The Instigator
NiqashMotawadi3
Pro (for)
Winning
15 Points
The Contender
fgh1
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Lebanon would be better without Hezbollah

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 3 votes the winner is...
NiqashMotawadi3
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/25/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,281 times Debate No: 35067
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (6)
Votes (3)

 

NiqashMotawadi3

Pro

I'm looking forward for a great debate. My position is that Lebanon would be better without Hezbollah.

Hezbollah: The armed militia and not the political party itself.

The scenario would be as follows:

1- Hezbollah would give its weapons to the Lebanese army.

2- The Lebanese army would be trained based on those weapons and the "beehive" military tactic.

My opponent has to argue that this scenario would be worse to Lebanon than the one with Hezbollah's militia.

Round (1) Acceptance only.

Round (2-4) Arguments + Counterarguments.

I wish my opponent good luck!
fgh1

Con

first of all before judging hezbolla, you should probably read about the history of it. hezbolla howwe li 7arrar ljnoub men israel senet l 2000 hezbollah w sleho mesh mwajjah doddak aw ddode, sileh hezbollah mwajah dod israel w lal dife3 3an addiye w ared bas teje israel khalina nchouf min h ydefe3 3annena bwejja
Debate Round No. 1
NiqashMotawadi3

Pro

I thank my opponent for accepting this particular debate, especially after I had worries that nobody would, though I have to clarify that this is an English website, which means that Arabic would seem like gibberish to most of the readers here. My opponent should only use English, otherwise I will ignore the Lebanese text which won't be understood by the readers who will later vote. Nonetheless, I will be kind enough to only evaluate the only English statement he brought forth which I found really interesting. Then I will present my arguments.


A- Brief critique of my opponent's opening statement

My opponent starts his opening statement with "first of all before judging hezbolla, you should probably read about the history of it." I assure my opponent that I'm well-informed on the matter, and that I will do my best to show my familiarity with Hezbollah and its practices in Lebanon and abroad. However, I'm forced to state that my opponent's statement is an Ad Hominem logical fallacy, because it attacks me personally by stating that I'm ignorant and misinformed(before I even argued), in an attempt to prove that I'm wrong in saying that Lebanon would be better without Hezbollah. Argumentum ad Hominem is the fallacy of attacking the character or circumstances of an individual who is stating an argument/statement instead of trying to disprove the soundness of the argument/statement itself[1]. Put more bluntly, it is exactly what my opponent did.


B- Does Lebanon need Hezbollah to defend its lands?

According to what I presented in the first round, Lebanon would no longer need Hezbollah as a resistance if the hypothetical scenario took place. This is the crux of the debate. It is based on a scenario where Hezbollah would submit its weapons to the Lebanese military, who in turn would be trained to use them properly. This scenario would be better for Lebanon because of the following reasons:

1- The call for war and peace would be solely in the hands of the Lebanese Defence Ministry and not in the hands of an armed political group with political and religious affiliations to foreign countries like Syria and Iran.

2- Hezbollah would become an equal political party to the rest, only practising its rightful freedoms as it is supposed to do in the first place.

3- Empowerment of the Lebanese military. Lebanese soldiers would be allowed to fight Israel if anything happened instead of having very passive roles in such wars, and they will be trained based on the "beehive" military tactic which is more useful to Lebanon than the classical one.



C- Disadvantages of having Hezbollah in Lebanon

C1- Hezbollah's fascism which oppresses many Lebanese citizens

There are many examples of Hezbollah's fascism but I'm going to only list a few. I apologize for the graphic images which I will use as evidence alongside the citations.

1A- Hezbollah attacking Lebanese towns and villages in 7 and 11 May 2008, slaughtering many innocents, conquering Beirut and forcing the Lebanese Ministry to follow its orders as a result of the conquest[2].

1B- Hezbollah's “Either with me or a traitor” belief which they use to give themselves the authority in determining who is a traitor or not, even though high treason should only be determined by the Lebanese government and after thorough investigations. Some evidence for this is 1C, 1D and 1E.

1C- Hezbollah attacking peaceful protesters in front of the Iranian embassy and killing Hashem Salman on June 9 2013, and then refusing to allow his burial in his home-town because he is a “traitor”[3]. Note that Hashem is only a young pacifist who is an activist against Hezbollah, and even Hezbollah hasn't claimed or proved that he is an actual traitor. But the “either with me or a traitor” belief got him killed.







1D- Hezbollah having fascistic districts in Dahiyeh and other regions where Sunnah are persecuted and shunned[4], dissenting Shiah are threatened(Such as Sayyed Mohammad Ali El Husseini and many others[5]). Note that Hezbollah even prohibits the Lebanese military from arresting certain suspects from the Dahiyeh[6].


1E- Hezbollah's attempt to kill Moustapha Geha for republishing his father's work "Khomeini Assassinates Zarathura" on Saturday April 14, 2012. His father was assassinated previously for his books on 1992 by Hezbollah , who has threatened the son of having a similar fate like his father[7]. Thankfully, the son is currently safe in Sweden after the assassination attempt.

1F- Nasrallah's speeches which themselves are full of fascism. For instance, he says that the hands that try to arrest any Hezbollah member must be cut off[8].


C2- Hezbollah's sectarianism and international activities

It seems clear that Hezbollah is no longer just a resistance movement that is local to Lebanon, but a worldwide sectarian and terrorist organization with its own agenda. This agenda was announced by its leader Nasrallah in the late 1980s where he announced that Hezbollah's main ambition is to create an Iranian-controlled, Shiah state in Arabia[9]. That clarified, Hezbollah's operations have involved countries other than Lebanon, and have often resulted in the death of many innocents. For example, Hezbollah's involvement in the Syrian war alongside with Bashar Al Assad, which has lead to the death of many casualties in Syria, even when the Syrian rebels are a dangerous threat to Israel according to the Israelis themselves[10]. This shows that Hezbollah's ambition is not to fight Israel, but to participate in a Sunni-Shiah civil war so that the Shiah are victorious.

C3- Hezbollah's potential assasination of more 14 March figures

Hezbollah has refused to give suspects accused of assassinating Rafik El Hariri and other 14 march figures, even though good evidence has been presented against them11]. Note that Wissam El Eid was assassinated on January 25, 2008 directly after he exposed calls that convicted Hezbollah[12]. This causes suspicion and calls for more efforts to attain world justice, but it also leaves the possibility that Hezbollah would perform more assassinations that target journalists, politicians, authors and activists from the 14 march movement.


C4- Hezbollah contradicts the national belonging to the Lebanese country

Finally, Hezbollah's presence means that Lebanon would always be controlled by Iran, and unable to have its own strong military and independent voice in the world. Hezbollah also promises of establishing a nation other than Lebanon, which means that it is essentially an enemy of Lebanese nationalism and not a protector of Lebanon as it claims. Hence, a nationalist with a love for Lebanon should be weary of such a group, which is essentially a mercenary that has attacked its own people and killed many innocents in various events listed above.

...

In summary, my opponent has to write in English and argue that Lebanon would be worse in my hypothetical scenario. He should also counter all my points on Hezbollah being a fascistic, sectarian terrorist organization which is harmful to Lebanon. If he refuses to do the following, he loses the debate.


Citations:

[1] philosophy.lander.edu/logic/person.html‎

[2] "Hezbollah takes over west Beirut". BBC news. 2008-05-09. Archived from the original on 11 May 2008. Retrieved 2008-05-10.

[3] naharnet.com/stories/en/86432‎

[4] now.mmedia.me/lb/en/reportsfeatures/dahiyehs-sunnis-are-no-more

[5] persecution.org/?p=6241&upm_export=print

[6] yalibnan.com/2011/07/02/nasrallah-not-even-in-300-years-could-hezbollah-suspects-be-arrested/

[7] frontpagemag.com/2012/arnold-ahlert/lebanese-reformer-seeks-safe-haven/

[8] dailystar.com.lb/News/Politics/Nov/12/Nasrallah-We-will-not-allow-arrest-of-fighters.ashx

[9] youtube.com/watch?v=yIGxYa_-59w‎

[10] israelhayom.com/site/newsletter_article.php?id=7883

[11] dailystar.com.lb/News/Politics/2011/Jul-04/Nasrallah-refuses-to-hand-over-accused.ashx

[12] huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/19/wissam-al-hassan-dead_n_1987809.html
huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/19/wissam-al-hassan-dead_n_1987809.html
fgh1

Con

fgh1 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
NiqashMotawadi3

Pro

My opponent has not responded to my arguments or presented his. I extend my arguments and hope he would return in the other rounds. As a follower of Hezbollah, I thought he would stick to Imam Ali's teachings which dictate that forfeit is never allowed.
fgh1

Con

fgh1 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
NiqashMotawadi3

Pro

I'm really disappointed that this wasn't a full debate because of my opponent's forfeits, but at least I got to present my arguments.
fgh1

Con

fgh1 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by Ragnar 3 years ago
Ragnar
Good job pro. You should really open this again for another debater.
Posted by Ragnar 3 years ago
Ragnar
Good job pro. You should really open this again for another debater.
Posted by YYW 3 years ago
YYW
Niquash, I doubt it. I mean, it's possible that someone could argue a devil's advocate position -but I think not likely.
Posted by Ore_Ele 3 years ago
Ore_Ele
I thought it said "Lebron"
Posted by NiqashMotawadi3 3 years ago
NiqashMotawadi3
YYW, I'm still very unfamiliar with the people here, but I hoped that I would find a few Lebanese, Syrian or Iranian supporters of Hezbollah who would take the challenge. If the challenge expires, then so be it. :)
Posted by YYW 3 years ago
YYW
I sincerely doubt that many people would oppose this.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 3 years ago
Ragnar
NiqashMotawadi3fgh1Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Votebomb (as justified as I feel it is)... Conduct: Forfeit. S&P: "howwe li 7arrar ljnoub men israel senet l 2000 hezbollah w sleho" anyone have a clue what con was saying? That is worse than Jar Jar speak. Argument: Pro gave a stronger case, listing many crimes summarized as "Hezbollah being a fascistic, sectarian terrorist organization which is harmful to Lebanon," in addition to strongly refuting con's limited claims. Sources: Pro used 12, well organized ones; to include .edu sites. Con gave none of his own, and did not make any attempts to either flip sources or at least refute them.
Vote Placed by 1Devilsadvocate 3 years ago
1Devilsadvocate
NiqashMotawadi3fgh1Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 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:40 
Reasons for voting decision: I 2ND THE PREZ.
Vote Placed by airmax1227 3 years ago
airmax1227
NiqashMotawadi3fgh1Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 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:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Interesting resolution by Pro and well argued by him in R2. He should try this resolution again in the hopes that he gets an opponent who sees it all the way through. Arguments and conduct to Pro for Con FF.