The Instigator
Pro (for)
7 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

Libya was better under Muammar Qaddafi

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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/6/2012 Category: Society
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 8,771 times Debate No: 26959
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (5)
Votes (1)




IMPORTANT NOTE: I started this debate which was accepted by someone who immediately forfeited. I am starting a fresh one for serious candidates only.
I can take pro or con depending on what you want. No forfeiture, semantics or trolling please. First round will be acceptance and final round will be conclusion (no new evidence/arguments just a summary of previous ones.) Choose whether you want pro or con in the first round.
Resolved: Libya was a better nation under Muammar Qaddafi's rule (September 1969 - October 2011)
The values we will be debating in this debate are:
1. Libya's economy (as a whole and relating to the people of Libya)
2. Libya's path forward (under Qaddafi versus now)
3. Libya's state of society (Unrest/Stability, Rule of Law, State of Government, Popular satisfaction with the state of Libya)
4. Libya's formal/informal international relations (Libya's allies then v.s. now, foreign investment, Libya's power in the world)
5. Libya's development (Equality, democracy, freedom and liberty)

I look forward to a good debate :D


I want us to definitely focus on number 5 of your values.

Thank you, I accept.
Debate Round No. 1


Thank you for accepting. I look forward to a good debate! I will take Pro.
Since you stated you’d like to focus on #5 of my values, let’s begin there. I titled it “Libya’s development: Equality, Democracy, Freedom and Liberty,” so let’s take a quick peek at how Libya is doing there. Frankly, Libya under Muammar Qaddafi was not “free” as we know the term in the developed world, and not really in many senses of the word at all. To start, let’s look at the “Democracy Index”, compiled by The Economist’s Intelligence Unit that measures the state of democracy in 167 nations around the world. We will look at the latest statistic (usually after Muammar Qaddafi) and one during his rule. In 2006, Libya was ranked 161st, in 2008, 159th, in 2010, 158th and in 2011, 125th (when the Libyan civil war was underway), which pretty much categorizes it as an authoritarian regime, with low civil liberties, ineffective government and little freedom. According to the Index of Economic Freedom compiled by the Heritage Foundation and the Wall Street Journal, which measures 10 factors of economic freedom in nations, Libya was ranked 176th out of 179th in 2012 and 173rd in 2010. According to the Press Freedom Index compiled by Reporters Without Borders, Libya was ranked 154th out of 179th in 2011-2012, 160th in 2010 and 156th in 2009. In 2002 when the Press Freedom Index was first published, Libya had a rank of 129th. I think it is clear that Libya under Qaddafi had a dismal human rights record and a dismal ranking on equality, freedom and liberty. Of course, according to the UN’s Human Development Index, which, instead of measuring more abstract things like freedom, liberty and justice, measures human development, gives a more nuanced view of Libya. Libya under Qaddafi had a “high” human development index, higher than both the average of the high development indice and the Arab States. Libya has a low gender inequality index, a high GNI per capita (in PPP terms), a high life expectancy and a high education rating, showing that while Libya under Qaddafi may have been authoritarian, it was no Somalia. The majority of Libyans rejoiced at Qaddafi’s death, eager that his reign of terrifying brutality had seemingly come to an end. Unfortunately for them, what has been replaced in Libya is a far cry from freedom and democracy, and much closer to a failed state such as Somalia or Afghanistan. Instability, corruption, brutality and the breakdown of the rule of law now grip Libya tightly, choking its citizens and making them wary of what they were previously so hopeful for. Both this Reuters article ( and this CNN article ( perfectly underscore this “power vacuum.” From Reuters: [START QUOTE] “Last month's attack on the U.S. consulate in the eastern city of Benghazi, in which U.S. ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans died, underlined the fragility of a state struggling to emerge from the legacy of Gaddafi's 42-year rule... Discontent is rife across Libya, not just in Benghazi, the cradle of the revolt. Gun culture has taken hold, residents say, citing carjackings, kidnappings, armed robberies and disputes leading to shootouts between rival groups. The latest fighting around the former Gaddafi stronghold of Bani Walid shows deep divisions persist. Tripoli often accuses Gaddafi loyalists of trying to destabilize its democratic path. The government has failed to control the militias, most of them ex-rebels. Even worse, it relies on them for security, with the fledgling police and army unable to stamp out militia feuds, control Libya's borders or rein in hardline Islamist militants. "Ultimately, the longer these groups continue to perform security tasks which should be the responsibility of Libyan state security forces, the more difficult it will become to demobilize them or integrate them into the army," said Torbjorn Soltvedt, senior analyst at risk consultancy Maplecroft. Many are technically part of the Supreme Security Committee (SSC), set up in September last year to try to regulate armed groups that saw themselves as guardians of Libya's revolution. Tripoli local council official Sadat Elbadri, who previously handled fighters' affairs, said the SSC was conceived as a temporary solution to organise armed civilians who were suspicious of Gaddafi-era security institutions. But corruption and mismanagement of public money took their toll as people scrambled for the weapons, cars and privileges accorded to supposedly frontline fighters, Elbadri said. "In Tripoli, we started with 30,000 revolutionaries. Now there are 100,000. Where did these people come from?" he asked. "Even women signed up, saying they used to cook for the fighters so they must be considered revolutionaries and get salaries." Apart from draining public finances, the SSC has also become a security headache, threatening to eclipse its creator and paymaster, the Interior Ministry, Elbadri said. SSC members, still loyal to their brigade leaders, have been involved in kidnappings and intimidation, even allowing armed Islamic militants to smash a Sufi shrine in broad daylight.” [END QUOTE] From CNN: [START QUOTE] “The deadly attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi underscores the gaping power vacuum across Libya since the toppling of Moammar Gadhafi's regime last year. Fighting groups that battled Gadhafi have stepped in to maintain law and order after the fall of the regime, an expert on post-Gadhafi Libya told CNN. Most of the groups are simply neighborhood watch entities. But some include hard-line Muslim Salafis and have "a very Islamist orientation," said Frederic Wehrey, a senior associate in the Middle East Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. The group accused of being behind the consulate assault, the Imprisoned Omar Abdul Rahman Brigades, is said to be pro-al Qaeda. "The problem is that the Libyan army and the Libya police forces effectively disintegrated," Wehrey said. "These groups are basically running the show" throughout much of Libya... "The strategy of trying to dismantle the regional militias while simultaneously making use of them as hired guns might be sowing the seeds for the country's descent into warlordism," he warned. "It has also given local brigades and their political patrons leverage over the central government. Emboldened by the writ of state authority, brigade commanders have been free to carry out vendettas against rival towns and tribes, particularly those favored by ... Gadhafi," Wehrey said. Violence between warring militias and attacks against Western and moderate Sufi Muslim targets erupted in recent months, Wehrey said. In Benghazi, there was a "rapid deterioration" of security before the U.S. Consulate attack.” [END QUOTE] The “gaping power vacuum” in Libya has led to not more stability, reconciliation, and peace, but instead begun the country’s steep descent into warlordism. There is not more peace, cooperation and safety now then there was under Qaddafi. In fact, exactly the reverse has happened. Libya’s future is now in jeopardy because of the revolution and the stability we experienced under Qaddafi is now gone. The reign of Qaddafi’s state funded terror has been replaced with various militias reign of terror, and it is undoubtedly worse now.

Of course, this is only for value #5. Expect to see other values introduced in rounds #3 and #4.
Libya was also more stable and on balance better under Qaddafi in the fields of Libya’s economy, path forward, state of society and international relations, not just development as a nation.

I await your response.


RationalMadman forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2


I'd like to extend all of my previous arguments, and move on to foreign relations. Libya's foreign relations have largely been reset since the overthrowing of Muammar Qaddafi, with Libya losing many allies, particularly in Africa, while gaining more recognition and appeasement, particularly from the West. Countries such as Algeria, Mali, Niger, South Africa, Italy, Angola, Bolivia, Cuba, China, the Democratic Repblic of the Congo, Ecuador, Equatorial Guinea, Lesotho, Namibia, Nicaragua, North Korea, Swaziland, Tanzania, Venezuela, Zambia and Zimbabwe had closer relations in general with the Qaddafi regime than the NTC, and may have voted against recognition of the NTC in the September 16th 2011 UNGA vote. However, Libya has also gained many international allies during the regime change, chiefly from the West, such as France, Australia, Qatar, the United States, and the United Kingdom. Whole in whole, the Latin American countries, two Asian nations and many in Africa, North Africa and the Arab nations have lost contact and support for the new government in Libya, however, Libya has gained new support among some of the world's most powerful nations, which send a great deal of aid to the country. On balance, we can say that the foreign relations of Libya are about as well as before the 2011 uprising, and are neither particularly better or worse for the Libyan people. I'm sorry that you forfeit the first round but I'd love you to join in the third round.


Before Gaddafi, literacy in Libya was only 10%. Since Gaddafi’s leadership, literacy has risen to 90%.

Undernourishment in Libya is at 2% – a figure lower than that of the world center of “democracy,” the United States of America.

Education from grade school through to college is free in Libya.

Healthcare is free and Libyan pharmacies and hospitals are comparable to high-quality European facilities.

Libya ranks No. 53 on the United Nations Index of Human Development.

Libya has the highest standard of living in Africa.

In 1969 before Qaddafi it was the lowest in the world at just $60 per year income

Libya gives free land and seeds to anyone who wants to farm that land.

There is virtually no homelessness in Libya as everyone is given a home.

Women in Libya have equal rights, not only as a philosophy, but in practice.

Under Gaddafi’s oil-revenue-sharing program, each Libyan gets $500 (Dollars) deposited into his or her bank account each month.

For any medical care, operations, or health treatments that are unavailable in Libya, the citizen is given full expenses for travel, treatment and accommodation abroad to wherever is required for the treatment to be given.

No other country in the world does this. Yet they say no democracy in Libya.

On marriage, each couple is gifted $60,000 to do with as they please; furnish their home, take a holiday, honeymoon, buy car, etc.

Libyans have a direct participatory democracy based on People’s Conferences that puts other “democracies” to shame.

---- Now tell me which western government does this?

Prior to Qaddafi revolutionary re-making, Libya was a large US military base used for bombing trainings. Libya was home to the largest US military base in North Africa.

This is what they mean by peace: let your country be used by a nuclear-armed state (that previously used them on civilians and which justifies this horrendous act to this very day) to practice bombing targets while you spent your time partying.

Debate Round No. 3


Oh dear. Now my opponent has just resorted to blatant plagiarism. For, with a careful reading of my opponent's arguments, you can clearly see it was all copied and pasted from Please, don't plagiarize!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Now, for a rebuttal.

"Before Gaddafi, literacy in Libya was only 10%. Since Gaddafi’s leadership, literacy has risen to 90%."
This, unlike most of your claims, is true. Education has always been free, under the monarchy and during Gaddafi’s reign.
"Undernourishment in Libya is at 2% – a figure lower than that of the world center of “democracy,” the United States of America."
Funny, the World Bank says it's 5%. Which, is actually the same number as in the US. Got a source for your fact? I bet not. Since you just copied it and pasted it.
"Education from grade school through to college is free in Libya."
And I bet it's worth that much.
"Healthcare is free and Libyan pharmacies and hospitals are comparable to high-quality European facilities."
Under Gaddafi, and especially from the late 1970s onwards, if you were unlucky enough to go to a state hospital you would have had to (a) bring your own bedding if you wanted to sleep in clean bedding; (b) get your family or friends to bring in food for you; and (c) put up with appalling standards of hygiene, including reused syringes. If you didn’t want any of this, then would have had to find the money to go to a private hospital.
"For any medical care, operations, or health treatments that are unavailable in Libya, the citizen is given full expenses for travel, treatment and accommodation abroad to wherever is required for the treatment to be given."
This is an utter lie. My opponent is again unable to substantiate his claim with a source.
"On marriage, each couple is gifted $60,000 to do with as they please; furnish their home, take a holiday, honeymoon, buy car, etc."
This is a complete fabrication. It never happened either before or during Gaddafi’s reign. In fact, a huge number of people in Libya are unable to marry because they cannot afford to rent, buy or build a home.
"Libyans have a direct participatory democracy based on People’s Conferences that puts other “democracies” to shame."
Oh really? Then why was Libya ranked 161st out of 167 nations in the EIU Democracy Index?
"Prior to Qaddafi revolutionary re-making, Libya was a large US military base used for bombing trainings. Libya was home to the largest US military base in North Africa."
And after Qaddafi, Libya was home to appalling detention centers where hundreds of Libyans were arrested and even executed for nothing more than criticizing Qaddafi.

Hey- RationalMadman, I respect you. But it's hard to after this. First, you forfeit the first round. Second, you plagiarize when you finally enter the third round. Can you have some respect for me, post real arguments that are your own, and participate in the debate? Thanks. I would really appreciate it.

Your friend, DenyEverything.



I don't know why but i don't liek gaddafi for all his rape :( you win.
Debate Round No. 4
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by DenyEverything 3 years ago
Remember I am leaving whoever accepts this to be pro or con. It is hard to tell, yes, but remember we are making tentative assumptions about the future here based on the present.
Posted by TheElderScroll 3 years ago
Hard to tell. So far, I believe that international community would agree that the situations in Libya are no better than they are under Muammar Qaddafi. Besides, some analysts have predicted that civil war may erupt soon, if not already.
Posted by RationalMadman 3 years ago
To be pro on this is immoral and idiotic. I just can't be bothered to explain why.
Posted by Volkskorps 3 years ago
The pro does not exist yet.

He is letting people choose which to be.
Posted by 123chess456 3 years ago
Pro has a lot of tricks up his sleeve. Definitely one of his main arguments would be that it was more orderly.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by DeFool 3 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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: I was required to disregard 3/3 rounds of this debate entirely (FF, Plagarized Round, and Concession.) under these circumstances, I am forced to spend all of my points supporting Pro.