The Instigator
EXOPrimal
Con (against)
The Contender
Vox_Ex_Rationis
Pro (for)

Genocide

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  
Debate Round Forfeited
Vox_Ex_Rationis has forfeited round #2.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
00days00hours00minutes00seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/15/2016 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 314 times Debate No: 98115
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)

 

EXOPrimal

Con

Debate Settings
10,000 Character arguments
72 Hour argument time
14 Day Voting
Opponent must have completed 1 debate, this is to avoid a new member accepting then freezing the debate, if you have not completed one debated and wish to accept this debate please message me or leave a comment

Complete Topic
Does the global community have a responsibility to intervene in states committing genocide?

Note: Contender is debating for intervention

Terms
Genocide
the deliberate killing of a large group of people, especially those of a particular ethnic group or nation.

Responsibility
having an obligation to do something, or having control over or care for someone, as part of one's job or role.

Intervene
come between so as to prevent or alter a result or course of events

Rules
1. No forfeits
2. Any citations or foot/endnotes must be provided in the text of the debate
3. No new arguments in the final round
4. No trolling
5. No semantics
6. My opponent accepts all definitions and waives his/her right to add definitions
7. Violation of any of these rules or of any of the R1 set-up merits a loss.
8. No "K's" on the topic.
9. All citations should be links, and may not be hidden behind a login
10.For all undefined terms, individuals should use commonplace understandings that fit within the logical context of the resolution and this debate

Debate Format
R1: Pro Arguments
R2: Con Arguments, Pro Rebutalls
R3: Con Rebuttals, Pro Defence
R4: Con Defence and Further Rebuttals, Pro Defense, Further Rebuttals, and Conclusion
R5: Con Defense and Conclusion, Pro Waives

Note: First round is Pro argument not acceptance, if you accept please post your argument

I Thank My Opponent In Advance For Accepting This Debate And Wish Him The Best Of Luck
Vox_Ex_Rationis

Pro

The global community, Such as the United States, The British Commonwealth Nations, the European Union, China, and Russia
have a self evident responsibility to prevent genocide in any nation that meets the following characteristics.

-Resources
-Otherness
-Political Instability

First and most importantly, the nation committing genocide must possess some form of mineral wealth or resource to exploit via neocolonialism and arms length capitalism: examples include oil, diamonds, lithium, ect.
This allows the global community to justify the invasion of said sovereign nation for both economic and moral reasons.
Historically, this has had mixed success, and the economic benefit may be either direct or indirect.

Secondly, the nation committing genocide must be considered 'different' somehow. Cultural, religious, ethnic, and language differences should exist in order to reduce the sympathy of the populace of the invading nation. During an invasion to prevent genocide from occurring, many civilians will be killed, so to maintain morale as well as a moral high-ground the invader must choose as unsympathetic a target to it's own populace as possible.

Thirdly, the genocide nation must be experiencing political instability. That way, a foreign invasion will create division and foster vulnerability rather than present a unified front. If the invader plays their cards right, they may generate a situation in which local security forces and rebels do most of the fighting, (more importantly dying) for them, to reduce casualties of the invading nation. Bonus points if the unstable climate produces dangerous terrorists and desperate refugees that enhance the genocide nation's sense of otherness. The savior nation can cherry pick whichever successful faction leader is most beneficial to their foreign policy to support, and ultimately sustain political instability at little cost while the global community, (or at least their elite oligarchs) reaps the benefits at the genocidal nation's expense.

God help any nation who is foolish enough to practice genocide, because there are demons of light and angels of death waiting in the wings to swoop down and devour them.

To quote the immortal words of Captain Jack Sparrow.
"There is what a man can do, and what he can't do."
also
"...Pirate!"
Debate Round No. 1
EXOPrimal

Con

C1: A Blurred Line
A. What is a genocide? All of us know the literal definition, but then the line starts to blur. What is the difference between an genocide and a civil war, and are all wars inherently genocidal in today’s world?

B. I will start by comparing a “genocide” to a “civil war”. There are massive similarities between Darfur and Iraq, but one is marked a horrible genocide, and the other a civil war. Both have resulted is the same approximate civilian deaths, and both are lead by paramilitary groups(1).

C. Would the bombings of hiroshima and nagasaki be considered genocides? The US was targeting japanese civilians, but it hasn’t been considered a genocide, why? Would the US mini-holocaust against japanese citizens during World War 2 also be considered a genocide? If these were considered genocides then the global community would have had to invade the US, which would have escalated.

D. It may be horrible, but the result of this line may be that violence in the middle east is nothing new. But if all nations have a responsibility to intervene, then why is there no attention to Iraq. We want to stop genocide, but we have no clear cut way of define a genocide. And if we don't have this line do we have an excuse to enter any nation that is experienced violence? This leads nicely to my next contention, about state sovereignty.

C2: State Sovereignty
A. Do we have a right to invade a nation if they commit genocide, and if so would it just end at genocide? If we could a break a state's sovereignty because of genocide would it just end there? In Orwell’s book Animal Farm the 7 commandments of “animalism” kept on changing soon enough we are left with one “All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others”

B. A state has a right to put down a rebellion in their nation, the US has already put down rebellion(Shays’ rebellion). We have never considered a civil war genocide. When a nation with a considerable military is dealing with a civil war it is always just a civil war, but the moment when a third world country is experiencing one it is mass genocide.

C. The US has a thing for exaggerating events, I will remind you that we consider 5 people dying a “massacre”. If the global community sees a nation putting down a rebellion in a way that leads in just a few death a nation could leap and dub it a “Genocide”. Giving the “helper” nation a right to break a state’s sovereignty will escalate into giving a nation the right to invade another nation whenever they want.

C3: Escalation
A. North Korea is committing the worst violation of human rights right now, and what are we doing about it? We do nothing for a simple reason, North Korea has nukes. The global community has no intention of invading north korea because the invasion could escalate, and if the global community as a whole had a responsibility to invade North Korea a nuclear war could soon be on us.

C4: Reconstruction
A. The US invaded Libya under the rationale that we were going to stop a genocide, we might have stopped an initial one, but now Libya is in chaos. There is now a second civil war in Libya that is still going on. Reconstruction is no easy process, and more that not it ends in failure. After NATO intervened “for the good of Libya” casualties have multiplied by 1000%. If we were to intervene in every genocide then reconstruction would have to occur, and there has been no reconstruction that has been deemed successful(with the exclusion of Japan).

For these reasons I urge you to vote Con, over to Pro

Citations
1.http://www.lrb.co.uk...
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 5
No comments have been posted on this debate.
This debate has 6 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.