The Instigator
Weiler
Con (against)
Tied
5 Points
The Contender
Sitara
Pro (for)
Tied
5 Points

George Bush should be charged with 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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/13/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 684 times Debate No: 38827
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (2)

 

Weiler

Con

My opponent, and friend, stated recently in a comment on a debate that George Bush should be charged with genocide. I wish to challenge her on that. She may begin the debate in this round with the reasons he should be charged with genocide.
Sitara

Pro

Le definition de genocide: the deliberate killing of a large group of people, such as people grouped by religion, political ideology, ethnicity, biological sex, and so on. George Bush has made it clear that he hates Muslims, or he would not kill, indefinately detain, torture, rape, or other wise persecute them. I maybe understand the Afghan war, but the Iraq war was gained based on Daddy issues, bad intelligence, and torture. Le daddy issues: Saddam tried to kill Bush Sr. so Bush Jr. sought revenge. A natural desire, but it has no place in politics. Le intelligence malo (bad): the so called intelligence gained to support the Iraq War was gained based on torture. Torture rarely produces accurate intelligence. Le tortura: torture is a war crime and not acceptable. Note that I am talking about actual torture and not slappping a criminal around. Le Abu Gharab: unacceptable. Le Oil For Food Program: extortion of innocent people, a human rights violation, and unacceptable. How would you like to be extorted for your very survival? No? Me neither. Le Patriot Act: many Arabs and Muslims were and are persecuted under this so called protection of freedom. I know an Arab Muslim who was unjustly detained for at least 5 hours without legal counsel just for being an Arab Muslim. And this is just a symptom of a growing problem of increasing civil rights violations by governments that are supposed to support freedom. Granted liberals have done some shady things including Obama, but I am tired of no one criticizing Bush Jr. and his GOP conservative minions. As always, it is an honor to debate a mind such as yours. Muah!
Debate Round No. 1
Weiler

Con

"George Bush has made it clear that he hates Muslims, or he would not kill, indefinately detain, torture, rape, or other wise persecute them."

President George W. Bush has never stated or implied a hatred for Islam or it's followers. The rape comment is unsubstantiated, and my opponent cites no source. Killing and Detention are both legitimate during a war. Torture is a term of broad possible meaning, and without specification I cannot respond to it.


"I maybe understand the Afghan war, but the Iraq war was gained based on Daddy issues, bad intelligence, and torture. Le daddy issues: Saddam tried to kill Bush Sr. so Bush Jr. sought revenge. A natural desire, but it has no place in politics. Le intelligence malo (bad): the so called intelligence gained to support the Iraq War was gained based on torture."

The "daddy issues" argument is another baseless assertion. The intelligence on WMD's was not gained through torture, and was later corroborated by an Iraqi General who defected, and told us he played a personal role in moving Iraq's chemical weapons into Syria, where the entire world has now seen them used.

"Le tortura: torture is a war crime and not acceptable. Note that I am talking about actual torture and not slappping a criminal around. Le Abu Gharab: unacceptable."

Torture is subjective. What precisely constitutes torture, and when is it okay to use? Although this has no bearing on genocide and is therefore irrelevent to the debate at hand. Abu Ghraib was indeed unacceptable and the people involved were in fact prosecuted.

"Le Patriot Act" is Le Irrelevent to this debate.







Sitara

Pro

Pro says that Bush Jr. does not support rape.
I say that if that is so, Abu Gharab would have been punished more severely. Prisoners were sexually assaulted, forced to pose in sexual positions for pictures and such. If that is not rape, what it?
Pro says that Bush Jr. does not hate Muslims.
I say: Yeah right, because extortion (Oil For Food Program), Murder (killing when it is not justified, Iraq did not attack us), torture (the intelligence that was the catylist for the Iraq War was gained from a questionable witness through torture), questionable intelligence, propaganda, the Patriot Act and detaining Muslims without legal recourse are SO loving. If that is love, I would rather be hated.
Pro says that daddy issues is a baseless assertion.
I say: bullspit. When Bush Sr. was in the Middle East, Saddam tried to kill him. That provides motive.
Pro says: WWMDs exist.
I say: more bullspit. You prove that they existed right now from a nonrightwing source or stop that accusation now.
I say: By torture i do not mean abuse. Abuse is acceptable to gain intelligence. Torture is not. Torture is locking a person phobic of small spaces in a closet, hooking some dude's nuts up to some electrical thing, using mind altering drugs that cause undue distress, and so on. The Abu Gharab war crimes are good examples of what constitutes torture.
Pro says: The Patriot Act is not relevent to this debate.
I say: more bullspit. It goes to credibility and pattern of conduct, two things admissible in a court of law. If you like, we can have a whole separate debate re the relevance of the Patriot Act in regards to Bush Jr. alleged war crimes. As always, thank you for making me think, helping me learn, and making me wise. God bless and until next time, question everything.
Debate Round No. 2
Weiler

Con

Weiler forfeited this round.
Sitara

Pro

Sitara forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by Ragnar 3 years ago
Ragnar
Nice debate. A shame it's out of the voting period so quickly.
Posted by luvx 3 years ago
luvx
Pro, write in English, not en fran"ais.
Posted by Sitara 3 years ago
Sitara
Don't just say something, prove it.
Posted by ararmer1919 3 years ago
ararmer1919
All three of Pros points were completely wrong right off the bat.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by MilesandMilesofMiles 3 years ago
MilesandMilesofMiles
WeilerSitaraTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:25 
Reasons for voting decision: The UN charter prohibits the use or threat of force. Not even the unprovoked use or threat, just the general use or threat.
Vote Placed by funwiththoughts 3 years ago
funwiththoughts
WeilerSitaraTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro showed that Bush should be charged with war crimes, but failed to show that this was specifically due to race, religion, etc.