I don't think it will happen. He has not been ahead in any polls and seems that he is not a favored candidate. His libertarian policies are considered radical by many.

Side: Muckraker
1 point

I think he is also the best republican candidate, but I erosnally believe that Warren Mosler is the best choice for president.

Side: Muckraker
1 point

I also do think that Ron Paul is the best for president I think that it will come down not Romney and Paul.

Side: Muckraker
2 points

nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn

Side: Muckraker
2 points

I think that Germany was very imperialistic because they started World War II because they thought they were the alpha nation and everyone else should be eliminated.

Side: Muckraker
1 point

I agree Germany was the ultimate nation, they thought that they could concur the world.

Side: WWI
1 point

I agree. I think Germany thought they were better than everyone else and were the "top dog". They ended up falling anyways in the war.

Side: WWI
1 point

I agree, they were very imperialistic trying to take over Europe.

Side: WWI
2 points

Progressivism is an umbrella label for a wide range of economic, political, social, and moral reforms. These included efforts to outlaw the sale of alcohol; regulate child labor and sweatshops; scientifically manage natural resources; insure pure and wholesome water and milk; Americanize immigrants or restrict immigration altogether; and bust or regulate trusts.

Side: WWI
2 points

I think that SOPA should not be put into place on the internet. Google itself has proven that it can protect itself from piracy. There should be no need to have it, because its most likely going to happen anyways. If they did put the censorshi on the internet people will only find a way to get around it like they always have.

Side: SOPA
1 point

I agree. SOPA is going to cause more problems than good. Plenty of people will protest and find their way around it. It will just cause trouble. It should not be put into effect.

Side: SOPA
badskater47(16) Disputed
1 point

You would get fined and possabley put in prison they law should not pass because many things we be taken away twitter,Facebook,YouTube,ect

Side: SOPA
1 point

I support this because if you really think about it, Do you really want to have to go around all of the sites that you don't want, just to get to the site that you want?

Side: SOPA
1 point

All Quiet on the Western Front was that movie about WWI. The movie communicates to the audience on an emotional level the hardships of the soldiers on all sides. The soldiers were basically thrown into a war, fighting people they had no beef with. Most of them didn’t even know what the fighting was all about, the Germans especially. It was this, along with the screwing over of the Germans at Versailles, that fueled their hunger for revenge, allowing Adolf to rise.

Supporting Evidence: A timeline of WWI through WWII that illustrates their relation (www.xtimeline.com)
Side: SOPA
1 point

I strongly agree. The soldiers war in a tough place. They had to to kill or be killed, but they had no reason to do so. They were forced to do terrible movie also shows how what we consider the "enemy" was really in the same situation as us

Side: SOPA
BradyLudvik(22) Disputed
1 point

I also agree. In the movie, when the soldiers were eating and they were talking about why they are fighting a war they start to talk about how they feel no need to kill any Englishmen and that they don't know why this is such a huge war.

Side: SOPA
1 point

I agree with you. I think that the countries used propaganda to get men to volunteer for the war. They didn't really know why they were fighting, except for the reason of their country telling them to.

Side: SOPA
1 point

I agree. Countries tell their men that they need to fight for their fatherland and defend their country. They tell them this without actually telling them why the war is being faught and what purpose it has.

Side: SOPA
1 point

I agree they showed that one scene that the soldier was saying sorry to the man he killed. He did not want to kill him but he was forced to.

Side: SOPA
1 point

I agree with you. The goverment was taken advantage of their workers by not informing them about what they were getting into. They goverment and officers let the soilders think that the war was going to be all fun and games. When they finally went into war they realized that was far from the case. The soldiers began talking and discovered that they had absolutely no clue why the war was being fought anyway.America has also forever lost the service of thousands of good soldiers who are now disabled as a result of battle wounds in Iraq. Many others will need mental and emotional rehabilitation before they can return to normal life.

Read more: http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/keywords/soldiers.html#ixzz1jv2voXFS

Side: SOPA
1 point

The goverment using propaganda to get the soldiers in the war was not fair. They didnt even know what they were fighting for and they went to the war. I don't think the goverment should have taken advantage of the men like that.

Side: SOPA
1 point

I agree, this movie definitely showed the audience that the war was hard and brutal. Also, you could tell that they had NO idea why they were even fighting. They were handed a gun and a uniform and fought with no purpose at all. I agree with you on the part of the revenge. I think that was there only reason for fighting. Revenge. To me, that doesn't seem like such a good reason to kill many people.

Side: SOPA
1 point

I agree with you because the movie was very violent and brutal and it was fought without a purpose. They didn't know why they were fighting either. I felt like they just wanted to get revenge and that was the only reason too. And i definitley agree that that is not a good enough reason to run around killing people.

Side: SOPA
1 point

I agree. The movie that we have been watching really shows that they took the war as a joke. They thought it was all fun and games and that no one was going to get hurt. Then they finally realized when there freinds were getting hurt/ dieing that it was no longer a joke

Side: SOPA
1 point

I agree. I think that the movie really put the war into perspective. I agree that the troops were just handed a gun and clothes and they were put out there to fight for somthing that they didnt even know. Many of the troops put out there were teenagers and they had little or no training and they were just put out there to kill.

Side: WWI
1 point

At the beggining of the movie it showed that the teacher was talking like the war was the greatest thing ever. That made the kids think that being in the army would be fun and games.

Side: WWI
1 point

Yeah thats how government got involved and tricked citizens into fighting. The government over exaggerated on how other countries were so bad and what they were doing even though it wasn't.

Side: WWI
1 point

I agree. They got the boys all excited and made them think the war was going to be exciting and fun. They hid the fact of starvation and diseases and having to see your friends die right in front of you. When the young men actually got into the war and saw what it was really like, I'm sure they were in shock becase of the extreme difference between their fantasy and the reality.

Side: WWI
1 point

Yeah, those soldiers thought that the french started the war and they didn't really have a reason to fight. There government just threw them into a war they didn't understand.

Side: WWI
1 point

In WWI nobody knew who started the war, so the soldiers were fighting each other and they had no idea why.

Side: WWI
1 point

I agree with everyone one, The government just sent men into the war not giving them any knowledge of what was going on or why we were fighting. No one actually realized how bad the war was till they were actually fighting.

Side: WWI
1 point

yes, I agree. The men had no idea what they were getting themselves into, but once they started they found out how horrible it was.

Side: WWI
1 point

I also agree with you. No one knew what they were figthing for. Millions of solders were killed for no reason.

Side: WWI
1 point

In the movie we watched in US History Class people were shown in bad conditions. And that was just a movie. Imagine the real thing! I don't think that you could ever sleep again afterwards.

Side: WWI
1 point

yes they found out and then wanted nothing to do with it. If they had know what it was like before the go into it. they wouldnt have even bothered.

Side: WWI
1 point

I agree. I don't think they knew that the War would end up how it did, but soon enough I think they got that it was going to be a long, bruital even and they would just have to keep fighting through.

Side: WWI
BradyLudvik(22) Disputed
1 point

I think this movie was a great thing for americans to see because of all the propaganda making the Germans seem evil, but they were just scared soldiers like us and this movie let us see that.

Side: WWI
1 point

All so the dept they had to pay after that lead them to be very poor.Giveing hitler more of a edge to rise in power

Side: WWI
svargas(27) Disputed
1 point

I agree because they didnt know what they were fighting for but they were just told to join the war and fight. None of the soldiers knew why they were there but they were proud to be fighting for their country. The germans were told by many of the people around them to join the war like there was that teacher who told his whole class to join and fight.

Side: WWI
1 point

on chrismas eve during WWI an american soldier stood up in the trenches and started singing chrismas songs as his volume grew a soldier on the enemy side all started singing they both got up and started walking towards eachother thier fellow soldiers started yelling at them and they began to run towards eachother then when they met they started to sing together and then their fellow soldiers put the guns down and came out and the 2 sides collided and shared their food and cried together and had a night of rest because they had no clue why they were there then the next day the killing continued

Side: WWI
1 point

This is a very good post that I agree with. The German soldiers most of the time had no idea what they were fighting for bu tehe idea of being in the army was intreiguing to them. After the treaty of Versailles left Germany in ruins the german citizens wanted a scapegoat and Hitler was able to give it them by blaming the Jews.

Side: WWI
1 point

I agree with this post. I guess it was too difficult to imagine for the young soldiers what the war would really be. Especially they were taught war as process to protect their own country. Even I watched this movie I still cannot think that it happened actually in this world. The war was transcend what human can be.

Side: WWI
1 point

I agree, the Germans were so full of fire to get into the war, but as the time raged on the soldiers realized the error in their decision. So, when they lost they became full of hatred, and that just fueled the fire of revenge.

Side: WWI

What do you think are the biggest differences from child labor today from the late 19th century? Child labor today is a lot less extreme then it was in the late 19th century, now a days kids in school have a certain number of hours they can work during a school week and have minimum wage and don’t have bad working conditions, although places like Nike have child labor it isn’t as cruel as it was in the late 19th century kids would get paid very little only enough to provide for their family and didn’t have good working conditions at all.

LINK!!! http://www.planetberries.com/child-labour-in-the-19th-century.html

Side: WWI
1 point

Yeah I agree. The main reason children had to work that hard was because their parents and families were paid very little in their jobs.

Side: WWI
1 point

Today we have a better economy now than then. Children are not working in very dangerous conditions anymore, everybody is much wealthier then they were back then

Side: WWI
1 point

I agree with you Meghan. There is a big difference between child labor back then and now. Obviously today children don't work crazy hours with horrible pay. Also, the working conditions are so much more safe to be working in. There are not as many accidents and deaths now then there was back then.

Side: WWI
1 point

Today with kids going to school they are only allowed to work so many hours a week. People are working because its money for them, for college and the education must come first.

Side: WWI
1 point

and usually that doesn't happen today because the middle class is larger than the lower class, when the middle class didn't really exist in the progressive era.

Side: Child labor
1 point

That shows that are economy has grown a lot since then. We have no more children working in factories. And it is a law to have a safe working environment

Side: Child labor
1 point

I agree. There's totally a difference between now and then. Unions today are meant to help teenagers with minimum wages and benefits. Unions don't just help protect children since they help with the conditions of adults in work. Factories and laborers have a lot restrictions and rules concerning the conditions for workers.

Supporting Evidence: Child Labor Link!!!! (www.continuetolearn.uiowa.edu)
Side: Child labor
1 point

I agree. The conditions for Child Labor are much better in America now. There are still countries like China though, that have unfair and bad conditions for child workers.

Side: Child labor
1 point

A lot of modern nations, china is a good example, have not had a progressive movement. Their government is not oriented on the well being of middle and lower classes as the united states. That being said, our government is starting to revert and begin to favor the upper class citizens.

Side: Child labor
1 point

I agree with you also. Child labor is more controlled today. That is a good thing because I don't think that children should have to work in those conditions.

Side: Child labor
1 point

i agree child lobor is perfect how we have it today. back then it was the worst thing that a parent could do to a child!

Side: Child labor
cdenzin(26) Disputed
1 point

sometimes kids wanted to work to help their families and they werent forced to work

Side: Child labor
1 point

Yeah, back then theere families weren't maing enough money so they had to work to let there family survive. It was their way of helping their family and parents.

Side: Child labor
1 point

all the employers saw was people they could exploit and the people didnt care because they needed the money

Side: Child labor
1 point

I think that the working sites are much more sanitary and safe for kids to work and make money.

Side: Child labor
1 point

Yes I also agree with you. During the Industrialization era Child labor was very dangerous for kids. They worked so hard and earned so little money. But now the economy is better than what it was so child labor is a lot more fair than what it was.

Side: Child labor
1 point

The only difference i see now with child labor is that the United states goes out side of our country to get children to do work for us that we could if were not lazy. Another thing is back then it was more visible in our country now its more hidden and less known about.

Side: Child labor
1 point

The Child Labor laws made working condtions for children less harsh. They no longer could work in factories and work under harsh condtioins

Side: Child labor
1 point

I agree with you MEGHAN!

The main reason children had to work back then is because they needed to help support their family to live.

Side: Child labor
svargas(27) Disputed
1 point

I think that our working conditons are deffinaltly better now then they were back then. But some areas in the U.S still dont have great working conditions. The U.S has gotten better child labor laws but we need to get other countries around us to pick up on our labor laws because most kids in other countries still get payed less and there working conditions arent that great.

Side: Child labor
1 point

The biggest difference from now and then is both work conditions and work hours. Young adults under the age of 16 are protected by child labor laws that were formed back in the time of the progressive era that are still used today.

Side: Child labor
jcravillion(16) Disputed
1 point

Child Labor is better, if you're in the US, but, because of our demand on foreign made goods, such as Nike, we are causing more child labor in developing lands. This child labor is worse, almost like slae labor

Side: Child labor
1 point

where did you come from?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

Side: Child labor
1 point

I agree child labor is really bad in other countries, but it causes us to have cheaper import products.

Side: Child labor
1 point

I think child labor has gotten a lot better today then back then. Now, there are specific rules to help out the children like saftey, certain number of work hours, and salary. Now, children can help support their family without getting little pay or being overworked.

Side: Child labor
1 point

I think that child labor is alot better these days then what they were many years ago when kids worked in factories.

Side: Child labor
1 point

America has a history of being very imperialistic and is only now starting to be less imperialistic

Side: Child labor
zbradley(22) Disputed
1 point

America was not imperialistic, we were helping other countries out. Like with the Paama canal we helped them build it

Side: Child labor
jfaust(25) Disputed
1 point

Often those other countries did not want help. The Vietnamese citizens hated american soldiers. We did more harm then help and just aggravated the people. In the end, we pulled out with no victory, instead just dead soldiers.

http://chss.montclair.edu/english/furr/impinviet.html

Side: Child labor
VivienTen(27) Disputed
1 point

Yeah, and while we helped them built it, we killed a couple of thousand people. And, America only got involved with building the Panama Canal because America wanted to gain more control and access to more territory. They weren't doing it out of the kindness of their heart.

Supporting Evidence: Link!!!! (www.eclipse.co.uk)
Side: Child labor
MicaylaAnn(20) Disputed
1 point

Yes we were trying to "help" other countries. But not every country wanted our help. So we shouldn't push them to want our help. If they want our help then sure we can help them, otherwise we should mind our own business. Also, i think we should worry about getting all OUR stuff figured about before we go and help other countries.

Side: Child labor
alefeber(22) Disputed
1 point

Part of Imperialism is helping. It's not like it our country's goal to harm other countries, but while helping countries, we're also trying to make them see things the way do. When we help countries, we do it OUR way, therefore that country is forced to do things the way we want.

Side: Child labor
MarkNovak(23) Disputed
1 point

How are we starting to be less imperialistic? Compare our imperialism now and then.

Side: Child labor
zbradley(22) Disputed
1 point

We were never imperalistic, we had to show how we could be friends but you dont want to start a war with us

Side: Child labor
VivienTen(27) Disputed
1 point

I don't believe we're being less imperialistic. The situations are different, but the US is still trying to get involved with things that don't concern us. If countries were to ask for our help or if we were directly attacked, then it's fine. But, the US is sticking their nose in other people's business, which is just costing us more.

Supporting Evidence: Link!!!! (www.dailycampus.com)
Side: Child labor
alefeber(22) Disputed
1 point

We're not becoming lest imperialistic. We continue to force our opinions on others and go to war for no reason. We also continue to be imperalistic through helping countries that are having issues because we "fix" their problem OUR way which may not always be what's best for that country.

Side: Child labor
1 point

your right mark if anything we are the some if not more imperalistic compared to before

Side: Child labor
alefeber(22) Disputed
1 point

America is an imperialistic country and I really don't see how it's becoming less imperialistic. We are still in war in the middle east and we jump at any oppurtunity to make countries see things the way we do. Our country has been in war so many times because we for some reason can't accept the fact that sometimes people aren't going to agree with us.

Side: Child labor
1 point

I agree with you. The US is obvioulsy still imperialistic. In in an article about the war in Iraq, it say that the United States is not being imperialistic in the classical sense of trying to set up colonies, but we still have a military presence in Iraq. This shows we are still imperialistic.

Side: Child labor
1 point

yes, not every other country thinks that our ideas are the best and in the end there are many lives that are lost.

Side: Child labor
1 point

This link shows that the US is still imperialistic. We have helped some people when we choose to help them, but mnay othr times we have not been helpful.

Supporting Evidence: Imperialism (www.usatoday.com)
Side: Child labor
1 point

I believe the same thing our country is very imperialistic. I feel as if we could avoid going to into war. But for some reason we must like trying to force our ideas on others in a way its truly sad. Other countries have a right, so why do we still try forcing other countries to agree what us like Anna said.

Side: Child labor
1 point

I think America is still continuing to be imperialistic because they are still involved in many events in other countries. The United States tries and help out their allies in any way they can.

Side: Child labor
1 point

We did use to be very imperialistic, we went into alot of countries that the people didn't like us. It wasn't really ever a good think for the look of americans.

Side: Child labor
alefeber(22) Disputed
1 point

We are still imperialistic. We are still constantly in other countries business instead of taking care of our own problems. America is still going to war with other countries so our countries ideas and opinion of what we think is right, will be spread around the world. That's imperialism.

Side: Child labor
1 point

I 100% agree with you. Back then America wanted to get out to other countries and let them know they had great power and would'nt back dow to othr countries. Now America isn't trying to take control of mlre land but only to defend for good reasons.

Side: Child labor
1 point

We aren't imperialistic. We just had to show countries that were able to fight others.

Side: Child labor
trevo185(25) Disputed
1 point

I disagree, america used to not be imperialistic but now is becoming because all of the wars we are getting involved in.

Side: Child labor
1 point

My topic is going to be the Progressive Movement. The progressive movement was very important since it helped steralize food and bring a lot of heath-protecting laws into the US. The progressive era help defend children who were being used for child labor. "Progressives sought to suppress red-light districts, expand high schools, construct playgrounds, and replace corrupt urban political machines with more efficient system of municipal government." This qoute explains some of the benefits that were started because of this era.

Supporting Evidence: Progressive Era (www.digitalhistory.uh.edu)
Side: Child labor
1 point

I agree with you because this obviously was a big part of our history and it was very very important for the United States. And a big part of this was that it started to help protect and regulate laws on child labor and safety. The progressive era overall was very good and beneficial.

LinK: http://www.academicamerican.com/progressive/topics/progressive.html

Side: Child labor
1 point

Yes i think that the Progressive era was good. Sometimes it was a little rough, but it gave us good benefits. It protected children and also helped to better the quality of our food.

Side: Child labor
1 point

The Progressive Era helped to form the United States into the way it is today

Side: Child labor
1 point

I agree. Because in today, women’s rights groups and human focused organizations still work actively in the U.S.

http://www.ehow.com/list_7602108_womens-rights-groups-america.html

Side: Child labor
1 point

I agree with you because there wouldt be U.S history without the Progressive Movement. It provided us with better protection from harsh working conditions and it protected us from rotten food. Now its steralized and not contaminated and much safer.

Side: Child labor
1 point

I agree, the progressive era was one of the biggest improvements for industries in the US. That improved working conditions, and food quality so less people got sick from bad food, or poor work conditions.

Side: progressive
1 point

America is not imperialistic country, it does not force things on other countries

Side: progressive
chenning(28) Disputed
1 point

According to the Spanish American War America was very Imperialistic.

http://www.sparknotes.com/history/american/spanishamerican/context.html

Side: progressive
zbradley(22) Disputed
1 point

We were just showing that we are not a country to fight with. That we have power to compete with

Side: progressive
MicaylaAnn(20) Disputed
1 point

I disagree with you Zack. America can be a very imperialistic country at times. American sometimes thinks since they are better than the countries that are poor and everything that those countries should change to be like the US. When, in fact, they shouldn't because it's the way THEY live. Our way of living, may be good for us, but it may not be the way those other countries want to live.

Side: progressive
zbradley(22) Disputed
1 point

We are not forcing anything, they need help so we give them our help

Side: progressive
VivienTen(27) Disputed
1 point

I disagree. America is a very imperialistic country. We're more concerned about what's going on in other countries more than what's happening here. There's nothing wrong with that, but America is taking that to new levels. America, right now, needs to focuse more on what's happening with itself. We get involved in wars we're not even involved it, and the goverment completely ignores what's going on with the citizens.

Supporting Evidence: Link!!!! (www.commondreams.org)
Side: progressive
1 point

I agree with your statement that we need to focus on ourselves more, and not things we are not involved in. However, I think it is important to maintain a certain level of involvement in world affairs, and take action when things get out of hand and may affect us in the future.

Side: progressive
meghanroelse(30) Disputed
1 point

I disagree zack, we are an imperialistic country. We definitely force things on other countries and most of the time it is for the better. Some countries right now are doing so well because we force our things onto them.

Side: progressive
zbradley(22) Disputed
1 point

We are not forcing anything on them though. We are helping them when they need help

Side: progressive
alefeber(22) Disputed
1 point

I disagree with Zach. I believe the United States is extremely imperialistic. Look at how many wars we've been in. We are constantly trying to force countries to be like us. It's not always a bad thing though, we've brought freedoms to many countries that they may not have ever had if it had not been for America.

Side: progressive
Devlen K.(24) Disputed
1 point

That may be, but we still got our noses into other countries business and that is what gets us into wars. We cant just keep to ourselves like we should be.

Side: Imperialism
1 point

Why did explorers leave their mother countries to venture to America?

Explorers left their mother countries to venture to America because of freedom. There was also free land. The conditions in Europe “pushed” them to leave.

Side: Imperialism
1 point

I agree with you Madison. Everyone has a voice and their own beliefs and they couldn't express that so they left. America gave them a "fresh" start where they could have the freedom they wanted and needed. No one likes being told what they can or cannot say or do. So, yes, I agree that they "pushed" them to leave.

Side: Imperialism
bxiong19(21) Disputed
1 point

Also, they left because of religious beliefs. Some areas only wanted one major religion in most cases. That caused other religious people to want their own land to be free to be whatever religion they wanted. They also left because of better good and opportunities in America to start a new life.

Side: Imperialism

I agree with you madison becuase people really wanted the free land in America, I would too, people also came for their own freedoom and America was rising and becoming more popular with musicians and writers.

Side: Imperialism
1 point

yes, the people didnt need to be treated like they were. Coming to America was a good idea and gave many people a new start.

Side: Imperialism
1 point

some other reasons that people left their mother county to go explore were because kings and powerful people saw a vision. more land = more power. king needed explorers and at the time it was the dark ages. then the renasance hit where people did explore and we got the land we wanted.

Side: Imperialism
1 point

I agree with madison because thats the way that we got here because our relatives have had to have moved here for a better life or it was eassy for the to get land.

Side: Imperialism
1 point

I agree we all wanted freedom, but they pushed them to leave because they didn't feel welcome there.

Side: Imperialism
1 point

The United States is an imperialistic country. It always has to be in control. Many times in history, the United States have forced its help on people that have not asked for it. The U.S thinks that it is the best country and that every other country should be like In reality, the U.S. has problems of its own and should help its self.

Side: Imperialism
zbradley(22) Disputed
1 point

We do not think that we are the best, we just want to help other countries to become healthier or better conditions for living in.

Side: Imperialism
1 point

I agree with you because the United States does think that they are better that all of the other countries which causes big problems with wars and other things. If the U.S keeps thinking they are better and can do whatever then it will not run smoothly. We need to have other countries think differently we have no need to make other countries afraid of us and to intimidate them when they arent a threat untill we get overly confident and find a reason to start an argument. We are not above the rest what happeded to everyone being equal beacause apparently its not happening.

Side: Imperialism
1 point

I agree because every country has a problem and that each country should fix there own problems. The counties should not worry about other peoples problems.

Side: Imperialism
1 point

I still believe that racism is big problem in the United States. For example many people believe that people from the middle east are terrorists or all black people carry guns and are drug deals.

Side: Imperialism
1 point

http://articles.cnn.com/2006-12-12/us/racism.poll_1_whites-blacks-racism?_s=PM:US

84% of black americans believe racism is a problem compared to 66% of whites think racism is a problem. 48% of blacks and 43% of whites consider themselves racist.

Side: Imperialism
1 point

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/10/11/cain-charges-some-in-black-community-with-racism/

Even popular political figures are accused of being racist, Herman Cain has came out guns hots saying that black left wing politians are more racism then white politicans.

Side: Imperialism
AZiegler(21) Disputed
1 point

I compleatly agree with you austin wiese compleatly. walking down the hall in the highschool, or hereing jokes about 70% of them are racist. racism is very bad because i beleive that everyone man and woman is equal and its not fair to colored people if they are treated wrong for something that they cant change about themselves.

Side: Imperialism
1 point

I agree with you Austin. You see it everywhere. Once you see someone of the other race (black, muslim, etc.) You automatically judge them when they could be the nicest people you could meet. I think movies, tv shows are somewhat to blame. Our veiws of these other races, i think, come from movies and tv shows. The "druggies" in movies are normally black people from a neighborhood. And the terrorists in movies and shows are from the middle east.

Side: Imperialism
1 point

I definitley agree with you, i believe that racism actually hasn't improved, because there are still some very ignorant people that are stubborn and act ridiculous. It's disgusting how judgemental people are now actually, it's makes us look really bad. And of course we shouldn't want that, US needs a good reputation. I found a few good quotes on racism:

LInk: http://thinkexist.com/quotations/racism/

Side: Imperialism
1 point

I agree. In case people haven't noticed, South Caroline still uses the confederate flag as their state flag. There's still plenty of groups hiding that are against African American people. Just because there are laws and groups working to stop racisim doesn't mean it's gone completely away. Although, racism today is way different than what it used to be. "The New Black Panther Party for Self Defense (NBPP) is the largest organized anti-Semitic and racist black militant group in America."

Supporting Evidence: Link to qoute!!!! (www.adl.org)
Side: Imperialism
1 point

I completely agree, not trying to call people/ groups out but down south it is bad, white people still believe that black people are less then people and black people just hate whites for it.

Side: Imperialism
1 point

racism and singling groups out because they are different will never be completely gone.

Side: Imperialism
1 point

yes, i dont think there will ever bee a time that racism is not a problem, everywhere you go there is racism and it needs to stop.

Side: Imperialism
1 point

I agree with you. I think that the United States will still have a little bit of racism in it no matter what. However, I think it has gotten way better.

Side: Imperialism
1 point

I agree, every time we think of black people, we think of gangster, fried chicken, Kool-Aid, drug dealers. Why cant we just think of them as being like us?

Side: Imperialism
1 point

racism will never stop because there will always be ignorant people that just have a hole in their life without the feeling of hate towards someone. Some people like to complain about things.

Side: Imperialism
1 point

Exactly, People for some reason have an urge to make fun of groups or races. They just have so vendeta against people and hate them.

Side: Imperialism
1 point

Welcome to Reality. There are many people out there who are still racists or discriminate others. It's not fair. Some people think they aren't racists and discriminating but mostly half of the time they are the ones who start it.

Side: Imperialism
1 point

I think racism is also a big problem. I think that racism will always be present. We really can't stop it. People are going to think what they want to.

Side: Imperialism
1 point

I agree with you, people will always say and think what they want to about other people. wether they discrimnate by race, sex, or skin color. It is always going to be present

Side: Imperialism
1 point

I agree racism is reeally never going to go away it is a very big problem

http://www.allaboutpopularissues.org/racism-in-america-faq.htm

Side: Imperialism
1 point

i agree with this, and some people still dont believe that some races have the right to do certain things. Some think that they are much better and that other races dont deserve the opportunity. I also think that many people are bitter towards other races because people in america think that other races come to america to steal their jobs. Yet it shows that anyone is capable of working any job if they are allowed to.

Side: Imperialism

How much different was the food industry before the food reform? Before the food reform food was not good quality at all and all proportions were unequal. Before the food reform spoiled animals were used for meat and chalk was used in bread. Water was added to wine so they wouldn’t have to waste wine and could make it last longer. Something called scientific management came into play and it said that everything had to be the same portions and spoiled animals and vegetables could no longer be used.

LINK http://www.nber.org/papers/w10984

Side: Imperialism
1 point

I think that after the food reform, the quality of our food has gotten better. I don't get in the first place why people were putting all that nasty stuff into our food and thinking it was ok. It is a good thing we have a food reform becasue otherwise I think we would have more health problems today.

Side: Imperialism
1 point

After the reform the way that the food was handled was a lot more sanitary and safe for everyone to eat.

Side: Imperialism
1 point

Alot different, food wasn't safe and the only way you could maybe trust it was if you were friends with the butcher and he didnt want you dead. Otherwise it was really dangerous.

Side: Imperialism
1 point

I agree and i believe that the food reform has dramatically changed how people looked at the food they were eating before the reform. It also caused people to become sick from the bad quality food provided.

Side: Imperialism
1 point

It is so good that they finally made laws to have the meat packing places but cleaner and sanitize the equipment. When the food is spoiled it is very unhealthy and can cause people to die. I think the people at the factories knew that the meat was bad but they just didn't care.

Side: Imperialism
1 point

It is great. This made a big change to the whole society and even if there were no medician, it helped save many lives. It saved the lives of others because there was no more spoiling and rotting food that was spread from one place to another like before.

Side: Imperialism
1 point

Without thefood reforms food would still be being made very cheaply and most of the time it would not be very sanitary. There would not be the regulations that manufactures would have to follow, they would cut coners that would cut down not only on cost to manufacture it but the quality of the products.

Side: Imperialism
1 point

The United States is an imperialistic country. It has been for a long time and it will probably be that way for a long time. In most cases, our imperialism is a good thing. We have given freeedoms to many countries that they didn't have before. According to http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2003-05-05-boot_x.htm "The history of American imperialism is hardly one of unadorned good doing; there have been plenty of shameful episodes, such as the mistreatment of the Indians. But, on the whole, U.S. imperialism has been the greatest force for good in the world during the past century."

Side: Imperialism

I agree with your post we are an imperialistic country, but sometimes I think that we might push too hard on other countries, it can be good when we do but not all the time.

Side: Imperialism
1 point

I agree with you that sometimes we push too hard. Our country need to realize that not everyone is going to agree with us and that's ok. But we have definitely brought good to other countries.

Side: Imperialism

How did the Renaissance change people’s perspectives from a one dimensional view of the world to a more global outlook? People realized there was more in the world to do, people became more creative and started becoming artists and musicians. Big artists like Leonardo De Vinci started to become much more popular.

LINK http://library.thinkquest.org/15413/history/history-ren.htm

Side: Imperialism

Even though the journey in the Westward Migration was cruel would you still leave everything you had to get new free land? It would be hard leave everything you have, but if I had people to go with or help me out on this journey I would definitely go out and get new land. Most other places in America had lots of people it would be a good experience to get out and try and start out with nothing such as making your own house and things like that.

LINK http://www.history.com/topics/westward-expansion

Side: Imperialism
1 point

I agree. I would have also left because of the jobs currently available weren't the best. Many didnt even really have well paying jobs and the fact that land was free, it would give people a good brand new start to their lives. However i agree about how it would have been hard to leave. I guess it would also depend on how you were living your life. if you had a good job at the time that could pay everything you needed or if you wanted to start a new life or not.

Side: Imperialism
1 point

I would leave everything and try to find new land. There is a lot of sacrifices that I would of had to make but I think it would of all paid off. It is like a new begining or a new life. You get a chance to start all over and make the best of it.

Side: Imperialism
1 point

Yes I think I would. The population, like you said was less and that means there would be more jobs and less competition for them. Overall, I think moving to the west would be good.

Side: Imperialism
1 point

I think that depending on the life you were living at the time it would have been good. If you were doing well and having a sucessful life then I wouldn't move west. However, if you needed more money and a better job to provide for your family then I agree that moving west would be a smart decision.

Side: Imperialism
1 point

I believe that the Industrial age was a terrible time for everyone except for the business owners. There were no regulations on time that you can work a day or the safety of the working conditions.

Side: Migration
1 point

I agree with this. The buisiness owners got to sit back and collect money while people and children worked very hard for hours on end. It was not fair.

Side: Migration
1 point

How is the situation of the industrial era similar or different to how the business owners act today? even though working conditions and stuff are better, are the business owners still being fair?

Side: Migration
1 point

I do believe things have gotten A LOT better than how things were back then, but I do agree that bosses and owners still try to find loopholes. The power-hungry owners will try to do the minimum for their workers, and sometimes it goes unpunished.

Side: Migration
1 point

It goes both ways sometimes bussiness owners will push their workers to their breaking point. Too bad for them they don't realize what has happend in the past. Workers will eventually rebel when they realize that the bussiness owner doesn't own them. The owner needs them to even be able to have a bussiness. Maybe these bussiness owners should check out this site to learn about what could potentially happen to their workers http://www.academicamerican.com/progressive/topics/progressive.html

Side: Migration
AZiegler(21) Disputed
1 point

the industrial age was a terible time for people but not for the economy. the economy was very good because of all of the big buisnesses and jobs open.

Side: Migration
2 points

I agree because it was not fair of the business owners to operate in that way.

Side: Migration
BradyLudvik(22) Disputed
1 point

This is very true. The economy of America did make a huge improvement and America was on top of the world making huge amounts of money. This is hard to see because of all the terrible conditions and this is something your rarely hear about in common conversations.

Side: Migration
tatertot1195(28) Disputed
1 point

However, at the same time without regulations to keep people from working a certain amount of hours per day families that desperately needed the money were able to work many hours to make enough money to allow their family to survive. Also, if you were careful and did your job correctly the working conditions should be just fine.

Side: Migration
jfaust(25) Disputed
1 point

It was a terrible time, but it was necessary. The terrible things that happened then lead to the creation of things such as the FDA and labor unions.

http://history-world.org/Industrial%20Intro.htm

Side: Migration
1 point

I agree with you Brady because this obviously was a really bad time for everyone that might have been unemployed or didn't have a "good enough" job. The working conditions then because ridiculously awful and it didn't change for a while.

Side: Migration
1 point

It was good for businesses but not for other people. Then the Progressive era came along helped straighten everything out

http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/modules/progressivism/index.cfm

Side: Migration
1 point

The Texas governor is telling supporters that he will drop his bid for the GOP presidential nomination two sources familiar with his plans say.

Side: trent

What do you think would happen if we pulled away from China instantly and didn’t use them in our economy at all? This would be a bad move to make because we have become so reliant on China that if we backed out and didn’t use them for goods and other things our country would go downhill. We depend on China just like they depend on us we trade each other goods, we might be able to pull away slowly, but even then it would be hard.

LINK http://www.economist.com/economics/by-invitation/questions/world_too_dependent_chinese_economy

Side: trent
1 point

I think that the US would be less strong because we depend on them alot. If we stopped relying on them, our country would go downhill and they would rise up.

Side: trent

The U.S. would have many problems if we stopped trading with China. Most of the stuff we buy is made in China and we also are greatly in debt to China.

Supporting Evidence: The U.S. owes China Money (www.chacha.com)
Side: trent
btrakel(27) Disputed
1 point

I think that the U.S. could survive without china. I think that if we had all those factories over here we would not be in debt and everyone would have jobs. United States has all these recources that we are not using. China would be lost without us because we get so much stuff from them that we could make here and support our economey instead of theres.

Side: triangular trade
1 point

I agree with you. We depend on China so much and we would just fall apart without it. The get most of our good from them and if we pulled away it would hurt us dramatically.

Side: triangular trade
1 point

I think that the United States would fall appart because we depend on china to much and they depend on us equally. Our economy would plunge because we would not have any imported goods we rely on other countries to get us the goods we need if China was not appart of that then we would have some big problems.

Side: triangular trade
1 point

i think that the panama canal is a key canal for economic and time saving sucsess. that panama canal has been a key canal since 1912 (According to mr Armstrong)

Side: triangular trade

I agree with you andrew, the Panama Canal is our main shipping source, it made things a lot easier and faster back in the day and still plays such a huge role in our world today.

Side: triangular trade

I agree, the panama canal offered many different advantages such as allowing ships to get from the east coast to the west coast of North America much faster. It also made things much more affordable to ship because the trip would be shorter.

Supporting Evidence: Advantages of the Panama Canal (www.ehow.com)
Side: triangular trade
1 point

This canal cut of thousands of miles of waterway that ships would have to go through to ship goods from coast to coast. It not only saves time but it saves shipping companies thousands of dollars a year.

Side: triangular trade
1 point

Child Labor

I am against child labor because I found a website that told me about some of the facts on it, one in six children are involved in child labor in developing countries. Worldwide, around 126 million children are working in hazardous conditions. My hypothesis is: is children working in their household as their parents slaves still considered child labor?

http://www.compassion.com/child-advocacy/find-your-voice/quick-facts/child-labor-quick-facts.htm

Side: triangular trade

Me too I don't think it should be allowed and did you know that Nike uses child labor? I dont think this is right if children are working they should at least have better working conditions for them.

Side: triangular trade
1 point

yes, i also beleive that children should not be forced to work in horrible conditions that present many dangers and illnesses.

Side: triangular trade
1 point

Me too, child labor is ridiculous and definitley not needed. They are forced to work in harsh and critical conditions that aren't only dangerous, but life threatening.

Side: triangular trade
1 point

I'm against child labor as well, there are many things showing up on the news today that involve child labor. Recently Victoria secret was accused of using fiber picked from farms that relied on abused child laborers according to fox news. There was another article posted by Bloomberg News that mentioned in 2009 that 25 million garments were made from cotton plucked in the "searing" sun by undernourished children who were supposedly beaten by branches

Side: triangular trade
1 point

Know what the east-west axis is and how it contributed to colonization::

this means that if you migrate east/west, the odds are better that the crops and animals you bring with you will be able to survive in your new home. if you migrate north/south, you've got to rebuild civilization every time you move

Side: triangular trade
1 point

I beleive that children during the Progressive era had every right not to work in the horrible and nasty job sites.

Side: triangular trade
tatertot1195(28) Disputed
2 points

However, some families needed the money desperately and their children had to work wherever they can find a job. They had every right to work.

Side: triangular trade
mason(21) Disputed
1 point

well I might of said that wrong.. If they want to work then yes they have the right but if they dont want to then they shouldnt have to.

Side: triangular trade
1 point

Many Americans appraised of this assimilation by publicists from the tribes themselves and by missionaries who had long lived among them championed the cause of the Five Civilized Tribes.

Side: Imperialism
1 point

The Trail of Tears National Historic Trail commemorates the removal of the Cherokee and the paths that 17 Cherokee detachments followed westward.

Side: Imperialism
1 point

Identify triangular trade routes::

This was used during slavery. Countries of Europe began to do a great deal of trading with the nations of Africa. Portuguese, Spanish, English, and Dutch traders were using their boats to sail all around Africa and trading what they bought to people in Europe and Asia.

Side: Imperialism
1 point

I think the triangular trade route was good because it allowed us to have a better economy. By trading things like this, we bought things that we could not make or get in America. It was a good thing.

Side: Imperialism
1 point

The Progressive Movement was important to America because it helped the country move forward, and become safer. After the Progressive Era, the United States was had safer jobs, food, and drug regulations.

Supporting Evidence: Progressive Movement (www.academicamerican.com)
Side: Imperialism
1 point

I agree because it was a big step for the US, it helped us move forward by a lot and it did good for us by protecting us. The country did I guess get a lot safer after this but we had new jobs, and regulations.

Side: Imperialism
1 point

yes, i believe we needed to go through the tought times in order to learn new things and in turn become a better country.

Side: Imperialism
1 point

Very true, the progressive movement saved the US from becoming a rubish pit. But, I think we need another one; we need to become more liberal about immigration and human rights and we need to become more peaceful

Side: progressive
1 point

Panama Canal

Some facts on the panama canal are that it splits the country of panama and unites the atlantic and pacific oceans. Also, the beginning of their travels on the canal would travel them to go over 6,000 miles. The french first started to try to build the canal but it ended up not working out. The canal is 48 miles long and it takes about 9 hours for a ship to pass through.

http://www.costaricapages.com/panama/blog/information-facts-and-a-brief-history-of-the-panama-canal-165

Side: progressive
1 point

The Progressive Era was a time period when Teddy Roosevelt tried to reform the laws of the 1900s.

Side: progressive
1 point

Many new organizations were created that are still around today. Things like the FDA, According to the textbook "Laborers thought they at least deserved fair wages and decent working conditions".

Side: progressive
1 point

Read part of this article and elaborate how roosevelt influenced the progressive movement

Supporting Evidence: Theodore Roosevelt from Wikipedia (en.wikipedia.org)
Side: progressive
1 point

The progressive era was where Teddy Roosevelt tried to help the workers of the American industrial society. The academicamerican.com website states that back then there were "tensions and problems" during the industrial era and Teddy Roosevelt tried to fix them.

Side: progressive
1 point

The progressive era was a very good time for us. It gave workers decent wages and hours and also gave us better food.

Side: progressive
1 point

I agree and it also helped americans get enough money to pay for the things they needed for their families.

Side: progressive
1 point

There was so much tension during this time and Teddy Roosevelt's main objective was try to release some of this tension. He did this by creating many laws and acts that improved the life of an average American.

Side: progressive
1 point

Spain's restriction of the navigation of the Mississippi, the great natural commercial artery of the American continent, was a great annoyance to the settlers on the western slopes of the Alleghanies.

Side: Imperialism
1 point

Was the panama canal a good choice for America or was it a bad idea?

Side: Imperialism
2 points

I believe that the Panama Canal was a very good idea for the United States because it saved both time and money for people going from one coast to the other. It really boosted the economy on the west coast.

Side: Imperialism
1 point

I think its pretty cool. its a good example of how imperialism can have a positive impact on the world.

Side: Imperialism

I think it was a very good choice for America do build the Panama Canal, we got credit for it and it is a huge part of todays world becacuse it is used as our main shipping source in todays world

Side: Imperialism
1 point

The Panama canal was a way of showing our countries greatness without going to war. The French tried to build the canal but failed, and we did it successfully.

Side: Imperialism
BradyLudvik(22) Disputed
1 point

I think that the Panama canal was a good idea because it helped people everywhere get good from place to place much faster and it was for the greater good. Us invading Panama without permission was a bad idea though because we could gave worked out an agreement or asked them to build it.

Side: Imperialism
1 point

It was a good idea because it made for much easier travel and it was economically better for the US and Panama

Side: Imperialism
1 point

It was a good choice because it helped with the economy, other countries shipping and it was kind of like U.S. was the hero at solving the problem of the canal. If they wouldn't have done that then the ships would have to go all the way around South America.

Side: Imperialism
1 point

It was a good choice because it turned into the main place to travel through to get goods shipped to different places. It saved time and money but it took to many peoples lives in order to make it. But now people dont uses the pamama canal that much mostly things are shipped to different places by planes instead of ships.

Side: Imperialism
1 point

It is a good thing because you don't have to sail around South America.

Side: Imperialism
1 point

I think that is was a good idea that the panama canal was built so that people could travle faster and get from one part of the world to the other.

Side: Imperialism
1 point

Did Racism end after Barack Obama became president?

I think it may of been a step in a good direction but i don't think it ended racism.

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/04/02-7

Side: Imperialism
bxiong19(21) Disputed
1 point

Racisim will never end. Whether people start doing things to an extreme to get rid of people who are racist, racisim will always be there. Martin Luther King Jr. fought long and hard for equality, and with his doings it has helped racisim decrese and a rise of equality. However racism will still be there. There will still be people who don't like a certain race for their skin color.

Side: Imperialism
2 points

I also agree with you. Racism is a prejudice that people will always have. The fact that a person looks different than you is always a way that people will use to discriminate. Plus, some people cant help it they are raised in a racist family and they grow up with those beliefs.

Side: Imperialism
1 point

I agree with you. I don't think it will ever end completely. People these days are, yes, more "tolerant" to other kind of races but you still judge them without even thinking. It is like a reflex to judge people right as you see them. Which, of course, is so wrong. And yes people sometimes don't like people JUST because of the color of your skin. To me that seems so ridiculous.

Side: Imperialism
1 point

I agree with you, racisim is wrong,but has been there for thousands of years and is never going to change because there will always be people who dont like equality and think only about them selfs.

Side: Imperialism