The Instigator
Rousseau
Pro (for)
Winning
57 Points
The Contender
zarul
Con (against)
Losing
54 Points

Benazir Bhutto Was Most Likely Killed by Pervez Musharraf

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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/27/2007 Category: Politics
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,847 times Debate No: 1055
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (34)
Votes (37)

 

Rousseau

Pro

I believe that to get to the meat of the debate, I'll have to wait for a challenger, but basically Musharraf has the most to gain from the death of Bhutto, and had the most to lose from her becoming elected as the President. Not only that, but Musharraf had the means to do it. He was closely connected with the head of the military (who he hand-picked as his successor). This means he is the most likely to have orchestrated her death. I also ask, if not Musharraf.. than who? Militant rebels? They had the means, but what motive other than causing terror? Musharraf's motives are more defined, and therefore I believe he is the person who most likely was behind the killing. Looking forward to the challenger's arguments.
zarul

Con

Benazir Bhutto was likely not killed by Pervez Musharraf.

I. Bhutto was killed by one of the following things, or a combination of the following things.

1. Guns shots, fired by a man in the crowd.

2. The explosion caused when the man detonated a bomb, killing himself, other people, and possibly Bhutto.

3. The Interior Ministry of Pakistan has recently claimed that Bhutto hit her head and died.

http://news.bbc.co.uk...

II. I advocate neither of these in particular, however, these are supported by my link.

III. The topic is not whether Musharraf ordered/was involved in the killing of Benazir Bhutto, but whether Musharraf killed Bhutto. If the affirmative cannot prove reasonably that Musharraf killed Bhutto, there is no reason to vote affirmative.

IV. The affirmative should not be allowed to change the topic in mid-debate.
Debate Round No. 1
Rousseau

Pro

Well, that is an interesting stance, but one that is simply not fufilling what I asked of the debate. I find it ridiculous that the Con says he should win the debate because I in fact am alleging that "Musharraf himself killed Bhutto". I'm not alleging that, I'm alleging he was the one behind it. I for one, don't see any reason for anyone to vote on a technicalitiy such as purposefully not fufilling what I wanted debated. It is wrong for two reasons. First off, I'm sure it is pretty clear what I meant and secondly, debate is educational in purpose, and zarul is not educating anyone in the least. Simply misconstruing what the debate was about, and saying that he should win because of it. His "voter" erodes the purpose of debate to be an educational tool, refining the opinions of minds wishing to engage in discussion of a particular issue. He is in no way fufilling that, and thus should be condemned.

Anyway, all my points are untouched, and the only attack stemmed from one of two things:
1. Either Zarul is a dullard (not likely)
2. Or two, he is trying to win on a technicality that will in no way fufill the purpose of the debate

I wait for a real attack to be placed.
zarul

Con

I. Topicality

The resolution is whether Musharraf killed Bhutto, not whether he was behind it. Regardless of whether your intent was clear or not, I am debating the resolution, you are not.

You say I am taking away from the educational part of debate. I clearly am not. In fact, I am educating you and many others on this site on how to make better resolutions. This is an important skill in debating, and raises the quality of debates. A vote for me is a lesson to all on properly wording a resolution, a message that there should be no more obvious mistakes and ambiguity in resolutions.

Bad resolutions hurt debate, I have seen debates where it has taken a contender a round or two simply to understand what they are debating about. These resolutions tend to make their makers look less intelligent (although yours isn't quite that bad), and I am hoping/expecting that resolutions you make in the future shall have clearer intent.

II. Musharraf did not kill Bhutto

As I have proven in the first round, Musharraf was not the killer of Bhutto. Unless the affirmative can prove that he was, then I have won.

III. Musharraf was not behind the death of Bhutto

While this section is irrelevant to the debate, I will appease the aff by debating whether Musharraf was behind the killing of Bhutto.

1. It was in Musharraf's best interests to have Bhutto alive, they were essentially forming a coalition to give both strength.

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

Bhutto's party was one of the few major parties that did not ally itself against Musharraf.

http://in.reuters.com...

Musharraf's approval rating has tanked, now around 34%.

[The poll showed 32 percent of Pakistanis believed Bhutto was the best leader to handle the problems.

When asked who they would choose as president, 39 percent of voters picked Bhutto and 30 percent said Musharraf.]

Neither Bhutto or Musharraf is very popular, yet they are the two most popular choices for President. Also from the article:

[Musharraf has tried to shore up his position by reaching out to self-exiled former prime minister Benazir Bhutto, the leader of the largest opposition party.]

A. This union between the two of them would have been unstoppable. With the support of much of the military for Musharraf, much of the population for Benazir, and the US for both, Pakistan would have been stabilized. Bhutto would likely win, placing Musharraf in an important position for his support.

B. The greatest loser in the assassination (besides Benazir who lost her life) is Musharraf, he has lost a major ally for keeping his power.

C. The Peoples Party still has much support, support greater than what Musharraf has.

http://findarticles.com...

D. The assassination has angered many, as can be seen by the numerous riots, and may bring many new voters in, as voter turnout was low in the last election.

E. Bhutto's death will get her party the sympathy vote, these factors essentially guarantee her parties victory in the elections, and Musharraf will be the true loser.

F. Ultimately, even if such a coalition had not been formed, Musharraf would lose little in the election, he would be allowed to keep his position as general and would still be prominent in Pakistani affairs.

2. The Peoples Party (of Pakistan) has gained much in her death

A. At the expense of their figurehead, PPP has won the election.

B. The party still exists and has a new Bhutto as its figurehead, this figurehead (her son) will be able to attract all the votes she would have received and more, thanks to her death. Putting her son in control is a crafty political move my the PPP, her son will find it easiest to extract votes from Bhutto's death.

C. Bhutto's death earns sympathy from many, and may disillusion supporters of other parties. If the election is not delayed, Bhutto's former popularity along with sympathy will catapult her party to victory.

D. If elections are delayed, outrage will build and take away support from Musharraf, so that in the end, the Peoples Party has won.

E. There are plenty of reasons for senior members of the PPP to have Bhutto killed as it can be seen. In fact, prior to Bhutto's death, there are few that could name anyone within the PPP outside of Bhutto. Her death may have been order overshadowed members of the PPP, their party has nothing to lose, and they would have a shot at gaining the spotlight.

3. Bhutto's assassination also may have been ordered by religious extremists/religious parties.

A. As can be seen from my first round, the attacker clearly blew himself up after shooting. This is trademark of extremist attacks. Unless the affirmative can prove otherwise, it is most likely that she was killed by an extremist, for extremists.

B. Many extremists do not believe women should be leaders, and although many Pakistanis clearly do not hold such beliefs (she has been elected twice), the ones that do clearly would have motives to attack her.

C. Bhutto has taken an anti-Taliban/extremist and pro-US stance in recent years, just as Musharraf has. Musharraf has had several attempts on his life while in power, and with Bhutto holding similar positions, she clearly raised some opposition.
[On Musharraf's assassination]
http://www.voanews.com...

D. Terrorist groups have been blamed for the assassination as well:

http://www.nydailynews.com...

Members of the Taliban have been accused of killing her, and both the Pakistani and US governments place this man high on their list of suspects (in planning the attack).

4. There are a number of other political parties, as well as opponents of the Bhutto family that may be behind her assassination.

A. There is a vast number of political parties in Pakistan, and it is just as likely if not more likely that they plotted Bhutto's assassination rather than Musharraf. This includes some extremist parties which seek to impose their version of Islam on the rest of Pakistan, and would be unable to do so with either Musharraf or Bhutto in power.

B. As can be seen, these parties/their followers have made attempts on both leaders lives. They have motives, and the government they want it what they seek to gain.

C. Outside of the different political parties, there are many rich families opposed to Bhutto's family.

D. Bhutto's family is tremendously rich and powerful, and it is possible that other powerful families in Pakistan sought to take them out. Her father was executed on corruption charges, two of her brothers have been killed, and herself.

E. By removing the family's influence, other families could grow more powerful, and would see her elimination in their best interests.

IV. Conclusion

My opponent seeks to take this debate off topic, and if voters vote strictly on the topic, as should be done, I am clearly the winner. The only way the affirmative can win is if they prove that Musharraf actually killed Bhutto as this is the topic. My opponent has said that I remove education from debate, however, voting for me is a message to all debators that writing a good resolution is necessary. This is education on how to write a good resolution, which is a very important skill in debate.

I have also argued the debate my opponent has sought for, however, even if my opponent were to win this section, I should still be voted for because this issue is not truly what we should be debating about.

In any case, my opponent must prove without a doubt that Musharraf was more likely than any other group/person to have Bhutto killed to win this section, which really isn't a voter.

Finally, in my I. section I apologize if I seem very harsh in what I said about people writing poor resolutions. It just really bugs me sometimes.
Debate Round No. 2
Rousseau

Pro

Alright. The main argument of Con, was a Topicality argument. So, the word that is causing the trouble is "by". I'll go ahead and define the word "by". By means: "through; through the act or agency of" - (All definitions are from Merriam Webster's Dictionary). Alright, so let's replace "by" in the Topic Sentence: Benazir Bhutto Was Most Likely Killed "through the act or agency of" Pervez Musharraf. The defintion of "act" is: the doing of a thing. The definition of agency is: "a person or thing through which power is exerted or an end is achieved". So let's put it all together:

Benazir Bhutto Was Most Likely Killed 'through the "doing of a thing" or "a person or thing through which power is exerted or an end is achieved" of' Pervez Musharraf. Agency doesn't make the most sense, so assuming that Act and Agency are synonyms: Benazir Bhutto Was Most Likely Killed 'through the "doing of a thing" or agency of Pervez Musharraf.

This means that for Benazir Bhutto to have been killed by Musharraf, Musharraf would have had to do "a thing" or "exert power". It's not specified what he had to do, but rather that he had to do something that resulted in her dieing. He never would have had to murder her with his own hands, and had the Con looked at definitions, he would have seen this. So basically, I'm arguing that Musharraf did do something. So therefore, the Topic Sentence is quite clear that Benazir Bhutto Was Most Likely Killed 'through the "doing of a thing" or agency of' Pervez Musharraf. I am quite topical in demanding that the Con provide a relevent attack, but I'll go onto the merits of topicality to prove my point further.

First off, topicality should be evaluated within a reasonable framework. Topicality should only become a voter, should I be very untopical, to a point where I am not clear. Nobody has posted comments saying things like "What's your stance" or "What?!?", so I believe that to the average human, my stance is defined. The Topic Sentence is limited, and therefore, should my Topic Sentence be a tad unclear, you can look to my argument. My argument is very defined in saying that the debate will be on whether or not Musharraf is "behind the killing" or Bhutto. Anyway, i an ideal world, topicality is a voter (in policy debate at least) for two reasons: 1). Unfairness, and 2). Education.
Unfairness - This doesn't really ransition into home debate, because the voter in CX is that you cannot prepare for debates outside a resolution. This doesn't apply because you CAN in fact prepare. Also, my argument isn't unfair because you have brought up attacks and information on the real purpose of the debate, and therefore the 'Unfairness' part of Topicality isn't a voter
Education - Debate is to educate people on the given topic. My topic sentence (after getting into the barebones of English) is clear in that the debate is on whether Musharraf did "a thing" that would have killed Bhutto. Therefore, I am Educational. Even if I wasn't on the exact topic, I set the topic, and most people got what I was going for. Therefore, it is clear and I'm being reasonable in the pedagogical merits of this debate.

Also, if you really want to get into the merits of definitions, I am topical. A simple misunderstanding on wording, and after I proved my wording was indeed apt, we can move on. I proved it, and I would like to move on to relevent attacks. Also, one of your arguments was based on the misunderstanding, and I do not wish to waste room answering it, as it is irrelevant.

My Responses (Going line by line. Also, I normally put quotes of what you said, but I doubt I'll have room)
1. Coalition - The link you gave me saying they did not ally against Musharraf was to the main page of Wikipedia. Also, wikipedia is written by normal people, and for all I know... you wrote the article in question. So, there isn't much point of going there, as it is not credible. Also, the supposed coalition would force Musharraf to share power, something that someone who took power in a military coup wouldn't like.
Polls - The link was from August, it doesn't reflect now. Plus, he took power in a military coup and still has strong ties with the military (i.e. hand-picking his succesor). Public opinion of tyrants doesn't matter to the tyrants. Also, it talked about Musharraf reaching out to Bhutto... in August. Once again, the situation has changed, and Bhutto has spoken out against Musharraf since then. http://www.npr.org...
A - But Musharraf would still be not at the top of the chain of power. He turned against her after he saw that she: A. Was speaking against him (above link), and B. Was going to be elected higher than him (yours).
B - But what did she bring to the table for Musharraf? She brought him majority support. She is dead, and support has to go somewhere. Maybe to the party, most likely to Musharraf.
C - Evidence at all? And also, that doesn't mean Musharraf didn't gain something from killing Bhutto. If he gets one more supporter, than he benefits from the assasination.
D - New voters won't matter if the People's Party doesn't put up a good candidate, and they may withdraw, like Sharif.
E - Evidence? And he could still rig the elections (the assasination still would have got rid of a vocal opposer of Musharraf)
F - He stepped down as general, so he would lose power, and he does want his power.
2. - A - Again, evidence? It's impossible to predict the future, and I believe you are completely wrong. The major opposition to Musharraf winning is gone. The party doesn't have a good candidate.
B - http://www.npr.org... - The elections were, or are, going to be rigged. Bhutto was a vocal opponent of Msuharraf recently, and also may have discovered the plot to tamper with the elections. If the vote was fair, PPP may win, but it won't be. Musharraf gains too much for him not to be behind it.
C - The election is expected to be delayed (see link above)
D - Evidence? A ridiculous claim, also, the link says that the election will be rigged and that Bhutto was about to announce it. Again, supporting me.
E - A ridiculous claim, and I would like to see evidence about it.
3. - A - http://www.abc.net.au... - This basically says that a top analyst from Pakistan, doesn't believe that terrorists orchestrated it.

The theory I support is that Musharraf is responsible and behind it because he didn't give her the neccesary security. That "act" he did, directly resulted in her dieing. This means that Bhutto was killed by Musharraf's act of not increasing her security. http://www.csmonitor.com... (Look for the Hassan Abbas quote)

B - See above response
C - My theory (see above) still holds.
D - Just saying that the deed was done by a operative, not that Musharraf couldn't have purposefully not given her security. My theory holds still.
4. - A - But where is the evidence saying that they could have done it (like mine saying Musharraf did)
B - What? You said that the other parties had made attempts on their lives. Evidence?
C thru E - You still do not have the evidence saying that the families did it. Many have motives, but is there evidence saying they did it? There is evidence against Musharraf. Also, you argued that Bhutto's death would increase the sympathy and therefore gain her party the lead. Same idea for their family doesn't apply?

Conclusion: I am topical, I have proved it, and I have proved that it isn't a voter. I also have negated all of his points, and provided evidence that Musharraf is likely the killer (http://www.csmonitor.com...), and that terrorists aren't (http://www.abc.net.au...). The other suspects do not have any evidence against them, and therefore aren't important. For all these reasons, I urge a vote for Pro, thank you.
zarul

Con

I drop all topicality arguments, my opponent has convinced me he is topical, and that topicality is not a voter in this case.

I drop argument II., it should not be voted on (for pro or con).

This round should be judged entirely on the likelihood of Musharraf plotting to kill Bhutto.

http://www.reason.com...

This link shows that Islamic parties will likely lose votes, and that the PPP, particularly Amin Fahim, have benefited from her death. This supports points 2. & 3., that the Peoples Party has gained in her death, and that extremists are possibly behind it. It directly supports my arguments that PPP will receive a sympathy vote, and shows that although her son is the head, someone else (who is relatively unknown, Amin Fahim) will take over, thus showing that there are potential motives for people within the PPP to have her killed.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com...

The PPP was the only major opposition party that did not announce it's total boycott of the election (if the country remained in a state of emergency). Clearly her party had more cordial relations with Musharraf than the rest. This article also asserts that Bhuto and Musharraf agreed to a power sharing deal, so again, Musharraf had little to gain by trying to kill one of his few allies.

http://icga.blogspot.com...

Here is a non-wiki link on the PPP not being part of the All Parties Democratic Movement.

http://centersight.blogspot.com...

It is clear that Bhutto and Musharraf were forming a coalition, which is evidence for my earlier claims. I provided a link earlier that showed Musharraf's approval is down, and this goes with my assertion that Musharraf planned on supporting Bhutto in exchange for keeping some of his power.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk...

Musharraf has the most to lose from Bhutto's death. As he clearly would have recognized, much blame could easily be placed on him, reducing his power and stability. The article supports this, asserting that he has lost influence and credibility. It is unlikely that Musharraf is a dullard, he has arised to be a general and a president, so he obviously would have recognized that Bhutto's death would be bad for him. The article also briefly asserts that the attack has the appearance of one of the Taliban. Thus, this article supports points 1. & 3.

http://www.lgs.edu.pk...

Here is a link on some basic Taliban beliefs, and how they oppose the West and its values (which is whatt Bhutto represented).

http://www.csmonitor.com...

You claim that I have no evidence that religious extremists are behind this, however your own link asserts that "Baitullah Mesud, a Taliban commander in Waziristan, had several times openly threatened her life".

http://centersight.blogspot.com...

This link affirms that Baitullah Mesud, part of the Taliban, is suspected highly by both the Pakistani and US government. My previous link shows he wanted her dead. You attempted to counter this with a link that I will discuss later, however, the link you provide only says that we should not assume that Al-Qaeda is the source of all problems. However, Mesud is asserted to be part of the Taliban, not Al-Qaeda, which are not the same group (albeit similar).

Your links:

http://www.npr.org...

Your link shows that people within the PPP have accused the government of rigging elections, it does not prove that such happened. Remember, innocent until proven guilty.

http://www.abc.net.au...

This link does not prove that a top analyst does not think Al-Qaeda is behind it, he asserts that we should have a complete investigation before we make conclusions. I disagree in that we should figure out likely suspects, allowing us to focus an investigation and discover more quickly what occurred. Also, I am talking about the Taliban, your analyst is discussing Al-Qaeda, and although the two groups are related, it is foolish to say they are the same.

http://www.csmonitor.com...

The Abbas quote only mentions that security is lacking. All this link proves for you is that security is lacking, which means that Musharraf did not do enough to protect Bhutto, not that Bhutto was most likely killed by Musharraf. Abbas also says that "What is evident is a complete lack of command and control". This only proves more that Musharraf needed Bhutto to stay in control, he was already losing his power.

http://www.npr.org...

YOur link asserts that Bhutto was "threatening" protests if Musharraf did not retire from his military post. He retired from this post well before her death, thus making this link irrelevant.

Conclusion

It is clear from my links that the Peoples Party has benefited in Bhutto's death. They will receive a sympathy vote from her death, allowing them to win. Lesser known members, such as Amin Fahim, have gained a spotlight from this, and so have benefited. It is possible that the assassination could have been ordered by someone within the PPP to ensure victory, or that Bhutto knowlingly continued on in dangerous conditions, thus being a martyr for her party.

Musharraf's approval has been down (link, Round 2), and he clearly wants to stay in power. The US is forcing him to do things democratically (see link below), so a deal with Bhutto is necessary for him to have any power. He clearly would have anticipated the problems of killing Bhutto (as my link and arguments show). My links also show that Bhutto and Musharraf were essentially allies. Although things were tense at times, they clearly were willing to share power(hence power sharing deal). The PPP is the only major opposition party not to be allied directly against Musharraf, showing that they are willing to co-operate. While Musharraf may have motives for eliminating other party leaders, it is clear he could only lose by having Bhutto killed (and I've given a link to support this). He loses one of his few allies, and likely the election as well. Even the US government is supporting their cooperation.

http://news.bbc.co.uk...

You provide one link that shows that Bhutto threatened protests if Musharraf did not step down from the military (which he did). I have given three on their cooperation, as well as logic as to why Musharraf needed Bhutto.

I assert that Taliban involvement is also very likely. I have given you a link on Taliban mentality (although it is common knowledge). They are against the West, and so would oppose a pro-western leader like Bhutto. Mesud had threatened Bhutto's life on several occasions, and both the US and Pakistani governments believe he could be responsible. Considering this general Taliban mentality, anyone in the Taliban could have been responsible, and this is far more likely than Musharraf ordering Bhutto's death.

Finally, the debate is not whether Musharraf in part caused Bhutto's death, but whether he ordered it (or deserves the blame for it). To win this debate my opponent must prove that Musharraf is the most likely candidate for having Bhutto killed. I have proved that the PPP (especially certain members of it) have much to gain in her death. I have shown that the Taliban also seeks Bhutto's death. I have also shown that Bhutto and Musharraf were allied with one another, and the Musharraf need Bhutto. Because of all of this, it is clear that Musharraf is not the most likely culprit in Bhutto's death, and so the affirmative is wrong. Also, remember, topicality and other dropped arguments are not voters.
Debate Round No. 3
34 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by zarul 6 years ago
zarul
That of course, would be an opinion. And who is to say that I have lost? I could get another vote and a tie at any time.

Though really things would have been better if I had been less technical, at least for this debate.
Posted by NietzSHE 6 years ago
NietzSHE
Funny thing? I have. Frankly, that doesn't matter. The merits of topicality in a policy round are arguable, the merits in this kind of debate aren't.

Now my question: Ever heard of judge paradigms?

Ever heard of ethos? Your ethos aren't helped by arguing with a voter. That's pretty basic stuff.

Questioning my competence and demanding reasons for why you lost a debate actually just crushes you even further. You lost, face it.

It wasn't a bad debate, by any means. Pro won, not by a landslide or anything, but he nonetheless won.
Posted by zarul 6 years ago
zarul
Ever heard of negation theory?
Posted by NietzSHE 6 years ago
NietzSHE
If you are going to argue topicality, you shouldn't argue anything else, really.

Either they are topical, and your pool of information has stuff on the case, or they aren't, and you have nothing. If you argue topicality and try to win on arguments, you should lose.

That's for a policy debate though. For this kind of debate, you shouldn't argue topicality at all. Topicality is only a voter because the Con won't have any info on the case. However, with open formats like this, there is no need to. Thus, I vote Pro.
Posted by NietzSHE 6 years ago
NietzSHE
If you are going to argue topicality, you shouldn't argue anything else, really.

Either they are topical, and your pool of information has stuff on the case, or they aren't, and you have nothing. If you argue topicality and try to win on arguments, you should lose.

That's for a policy debate though. For this kind of debate, you shouldn't argue topicality at all. Topicality is only a voter because the Con won't have any info on the case. However, with open formats like this, there is no need to. Thus, I vote Pro.
Posted by Rousseau 6 years ago
Rousseau
Well, first off, your assuming something on me based off of one debate. Secondly, the assumptions have no real basis to them. You are most likely reading my posts wrong. This is the internet and no tone is assigned to any words. Your assumptions are just that, assumptions. I would like to add that they are, in fact, wrong, but that is neither here nor there.

Also, you are apparently "un-versed" in the ways a voter should vote. You seem to be voting on personal opinion. You seem to be at odds with what you believe I am alledging. I'm not commenting on anything other than that, logically, Musharraf is the most likely person to have killed Bhutto. I honestly don't have a strong opinion on Bhutto other than that she may or may not have been corrupt (a belief stemming from factual evidence). I also believe that as of now, Musharraf is neccasary to Pakistan. Interesting how your assumptions are wrong.

Your comments are on (false) assumptions of my personal beliefs and have no relevance to the arguments. You commented on several things that may or may not have made my arguments void, but the fact is... zarul never brought them up. You're voting on things that weren't presented in the debate. Once again, I respect your vote, but I disagree.
Posted by Greylance 6 years ago
Greylance
Look, I'm saying what I'm saying because of the fact that people have a nasty habit of trying to force their idealism on reality (which is what you are doing, judging from the tone you use, the bare bones political profile that you have on your account provides, and the selection of your screen name).

What I gathered from your half of the debate was that you are a pie in the sky idealist who wishes to crusade against evil as you see it. Pervez is a ruthless, pro-Bush dictator in your eyes (as you painted it). Bhutto was the fiery woman who would bring freedom and democracy to a troubled land. Since this act of villainy fits into how your idealism paints the world, you perverted the facts of the situation so that Musharraf would come out looking like the bloody handed dictator squelching the voice of dissent. zarul [sic], however, paints the truth of the situation, albeit after he beat around the bush with all that topicality BS at the beginning.
Posted by Rousseau 6 years ago
Rousseau
Greylance, you are entitled to your opinion upon this debate, and my namesake. As such, I'm entitled to mine as well. Needless to say, I disagree, and I don't think you can comment too adequately upon my stance. Honestly? My opinion of your comment isn't held to highly, because of several things. A). You have no real warrant to me in these debates. I haven't seen your arguments and I haven't seen if you are worty at all of making such accusations AND B). You seem heavily slanted against me. Your comment was unwarrantly biased, and was something I don't appreciate. Your reasons for voting were scrupulous and seemed more personal than argument based.

I do like the fact that you are voicing your opinion, and I won't try to argue that you shouldn't. However, I just don't like the way you are doing it.
Posted by Greylance 6 years ago
Greylance
zarul [sic] was clearly the winner because he actually had something that could be backed up by anyone versed in COIN (counter-insurgency), the politics of that region, and the politics of the people in question. If I was an intelligence analyst, I'd take zarul's account because it is clean cut, concise, and well backed.

Rousseau, just like your namesake, you have you're head up in the clouds and are not taking the reality of the situation into consideration. I could tell from you're arguments that you had made the conclusion that Musharraf was the evil-doer in this case before you took the facts into consideration, and then bent and twisted and warped the facts to fit that idea. just because Musharraf can play hard ball on occasion does not mean that he order's wanton assassinations against political allies.
Posted by Rousseau 6 years ago
Rousseau
I'm assuming that Thoreau is talking about the idea that the last speech shoudn't be extensions of arguments. Rather he may believe (and if he does, I share it with him) that the last speech should deal with explicitly why a side won, as inevitably one side must end the debate, leaving another without a chance to respond. Personally (and I'll be the first to admit that in a debate I'm in, I'm not going to be neutral), I believe you extended where you should have talked. My personal two cents, and an explanation as to my vote as well.
37 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by smith76 6 years ago
smith76
RousseauzarulTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 
Vote Placed by NietzorzSea 6 years ago
NietzorzSea
RousseauzarulTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:30 
Vote Placed by Conservative 6 years ago
Conservative
RousseauzarulTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 
Vote Placed by SexyLatina 6 years ago
SexyLatina
RousseauzarulTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:30 
Vote Placed by Randomknowledge 6 years ago
Randomknowledge
RousseauzarulTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 
Vote Placed by NietzSHE 6 years ago
NietzSHE
RousseauzarulTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:30 
Vote Placed by Gao 6 years ago
Gao
RousseauzarulTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 
Vote Placed by colsen110 6 years ago
colsen110
RousseauzarulTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:30 
Vote Placed by colsen111 6 years ago
colsen111
RousseauzarulTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:30 
Vote Placed by gogott 6 years ago
gogott
RousseauzarulTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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