I have noticed the significant lack of a topic for debating on things

So here is one
I was thinking:
Is the north american culture, and especially the U.S.A. government, hypocritical?
http://www.guernicamag.com/blog/2607/noam_chomsky_is_the_world_too/

But if anybody has a better idea please post it

Rules:
1. this is debate. people have the right to any opinion they wish to have, and no matter how stupid it may seem to you, the MOST you are allowed to do is politely offer ideas which may change their opinion
2. NO INSULTS or anything of the kind
3. once a topic has been picked, don´t change the subject unless there are no further opinions being offered
4. That being said, if the community is discussing something else, feel free to go with it (lol im a hypocrite)
5. I reserve the right to add further rules

This thread is dead. However, I like learning from other people's opinions.
Rant, anyone?

DRM is stupid.

No wait you can't debate over that carry on.

I'm actually quite content with steam DMR and so should you.
Because it doesn't try to shove anything in your face, it's just there.

Name one government that isn't hypocritical.
Edit: Or culture.

I'd just like to point out (although Nonsequitorian implied it) that the phrasing of your debate topic is not very conducive to a good debate. Perhaps something like "Is North American culture hypocritical?" would work, but as it is, it just comes off as you saying "North American culture is hypocritical, especially the US government," and in that case, there's really nothing to debate.

Can an organisation be hypocritical? Would that require all or a majority of it to be engaged in hypocrisy, or does it just require their objectives to conflict with their goals? In the latter case, doesn't that merely make its higher decision makers hypocritical?

Thelastbanana:
good point, but I phrased it that way because i agree with the hypocrisy side and will be arguing for it

Nonsequeritarian:
First off, I actually live in ontario.
I do not deny i am a hypocrite, in fact i know I am. But (this isn´t an insult) I think that humanity has hypocrisy in its genetic makeup - i challenge you to examine yourself and tell me that you are not hypocritical in at least some respect.
Now that i consider it, I guess i am mosty speaking of U.S. culture, but you have to agree that Canadian culture imitates the U.S. in many respects.
I meant to neither be racist nor insulting, just present one side of an opinion.

Allstone:
I think an organization can be hypocritical if the actions it takes are contradictory to the core values it holds. I would say a fair part of culture is how the masses act. Therefore, if a majority of people support a hypocritical government (enough that it can go ahead with its policies), I would say that culture is hypocritical.

Note - when i make a generalization i am referring to a majority of people or certain group of people
Now, my reasoning (explained better in my previous link):

Government Hypocrisy:
North America, and the U.S. in particular, is built on the concept of freedom. Yet the U.S. government (supposedly proven by wikileaks) is actively suppressing democracy to maintain power in the middle east. The drug war is another example - control is a far better policy than prohibition, yet after no less than 40 years it is still in place.

North American culture (U.S. in particular):
First of all, concrete evidence is present in the hypocrisy that people allow the government to achieve. The previously mentioned examples are at the very moment a very real concern, yet NOTHING is done about them. Surely the people could have some effect on the policies of their - democratic - government. You may say that the media does not inform the populace - this furthers my point. Media reacts to popular demand,and if the truth was in demand, we wouldn't have networks like FOX. Yet the basic ideal of all americans is freedom? They demand it for themselves, yet expect it to be limited to ONLY themselves - to me, this is the definition of hypocrisy.

Now, we hate terrorists because they kill innocent people (and also our soldiers, but this is invalid because we kill their soldiers). Yet i know of at least one instance where a squad of U.S. soldiers (cant find the link) killed multiple middle-eastern civilians - purposefully. Their (proven) victims include a boy they shot in a feild (then planted him with a grenade) as well as an old man - they took him out of his house and shot him (then planted him with an AK47). The Omar Khadr case comes to mind as well. These men were not even kicked out of the military - the sergeant (the instigator) was demoted to private, and the commanding officer (who pursues a policy of violence against civilians to subdue insurgency) and who almost certainly knew about it is still rising in rank. We are literally condoning what we consider terrorism - more hypocrisy.

Now we get more theoretical. What is the reason for this inaction on the part of the people? I think that the culture leads to it - how else could vast masses of American people (enough that the ones who care dont make a difference) act this way. Surely not every first or second generation immigrant parent in the 50s would teach their children to not act on behalf of humanity because of their own beliefs. They did what was demanded of them by the dog-eat-dog society.

Basically, North American culture (as shaped by the U.S.) is hypocritical because the people watch their government acting against their core ideals (the U.S. constitution), and do nothing about it.

I don't believe hypocrisy is an innate human trait; I believe it to come as a result of upbringing and education.
In supporting a particular government, do the populace automatically support all of the government's actions and thus take responsibility for these actions? Do they automatically support the government's values and thus hold values contradicting actions?
Furthermore, are there reasonable alternatives to the supported government or taken course of action?
The people have effect on the policies of war either indirectly, via voting in a particular government, or by breaking the current system. Fox news appears to be responding to the demands of extreme political views, not the demand of falsehood.
The major strategy of allied forces does not include the killing of civilians, though. If you take the 'terrorists' as a single force, the killing of civilians is supposedly a major part of their strategy.
You strongly imply inaction is condonation. What motivation would a majority of individual US citizens have to either form and organise a likely to fail political party or otherwise overturn their political system? Antipathy towards allied government actions is not at a level where it can be manifested in major outbursts, nor is there a way for gradual expression of it to produce a major outcome.
What would you propose the 'North American people' do??

Well, for a country with more than two centuries under its belt, I'd be suprised if USA isn't a hypocrisy by now.
But maybe that's the natural cause of things; the cycle of governments. Usually it goes anarchy -> monarchy/theocracy -> dictatorship/despotism/tyranny -> oligarchy -> plutocracy -> democracy -> anarchy.

This is all true. Many Americans are disappointed in their government, and if they could, would do something about any real-life examples that apply to this topic. But the fact remains that when the U.S. government makes a hypocritical decision, the public outcry is negligent. As for fox news - enough people agree with or watch it that it has become a major network.

from dictionary.cambridge.org: Hypocrisy - when someone pretends to believe something that they do not really believe or that is the opposite of what they do or say at another time
You mentioned that i implied inaction is condonation. Inaction IS condonation. My religion, Rastafari, has quite a lot of black supremasists, who tell white converts that they must cast off their "white privilege" and do something about racism. I disagree with their zeal, but they are right - if you stand by and watch as people have their civil rights suppressed, you are not in favour of civil rights.
If you would like to hear the arguments of rasta's (look through young adults) -http://www.africaspeaks.com/reasoning/

As for terrorism - I do not in any way condone it. Neither does the U.S.A. military employ it as a legitimate tactic. But in the instances where U.S. personnel use it:
1. the soldiers who did it remain in positions where they might do so again.
2. it is allowed to continue until enough outside people (I.E. reporters/ voting citizens) complain about it.
3. the commanding officer who allowed it is rising to a position where he could employ it on a larger scale.

What do I think North American citizens should do? I am not a political scientist.
But: grassroots movements have power. If what you are saying is true -that antipathy is not at a level where it can make a difference - (not that i necessarily disagree with this) that proves condonation by inaction. Hypocrisy. Why not attempt to do something anyway?

I do not claim to know the reasons behind the policy decisions of the U.S. government. They could be preventing the rise of a jihad Hitler who has nukes. But the fact remains that their decisions are ♥♥♥♥ hypocritical.

Carriontrooper:
The history of human civilization does begin, and has often ended, in anarchy. But that is in the past - is there any reason to allow it to govern the future, if it can be changed? I would go on a rant here, which would basically end up saying WHY DONT WE CHANGE THE WORLD

Nonsequeritarion - you are right. i do not know any Americans. My views are based on internet news. I will, whenever i get the chance, try out a few of your suggestions.

I do not hate the U.S. It have contributed much to the world, notably a culture of freedom. The culture, also, is in the most part admirable. The things you have pointed out are both intellectually interesting, enjoyable, and most of the music i listen to is American anyway. "Intellectual Americans," as you say, follow and contribute to the rich culture, help those less fortunate than themselves, and resist idiotic politicians. But for every one of them, there is a racist ♥♥♥hole, and ten people who don't give a ♥♥♥♥ (obviously a vast generalization). What I mean is, among the richness of the culture is a feeling of undeserved righteousness and a feeling that only YOU matter (admittedly, not for people who actually care).

The problem is that this feeling transmits to the government, which allows capitalism to take advantage of whoever it can. The population allows this to happen. I am trying not to go on another rant but...look at the republican party....

I look out my window (not in Canada at the moment). Then i look at north america. WTF?! If you have been to a third world country you know what I mean.

Hi there! Welcome to a free(not really, but kinda) market society! I've got several problems with this statement. You're mistaking an economic model for some sort of anthropomorphic force, for one thing. Secondly, "capitalism" isn't allowed to take advantage of whoever it can, because despite what you may think, business gets regulated. Thirdly, and I'm not totally sure if I'm right here, but it seems to me like you're suggesting some sort of socialist welfare state that would be better than capitalism? That would never (fully) happen in the US.

Also, you seem to think that the US is the only place with racist ♥♥♥holes or apathetic citizens. Are you really telling me that people in Canada/UK/Switzerland/Cambodia love everyone equally, and every citizen is extremely involved in social and political issues? You seem to have a very skewed worldview.

I'm actually curious - I've never experienced any other educational systems, and I seem to be doing fine, so what exactly is wrong with it? I'd like to hear this and know where all the shortcomings are. I mean, I know we're bad (26th for math, and 17th for science, according to PISA), but why is that?

Also, my friend said that me taking Calculus next year (Sophomore/grade 10) was the norm in most developed countries; that can't be true, is it?

Tom's fine. As is Supreme Ruler, but people give me funny looks when I ask them to call me that.

And this is going to sound fairly egotistical, but I've always been pretty intelligent when compared to the majority of students. And thank god for that, since otherwise I'd be stuck getting a low paying job once I get out of college. Both my parents combined make less than 50k a year, and I don't know how they manage to support children they way they do.

But this thread isn't about the failings of the American education system, or my amazing parents. It's about hypocrisy in the US culture and government. And while I agree that there is some, I don't see any reason that America gets singled out more than other countries, that probably have just as much hypocrisy in their cultures and governments, other than the fact that we're on the world stage more often than most other countries.

I'm not exactly clear on the american system for universities or colleges, as you seem to prefer calling them. Would anyone care to explain it to me?