The Instigator
AngelManuel
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
countzander
Pro (for)
Winning
7 Points

American Intervention in Syria

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
countzander
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/24/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,289 times Debate No: 36973
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (8)
Votes (2)

 

AngelManuel

Con

American Intervention in Syria.

Hello and welcome to what will be an awesome debate. This debate will center around the United States foreign policy, and whether the United States should intervene militarily in the Syrian Civil War. My position during this debate will be that the United States should not intervene militarily in the Syrian Civil War. Clearly the burden of proof will be on the opponent, the opponent will advocate and present a case as to why the United States should intervene militarily in the Syrian Civil War.

Rules of Debate.
    1. First round is for acceptance only. If you have a question concerning the debate please ask in the comment section before accepting.
    2. Please remember that the burden of proof belongs to the opponent.
    3. Rounds 2 and 3 are to be used to present all the arguments that the opponent or I have, the last round will be for rebuttals only.
    4. Only accept the debate if you have the time for it. Please do not skip any rounds.

That will be all for now. If the opponent wishes to add any other definitions or has any input please place them forward when you accept the debate. Thanks and good luck!

countzander

Pro

I accept the debate. On to round two for the opening argument.
Debate Round No. 1
AngelManuel

Con

Thanks to countzander for accepting the debate.

This Revolution Belongs to the Syrian People.

The Syrian Civil War which began on March 15, 2011 has taken the lives of an estimated 100,000 people, and this number continues to grow day by day. Since mid 2011 the Syrian people took to the streets demanding that President Bashar al-Assad is removed from power, which his family has held since 1971. However, President al-Assad has refused to give up power and instead has used military force against the Syrian people to suppress the uprising. The crisis in Syria is nothing but horrific, and while a solution to this problem must be met, American intervention which at this point seems highly likely to occur is not the correct response.

Like most revolutions it is the bravery of the people and the spread of ideas and a drive for justice that truly holds together a people against an oppressive regime. It has been said that freedom is not free, and the Syrians just like the Congolese in 1960, or the Rwandans in 1959, or the Cubans in 1953, or the Russians in 1917 are learning first hand the price that freedom demands. To disturb the natural order of a revolution will be absurd and a deterrence in the process of establishing a republic by the Syrian people for the Syrian people.

It is the duty of every citizen to ensure that his/her liberty remains vivid, and the power to bring about change in a nation will always be in the hands of the people. The Syrian people have proved that they are willing to go beyond the lengths of the human strength to achieve a nation of justice and freedom, this process does not call for American intervention. This historic moment belongs to the Syrian people and the Syrian people alone.

The Failure of America's Intervention in Libya.

"One of the world's longest-serving dictators is no more. The dark shadow of tyranny has been lifted." These words were said after a NATO air strike sponsored by the United States had killed Libyan dictator Mummer Gaddafi, many people across the globe celebrated and believed that a true peace had been reached, it will be proved that they are willing however that American intervention in the Libyan Revolution will create more bloodshed.

The Northern Mali Conflict began on January 15, 2012 when Tuareg rebels armed themselves and attacked the Malian government in order to achieve independence for Azawad, a large territory situated in Northern Mali. An estimated 5,000 people were killed during the Northern Mali Conflict, and an estimated 300,000 people were displaced. Peace wasn't reached until June 18, 2013 when the Malian government was able to achieve a peace treaty with the Tuareg rebels.

But you may be asking how can this conflict be blamed on America's intervention in Libya? Well it is sadly overlooked by the media that the Tuareg were only able to create a threat to the Malian government when they armed themselves with weapons from Libya, weapons which can be traced back to American suppliers. These weapons which were used in Libya by Gaddafi's defense forces were then taken by the Tuareg back into Mali to use against the Malian government. Those that stood and fought with Gaddafi, which the United States helped overthrow then fled into Mali, thus creating a bigger threat against the Malian government, which had to call for international assistance to bring to an end the Northern Mali Conflict.

BBC reported in 2011 that "before he was ousted, Col Gaddafi had helped broker a deal to end a Tuareg rebellion in Niger," implying that the Tuareg were not only a threat in Mali but in Niger as well. The New York Times as well reported that "after fight for Colonel Gadaffi as he struggled to stay in power, the Tuaregs helped themselves to a considerable quantity of sophisticated weaponry before returning to Mali. When they got here, they reinvigorated a longstanding rebellion and blossomed into a major challenge for this impoverished desert nation, an important American ally.

More importantly it is even clear that the fighters who helped overthrow Gaddafi were Al-Qaeda terrorists, terrorists who fled to Syria once the Libyan Revolution had come to an end. These same terrorists are attempting to overthrow Assad, and the United States is intending to supply the opposition force in Syria, which include these Al-Qaeda terrorists, who will without a doubt use the weapons given to them against Americans when the chance presents itself.


There is a clear message that can be found in the Libyan Revolution and the Northern Mali Conflict, and that is that American intervention in the Libyan Revolution led to the Northern Mali Conflict which then led to the deaths of thousands and the displacement of hundreds of thousands of civilians.


This is a critical example as to why the United States must remain as far away as possible from the revolutions throughout the Middle East, for the United States tends to cause more harm than good.

Anti-U.S. Militants Among the Syrian Opposition.

Among the opposition forces in Syria there are known terrorist organizations that can be linked to Al-Qaeda including al-Nusrah Front, The Victory Front among others. This indicates that the United States has been giving weapons and humanitarian assistance to terrorist organizations currently in Syria. Weapons that could be used against the United States and it's allies in the future.

If the United States does intervene it runs the risk of handing advanced military weaponry to terrorist organizations, which can lead to further conflict in neighboring regions or create further conflict for the United States. Now ask yourself does if this risk is worth American intervention? If your answer is yes then welcome to my next point.

The 2012 Benghazi Attack.

One issues remained vivid during the 2012 US Presidential election, and the Obama Administration was under constant criticism for it's handling of the 2012 Beghazi Attack, which killed four Americans including U.S. Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens.

While many initially believed that the attack was a response to the American movie titled Innocence of Muslims which mocks Islam and the Prophet Muhammad, it was later revealed that the attack was sponsored by Islamist militants, the same Islamist militants who the United States supported during the Libyan Revolution.

There was no issue more important in U.S. politics than the Beghazi attack, an attack which was sponsored by those that we supported during our unneeded intervention in the Libyan Revolution.

Overview.

It is critical to understand the examples of American intervention in revolutions throughout the Middle East and understand it's consequences and failures. Such as the failure that was Libya, which created the Northern Mali Conflict which led to many deaths and many more people being displaced to the 2012 Beghazi attack.

The Untied States does not need to intervene in the Syrian Civil War, we have history as an indicated that such an intervention will most likely to lead to deadly consequences for others in the region and even Americans.

Sources.

http://www.washingtonsblog.com...

http://www.policymic.com...

http://en.wikipedia.org...

http://en.wikipedia.org...

countzander

Pro

Point 1: Syrians should fight their own revolution.

Rebuttal 1: The Syrian people aren't so much fighting for their own government as they are fighting against an abusive one. On several occasions, the Syrian government has killed democratic protesters, abused human rights, and recently, it has been revealed the the government has used chemical weapons against its own people, a violation of international law. To say that the Syrian people should fight their own battle is akin to saying that a rape victim should fight off her own rapist. But this is nonsense. If you were walking down the street and you witnessed a woman being raped in broad daylight, would you attempt to help the woman? Or would you casually walk by and say, "She needs to help herself"? Provided you're averse to sociopathy, it seems as if you have a moral obligation to save lives, not let them be. In the international community, there is no effective police force and so countries in a position to help the suffering have a moral obligation to do so.

Point 2: The failure of American intervention in Libya.

Rebuttal 2: It wasn't a failure. The goal was to have Qaddafi removed. Qaddafi was removed. The intervention was a success.

The other subpoints are weak. Almost all weapons in the Middle East and Northern Africa can be traced back to the First World. So what? Africans have been fighting among themselves for decades. It just so happens that a particular group of Africans found some abandoned weapons. That hardly justifies negligence which has led to the death of 100,000 Syrians, many of whom weren't even combatants.

Some of the fighters who killed Qaddafi were terrorists who might use the weapons against Americans? So what? The US military has been dealing with them and their antiquated weapons for over a decade. Yeah, some Americans have died, but none of the numbers are even close. In North-West Pakistan, for example, 15 Americans have died while 27,370 militants have died. Our battles tend to be one-sided.

Point 3: Some of the Syrian rebels are anti-American.

Rebuttal 3: Again, so what? The only weapons we've given them are assault rifles that they were never trained to use and dumb rockets for which we have armored tanks, better than anything the Syrian government possesses. In what way are such useless weapons a serious threat to us? And how does your subpoint justify negligence which has led to the deaths of 100,000 people, many of whom were noncombatants?

Point 4: The Benghazi Attack

Rebuttal 4: Northern Africa is a very violent, uncivilized place. People are massacred on a daily basis, and there are often random explosions. The attack on the US embassy was significant only because the media chose to talk about it.

Because as we all know, the death of a human being is none of our concern unless that human just happens to be American.

References:
http://www.satp.org...
http://icasualties.org...
http://www.smallarmssurvey.org...
Debate Round No. 2
AngelManuel

Con

Thanks to the opponent for rebutting my arguments but I will mention as I mentioned in the first round that the burden of proof belongs to the opponent. I simply posted some arguments of my own to get the debate started. I will remind the opponent and the voters that during round 2 the opponent failed to present any arguments of his own as to why the United States should intervene in the Syrian Civil War. During this round I will rebut my opponents counter-arguments. I hope to see my opponent actually present arguments of his own for round 3.

Rebuttal: The Revolution Belongs to the Syrian People.

I will remind the opponent that the Syrian regime is just that a Syrian regime, in which a democratic election hasn't occurred for decades, Assad's family has been in power since 1971. Before the Syrian Civil War began the Syrian people were demanding a change of government, in which the Syrian people could elect their own leader, therefore the Syrian people are fighting for their own government and by doing so they must first overthrow their current government.

On several occasions, the Syrian government has killed democratic protesters, abused human rights, and recently, it has been revealed the the government has used chemical weapons against its own people, a violation of international law.

Yes, there have been reports that the Syrian regime has used chemical weapons against it's own people, which does violate international law. However, is the United States truly the nation to condemn another for violating international law? Didn't we violate international law when we dropped over 20 million gallons of Agent Orange over the population of Vietnam, killing over 400,000 people? Who should have intervened then to stop us? The fact that the Syrian regime changes nothing. The Syrian regime has killed hundreds upon thousands of Syrians before the use of chemical weapons, thus the introduction of the use of chemical weapons should have no effect on whether the United States should intervene or not, considering the fact that the Syrian regime is very capable of killing it's citizens without it.

To say that the Syrian people should fight their own battle is akin to saying that a rape victim should fight off her own rapist. But this is nonsense. If you were walking down the street and you witnessed a woman being raped in broad daylight, would you attempt to help the woman? Or would you casually walk by and say, "She needs to help herself"? Provided you're averse to sociopath, it seems as if you have a moral obligation to save lives, not let them be. In the international community, there is no effective police force and so countries in a position to help the suffering have a moral obligation to do so.

That is an absurd example and completely off topic. If I was walking down the street and I saw a women/men getting raped of course I would intervene, however, this is solely my decision a decision that would not cost the American tax payers any money.

My opponent says that countries who are in a position to help have an obligation to help the suffering. However, If the United States was morally obligated to help the suffering, we will be in every single country in the world. I mean why stop at Syria? Why don't we send 50,000 American soldiers into the Congo to help stop the epidemic of rape being used as a tool of war? Why don't we send in soldiers to India to help reduce the number of rapes that occur each year in India? Why don't we intervene in China and give military and economic aid to the Chinese people and help them establish a democratic government? Why don't we invade Mexico in order to bring an end to the Mexican cartels that kill thousands of people each year? Why don't we intervene in Columbia and declare war on the FARC? Why don't we go into Haiti and supply billions of dollars to help them re establish their infrastructure and help them reconstruct schools and help them feed their poor? Why don't we go into South Africa and provide billions of dollars in order to help bring an end to the AIDS epidemic in South Africa?

Surely by now you must understand that no nation can base the foundation of its foreign policy, on helping all the suffering people of the world, it's too great a burden to carry. And according to my opponents own words, this is exactly what he/she/they demands.

Rebuttal: The Failure of American Intervention in Libya.

Yes it was a failure. The mission of NATOs intervention was not just to overthrow Gaddafi, for if NATO had wanted to overthrow Gaddafi then NATO could have overthrown Gaddafi decades before the Libyan Revolution. The goal of NATO intervention was to overthrow the Libyan regime that was killing innocent civilians, this was the goal of NATO intervention and it's crucial that we understand this. Now considering that NATOs goal was to stop the killing of innocent civilians it should be deemed as a failure that the intervention by NATO powers just caused more deaths in Mali.

Some of the fighters who killed Qaddafi were terrorists who might use the weapons against Americans? So what?

It seems as though the opponent doesn't see danger in arming terrorists, which is a big mistake. Not only does it violate American law to arm enemies of the United States but it presents a danger to Americans and civilians that cannot protect themselves against terrorists, civilians in Africa and the Middle East.


It's not a good foreign policy if Americans just keep on supplying their enemies with weapons and it's certainly not an issue that deserves a "so what" response like the one my opponent gave.

Rebuttal: Some of the Syrian Rebels are Anti-American.

It doesn't matter if the only weapons we give them are pistols, those are still weapons that can be used against American civilians and American soldiers. And it's a self contradiction to arm enemies that will have to fight later on and unlawful as well.

Rebuttal: The Benghazi Attack.

Northern Africa is a very violent, uncivilized place. People are massacred on a daily basis, and there are often random explosions. The attack on the US embassy was significant only because the media chose to talk about it.

Yes it is significant and too ignore its significance is a horrible mistake. The Benghazi Attack as I stated previously could have been prevented if we had simply maintained a neutral policy when it came to the Libyan Revolution. The Benghazi Attack is significant due to its brutal reality and the fact it could have been avoided.


Because as we all know, the death of a human being is none of our concern unless that human just happens to be American.

This is true but the matter of the fact is that the United States foreign policy can cause more deaths by intervening than by remaining neutral.


Sources.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

http://en.wikipedia.org...

http://en.wikipedia.org...

http://en.wikipedia.org...

http://en.wikipedia.org...

http://en.wikipedia.org...


countzander

Pro

Point 1: The use of chemical weapons is irrelevant.

Rebuttal 1: The use of chemical weapons is not irrelevant. The use of chemical weapons is a violation of international law, and because laws are meaningless without enforcement, it is necessary for the laws to be enforced. Essentially the message sent by the West is "Everyone should submit to international law. However, if you think you can get away with a crime, it is okay if you commit one." That is not an acceptable message, and other nations must understand that crimes are followed by punishment, lest they think anything goes.

However, the use of agent orange in Vietnam is irrelevant for two reasons. One, AO is not a chemical weapon and so did not violate international law. It wasn't used to kill people; it was used to clear forests in order to destroy the Hi Chi Minh Trail and to force peasants to move into cities. The unintentional health effects of AO were not well understood until after the war, and, of course, there is an obvious difference between intentionally killing a tree and intentionally killing a human being.
Two, even if AO had been used as a chemical weapon, so what? If something is wrong, it should be condemned, regardless of whoever did it in the past. By your logic, Germany should tolerate genocide because Germans committed genocide in the past.

Point 2: We can't help everyone. Therefore, we should hep no one.

Rebuttal 2: Concerning the analogy, "taxpayer money" is an oxymoron. Taxpayers don't own what the government has already decided to take. The only money in question is "government money," and the government should use its money to help those who need it most. Those who need it most are the those who live in poverty and constant fear of death, not those who can't afford to live in a $100,000 house and drive a $20,000 car...at the same time.

The point of the analogy is that allowing others to suffer when you have to ability to save them is a moral wrong. If you're willing to save a single rape victim, it should be intuitively obvious why thousands of rape victims should be saved.

It is not, however, possible to save everyone. But we do not need to accept Con's inhuman implication that we just accept injustice as inevitable. While we cannot intervene in every country due to practical considerations, we can save as many people as is possible. People are saved one at a time, not all at once.

Point 3 (redundant): The intervention in Libya was a failure.

Rebuttal 3 (redundant): It wasn't a failure. The goal was to remove Qaddafi, as evidenced by the international ceasefire immediately after Gaddafi's death, despite the war's continuance. The dictator had never been very popular among UN members, and his crimes during the war simply provided provided the excuse necessary for intervention.

http://www.bbc.co.uk...

Point 4 (redundant): It's bad to arm terrorists and anti-Americans.

Rebuttal 4 (redundant): Yes, it is. But I still ask, "So what?" The weapons we've provided are of little to no threat to us. What would the terrorists do? Sneak past security, hop upon an airplane, fly all the way to the US, sneak past security again, and just shoot random people with their American-made guns? How often has this happened??? Or maybe they'll shoot American soldiers stationed in the Middle East? As I've already shown, this is irrelevant. The casualty rates are all in are favor, and it isn't even close. Assault rifles are useless when your enemy has tanks, gunships, and cruise missiles.
Even if one or two Americans are shot, at least the so-called terrorists are willing to remove a dictator who has killed thousands of people.

Point 5: The Benghazi Attack was avoidable.

Rebuttal 5: How do you know? How do you know the terrorists weren't simply anti-American and would have attacked the embassy regardless???

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Point 6: The United States foreign policy can cause more deaths by intervening than by remaining neutral.

Rebuttal 6: "Can" doesn't mean "will." I find it difficult to believe that something like this http://en.wikipedia.org... or this http://en.wikipedia.org... or this http://en.wikipedia.org... or this http://en.wikipedia.org... or this http://en.wikipedia.org... or even this http://en.wikipedia.org... could have been made worse than it was.

By your logic, if a man brings an assault rifle into a mall and starts killing people, the police should not intervene. Why? Because the situation might become worse. You never know, right? I mean, what if some people die in the crossfire? That's unacceptable, isn't it? The shooter will run out of bullets eventually. Let things run their course.
Debate Round No. 3
AngelManuel

Con

I have to be honest I'm dissapointed that until this point the opponent has failed to provide arguments of his own.

“The use of chemical weapons is a violation of international law, and because laws are meaningless without enforcement, it is necessary for the laws to be informed.”

Yes the use of chemical weapons is a violation of international law, and it is true that without enforcement laws are meaningless but the United Nations not the United States is responsible for upholding and enforcing international law. This is the objective of the United Nations to ensure that all of its members abide and uphold the laws that the international community has placed.

But while we are on the topic of international law and the fact that a violation of international law should not go unpunished, it shouldn’t go without saying that if the United States is to get involved in Syria without the United Nations approval it would be a violation of international law. Who then would punish the United States for violating international law?

“AO is not a chemical weapon and so did not violate international law. And it wasn’t used to kill; it was used to clear forests

Wrong, once again. Agent Orange is in fact a chemical, and a very deadly one for that matter. And Operation Ranch Hand had the intent of intoxicating the food supply of the Viet Cong, thus the United States willingly used a chemical to intoxicate the food supply of a nation. This attack is still a dominant health issue in Vietnam, but yet no one has punished the United States for such actions.

“Two, even if AO had been used as a chemical weapon, so what? If something is wrong, it should be condemned, regardless of whoever did it in the past. By your logic, Germany should tolerate genocide because Germans committed genocide in the past.”

No by my logic, a nation should remain neutral from foreign conflicts especially when the nation has a history of failures during foreign intervention. By my logic Germany should never place troops in Israel or Poland, due to the historical role that Germany played in the deaths of millions of Jews by setting up concentration camps in Poland.

The only money in question is "government money," and the government should use its money to help those who need it most. Those who need it most are the those who live in poverty and constant fear of death, not those who can't afford to live in a $100,000 house and drive a $20,000 car...at the same time.

So the United States should spend money aiding foreign people, when it has a $16 trillion dollar debt? The people who need help and should be given aid with the money that Americans pay in taxes are here in the United States not Syria.

Yes, it is. But I still ask, "So what?" The weapons we've provided are of little to no threat to us. What would the terrorists do? Sneak past security, hop upon an airplane, fly all the way to the US, sneak past security again, and just shoot random people with their American-made guns? How often has this happened???

It happened twice, once in 1993 and again in 2001. You haven’t forgotten 911 have you?

"Can" doesn't mean "will."

But it has, as I already have proven that. Intervention in Libya which you rebuttal by saying “so what” ended up killing thousands of civilians in Mali. But I can already predict your response to that as well, let me guess “so what?”

By your logic, if a man brings an assault rifle into a mall and starts killing people, the police should not intervene. Why? Because the situation might become worse. You never know, right? I mean, what if some people die in the crossfire? That's unacceptable, isn't it? The shooter will run out of bullets eventually. Let things run their course.

You seem to lack basic understanding about the difference between a police and a soldier. You see an American police has the duty to save protect American citizens from harm here in the United States, and a soldiers job is to protect the United States from foreign enemies. You cannot believe that Syria poses a threat to the United States correct? I mean what is Syria going to do with a few assault rifles, when we have tanks and jet fighters.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

http://en.wikipedia.org...

http://en.wikipedia.org...

ttp://en.wikipedia.org...

countzander

Pro

Point 1: Yes the use of chemical weapons is a violation of international law, and it is true that without enforcement laws are meaningless but the United Nations not the United States is responsible for upholding and enforcing international law. This is the objective of the United Nations to ensure that all of its members abide and uphold the laws that the international community has placed.

Rebuttal 1: The United Nations has demonstrated its unwillingness to uphold international law. It therefore falls to another power to uphold the law. That power is the United States.

If the police were unwilling to capture criminals, would that justify criminal behavior? Would you allow a serial rapist to rape as many women as he wanted, just because the police were incompetent? Or would you try to stop the suffering yourself?

Point 2: But while we are on the topic of international law and the fact that a violation of international law should not go unpunished, it shouldn't’t go without saying that if the United States is to get involved in Syria without the United Nations approval it would be a violation of international law. Who then would punish the United States for violating international law?

Rebuttal 2: No one. In case you haven't noticed, the UN doesn't really enforce anything, and as I said earlier, laws are meaningless without enforcement. If no one is willing to stop the US, the US is free to do as it sees best. In this case, the US is free to save lives in Syria.

Point 3 (redundant): Wrong, once again. Agent Orange is in fact a chemical, and a very deadly one for that matter. And Operation Ranch Hand had the intent of intoxicating the food supply of the Viet Cong, thus the United States willingly used a chemical to intoxicate the food supply of a nation. This attack is still a dominant health issue in Vietnam, but yet no one has punished the United States for such actions.

Rebuttal 3: (redundant): It's not a chemical weapon. AO targeted plants, not people. Humans and plants are different things, and while the US killed crops, the intention was to force the Vietnamese off their farmlands and into the cities, not to kill them. Chemical weapons are used to kill people, not plants.

Point 4: No by my logic, a nation should remain neutral from foreign conflicts especially when the nation has a history of failures during foreign intervention. By my logic Germany should never place troops in Israel or Poland, due to the historical role that Germany played in the deaths of millions of Jews by setting up concentration camps in Poland.

Rebuttal 4: The police have a history of failure when it comes to preventing crime. I mean, the police have been around for centuries and yet...there are still crimes. We should just disband the police force. It's ineffective.
Fallacious logic, still. A history of alleged failure does not justify inaction. By your logic, Edison should have given up on creating the light bulb. He failed 1000 times.

Point 5: So the United States should spend money aiding foreign people, when it has a $16 trillion dollar debt? The people who need help and should be given aid with the money that Americans pay in taxes are here in the United States not Syria.

Rebuttal 5: Taxes aren't donations. Even if they were, that doesn't fix your argument. Why would you give money to a rich man when there's a starving poor man next door? That's like... You're coming off the freeway and you see two beggars on the side of the rode. One is all dirty and shaking and has an unkempt beard. The other is wearing a tailored business suit from Bloomingdale's while talking on his new iphone. Under what sociopathic logic do you justify "helping" the latter man??? Why should Americans live in luxury when there are people being killed every day by an oppressive government? I fail to see how living under a deficit (which you know about only because some people on the news talk about it) is worse than being shot or gassed... -_-

Point 7: It happened twice, once in 1993 and again in 2001. You haven’t forgotten 911 have you?

"Can" doesn't mean "will."

But it has, as I already have proven that. Intervention in Libya which you rebuttal by saying “so what” ended up killing thousands of civilians in Mali. But I can already predict your response to that as well, let me guess “so what?”

Rebuttal 7: Yeah, that's called the slippery slope fallacy. By the same logic, we should ban gay marriage because it will eventually lead to pedophilia. Just follow the logic. We allowed rich people to marry poor people. Then we allowed interracial marriage. Now we're allowing gay marriage. Next, we'll allow marriage between children and adults. (Eventually, people will be able to marry animals.)

"Can" really doesn't mean "will." To assert otherwise is fallacious.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Point 8: You seem to lack basic understanding about the difference between a police and a soldier. You see an American police has the duty to save protect American citizens from harm here in the United States, and a soldiers job is to protect the United States from foreign enemies. You cannot believe that Syria poses a threat to the United States correct? I mean what is Syria going to do with a few assault rifles, when we have tanks and jet fighters.

Rebuttal 9: No, that's false. The military's responsibility has been to protect American interests, not necessarily the country. WWII is the only instance where the United States has taken a defensive position. Every other war has either been initiated by or bolstered by the United States, often when the US itself was in no immediate danger.

Regardless, your argument does not justify inaction. As I've said earlier, humans have moral obligations that transcends national boundaries. American interests ought to coincide with the human interest to prevent unnecessary suffering.
Police officers and soldiers, as humans beings, have a moral obligation to prevent unnecessary suffering, and that's what they do every day.


I have provided arguments of my own. My argument is, and has always been, that people have a moral obligation to help those who are oppressed. The United States is group of people. Syria is a group of people. The Syrian people are suffering. The United States has the ability to end the suffering and so is morally obligated to do so.

As I said earlier, the situation is similar to a person who witnesses a rape in broad daylight. The evil thing to do is to walk away and shrug it off as "That's not my problem. The woman will just be raped harder if I stop the rapist." However, that is what has happened in the international community. The Syrian people are being shot and gassed by their government, and yet sociopathic logic (Who else but a sociopath would willing allow children to be gassed with sarin???), such as that displayed by Con, would attempt to excuse and allow crimes against humanity.

Everybody, vote!

Debate Round No. 4
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by bsh1 3 years ago
bsh1
Suggestions: Con argued that U.S. intervention led to weapons going into Mali"but yet, U.S. intervention occurred after the civil war had begun. Weapons were already flowing across the border prior to outside intervention. I thought this would have been a good approach for Pro to take. Also, you both could make better use of statistics and empirical analyses, instead of solely isolated examples. And, if you believe the examples were not isolated, but more broadly applicable, tell me why; provide evidence as to the fact. Lastly, you both seemed to go in circles at points. Don"t just restate your original points and claim that they"re rebuttals; actually analyze what the other had to say.

It was a good debate. Both Pro and Con won some arguments, and made solid efforts"I enjoyed judging!
Posted by bsh1 3 years ago
bsh1
RFD: I felt there were to key elements in this debate. There was a moral component and a consequentialist component, one considering what is right, and one considering what is best. As for the utilitarian analysis, I think it slightly skews Pro; nonetheless, this slight advantage is not enough on its own for me to feel comfortable voting Pro"it"s not clearly outweighing Con"s points because of the lack of numerical evidence, or of analysis that gives me some idea of frequency.

The moral argument really came down to the example of the rapist. Are you, as a civilian, morally obligated to render aid to the victim, and, in fact, to any victim you pass? I think you are. Insofar as Con agrees that you need to help, I think Con acknowledges that there is a moral need to intervene in Syria. Con asserts that this could lead to an unending obligation to help anywhere suffering exists, but Pro rightly notes that should not accept "injustice as inevitable." This is enough of a "positive reason to intervene," in conjunction with the utilitarian analysis, for me to feel as if Pro has met his burden.

So, Pro wins the arguments.

Spelling also goes to Pro; Con made a few errors. For example, in Round Four Con states: "which you rebuttal." "Rebut" is the verb; "rebuttal" is the noun.

Both had fairly even conduct and sources.
Posted by bsh1 3 years ago
bsh1
Point 4: I think the arguments went in circles here"neither side actually proved convincingly what U.S. weapons impact might be. Each debater reiterated his positions without addressing what the other had to say. This point is a wash.

Points 5-6: Con just cross-applies Libya to defend his position. Pro makes a valid point that "can" is not the same as "will." The question then becomes which is more likely: intervention as a positive force, or intervention as a negative force. Con shows a potential for intervention to backfire and to inflame anti-U.S. sentiment. Pro shows a danger in letting int"l law go unpunished; it could encourage use of WMDs and war crimes in the future. Based on a "potential" threat of increased WMDs against the "possibility" of additional problems incumbent with a policy of intervention, I"d have to go with Pro. However, the fact that there are few or no stated statistics to give me an idea of how likely WMD use could be or how often intervention backfires, makes it difficult to compare these harms under a utilitarian framework.

Burdens: Con extends that Pro has the BOP. I agree with Con. However, I do not concur that Pro must have a case of his own in order to show intervention is needed. If Pro can garner offense that gives me a positive justification for intervention that either outweighs or supersedes Con"s objections, Pro has met the BOP.
Posted by bsh1 3 years ago
bsh1
I apologize for the formatting errors where it inserts " at random points--I don't know how to fix it.

Points 1-2 Cont"d: I found the cost argument to have valid points on both sides"the U.S. is too far in debt to really act, while simultaneously, it should spend its money for good. I don"t think either side really clashed with the other"s claim, leaving me no real way to evaluate between the two contentions.

Point 3: Pro says that the goal of Libya was to remove Gadhafi and to accelerate the ending of Libya"s civil war. Does this mean that Libya did not backfire or have unintended negative impacts? Libya was a success insofar as it achieved its immediate mission; this much Pro shows. Yet, Con also shows powerful, harmful side effects of intervention could occur, meaning that intervention could backfire to an extent. I might liken this point to someone being treated with chemo therapy, but then catching an ancillary disease and dying. Yes you"ve cured the cancer, but the patient still died. In Libya we "succeeded" with our named objectives, but our actions spurred other deaths. So, I think Con had some strong assertions here. Ultimately though, this point was not weighed heavily by me as I cast my vote, largely because Libya is only one example, and is hardly characteristic of military interventions as a whole.
Posted by bsh1 3 years ago
bsh1
I applaud both sides on an interesting, contentious debate. I"ll go over my thoughts on each on the main arguments and then explain the reasoning behind my vote.

Points 1-2: This argument boils down to a simple question of whether the U.S. is an appropriate actor in remedying violations of int"l law. Con says that the UN is the legitimate actor; in fact, this carries with it a fair bit of weight. The UN is, for want of a better analogy, the primary int"l legislative body, and therefore it seems apt that the UN should deal with a breach of rules. Pro replies that when the police fail to do their job, some sort of vigilantism or citizen enforcement is needed to fill the gap"laws must be enforced, and if the people appointed to enforce them fail to do their job, someone else must act. Frankly, Con never really address a need for enforcement; Con just says the UN should be the "police." But I agree with Pro that if the UN won"t act, there is a gap left to be filled. Lastly, I found the assertion that if Con would save one rape, why would he not stop any that he came across, to be very powerfully put. Con seems to acknowledge that such immoral actions must be halted, if not by the police than by himself, a citizen. Hence, point one goes to Pro.
Posted by AngelManuel 3 years ago
AngelManuel
Well I oppose intervention whether it supports the FSA or Assad. But technically speaking if the US did intervene militarily I'm sure they would support the FSA. I would rather someone propose that the US should support the FSA but if you wish to present a case as to why the US should support Assad, I'll challenge that as well. Let me know who you decide the US should support when and if you accept the debate.
Posted by KingHenrikLundqvist 3 years ago
KingHenrikLundqvist
Does the intervention have to aid the FSA or Assad?
Posted by deveshg 3 years ago
deveshg
I agree the US should not intervene with the civil war:
Firstly, it is not their responsibility to act as the 'world policeman' and secondly such an intervention would seriously deteriorate relations between countries such as Russia and China, who have different points of view(s).

I will be constantly in touch with this debate :)
Good Luck!
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by bsh1 3 years ago
bsh1
AngelManuelcountzanderTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD and general thoughts are in comments. I appreciated this debate. Thanks!
Vote Placed by Ameliamk1 3 years ago
Ameliamk1
AngelManuelcountzanderTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Alright, brief rundown. I was going to give conduct to con, as pro seemed somewhat rude in the beginning, but con matched it by the end. Arguments goes to pro, he is correct that his only argument needs to be a moral one, and since that was not well rebuked, pro wins there. Also pro, love the analogies. Very persuasive. Sources are tied, although I do think both pro and con should insert numbers to signify what source corresponds to what section of text.