The Instigator
leozehrack
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
DemocraticRepublic
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Assad: The man of 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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/4/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 372 times Debate No: 80500
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)

 

leozehrack

Pro

Four years ago, amidst the popular Arab Spring blossoming in the Middle East, little did the world realize that a group of peaceful protests would lead to a multi fronted proxy war, which would trigger the world's worst refugee crisis. Now, being in its fifth year, the Syrian Civil War is not showing any signs of stopping soon. And what makes it even more worse is the rise of the hardline terrorist group calling itself ISIS. Whats more heart breaking is that the western nations fail to acknowledge the fact that currently there is no "legitimate" successor to Bashar Al Assad.

The Syrian regime has now lost more than 50 percent of its national territory and the strength of their Armed Forces have been down to half of what it was when the war began. The US and its western allies still believe in their ideology that the moderate Syrian rebels would regroup and fight back against the ISIS. But they are wrong!

Do you think they are?? Do you think Bashar Al Assad must step down?
DemocraticRepublic

Con

I accept the debate.
The instigator has not made it clear if he is for or against President Assad stepping down, but as he is Pro I shall assume he is for him stepping down, therefore I am debating he should not step down.
President Bashar-Al Assad should not step down. He has kept Syria unified and if he were to be overthrown, killed or displaced from his position, Syria would be in even more turmoil. It is similar to the previous situation in Libya, once Gaddafi was killed and overthrown, Libya was thrown in turmoil and civil war broke out with terrorist organisations, rebel groups and ISIS fighting for control. Only Gaddafi held together Libya. We could even relate it to former Yugoslavia. General Tito held together Yugoslavia and once he died, it all broke apart and a civil war broke out killing thousands. My point is, dictators hold countries together and stop civil wars breaking out. Overthrowing Assad will make it worse and will make the refugee crisis even worse than it is.
Debate Round No. 1
leozehrack

Pro

Firstly, I would like to make sure to my opponent that I am a pro for Assad staying and not leaving. I sincerely apologize for not providing that crucial information.
DemocraticRepublic

Con

Ah, not a problem. We shall make Round 3 a debating round as you haven't posted a rebuttal.
Debate Round No. 2
leozehrack

Pro

The rebels in Syria show no signs of unity except some radical groups which formed an alliance called " Army of Conquest" and captured Idlib from Government forces. In a situation like this, we don't see a legitimatei leadership for the people of Syria. Also, we must note that Syria is still a functioning state and the Western nations, including the US, believes that an Assad regime is much better than ISIS marching through Damascus.

We must also note that even though Al Assad's regime has lost almost 60% of Syria's national territory, more than 60% of Syria's displaced population still lives under regime control. Another important point to be noted is that the Syrian government has lost only 2 of its 14 provincial capitals, Raqqah and Idlib. In the rest 12 provinces, the government has its presence established.

People living under the regime still attend weddings and go for parties, a stark contrast to the situation seen in areas controlled by the rebels.
DemocraticRepublic

Con

I quote from your argument "People living under the regime still attend weddings and go for parties, a stark contrast to the situation seen in areas controlled by the rebels." The rebels can't let people 'attend weddings' primarily because it is a warzone and they are continually fighting and can't maintain proper control over territories as they are 'rebels' not a 'government force' which will surely have more people backing it. Even Saudi Arabia[1] have called for Assad to be overthrown. Its also blatant use of chemical weapons against civilians is apalling and in its own right an automatic war crime, which by international law, means he needs to be arrested and tried for his crimes, which he must answer to.

[1] "Saudi Arabia - Syria Intervention" http://eaworldview.com...;
Debate Round No. 3
leozehrack

Pro

I would like to quote a sentence of my worthy opponent: " can't maintain proper control over territories as they are 'rebels' not a 'government force' which will surely have more people backing it." Doesn't this imply that the rebels are not capable of holding territory taken by them? Doesn't this imply that the Syrian regime is still popular amongst Syrians and Al Assad is a legitimate leader of Syria? Doesn't this imply that if rebels take Damascus,they wont maintain proper control over the whole of Syria?

The Syrian rebels lack a considerable amount of firepower, something which is still an unfulfilled promise of the US. The Assad regime, on the other hand, even though facing massive manpower shortage, has enough firepower to beat back ISIS. As of now, the Syrian government is the only legitimate Syrian force to defeat ISIS in Syria.
DemocraticRepublic

Con

The rebels would be able to maintain control over territories if they recieved sufficient equipment and could be a well trained fighting force, if only the US and NATO would train and give more equipment to them. For an example. the US has only trained '4 or 5' Syrian opposition fighters[1]. The Syrian opposition is currently not as popular but they are still growing so that is expected but currently as you said the Syrian government may be more popular. If they did take Damascus, then they would require more manpower and other assistance from NATO countries, the Syrian rebels could not just defeat the Government by themselves.

[1] "US has trained only 'four or five' Syrian fighters http://www.theguardian.com...
http://www.theguardian.com...
Debate Round No. 4
leozehrack

Pro

So why isn't the Western nations supporting the Syrian rebels while Russia directly supports Assad by providing him with weapons? The US claims that if they provide weopens to the moderate Syrian rebels, these weapons might fall into the hands of extremists. This again shows how irresponsible the rebels can be.

I would like to end my debate with two questions:
1. If Al Assad goes, then who would succeed him?
2. If Al Assad goes, what guarantee can be given that we don't see another Libya?
DemocraticRepublic

Con

In response to your two questions I quote from your argument "1. If Al Assad goes, then who would succeed him?
2. If Al Assad goes, what guarantee can be given that we don't see another Libya?"
In response to question 1, if Assad goes, the Western nations could in theory (may take a bit of work, but would work in the end) re-write the Syrian constitution and force Syria to adopt a democracy. This may sound difficult, but could be done with Western support. To ensure we don't see another Libya situation, we would need to implement new laws and regulations within Syria and begin UN peacekeeping operations and Western support would again be needed. It all relies on other countries as Syrian rebels just don't have the manpower. I quote "So why isn't the Western nations supporting the Syrian rebels while Russia directly supports Assad by providing him with weapons?" The Western nations are TRYING to support the rebels but this costs money and we don't have it to be funding rebels.
Debate Round No. 5
No comments have been posted on this debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.