The Instigator
zarul
Con (against)
Winning
39 Points
The Contender
Solarman1969
Pro (for)
Losing
21 Points

Bhutto's assassination was as predictable as the the sun coming up tomorrow.

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
Con Tied Pro
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: 12/28/2007 Category: Politics
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,241 times Debate No: 1117
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (9)
Votes (20)

 

zarul

Con

Benazir Bhutto's assassination was a total to the world. I will wait for my opponent to give his arguments.
Solarman1969

Pro

Dude you are copying an existing debate topic that I coined

go to that thread

thanks

SOLARMAN
Debate Round No. 1
zarul

Con

Indeed, however, I felt that the other debate was not as good as it could have been. If you did not wish to debate this again, you should not have accepted my challenge.

We know that the sun will rise tomorrow, however few expected her assassination. I have presented an argument, you are yet to do so.
Solarman1969

Pro

read the other debate- do you want me to repeat myself?

fine

here

(1) they bombed her the day she showed up, traveling in a caravon at 1 mph- in a place like PAK , that is suicide

(2) she presented a HUGE ongoing secutity risk

(3) she was a woman- thats enough alone to get you killed there

(4) she was pro-western and pro-woman

(5) she was corrupt and came from a long line of corruption

(6) her father was killed (hanged) for corruption

In short, she knew this was going to happen and wanted to go out a marytr, OR she was totally naive, which was certianly possible, her being Ivy league educated

there you go - it was VERY predictable, VERY

cheers

solarman
Debate Round No. 2
zarul

Con

I. Refutations

1. Solarman's argument can be summarized as:

Benazir was going to die because:

A. She was corrupt.

B. She's been attacked before.

C. Pakistan's a Muslim country, so they hate women and the west.

2. Benazir's death was unexpected.

A. You have provided no evidence of this. It is clear that her husband was corrupt, but she was never convicted.

http://en.wikipedia.org...
(Pakistan is 138th most corrupt out of 179)

As well, nearly all politicians in Pakistan are corrupt. The government has been ranked rather high when it comes to corruption, yet we don't constantly hear news stories about politicians dying there because of corruption accusations/convictions.

Because the average (and corrupt) politician is never killed for it, your point is null even if you provided a link that she was corrupt.

Her father being corrupt also has nothing to do with her, and in fact, he was executed because he could end Zia ul-Haq's (the man who messed Pakistan up) military dictatorship with his people's politics.

B. America has been attacked before, does it mean we will be attacked again? Not necessarily. Something happening once does not by itself increase the chances of the event repeating.

With your logic, I must necessarily debate the predictability of Bhutto's assassination again, but I can guarantee you it won't be happening.

C. Pakistan is a predominantly Muslim country. However, simply being a Muslim country does not mean it is anti-west or anti-woman.

In a different debate, you brought this up. You didn't provide a source, and without it I cannot check reputability and/or the size/region of the polling.

Bin Laden has a 46% approval, Musharraf 37% , Bush 9% in Pakistan

Assuming you have a source, and it is credible, the majority do not approve of Bin Laden, nor do they approve of Bush, or Musharraf. One country that would also not approve of any of these figures would be America. Although America would have a lower approval rating for Bin Laden, and a higher one for Bush, the majority of both countries still agree.

As well, this is only "approval". For instance, I can say that I support Bush, but that does not mean that I campaign for him. It would be the same case with Osama, some may like him overall, but not necesarrily approve of all his actions or help him carry them out.

And simply because they do not like Bush does not mean that Pakistanis hate the west. Most European countries would give him a similar rating if not lower. Even in America, the majority of people disapprove of Bush. None of these countries hate the west, yet they dislike Bush.

You claimed in the last round that being a woman could get you killed in Pakistan, here's some stuff to digest.

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

Pakistan has a slightly greater amount of males, and the majority of the population is young. However, in the older population, women form a large majority, clearly showing that Pakistan's gender structure will level off in the coming years. This means that woman aren't just killed for being woman in Pakistan, regardless of what you might like to think.

II. My arguments

1. Benazir Bhutto was very popular with the people.

A. Bhutto was extremely popular with the people, on her first day back she was greeted by a massive crowd.

B. With such large support she likely felt she was safe, not every country in the world teaches its people to be paranoid freaks.

C. Regardless of the "speed" at which she was traveling, her popularity protected her, large crowds combined with security forces would have prevented attacks. Security could find hidden weapons and bombs, and the crowd would make it very difficult to approach her.

2. The government had no reason to have her killed.

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

Her Peoples Pary did not ally itself against Musharraf, clearly showing that they were at the very least not enemies.

A. It would be in Musharraf's best interests to keep Bhutto alive.

B. Musharraf has a much lower approval rating than Bhutto, however, by allying with her he could keep some power.

C. Without her, he is either forced to use the military to keep him in power (and he is no longer in total control of it, he has been forced to resign his position as Major General) or must ally himself with a less popular personality to keep power.

3. The majority of Pakistanis are not fanatical woman-haters.

A. My opponent must provide evidence to support his claims.

B. If we accept solarman's statistics raised in a different debate, it is clear that the majority of Pakistanis agree with the majority of Americans on Osama, Bush, and Musharraf. Unless solarman thinks the majority of Americans are fanatical woman-haters, he is clearly wrong.

C. Even if some Pakistanis are what solarman claims, the support of the people and government was enough to make it unlikely that Bhutto would be assassinated.

III. Bhutto's execution was not as likely as the sun rising.

1. We know the sun will rise tomorrow, there is virtually no doubt.

2. Even if voters are convinced that Bhutto's assassination was likely, we are arguing whether her assassination was as predictable as the sun rising, and I am sure you will agree that it was not certain without a doubt.

3. The affirmative must definitively prove that she would have been assassinated.

4. Objections may be raised that the wording of this debate is bad, and I have slanted it to myself, however, this is actually a debate raised earlier by solarman, and I have taken the same resolution.

IV. The affirmative must provide sources for his arguments as I have done, and these should be from neutral sites.

1. Views presented to western viewers one this subject will always be biased. The majority of presentations can be categorized into the following areas:

A. Many parts of the media are overly pro-Benazir.

B. Other parts of the media are very much against her, or more often, against Muslims and Pakistan in general.

2. Because of this bias, Solarman should present sources from a) Neutral sites (such as wiki, should be sourced article) or b) from Pakistani news sites.

A. This is perfectly possible, most sites on wiki are sourced and neutral.

B. There are Pakistani news sites have articles in English as well as Urdu (no this is not a joke, I know of some, but it is the affirmative's duty to do research).

3. If solarman does not provide sources, voters have no reason to vote for him.

A. I have sourced many of my arguments.

B. Solarman has brought none, in fact, I have been forced to source something for him simply to have something to argue against.

C. Because I will have no chance to argue against any sources solarman will provide, I also ask all voters to deny the source if it appears overly biased, or if it appears to be fake or a polling over a small population/area.

V. Conclusion

I have refuted all of solarman's arguments. I have proven that the government and the people of Pakistan had no reason to assassinate her, and that crazies are rare and that it was unlikely they would have been able to assassinate her. I view this as an unlikely tragedy, and the affirmative must give evidence if he is to have any hope to prove me wrong. I ask that any sources be neutral and hopefully from Pakistani news. I also ask that new arguments not be brought up, as I will have no chance to respond to them (as in please stay on corruption, fundementalists, government wants, people wants, etc.). I'm not saying to not debate me solarman, but to stay on the things we have already discussed, although feel free to bring sources (non biased of course).

Anyways, good debate.
Solarman1969

Pro

very good and detailed arguments, zarul- I am impressed

nonetheless, I will still say that not only was her assassination highly predictable, I beleive actually she wanted to be martyred.

Putting aside the 1 mph caravan through a huge crowd (where you make a false assumption that they have any kind of security there in Pak) where she SHOULD have been killed by the massive bomb attached to a baby that killed over 130,

She was in a huge crowd, all close enough to touch the car, and had her unprotected head sticking up out of the car, where the assassin was able to walk up within 5 ft and blow holes in her head, and then detonate himself, to confuse the scene.

Now, the pope for example travels with bullet proof glass around him and Musharraf has never made such personal apprearances.

Thus, she clearly had a death wish is such a dangerous place as Pak.

I dont think you are quite old enough to understand the history of Pak, or the current history there, and the incredibly dangrous and Jihadist place it is.

She was warned by the US and ignored the warnings

http://news.yahoo.com...

There is plenty of references for the Bhutto family being corrupt, her father was hung for it for example, and it is said she and her minions took 1.5B$ in money out of the country when she was president.

Proof : Now her son, only 19, has been appointed to lead the PPP, NOT a more qualified adult- this makes the family look incredibly corrupt- listen to the BBC bews reports about the reaction in Pakistan- they are not happy

there is info that she was working with the US secret service on rigging the elections

http://www.timesonline.co.uk...

and so on.

Anyhow, I will simply rest on the fact that, despite it being increidbly dangerous and someone trying already to bomb her, she persisted in taking stupid chances and thus, her death was as predictable as the sun coming up

cheers and happy new year- I have enjoyed this debate

solarman
Debate Round No. 3
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by Chuckles 9 years ago
Chuckles
wikipedia articles are something i neveer accept in a real round. And i would agree, the con arguments were highly naive. And as someone already stated, Zarul, there only needs to be one group that hates Bhutto to kill her. And when the group belongs to something as radical as the Islamic Extremists are, they could care less if they die. Maybe you didn't notice, but the news, the arguments, everyone has been saying that her killer BLEW HIMSELF UP. He obviously could care less if someone else kills him. For him, it's YAY, MARTYRDOM! YAY, AN ASSLOAD OF VIRGINS!
Posted by solo 9 years ago
solo
Correction, sourced wiki articles are acceptable as long as no one disputes them. Good job, zarul!
Posted by zarul 9 years ago
zarul
Sourced wiki articles are acceptable. Wikipedia also places a lot of focus on staying neutral, and considering my sources brought up statistics, I think we can say it's fair.

The only real problem with wiki as a source, is that it only has so much depth on an issue.
Posted by shlh1514 9 years ago
shlh1514
How do people use wikipedia as a reliable source even though people can change the infomation in a new york minute. And how did Pro never even caught that? That is plain wrong.
Posted by zarul 9 years ago
zarul
The, "you're not old enough to understand" argument again solarman? You could at least be more creative. I'm quite sure I know more about the history of Pakistan (and the general region it's in) than you do.
Posted by zarul 9 years ago
zarul
Ever read Machiavelli?

A ruler that is supported by the people is unlikely to be assassinated. The killer has less motives, they know whether they succeed or fail they shall be killed (by the politician in this case, or by the people), and they will be hesitant to take action.

Simply being popular is a massive safeguard, combined with security, made it unlikely that an assassination attempt would ever occur.
Posted by darwinfish 9 years ago
darwinfish
I think that the entire 'con' argument in this debate is the truly naive one.

When dealing with any sort of extremist ideology, such as Islamism, extreme action, such as assassination is to be expected. Pakistan is known to be a home to significant numbers of well organized extremist Islamic groups groups. The entire point about the majority loves Bhutto is irrelevant. there only needs to be one group that wants her gone for her to have been assassinated. The points about corruption, being female, being pro-western, and pro-democracy are valid in that they make her a target for extremist terrorists groups.

While I'm not sure I agree fully with the 'she purposefully martyred herself' theory, her assassination was coming.

ps. I'm pretty sure that the naive mark was sarcastic... am I right?
Posted by Solarman1969 9 years ago
Solarman1969
I see we have yet another foolish child that wants to throw names around

Racist! Sexist ! Homophobe! Nazi! Warmonger!

Ill save you the time, kid
Posted by Drones200 9 years ago
Drones200
You call this women naive and corrupt? My friend i hope you know of which women you are speaking off. Also your arguement of just because shes a women? Aperantly that meant nothing to anyone except for you, since polls and majority showed she was going to win the election, her supporters which are the majority are on the streets right now Knowing she was a women.

Sexist, indeed that remark was, as its not backed by any facts, only "Over there".
20 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Oolon_Colluphid 8 years ago
Oolon_Colluphid
zarulSolarman1969Tied
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 MarxistKid 9 years ago
MarxistKid
zarulSolarman1969Tied
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 gabriel04 9 years ago
gabriel04
zarulSolarman1969Tied
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 Padfoot36 9 years ago
Padfoot36
zarulSolarman1969Tied
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 padfo0t 9 years ago
padfo0t
zarulSolarman1969Tied
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 Rousseau 9 years ago
Rousseau
zarulSolarman1969Tied
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 Descartes 9 years ago
Descartes
zarulSolarman1969Tied
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 Greendonut 9 years ago
Greendonut
zarulSolarman1969Tied
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 afeinberg 9 years ago
afeinberg
zarulSolarman1969Tied
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 Lacan 9 years ago
Lacan
zarulSolarman1969Tied
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