Farnce is in colonization of Malie for mines of Gold and uranuim.
2006 Statistics , Malie is in position 8 of countries producers of gold .
when rebels took the control, France didn't say anything because it support them to have gold and uranium..., islamists want 1 thing , to apply the law of islam , Fance start war .
In January 2012, an armed conflict broke out in northern Mali, which Tuareg rebels took control by April and declared the secession of a new state, Azawad. There was then a full scale military coup by the Mali military in March and fighting between Tuareg and Islamist rebels, the latter of whom later seized most of northern Mali. In response to Islamist gains, the French military launched Op"ration Serval in Janurary 2013, intervening in the conflict.
I’ll start with a counter-argument:
According to your resolution, your latter argument is not relevant
Your resolution is “Farnce is in colonization of Malie for mines of Gold and uranuim,” not what will happen because of this. You first have to affirm the resolution before you can make further claims which require the resolution to be affirmed. Therefore, according to your resolution, your latter argument is irrelevant. Please keep your arguments relevant to your resolution.
Mali has an extremely small supply of uranium
Mali fails to register as a world leading uranium resource, being, at the most, 1% of the world’s production. Mali also fails to have uranium production that is worthy of note (i.e. doesn’t appear here in these statistics about uranium production.
So what exactly is Mali’s supply of uranium? According to Consultancy Africa , “Several companies in Mali are currently carrying out uranium exploration in the Falea and Gao regions, where the uranium potential is estimated to be 5,200 tonnes”. Take this into consideration: the world had 5.3 million tonnes recoverable by the end of 2011. Especially if you consider that France uses 10500 tonnes of uranium each year, it seems like a lot of effort for little reward.
Why would France be interested in Mali’s supply of uranium when it barely has any?
I actually think France colonising Mali for their gold, but since your resolution claimed both gold and uranium, I only have to dismiss one in order to dismiss the resolution.
i don't your argument about gold !
you believe everything you hear ? they said "small supply of uranium" and you believed that ? you have no idea about corruption in Africa ,most africans countries are controlled by France.
“i don't your argument about gold !”
I don’t -see- your argument about gold? Is that what you’re asking? I told you why I don’t have an argument against your gold argument: I don’t have one. I too think France is using Mali for its gold supply.
“you believe everything you hear ? they said "small supply of uranium" and you believed that ? you have no idea about corruption in Africa”
I have given evidence to support my claims. Even if I have no idea of the corruption in Mali (not Africa because that was not part of the resolution), my arguments could still be valid. Trying to discredit my argument through a personal attack is called Ad Hominem, which is a logical fallacy. I warn you that generalised and/or unsupported rebuttals will not suffice as counter-arguments. If there are problems with my sources, please point them out.
“most africans countries are controlled by France”
This is not relevant to the resolution. I ask again: please only post content relevant to the argument.
this support my claim that France control africans countries.
"Burkina Faso, Niger, Nigeria and Togo over the weekend pledged to quickly send some 500 troops each to help Mali's war effort.
this support my claim that France control africans countries."
In my last rebuttal, I already explained why this line of argument is entirely irrelevant, and you continued it? Again, we are not arguing about France controlling African countries, we are arguing about France being in colonization of Mali for gold and uranuim mines.
Pro has failed to either post relevant arguments or address mine -- extend my arguments.
timou forfeited this round.
My arguments have not been addressed properly and my central point of refutation stands uncontested. Vote con.
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||7|